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 22 Jul 2010 13:45 On 7/22/2010 1:34 PM, Jason wrote: > 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. As the bible says, god turned to the snake and said:-))).
From: Mark K Bilbo on 22 Jul 2010 20:49 On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:34:09 -0700, Jason wrote: > As the Bible says Don't care. -- Mark K. Bilbo EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion #1423 ------------------------------------------------------------ "If the Bible proves that God exists then comic books prove the existence of Superman."
From: Mark K Bilbo on 22 Jul 2010 20:50 On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:30:04 -0700, Jason wrote: > We were discussing Darwin. I have read that he was a Christian in his > younger years and even considered becoming a minister. That means he > knew a lot about the Bible. That leads me to believe that Darwin had > this scripture in mind when he wrote the quotation mentioned below: That's only because you don't have a clue what you're on about. -- Mark K. Bilbo EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion #1423 ------------------------------------------------------------ "If the Bible proves that God exists then comic books prove the existence of Superman."
From: Mark K Bilbo on 22 Jul 2010 20:51 On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:36:02 +0100, Smiler. wrote: > 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? Darwin? Hell no. But what other reason would he care about beliefs in the US? -- Mark K. Bilbo EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion #1423 ------------------------------------------------------------ "If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to believe in him, then he should know what would prove his existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason to believe in him." -- Woden
From: Olrik on 23 Jul 2010 00:29
Le 2010-07-22 13:34, Jason a �crit : > In article > <dea62aa9-633f-4ff3-acd1-4b549da2ae02(a)x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, >> Mark L. Fergerson > > As the Bible says--Thinking themselves to be wise, they became fools. That "saying" should disgust you, and every other believer. |