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 13:20 On Jul 13, 12:34 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:58:26 -0700, Joseki wrote: > > On Jul 13, 10:20 am, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:58:02 -0700, Joseki wrote: > >> > On Jul 12, 11:32 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:15:12 -0700, Joseki wrote: > >> >> > Nope I didn't say that. I said Life like matter and energy can't > >> >> > be created just transformed. > > >> >> Wouldn't that end the case for any creation at all? > > >> >> -- > >> >> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic > >> >> Subversion > >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ "Come > >> >> to think of it, there are already a million monkeys > >> >> on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like > >> >> Shakespeare!" > > >> >> -- Blair Houghton > > >> > No. Dr. Craig Venter Created a synthetic Cell from known organic > >> > material. This cell has no parents. It is alive by definition. > > >> If its components were not alive, that's abiogenesis. > > >> By, ahem, definition... > > > http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis > > So your claim is that "organic material" is alive? > > In what sense? > Not really. We have to wonder why is term "Organic" used.
From: Joseki on 13 Jul 2010 13:23 On Jul 13, 12:36 pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:54:17 -0700, Joseki wrote: > > On Jul 13, 9:06 am, martin <use...(a)etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > >> 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. > > > It doesn't. read the definition for abiogenesis. Very educational. > > Even by one of your own cites: > > "Abiogenesis is the proposal that life emerged from non-life..." > I mention the particular cite due to the fact, that creationist will not accept this. And many evolutionist will give it the wrong spin.
From: Jason on 13 Jul 2010 15:28 In article <38f4590f-a693-45a7-835d-8eb7099d886f(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Joseki <jabriol2000(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 11:32=A0pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:15:12 -0700, Joseki wrote: > > > Nope I didn't say that. I said Life like matter and energy can't be > > > created just transformed. > > > > Wouldn't that end the case for any creation at all? > > > > -- > > Mark K. Bilbo =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0a.a. #1423 > > EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys > > =A0on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING > > =A0like Shakespeare!" > > > > =A0-- Blair Houghton > > No. Dr. Craig Venter Created a synthetic Cell from known organic > material. This cell has no parents. It is alive by definition. It was an exact copy of a cell.
From: Jason on 13 Jul 2010 15:43 In article <6699cd80-6bca-4280-bbf9-1a8fd6c3b818(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Joseki <jabriol2000(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 12:36=A0pm, Mark K Bilbo <gm...(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:54:17 -0700, Joseki wrote: > > > On Jul 13, 9:06=A0am, martin <use...(a)etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > > >> On 13/07/2010 13:28, Joseki wrote: > > > > >> > On Jul 13, 8:20 am, martin<use...(a)etiqa.co.uk> =A0wrote: > > >> >> 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 i= > t > > >> >>> 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 > > > > >> >>>> =A0 =A0 Mark L. Fergerson > > > > >> > No it is not. A creationist, which I am not, can say a an old =A0man > > >> > critter snap us into being and then reply: "Yet we're here. Ergo the > > >> > probability of life arising from Magic is =A0exactly 1. > > > > >> That doesn't matter, even a creationist reading the most strict versio= > n > > >> 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. > > > > > It doesn't. read the definition for abiogenesis. Very educational. > > > > Even by one of your own cites: > > > > "Abiogenesis is the proposal that life emerged from non-life..." > > > > > I mention the particular cite due to the fact, that creationist will > not accept this. And many evolutionist will give it the wrong spin. I am an advocate of creation science. God creating life from non-life would be defined as "creation". Abiogenesis is for the most part a term that is used by evolutionists to explain how life began on this planet. The evolutionists do NOT believe that God played a role. For example, the primordial pond theory is a type of abiogenesis. How a word is used is very important. The word in question is used by evolutionists and not a word that is used in a positive way by the advocates of creation science.
From: Mark K Bilbo on 13 Jul 2010 18:31
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:19:17 -0700, Joseki wrote: > There seem to be a debate between creationist wannabe and evolutionist > wannabe on the definition. Using the laymen term, the cite would support > my view. No, you just don't appear to have a clue what you're talking about... -- Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion ------------------------------------------------------------ "You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that *we* are the ones that need help?" -- Jon Stoll |