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: Mark Evans on 21 Jul 2010 17:51 On Jul 21, 2:13 am, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <ff4cd255-9702-400f-bc53-ea95c2521...(a)y13g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Mark > > > > > > Evans <markevans1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 20, 2:51=A0am, 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; an= > > d > > > > > that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and mos= > > t > > > > > wonderful have been, and are being evolved." > > > > > First, why are you adding [BY THE CREATOR] to what he wrote? =A0None 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 a= > > nd > > > > > animals that were beautiful and wonderful. Those plants and animals l= > > ater > > > > > evolved. > > > > > Where has Darwin mentioned Adam and Eve? =A0Why are you adding them to = > > what he > > > > wrote. =A0He 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 o= > > f > > > 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 > > Mark, > Good point---I should have stated that most of the people in America were > Christians (in the 1800's).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Even that is questionable. Lots of Jews, Indians and folks from China to take into account. And of course the Catholics would not be counted by a lot of the non-Catholics as being christian. Depending on where you drew the national boundries and when you drew them you could find most folks were not christian. Mark Evans
From: Smiler. on 21 Jul 2010 20:36 Mark K Bilbo wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:15:58 +0100, Smiler. wrote: > >> Mark K Bilbo wrote: >>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:47:26 -0500, Parish *~ 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. >>> >>> Actually, I think we can. Never authoritatively of course but, >>> still. >>> >>> If you read about his life, Darwin was a bit what we'd call "anal" >>> today. As he could not say with certainty how *life* began, he left >>> the door open for the first cell or cells or whatever to have been >>> "created". We'd call it "theistic evolution" or consider it deistic >>> these days. >>> >>> There was also a bit of fear involved. Fear of the reaction of the >>> Christians (Darwin was quite rational). He left them an "out" with >>> the origin of life, his theory killing special creation of "kinds" >>> as it did. >>> >>> I mean, he knew he was yanking the rug out from under the Eden >>> myth. He hedged by leaving a gap for god to retreat to. <g> >>> >>> Not to mention, deism was much more prevalent and acceptable in the >>> past of the US than recent history. >> >> Why would Darwin have cared about the US and it's beliefs? > > Um... wider publication of his book I guess? But was he more worried about the number of copies sold than the accuracy of the contents? -- Smiler The godless one. a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believers.
From: nuny on 22 Jul 2010 06:06 On Jul 20, 2:04 pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (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. > > I understand your points. I continue to believe I really don't see why I should be concerned with what you believe. People believe all sorts of things which just ain't so. > 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. No, I don't agree. First, if Darwin had meant "plants and animals" he would have written that. "Forms" appears to me to be deliberately vague. He owned and used microscopes capable of magnification to 1500x and was certainly aware of protozoa. http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/articles/darwin.html I could not care less what "most people" have seen; most people are willing idiots following other idiots. What is visible to the unaided human eye is a minuscule part of what exists: wanna see something "beautiful and wonderful"? http://www.google.com/images?q=radiolarian&biw=1024&bih=500 Second, I'm an Apatheist; I don't *care* whether or not deities exist. I have to deal with *people*. Third, if the deity of the Old Testament exists, and calls me on the carpet after I die, I will do the same for him. From the accounts in said book, he's an arrogant, violent, jealous prick with the emotional stability and security of a two-year-old human child. If he were to walk the Earth as a man today he'd be imprisoned and likely executed for all sorts of crimes. Fourth, this alleged deity "breathing" into some dust is abiogenesis by definition; there is no transfer of organic, much less genetic material involved. Fifth, you have the creation sequence backwards; humans were the *last* species to be created according to Genesis. Sixth, the Bible does not leave room for evolution at all; "like comes from like". Finally, are you basing your critique of the theory of evolution solely on Darwin's writings? Are you aware that Darwin is dead? The theory of evolution has "evolved" by leaps and bounds since he first wrote "On The Origin Of Species". For instance, Darwin posited some unspecified mechanism by which characteristics could be passed on from one generation to the next (like from like), with the capability for those characteristics to change occasionally (mutation) but he didn't know what sort of mechanism might be involved. In an incredible coincidence (the kind that happens all the time) he had in his personal library a copy of the writings of one Gregor Mendel, but he had never read them! He also never had the opportunity to learn of the work of Watson and Crick, or of Urey and Miller, or... well, you get the idea. With every discovery, there's less room for, or need for, "goddidit". Believe what you like; I know I can't change your mind. Only you can do that, but you seem particularly comfortable with the depth and breadth of your ignorance. Mark L. Fergerson
From: ScienceWins on 22 Jul 2010 10:35 SkyEyes <skyeyes9(a)cox.net> wrote: >On Jul 20, 11:33=A0pm, livvy <go...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> If you had a strong educational background, which allows you to move >> forward, and study all realms of anything you want, =A0 you'd know >> better than to post a "ooh, look at me" =A0 =A0thing. =A0 =A0Study, read.= > =A0Outhere....ahhhh, not so much. =A0Alls they know , =A0they got from the >"Alls they know , they got from the internet." >Er, no, dearie. Some of us have college educations. <eye roll> >"Alls they know"??? Flunk English, did you? It seems likely that livvy flunked life entirely. --- Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm The Holy Eucharist: Swallow the Leader. -- Kagin
From: Jason on 22 Jul 2010 13:34
In article <dea62aa9-633f-4ff3-acd1-4b549da2ae02(a)x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, "nuny(a)bid.nes" <alien8752(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 2:04=A0pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > I don't whether or not it > > > > refers to single or multi-celled life forms such as protozoan. Howeve= > r, > > > > Darwin did NOT use the term organisms. He used the term "forms". That > > > > could mean both plants and animals. > > > > > =A0 Ah, so if "organisms" means "animals", then animals are not > > > beautiful and wonderful? > > > > > =A0 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. > > > > > =A0 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. > > > > > =A0 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. > > > > I understand your points. I continue to believe > > I really don't see why I should be concerned with what you believe. > People believe all sorts of things which just ain't so. > > > 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--includin= > g > > 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 wonderfu= > l > > have been and are being, evolved." > > > > My interpretation: > > > > God breathed life into Adam and perhaps also into Eve. God also created a= > n > > endless number of beautiful and wonderful plants and animals. After the > > creation process was finished is when evolution kicked in. > > No, I don't agree. First, if Darwin had meant "plants and animals" > he would have written that. "Forms" appears to me to be deliberately > vague. He owned and used microscopes capable of magnification to 1500x > and was certainly aware of protozoa. > > http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.= > org.uk/mag/articles/darwin.html > > I could not care less what "most people" have seen; most people are > willing idiots following other idiots. What is visible to the unaided > human eye is a minuscule part of what exists: wanna see something > "beautiful and wonderful"? > > http://www.google.com/images?q=3Dradiolarian&biw=3D1024&bih=3D500 > > Second, I'm an Apatheist; I don't *care* whether or not deities > exist. I have to deal with *people*. > > Third, if the deity of the Old Testament exists, and calls me on the > carpet after I die, I will do the same for him. From the accounts in > said book, he's an arrogant, violent, jealous prick with the emotional > stability and security of a two-year-old human child. If he were to > walk the Earth as a man today he'd be imprisoned and likely executed > for all sorts of crimes. > > Fourth, this alleged deity "breathing" into some dust is abiogenesis > by definition; there is no transfer of organic, much less genetic > material involved. > > Fifth, you have the creation sequence backwards; humans were the > *last* species to be created according to Genesis. > > Sixth, the Bible does not leave room for evolution at all; "like > comes from like". > > Finally, are you basing your critique of the theory of evolution > solely on Darwin's writings? > > Are you aware that Darwin is dead? > > The theory of evolution has "evolved" by leaps and bounds since he > first wrote "On The Origin Of Species". > > For instance, Darwin posited some unspecified mechanism by which > characteristics could be passed on from one generation to the next > (like from like), with the capability for those characteristics to > change occasionally (mutation) but he didn't know what sort of > mechanism might be involved. In an incredible coincidence (the kind > that happens all the time) he had in his personal library a copy of > the writings of one Gregor Mendel, but he had never read them! He also > never had the opportunity to learn of the work of Watson and Crick, or > of Urey and Miller, or... well, you get the idea. > > With every discovery, there's less room for, or need for, > "goddidit". > > Believe what you like; I know I can't change your mind. Only you can > do that, but you seem particularly comfortable with the depth and > breadth of your ignorance. > > > Mark L. Fergerson As the Bible says--Thinking themselves to be wise, they became fools. |