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 24 Jul 2010 18:33 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:08:54 -0700, Jason wrote: > 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? Not what you think. -- Mark K. Bilbo EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion #1423 ------------------------------------------------------------ "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
From: Mark K Bilbo on 24 Jul 2010 18:35 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:04:39 -0700, Jason wrote: > 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? Did answer. And you *still* cannot justify taking the closing paragraph of the book and trying to cram a meaning into it that the entire rest of the book argues *against*. -- Mark K. Bilbo EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion #1423 ------------------------------------------------------------ "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
From: Mark K Bilbo on 24 Jul 2010 18:35 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:41:25 -0700, Jason wrote: > I deleted most of the article. And apparently all of Darwin's book except the last paragraph... -- Mark K. Bilbo EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion #1423 ------------------------------------------------------------ "As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless." -- Abraham Lincoln
From: Jason on 24 Jul 2010 18:36 > >> >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. 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: Mark K Bilbo on 24 Jul 2010 19:25
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:36:27 -0700, Jason wrote: > 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: That doesn't get you anything Spanky. You expect us to ignore the entire rest of the book to accept your A&E "interpretation" of the closing paragraph? Not gonna happen. -- Mark K. Bilbo EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion #1423 ------------------------------------------------------------ "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing" -- Anatole France |