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: Jason on 24 Jul 2010 17:04 In article <8b0rvqFbadU17(a)mid.individual.net>, Mark K Bilbo <gmail(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:40:28 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > What does that have to do with Darwin's "breathing" comment? If God was > > NOT discussing God breathing life into Adam and perhaps also Eve--what > > was he discussing? > > You take the closing paragraph of a book, throw the *entire* *rest* of > the book out the window, and insist on shoving a meaning into that > closing paragraph? > > That is *beyond* stupid. It's Olympic class stupid. You should get a > medal or something. > > When the entire rest of the book is about species *evolving* from simpler > forms--including us--how do you think you're going to get away with > claiming the closing paragraph supports your mythology? Thanks for your comments but you still have NOT answered my question. What did Darwin mean by his "breathing" comment?
From: Jason on 24 Jul 2010 17:08 In article <ab9m461jgvnhl9jrcc2qdslp7atp4fjchj(a)4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:40:28 -0700, Jason(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > alt.talk.creationism: > > > > > > >> > You failed to answer the above question. > >> > >> Well, I answered it - Darwin was obviously talking about the very > >> earliest, microscopic life forms. To believe otherwise requires > >> incredible obtuseness. Darwin's own theory proposed that humans > >> evolved from pre-human ancestors - even if _you_ believe the Adam & > >> Eve myth, Darwin clearly did not. > >> > >> Try really hard not to delete this fact from your brain, Jason. > >> > >> - Bob T > > > >What does that have to do with Darwin's "breathing" comment? If God was > >NOT discussing God breathing life into Adam and perhaps also Eve--what was > >he discussing? > > > >Darwin's statement: > > > >"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." > > Metaphores are too hard for you to comprehend so you reify them. Thanks but you failed to answer the question. If you know all about Darwin's use of metaphores--what did Darwin mean by his breathing comment?
From: Jason on 24 Jul 2010 17:38 > >>> Compare the above statement to Genesis 2:7 and the above statement by > >>> Darwin makes perfect sense. Keep in mind that Darwin was a Christian > >>> during the younger days of his life and knew all about the Bible--esp. the > >>> first several chapters of Genesis. Who else but God can breath life into > >>> people. If Darwin was NOT discussing God breathing life into Adam and > >>> perhaps also into Eve--what was he discussing? > >> > >> > >> I debated this point with you a few days ago and you just keep blowing > >> right on by it. Go back and read what I said! > > > > I will ask once again--If Darwin was NOT discussing God breathing life > > into Adam and perhaps also into Eve--what was he discussing. I delete > > posts that I have already read. > Darwin was exceedingly concerned about the reception that 'Origin' would > receive by the public. In order to alleviate some of those fears Darwin > used language that the religious people of that day knew. That is why > you don't see Darwin use the word 'God' and you will never see it used > by him. Now, in that exceedingly simple mind of yours, can you > understand that? That is a good point. Darwin may NOT have used the word "God" in his book. However, it's possible that the word "creator" or "by the creator" was used in at least one edition of his book. Read the article below for the details: I deleted most of the article. Visit the website to read the entire article: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2004/03/murphy.htm by Cullen Murphy � ....the Book of Genesis�the classic creation story. Scholars explain that the book as we know it is probably an intertwining of work from three main ancient sources�one author designated J (the "Jahwist" or "Yahwist" source, because this writer refers to God as YHWH), the second designated E (because this writer refers to God as Elohim), and the third designated P (the priestly source). The creation story in our new, modern Bible might be woven from sources known as W, H, and D. W would refer to the physicist Steven Weinberg's The First Three Minutes, an account of the Big Bang. H would refer to Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. W and H have plenty of the requisite awe, menace, and wonder, and although both eschew theology, they have things to say about meaning. (From W: "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.") The oldest of the sources for the new Genesis, D, would be Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. D is by far the most humane of the three writers�warm, observant, a superb anecdotalist, similar in some respects to the old Bible's J. And he would provide knotty issues for future scholars to argue over. For instance, which version of Origin's last sentence should be accepted as orthodox? Should it be the first edition's "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been Originally breathed into a few forms or into one ..."? Or the second edition's version, in which after the word "breathed" D inserted the words "by the Creator"? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cullen Murphy is The Atlantic's managing editor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright � 2004 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. The Atlantic Monthly; March 2004; The Next Testament; Volume 293, No. 2; 139-140.
From: Jason on 24 Jul 2010 17:41 In article <ff3b1e29-388d-4348-94df-2b9d178cb38e(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Syd <pdwright42(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 24, 12:23=C2=A0pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> >>> "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers= > , > > > >> >>> having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; an= > d > > > >> >>> that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fix= > ed > > > >> >>> law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most > > > >> >>> beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being, evolved." > > > >> >>> =E2=80=B9 Charles Darwin > > > > > >> >> Damn Jason, I don't see where he mentions "Gawd". Perhaps you cam > > > >> >> point this out to me. > > > > > >> > Compare the above statement to Genesis 2:7 and the above statement= > by > > > >> > Darwin makes perfect sense. Keep in mind that Darwin was a Christi= > an > > > >> > during the younger days of his life and knew all about the > > > >> > Bible--esp. the first several chapters of Genesis. Who else but Go= > d > > > >> > can breath life into people. If Darwin was NOT discussing God > > > >> > breathing life into Adam and perhaps also into Eve--what was he > > > >> > discussing? > > > > > >> I debated this point with you a few days ago and you just keep blowi= > ng > > > >> right on by it. Go back and read what I said! > > > > > > I will ask once again--If Darwin was NOT discussing God breathing lif= > e > > > > into Adam and perhaps also into Eve--what was he discussing? I delete > > > > posts that I have already read. > > > > > By "already read", I take it you mean "contain things I don't wanna > > > see"... > > > > You failed to answer the above question. > > Why should he repeat it again when it's obvious that you don't want to > hear it. > > PDW Darwin may NOT have used the word "God" in his book. However, it's possible that the word "creator" or "by the creator" was used in at least one edition of his book. Read the article below for the details: I deleted most of the article. Visit the website to read the entire article: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2004/03/murphy.htm by Cullen Murphy � The oldest of the sources for the new Genesis, D, would be Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. D is by far the most humane of the three writers�warm, observant, a superb anecdotalist, similar in some respects to the old Bible's J. And he would provide knotty issues for future scholars to argue over. For instance, which version of Origin's last sentence should be accepted as orthodox? Should it be the first edition's "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been Originally breathed into a few forms or into one ..."? Or the second edition's version, in which after the word "breathed" D inserted the words "by the Creator"? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cullen Murphy is The Atlantic's managing editor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright � 2004 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. The Atlantic Monthly; March 2004; The Next Testament; Volume 293, No. 2; 139-140.
From: Free Lunch on 24 Jul 2010 18:24
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:08:54 -0700, Jason(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote in alt.talk.creationism: >In article <ab9m461jgvnhl9jrcc2qdslp7atp4fjchj(a)4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:40:28 -0700, Jason(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> alt.talk.creationism: >> >> > >> > >> >> > You failed to answer the above question. >> >> >> >> Well, I answered it - Darwin was obviously talking about the very >> >> earliest, microscopic life forms. To believe otherwise requires >> >> incredible obtuseness. Darwin's own theory proposed that humans >> >> evolved from pre-human ancestors - even if _you_ believe the Adam & >> >> Eve myth, Darwin clearly did not. >> >> >> >> Try really hard not to delete this fact from your brain, Jason. >> >> >> >> - Bob T >> > >> >What does that have to do with Darwin's "breathing" comment? If God was >> >NOT discussing God breathing life into Adam and perhaps also Eve--what was >> >he discussing? >> > >> >Darwin's statement: >> > >> >"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." >> >> Metaphores are too hard for you to comprehend so you reify them. > >Thanks but you failed to answer the question. If you know all about >Darwin's use of metaphores--what did Darwin mean by his breathing comment? > I have answered it. It is not my fault that you are incapable of understanding metaphor. Common ancestry includes all organisms. Darwin had no idea how life began because we didn't know enough about biochemistry and genetics to even start to speculate on how life began. Darwin's work could be applied to all life, but he spent most of his time dealing with organisms that were large and the change that could be understood. |