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 K Bilbo on 23 Jul 2010 09:30 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:50:27 -0700, nuny(a)bid.nes wrote: <snip> Hey! Don't *tell* him. Let 'im flounder... -- Mark K. Bilbo EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion #1423 ------------------------------------------------------------ [God explaining the doctrine of free will.] "In order not to impair human liberty, I will be ignorant of what I know, I will thicken upon my eyes the veils I have pierced, and in my blind clear-sightedness I will let myself be surprised by what I have foreseen." -- Anatole France
From: Ralph on 23 Jul 2010 15:13 On 7/23/2010 2:50 AM, Jason wrote: > In article<i2b5re$nuu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Olrik > <olrik666(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > It's a true statement in regard to many of the advocates of abiogenesis. > They honestly believe they know how life came to be on this planet and are > not intelligent enough to realize that God created life on this planet. > They think they are wise but they became fools. Thank goodness, that > Darwin was intelligent enough to realize that God created life on this > planet. Darwin was not a fool. Lying again, I see. How many times must you be shown that you are in error when you make claims about what Darwin said, which are not true.
From: Jason on 23 Jul 2010 15:15 In article <a396353d-4801-43b6-95ec-a6b561f77ada(a)y21g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, "nuny(a)bid.nes" <alien8752(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 5:51=A0pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > > 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" <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? =A0Non= > e > > >>>>> 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" a= > s > > >>>> 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? > > OK, nobody else will say it, so I will > > Why should Darwin have cared about *anything* to do with the US? > > After all, he was British. > > It's obvious that *somebody* in this thread is the rather provincial > sort of American who thinks of the rest of the world as a sort of > suburb of the US. > > > Mark L. Fergerson Are you saying that Darwin was not interested in selling copies of his books in America? In the 1800 and early 1900's--a majority of people in Europe were Christians. Darwin was a Christian during the early years of his life.
From: Ralph on 23 Jul 2010 15:21 On 7/23/2010 3:15 PM, Jason wrote: > In article > <a396353d-4801-43b6-95ec-a6b561f77ada(a)y21g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, > "nuny(a)bid.nes"<alien8752(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 22, 5:51=A0pm, Mark K Bilbo<gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: >>> 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"<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? =A0Non= >> e >>>>>>>> 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" a= >> s >>>>>>> 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? >> >> OK, nobody else will say it, so I will >> >> Why should Darwin have cared about *anything* to do with the US? >> >> After all, he was British. >> >> It's obvious that *somebody* in this thread is the rather provincial >> sort of American who thinks of the rest of the world as a sort of >> suburb of the US. >> >> >> Mark L. Fergerson > > Are you saying that Darwin was not interested in selling copies of his > books in America? In the 1800 and early 1900's--a majority of people in > Europe were Christians. Darwin was a Christian during the early years of > his life. > > Jason, it doesn't make any difference what Darwin's religion was. He still supported his theory. If Darwin was a Christian why did Christians make up so many lies about his conversion on his death bed.
From: Jason on 23 Jul 2010 15:33
> Either you're blatantly lying, or this is yet another example of the > depth and breadth of your ignorance. Evolutionists have ideas about > the subject based on available evidence (remember I mentioned that the > theory of evolution has evolved since Darwin?), but are quite willing > to drop them when new evidence falsifying those ideas becomes > available. > > That's the difference between science and religion. > > Religionists will NEVER drop their beliefs, despite the lack of > evidence for them, or the availability of evidence against them. It's > why you like to stifle and/or kill opponents of your ideas. > > > not intelligent enough to realize that God created life on this planet. > > What your Bible says is that god "breathed" life into a pile of dust > shaped like a man, which then became living. > > Are you seriously suggesting that is an accurate description of an > actual event? > > Do you seriously believe that the transfer of air carries something > that imbues life into inanimate matter? > > What is the nature of that "something"? > > Also, "belief" in something without any evidence to substantiate it > is *not* a function of intelligence. You're the one that keeps saying > you "don't know" what various things brought up in this thread mean, > yet you claim "special knowledge" and/or "wisdom" based on your > *belief* that your Bible is correct. > > The word you wanted is "faith". > > > They think they are wise but they became fools. Thank goodness, that > > Darwin was intelligent enough to realize that God created life on this > > planet. Darwin was not a fool. > > Again that's *your* interpretation of something that doesn't need > interpreting. Besides, your interpretation is completely *against* > what the Bible says; it leaves *no room* for evolution because > according to it, every living thing produces offspring "like from > like". > > Your interpretation is heresy. > > > Mark L. Fergerson The creation of mankind was a miracle. How God went about creating life on this earth is not mentioned in any great detail in the Bible. God knows 1000% more about DNA, etc than any scientist living today. God used his knowledge of science and biology to create life on this planet. Darwin believed that God breathed life into Adam and perhaps also breathed life into Eve. He believed that God created an endless number of plants and animals. After the creation of mankind, plants and animals is when evolution kicked in. I believe the reason Darwin did not discuss theories related to abiogenesis in his book is because he believed God created mankind and an endless number of beautiful and wonderful plants and animals. The plants and animals on the earth today have as ancestors the plants and animals that God created. This is a statement from Darwin's famous book: "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 |