What do real scientist say about Abiogenesis:Alexandre Meinesz:
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Einstein...The Creationists' Friend.
Next: look upon 231! not as #rearrangements but as volume or time Chapt 19 #221 Atom Totality
From: Ralph on 20 Jul 2010 17:28 On 7/20/2010 5:04 PM, Jason wrote: >>> I don't whether or not it >>> refers to single or multi-celled life forms such as protozoan. However, >>> Darwin did NOT use the term organisms. He used the term "forms". That >>> could mean both plants and animals. >> >> Ah, so if "organisms" means "animals", then animals are not >> beautiful and wonderful? >> >> It might be easier to hold a coherent conversation with you if >> everyone used the same meanings for specific terms. Or at least, >> stated their preferred meanings for them. >> >> Biologists use the term to indicate a living thing comprising >> differentiated tissues that perform specific functions, AKA "organs". >> Usually this means fairly large multicellular forms, like say humans. >> Often it is broadened to include single-celled forms which are >> differentiated into "organelles", like say single-celled algae which >> contain organelles like chloroplasts. However, "organelleism" is an >> awkward word. >> >> I suppose we could get into what "beautiful" and "wonderful" mean, >> but terms like those are value judgments. Biologists (and others, such >> as me, with my engineering mindset) tend to consider any living thing, >> even those slimy little protozoa, as both. That you apparently can not >> is your loss. >> >> >> Mark L. Fergerson > > I understand your points. I continue to believe that Darwin was discussing > animals and PLANTS. Biologists and engineers may consider single celled > life forms (eg portozoa) as beautiful and wonderful. However, almost > everyone in this world has seen wonderful and beautiful animals--including > Darwin. That is the reason I believe Darwin was discussing plants and > animals in hiw quotation which is below. Do you agree with my > interpretation? > > Charles Darwin (in his famous book) stated: > > "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having > been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst > this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, > from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful > have been and are being, evolved." > > > My interpretation: > > God breathed life into Adam and perhaps also into Eve. God also created an > endless number of beautiful and wonderful plants and animals. After the > creation process was finished is when evolution kicked in. > > The passage doesn't need interpretation, it stands on its own. By the way, do you think that you could use the correct terminology for 'Origin', he did write other 'famous' books, you know.
From: Ralph on 20 Jul 2010 17:30 On 7/20/2010 5:08 PM, Jason wrote: > In article<i24kks$mjl$2(a)news.datemas.de>, "Anna DeGanno"<AD(a)invalid.com> > wrote: > >> "Jason"<Jason(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1907102345370001(a)67-150-123-117.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... >>> In article<i2382s$1h6$1(a)news.datemas.de>, "Anna DeGanno"<AD(a)invalid.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Darwin makes no mention of a god creating mankind. You're adding the >>>> "god" >>>> to his works. What will you add next? >> >>> "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having >>> been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst >>> this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, >>> from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful >>> have been and are being, evolved." >>> � Charles Darwin >>> >>> My interpretation: >> >>> God breathed life into Adam and perhaps also into Eve. God also created an >>> endless number of beautiful and wonderful plants and animals. After the >>> creation process was finished is when evolution kicked in. >> >> Well, there is no way to educate you, I can see that. No matter what book >> you read you will do as the WTS's GB do and change the meaning of what the >> author wrote. You've learned from the GB that's it's OK to do such a >> dishonest thing. >> Darwin never mentioned a god or an Adam and Eve. > > What do you believe he was stating when he referred when he stated: > "breathed into a few forms or into one"? > > He was using a metaphor, you idiot!
From: Mark Evans on 20 Jul 2010 17:49 On Jul 20, 2:51 am, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <i2368n$pj...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "Parish *~" > > > > > > <Par...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > "Jason" <Ja...(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1907100133520001(a)66-53-209-75.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > > > In article > > > <30f9f50b-09a1-4e69-b670-6c805d584...(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Why do you believe that Darwin made this statement: > > > > "There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN > > > ORIGINALLY BREATHED [BY THE CREATOR] INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE; and > > > that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most > > > wonderful have been, and are being evolved." > > > First, why are you adding [BY THE CREATOR] to what he wrote? None of us can > > know what he had in his mind at the time. > > > > I define it to mean that Darwin believed God breathed life into Adam and > > > perhaps also into Eve and that God made an endless number of plants and > > > animals that were beautiful and wonderful. Those plants and animals later > > > evolved. > > > Where has Darwin mentioned Adam and Eve? Why are you adding them to what he > > wrote. He never mentioned them. > > It's obvious to me that he was talking about God. You are looking at his > statement with evolution colored glasses. I am looking at his statement > knowing full well that Darwin had an excellent understanding of the Bible > and even planned to become a minister. In those days, the vast majority of > the people in the world were Christians.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Darwin had, when younger, thought of becoming a minister but discarded the idea. In those days, as now, most people in the world were not christians. And, to be blunt, a lot of christians had their doubts about the validity of other christians. Mark Evans
From: Mark Evans on 20 Jul 2010 17:54 On Jul 19, 10:40 pm, AllSeeing-I <allseei...(a)usa.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 9:48 pm, "Saint Heretica" <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > "Jason" <Ja...(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > > >news:Jason-1807101856100001(a)67-150-125-190.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > > > > I have seen poles indicating that about half the people in America believe > > > that God created mankind and life on this planet. > > > Because half the American people are poorly eduated. That is no secret. > > > The brainwashing by > > > > biology professors is not working well. > > > Biology Professors have no access to the uneducated half of the population > > who believe in gods, demons, ghosts, elves, UFOs etc. If they did, you > > wouldn't find many theists in the USA. :^) How is it Jason that theists > > like you always bad-mouth Scientists and Professors, accuse them of all > > manner of things, but they never badmouth people like you and Gish? How is > > it they have better values and morals than you and Gish and other theists? > > Please answer the question. > > The answer is obvious. The Scientists and Professors are in posession > of the wrong information. > > They know this but teach it anyway. They like their fancy houses and > expensive cars- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Fancy houses and expensive cars? It is clear that you do not know many, if any, scientists and professors. But then, that is not unexpected. You want fancy houses and expensive cars? Look to religious leaders. Heck, the popemobile alone costs more than I am sure you make in a decade. Mark Evans
From: Ralph on 20 Jul 2010 19:02
On 7/20/2010 5:19 PM, Jason wrote: > In article<mr2dndV2teQ3c9jRnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Ralph > <mmman_90(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 7/20/2010 2:51 AM, Jason wrote: >>> In article<i2368n$pjf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "Parish *~" >>> <Parish(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason"<Jason(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-1907100133520001(a)66-53-209-75.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... >>>>> In article >>>>> <30f9f50b-09a1-4e69-b670-6c805d584a89(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> >>>>> Why do you believe that Darwin made this statement: >>>>> >>>>> "There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN >>>>> ORIGINALLY BREATHED [BY THE CREATOR] INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE; and >>>>> that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most >>>>> wonderful have been, and are being evolved." >>>> >>>> First, why are you adding [BY THE CREATOR] to what he wrote? None of > us can >>>> know what he had in his mind at the time. >>>> >>>>> I define it to mean that Darwin believed God breathed life into Adam and >>>>> perhaps also into Eve and that God made an endless number of plants and >>>>> animals that were beautiful and wonderful. Those plants and animals later >>>>> evolved. >>>> >>>> Where has Darwin mentioned Adam and Eve? Why are you adding them to > what he >>>> wrote. He never mentioned them. >>> >>> It's obvious to me that he was talking about God. You are looking at his >>> statement with evolution colored glasses. I am looking at his statement >>> knowing full well that Darwin had an excellent understanding of the Bible >>> and even planned to become a minister. In those days, the vast majority of >>> the people in the world were Christians. >> >> >> What is so obvious to you isn't so obvious to the rest of us. If Darwin >> wanted to say that why didn't he just say it? He certainly could have >> made things much easier for himself if he had. He didn't, however, >> because he didn't feel that it was so. > > I believe that it is fairly easy to understand his above statement. It's > fairly easy for me to understand it since I know that Darwin was a > Christian during the early years of his life and even considered becoming > a preacher. He had an excellent understanding of the Bible. I compared his > statement to this scripture and his statement made perfect sense: > > Genesis 2: 7 And the Lord God formed man out ofthe dust of the ground, and > breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living > soul. > > Darwin's statement: "There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN > ORIGINALLY BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE > > Please read other replies to this inane assertion. Do you not understand what I said?? Let me spell it out for you. If Darwin had acknowledged god it would have softened the resistance to the book from the Christians. Do you understand now, Darwin had nothing to lose(except his dignity) by saying goddidit! Since he didn't, it is evident that was not what he was saying. |