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: The Chief Instigator on 24 Jul 2010 23:13 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:40:28 -0700, Jason <Jason(a)nospam.com> wrote: > > >> > 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." Is this an implicit admission that English isn't your first language? Darwin stated that with no bias, just facts, no gods needed. -- Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick(a)io.com) Houston, TX www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11) NEXT GAME: The 2010-11 opener vs. TBA, October 8
From: The Chief Instigator on 24 Jul 2010 23:15 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:08:54 -0700, Jason <Jason(a)nospam.com> 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? Why don't you bring him back to life and ask him? *snicker* -- Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick(a)io.com) Houston, TX www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11) NEXT GAME: The 2010-11 opener vs. TBA, October 8
From: The Chief Instigator on 24 Jul 2010 23:20 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:04:39 -0700, Jason <Jason(a)nospam.com> 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? He's only been dead for almost thirteen decades, Junked Jason. Stupidity appears to be your faith. -- Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick(a)io.com) Houston, TX www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11) NEXT GAME: The 2010-11 opener vs. TBA, October 8
From: nuny on 25 Jul 2010 19:50 On Jul 23, 12:33 pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > 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. > > The creation of mankind was a miracle. Remember you said that. > How God went about creating life on > this earth is not mentioned in any great detail in the Bible. Then, how do you know it's a miracle? What it *does* say is: Genesis 2:7 - "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Process, materials, technique, it's all there. Do you "believe" it to be an accurate or inaccurate description? > God knows 1000% more about DNA, etc than any scientist living today. I can't find anything about DNA in Genesis. Are you just asserting that? > God used his knowledge of science and biology to create life on this planet. So which was it; a miracle, or "science and biology*"? Science (even biology) is about explaining events. Miracles, by definition, are unexplainable. > Darwin believed that God breathed life into Adam and perhaps also > breathed life into Eve. At what point in his life did Darwin write that? If you can't cite him saying that, you're making it up. (yet-unsupported assertions deleted) > 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. As I said, you can believe anything you like, even if you can't prove it. What I don't get, why I'm even having this conversation, is why you "believe" stuff that directly contradicts your Bible. It's as if you want to go out of your way to find, or make up contradictions. Do you have some sort of thing against consistency? > The plants and animals on the earth today have as ancestors the > plants and animals that God created. You state that as if there were no possible dispute. Assuming it is correct, what were those original archetypes? Was there only one kind of animal (and one kind of plant) at first, each of which mutated and branched into all the myriad forms that have ever existed since then (most of which are extinct, of course)? Do you "believe" dinosaurs existed for dozens of millions of years before man? Do you know what these are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hallucigenia_Artist%27s_Rendering.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anomalocaris_model.jpg Do you "believe" them to have been early (ca. half-billion years ago) models of "animals"? > 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." Again, even if your interpretation is correct, it is heretical. The Bible doesn't say that "life only comes from life"; Genesis, Day Three: "God said, Let the land grow grass and plants, which make the same kind of seeds, and fruit trees, which fruits make its seeds, to make the same kind of fruit trees. And it happened fair as God said. So the earth grew grass and plants, which make the same kind of seeds, and fruit trees, which fruits make its seeds, to make the same kind of fruit trees." (By the way, this was done the day before the sun and moon were made, so the brand-new plants spent an entire day with no light. Oopsie!) Genesis, Day Five: "...God created the great sea creatures, the fish, and every other living thing that moves, which are in the water, each after its own kind, and every bird with wings, each after its own kind...God said, Let the earth make living creatures, each animal after its own kind, the tame animals, the small animals that run around in the land, and the wild animals, each after their own kind. And it happened fair as God said. And God made all kinds of wild animals, tame animals, and small animals to live in the land, each after its own kind." You assert that "each after its own kind" is either false or incomplete. If it is, how can you accept any of it? Either it's All We Need To Know, or there are holes in it. If there are holes, how do you know which parts are exactly right, and which parts are false/incomplete? All that aside, the original issue is whether or not "molding" and "breathing" constitute abiogenesis. You are apparently opposed to the concept; you wrote (paraphrased) "life can only come from life". For the creation of man as described in Genesis to not be abiogenesis, your deity must be "alive" in the scientific, biological sense that humans are. Do you believe that? * Um, biology is one of the sciences. Mark L. Fergerson
From: Ralph on 26 Jul 2010 17:13
On 7/24/2010 5:08 PM, 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? Darwin meant for all the religious folks to hold their horses and read about his new theory. |