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: Joseki on 13 Jul 2010 08:09 On Jul 13, 6:51 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 4:15 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 5:08 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 12, 4:20 am, Joseki <jabriol2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 12, 4:59 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 11, 6:54 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 7:01 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 3:47 am, Joseki <jabriol2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 9:17 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:29:14 -0700, Joseki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 6:20 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:02:36 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > In article <4c38b...(a)news.x-privat.org>, "Saint Heretica" > > > > > > > > > >> > <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> >> "Jason" <Ja...(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > >> >>news:Jason-0907102132490001(a)66-53-211-207.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > > > > > > > > > >> >> > Your faith in Abiogenesis is as strong as the faith of Christians > > > > > > > > > >> >> > in creation science. > > > > > > > > > > >> >> You've been told many times in the past that there is no evidence > > > > > > > > > >> >> for a > > > > > > > > > >> >> magical "creation." There is much evidence for > > > > > > > > > >> >> abiogenesis/evolution. It's been posted here many times for you over > > > > > > > > > >> >> the years. You refuse to read it and discuss it rationally with > > > > > > > > > >> >> anyone. You're still spouting the same nonsense you've been > > > > > > > > > >> >> spouting for years. > > > > > > > > > > >> > There is no proof that abiogenesis has ever taken place. > > > > > > > > > > >> So you believe life has existed forever? What about the apparent age of > > > > > > > > > >> the universe? > > > > > > > > > > > Well, that is a good question. I guess life is as old as Energy and > > > > > > > > > > Matter. : "Energy can neither be created nor can be destroyed but only > > > > > > > > > > can be transformed." so some people started to think energy is sacred or > > > > > > > > > > eternal however when they said energy can not be created they do not > > > > > > > > > > mean it is eternal but they mean it is not created from nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > Since it can transform there is a start and finish of the transformation > > > > > > > > > > per se. > > > > > > > > > > Then there was a point where there was no life? > > > > > > > > Do you mean to say that the feldspar paperweight on my desk is > > > > > > > alive? > > > > > > > You never know, maybe you can teach it some tricks. > > > > > > So far, it has "stay" down pat, but that's about it. > > > > > > Whether you accept Creation or Evolution, there was a point in time > > > > > where there was no life. Get over it. > > > > > Prove it. I mean use the scientific method and prove it. If you can't, > > > > then Gazoo of the ultraverse started life and get over it. > > > > Carefully read what I actually wrote, not what you want to imagine I > > > wrote. > > > > Creation argues that a deity assembled non-living matter and imbued > > > it with life. That is a statement of fact; ask any Creationist. > > > Craig Venter is God...NNNNNNNNNNoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > > >http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-sel... > > Not actually relevant. What they did was assemble a genome from > scratch, then use it as a substitute for the genome in an already > existing cell, which then used the synthesized DNA as if it were its > own. The bacterium proceeded to make different proteins and eventually > literally changed its species. > > > > Evolution argues that non-living matter can, under certain > > > circumstances, self-assemble into living matter. That is a statement > > > of fact; ask any Evolutionist. > > > > In both cases there are assumed to be times when there was no living > > > matter; in the Creationist case, before the deity got around to the > > > task, and for Evolution, before the necessary circumstances existed. > > > So in the creationist case the Deity that created Life was factually > > dead or not alive to begin with. > > Things which qualify under human definitions (or even mere > descriptions) of "alive" can die. Most Creationists will insist their > deity is immortal. So, you're quite correct. > > > > You, however, seem to believe that all matter, whether or not it > > > qualifies as "alive" by ordinary biochemistry, is "alive" in some > > > sense. > > > Nope I didn't say that. I said Life like matter and energy can't be > > created just transformed. > > Where ever did you get that idea? > > > > Care to prove that using the scientific method? > > > Nope, because I didn't say it. > > What you *did* say was: > > > I guess life is as old as Energy and Matter. > > Hence, you are stating that when matter and energy first came into > existence, so did life. Would you care to try to describe the form of > that life? > Don't know. theoretical physicists are still debating the origin of matter and energy, When they figure that one out I may have a more of a concrete answer. > Recall that most religious types will disagree violently with you; > consider the Biblical book of Genesis for instance. > > > However with the scientific method I > > can prove life comes from life. In Craig Venter who made the Synth > > cell was quite alive when his team did this. > > Not relevant unless you are by implication asserting that life comes > *only* from life. > Have you seen otherwise? Life from life can be demonstrated with the scientific method. With Probability, that would be a 1. seen it has been done and is still being done... But Abiogenesis just doesn't fit the math nor Scientific method. > Mark L. Fergerson
From: Joseki on 13 Jul 2010 08:10 On Jul 13, 6:57 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 5:39 pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > <c5e44e17-eba2-41a0-bbe3-9816edec9...(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > > > "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 12, 4:20=A0am, Joseki <jabriol2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 12, 4:59=A0am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 11, 6:54=A0pm, Joseki <jabriol2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 7:01=A0am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 3:47=A0am, Joseki <jabriol2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 9:17=A0pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:29:14 -0700, Joseki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 6:20=A0pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:02:36 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > In article <4c38b...(a)news.x-privat.org>, "Saint Heretica" > > > > > > > > > >> > <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> >> "Jason" <Ja...(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > >> >>news:Jason-0907102132490001(a)66-53-211-207.lsan.mdsg-pacwes= > > > t.com... > > > > > > > > > >> >> > Your faith in Abiogenesis is as strong as the faith of = > > > Christians > > > > > > > > > >> >> > in creation science. > > > > > > > > > > >> >> =A0You've been told many times in the past that there is = > > > no evidence > > > > > > > > > >> >> =A0for a > > > > > > > > > >> >> magical "creation." =A0There is much evidence for > > > > > > > > > >> >> abiogenesis/evolution. It's been posted here many times f= > > > or you over > > > > > > > > > >> >> the years. =A0You refuse to read it and discuss it ration= > > > ally with > > > > > > > > > >> >> anyone. =A0You're still spouting the same nonsense you've= > > > been > > > > > > > > > >> >> spouting for years. > > > > > > > > > > >> > There is no proof that abiogenesis has ever taken place. > > > > > > > > > > >> So you believe life has existed forever? What about the appa= > > > rent age of > > > > > > > > > >> the universe? > > > > > > > > > > > Well, that is a good question. I guess life is as old as Ener= > > > gy and > > > > > > > > > > Matter. : "Energy can neither be created nor can be destroyed= > > > but only > > > > > > > > > > can be transformed." so some people started to think energy i= > > > s sacred or > > > > > > > > > > eternal however when they said energy can not be created they= > > > do not > > > > > > > > > > mean it is eternal but they mean it is not created from nothi= > > > ngness. > > > > > > > > > > Since it can transform there is a start and finish of the tra= > > > nsformation > > > > > > > > > > per se. > > > > > > > > > > Then there was a point where there was no life? > > > > > > > > =A0 Do you mean to say that the feldspar paperweight on my desk is > > > > > > > alive? > > > > > > > You never know, maybe you can teach it some tricks. > > > > > > =A0 So far, it has "stay" down pat, but that's about it. > > > > > > =A0 Whether you accept Creation or Evolution, there was a point in time > > > > > where there was no life. Get over it. > > > > > Prove it. I mean use the scientific method and prove it. If you can't, > > > > then Gazoo of the ultraverse started life and get over it. > > > > Carefully read what I actually wrote, not what you want to imagine I > > > wrote. > > > > Creation argues that a deity assembled non-living matter and imbued > > > it with life. That is a statement of fact; ask any Creationist. > > > > Evolution argues that non-living matter can, under certain > > > circumstances, self-assemble into living matter. That is a statement > > > of fact; ask any Evolutionist. > > > > In both cases there are assumed to be times when there was no living > > > matter; in the Creationist case, before the deity got around to the > > > task, and for Evolution, before the necessary circumstances existed. > > > > You, however, seem to believe that all matter, whether or not it > > > qualifies as "alive" by ordinary biochemistry, is "alive" in some > > > sense. > > > > Care to prove that using the scientific method? > > > Mark, > > I understand what you are stating. I don't believe that things like atoms > > and rocks are alive. > > jason > > Neither do I. I am trying to get Joseki to clarify his position. So > far he has not; it is possible he simply has not thought through the > logical consequences of his statements. > > Mind you, I don't have a horse in this race; I'm neither a strict > Creationist nor an Evolutionist, though I do have a scientific bent of > mind and hence prefer Evolution on grounds of the body of evidence > (though I'm not happy with many of the interpretations of that > evidence). > > I'm an Apatheist; I don't care whether or not deities exist because > they're so reticent about appearing "in the flesh" for the last couple > thousand years. If they can't be bothered to make personal > appearances, I'm not going to waste my time on them. > > Mark L. Fergerson I think I cleared my stance.
From: martin on 13 Jul 2010 08:20 On 13/07/2010 13:09, Joseki wrote: > > Have you seen otherwise? Life from life can be demonstrated with the > scientific method. With Probability, that would be a 1. seen it has > been done and is still being done... But Abiogenesis just doesn't fit > the math nor Scientific method. Yet we're here. Ergo the probability of life arising from non-life is exactly 1 > >> Mark L. Fergerson >
From: Joseki on 13 Jul 2010 08:28 On Jul 13, 8:20 am, martin <use...(a)etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > On 13/07/2010 13:09, Joseki wrote: > > > > > Have you seen otherwise? Life from life can be demonstrated with the > > scientific method. With Probability, that would be a 1. seen it has > > been done and is still being done... But Abiogenesis just doesn't fit > > the math nor Scientific method. > > Yet we're here. Ergo the probability of life arising from non-life is > exactly 1 > > > > > > >> Mark L. Fergerson No it is not. A creationist, which I am not, can say a an old man critter snap us into being and then reply: "Yet we're here. Ergo the probability of life arising from Magic is exactly 1. There is nothing tangible with creation and nothing tangible with abiogenesis. I don't believe in Magic. I do believe in Clarke's third law.
From: martin on 13 Jul 2010 09:06
On 13/07/2010 13:28, Joseki wrote: > On Jul 13, 8:20 am, martin<use...(a)etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >> On 13/07/2010 13:09, Joseki wrote: >> >> >> >>> Have you seen otherwise? Life from life can be demonstrated with the >>> scientific method. With Probability, that would be a 1. seen it has >>> been done and is still being done... But Abiogenesis just doesn't fit >>> the math nor Scientific method. >> >> Yet we're here. Ergo the probability of life arising from non-life is >> exactly 1 >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Mark L. Fergerson > > No it is not. A creationist, which I am not, can say a an old man > critter snap us into being and then reply: "Yet we're here. Ergo the > probability of life arising from Magic is exactly 1. That doesn't matter, even a creationist reading the most strict version of the bible has to accept abiogenesis. It's in black and white. God picked up a handful of mud and breathed life into it. If that doesn't qualify nothing will. > There is nothing tangible with creation and nothing tangible with > abiogenesis. > > I don't believe in Magic. I do believe in Clarke's third law. |