The Improbability of Abiogenesis
Simply I
matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists
often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is
difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an estimate based on
reasonable assumptions. Amino acids and nucleic acids are the building
blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which spiral left and right. All
life consists of only one of these forms. Since both forms are generated
equally by inorganic chemical processes, it seems hard to imagine that life
could have originated having only one of these forms. Recently it has been
claimed that meteorites have an excess of one form over another. But due to
racemization, these forms tend to equalize over time, so we can expect that
in a primitive earth, there would have been essentially equal numbers of
both forms.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html
--
"The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of
discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!'
My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
-Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the
director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University
of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited
as the third most quoted chemist in the world), U.S. News & World Report,
Dec. 23, 1991
Bobby D. Bryant
> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by
> ordinary chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
> Creationists often attempt to calculate the probability of this
> occurring, which is difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an
> estimate based on reasonable assumptions. Amino acids and nucleic acids
> are the building blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which
> spiral left and right. All life consists of only one of these forms.
> Since both forms are generated equally by inorganic chemical processes,
> it seems hard to imagine that life could have originated having only one
> of these forms. Recently it has been claimed that meteorites have an
> excess of one form over another. But due to racemization, these forms
> tend to equalize over time, so we can expect that in a primitive earth,
> there would have been essentially equal numbers of both forms.
> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html
OK, so even CS professors can stick their heads in the sand when their
religious beliefs compel them to.
Though it's pretty shameful to see someone who researches algorithms
unable to consider that a polymer arose by any mechanism other than an
independent random choice at each location.
Also, a quick skim didn't show anything on this topic in his list of
publications. I think if I had a rock-solid argument that would stand an
entire field of science on its head, I'd rush of to publish it before
someone else came up with the same idea, rather than posting it to a Web
page.
OTOH, if he thinks abiogenesis is part of "the theory of evolution, taken
in the broad sense", maybe he isn't ready to go to press with his argument
yet...
You can find more of his stuff, complete with the de rigeur all-caps, at
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Rogue
wrote:
>According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
>matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
>chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
JERRY
Actually, evolution has nothing to do with how life got here, Simply.
It is only concerned with how life changes once it got here.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
DAS
> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists
> often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is
> difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an estimate based on
> reasonable assumptions.
Yeah, it's *one*.
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
Al C.
> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists
> often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is
> difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an estimate based on
> reasonable assumptions. Amino acids and nucleic acids are the building
> blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which spiral left and right. All
> life consists of only one of these forms. Since both forms are generated
> equally by inorganic chemical processes, it seems hard to imagine that life
> could have originated having only one of these forms. Recently it has been
> claimed that meteorites have an excess of one form over another. But due to
> racemization, these forms tend to equalize over time, so we can expect that
> in a primitive earth, there would have been essentially equal numbers of
> both forms.
> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html
"Unless otherwise indicated, all articles are written by me (David A.
Plaisted). I have a B.S. in Mathematics and a Ph.D. in Computer
Science and have published extensively in several areas of computer
science. I am also a frequent contributer to online discussions of
creation and evolution. My email address is plaisted at cs.unc.edu.
However, I receive a large amount of email and may not be able to
respond to your message or even read it. I apologize in advance for
this."
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
What makes you think someone with a Phd in Computer Science and a BS
in Math is qualified to answer questions in Biology? Also, you can
tell by the URL that it is a personal page and not an official page
from the university. (you can tell by the ~)
Al C.
Lane Lewis
"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
news:NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net...
> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists
> often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is
> difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an estimate based on
> reasonable assumptions. Amino acids and nucleic acids are the building
> blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which spiral left and right.
All
> life consists of only one of these forms. Since both forms are generated
> equally by inorganic chemical processes, it seems hard to imagine that
life
> could have originated having only one of these forms. Recently it has been
> claimed that meteorites have an excess of one form over another. But due
to
> racemization, these forms tend to equalize over time, so we can expect
that
> in a primitive earth, there would have been essentially equal numbers of
> both forms.
> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html
>
And the fallacy of your argument is shown in the very next sentence.
[qt]
Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it
would have needed about 256 genes
[fin]
Life as we know it now has nothing to do with the way life started out. This
is the big lie of all creationist in that they calculate the odds for life
as it exist now, not the way it existed 3.5 billion years ago. Perhaps when
they can tell us the correct process they could calculate the correct odds
but until that time we will have to accept that they are being less then
honest in what they profess.
Lane
William Allen Scheer
Science, Nature, even National Geographic ... abiogenesis is always part of
the "story" of evolution. The only exception I can think of are Francis
Crick's ... although I am unaware of any widespread acceptance. Can you
educate me otherwise?
"Rogue" wrote ...
David Jensen
<dans...@ANTISPAMBLOCKREMOVEME.excite.com> wrote while top posting:
<vgopc1o...@corp.supernews.com>:
>This is the first I have heard of this notion. When I read articles in
>Science, Nature, even National Geographic ... abiogenesis is always part of
>the "story" of evolution. The only exception I can think of are Francis
>Crick's ... although I am unaware of any widespread acceptance. Can you
>educate me otherwise?
Could you please refer us to a couple of articles in Science or Nature
or any other peer-reviewed science journal that refers to abiogenesis as
part of the theory of evolution?
I don't particularly expect popularizers to get it right, though it does
allow the anti-science religious nuts to make silly claims about
science.
...
stew dean
> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
This is not according to the theory of evolution. The theory of
evolution, as applied to biological evolution, can only apply if there
is biology.
Stew Dean
rogue
> This is the first I have heard of this notion. When I read articles in
> Science, Nature, even National Geographic ... abiogenesis is always part of
> the "story" of evolution. The only exception I can think of are Francis
> Crick's ... although I am unaware of any widespread acceptance. Can you
> educate me otherwise?
JERRY
I can't speak for the articles you have read. I know that Scientific
American has a new special edition out on the stands right now dealing
with evolution that would be a good read if you are interested. I
will probably buy it this weekend. Creationists want to claim that
the Big Bang and abiogenesis are part of evolution since their belief
incorporates all of the beginning of the world. Evolution, however,
is defined as the heritable change in a population over time. No part
of that definition includes how life originated, how the universe
originated. Only how life changes.
Darwin's theory had it's beginning in noticing minor differences in
populations of finches that were near each other geographically but
isolated. In those conditions, each species over time had slight
changes. While they remained essentially finches, they were no longer
identical. One way that the theory of evolution has been described is
"survival of the fittest," or "the species that is best able to adapt
is the one that survives." That's all that evolution is.
I suspect (and have been confirmed privately by a couple of
creationists) that the main reason that fundamentalists oppose
evolution so strongly is that
1. If evolution is true, there was no garden of eden.
2. If there was no garden of eden, there was no Adam and Eve.
3. If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no fall from grace
4. If there was no fall from grace, there is no original sin
5. If there is no original sin, there is no need for salvation
6. If there is no need for salvation, there is nothing to
Christianity's claims.
Unfortunately, most of them have nothing to replace it with. They
believe that if they can just get people not to "believe" in
evolution, then people will accept creationism by default. But
science doesn't work that way. In order to prove creationism you have
to
1. Produce god. and not just any god, but the god of the bible,
Yahweh himself.
2. Produce evidence that the earth was created in just six days.
3. show evidence for a young earth.
Part of their problem is that the bible stories don't stand up to the
evidence. Evidence shows there was no global flood. Archaeology
demonstrates that there was no "battle of Jericho" as depicted in the
bible, there is no evidence for most of the events claimed in the
bible, such as Herod's slaughter of the innocents that is told in
Matthew chapter 2, or the Exodus story itself.
(shrug)
They can believe whatever they want. Despite their claims, evolution
has been proven in the lab, in the fossil record, everywhere. No one
doubts that it really happens except for those who have a religious
reason for doubting, and most of them know very little of science, as
their postings demonstrate.
When cornered they will claim that "micro-evolution" happens but not
"macro-evolution" and try to define "macro-evolution" as one kind
changing into another. It's a straw man argument, since no one claims
that this is how evolution works or what happens.
I won't claim to be a scientist. I've read stuff mainly so I try not
to look foolish in forums like this with real scientists. I'm more of
a partisan on the bible than I am on science.
William Allen Scheer
willing at this point. I read Science, Scientific American and Nature at the
local library. I don't have a stack of back issues to search through.
This is intriguing. Is it in fact the case that the notion of abiogenesis is
NOT a part of evolutionary theory, as commonly taught in High School and
College courses in the U.S.?
"David Jensen" wrote
David Jensen
<vgp4rcs...@corp.supernews.com>:
>I don't suspect I could without putting out a lot more effort than I am
>willing at this point. I read Science, Scientific American and Nature at the
>local library. I don't have a stack of back issues to search through.
>
>This is intriguing. Is it in fact the case that the notion of abiogenesis is
>NOT a part of evolutionary theory, as commonly taught in High School and
>College courses in the U.S.?
I don't trust most High School textbooks, but the evolution I got in
college did not include abiogenesis as part of evolution and none of the
bio folks on talk.origins seem to think that abiogenesis is part of
evolution.
akratic
> This is the first I have heard of this notion.
Evolutionary theory is concerned with how life changes over time.
Abiogenesis is a naturalistic explanation of how life arose in the
first place (there are others, see Panspermia (Hoyle, Wickramasinga
(sp?))
> When I read articles in
> Science, Nature, even National Geographic
the list of possible sources for reading on the topic is almost
limitless (see the talk.origins archive)
www.talkorigins.org
> ... abiogenesis is always part of
> the "story" of evolution.
yeah it is often presented this way in nonpeer-review literature but
it isn't necessarily the case.
>The only exception I can think of are Francis
> Crick's ... although I am unaware of any widespread acceptance. Can you
> educate me otherwise?
educate yourself, that way you avoid the inevitable biases that tend
to creep into personal interpretation ;)
do a 'google' on the topic, many papers from varying universities will
appear etcetc.
> "Rogue" wrote ...
> > JERRY
> > Actually, evolution has nothing to do with how life got here, Simply.
> > It is only concerned with how life changes once it got here.
> > Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
> >
akratic
:p
Cubist
[top-posted material moved to the bottom, the way God intended]
> "Rogue" wrote ...
> > JERRY
> > Actually, evolution has nothing to do with how life got here, Simply.
> > It is only concerned with how life changes once it got here.
> > Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
> >
> This is the first I have heard of this notion. When I read articles in
> Science, Nature, even National Geographic ... abiogenesis is always part of
> the "story" of evolution. The only exception I can think of are Francis
> Crick's ... although I am unaware of any widespread acceptance. Can you
> educate me otherwise?
THe main reason people say evolution and abiogenesis are 100%
separate and distinct, is that evolution only requires that life
*exist*. The precise mechanisms involved, i.e. *how* life came to
exist, are not important; no matter whether Earth's first life-form
came to be as a result of abiogenesis, special creation, panspermia,
or what, evolution would still be applicable to the descendants of
that first life form.
In short: Yes, the story of life includes chapters on How It Came
To Be *and* on How It's Changed Since Then.... but no, the content of
the How It's Changed chapter is not dependent on any specific "plot
device" in the How It Came To be chapter.
David Jensen
<116f9bab.03070...@posting.google.com>:
Internal combustion engines work in a very consistent manner once they
have started. The fact that you may not know how the engine was started
(eg pop the clutch in a rolling vehicle, starter motor, crank) does not
make our understanding of the IC engine invalid.
Mitch Alsup
The rest of this sentance has nothing to do with evolution, but has to do
with how life became out of non-life. One of these theories is abiogeniss.
taken in the broad sense, living
> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists
> often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is
> difficult to do.
It is impossibly EASY to perform this calculation. Initial condition
a large planet roasting at nearly 100 degrees as mater acreate. Later,
almost at the very instant when water condensed and tempertures did not
outlaw the formation of living chemical loops, life sprang up. 1 planet,
1 observation. Therefore, the probability that life arose on earth is 1.00.
Until you find another planet where life is possible, but has not arisien,
then you can decrease the probability to 0.50. To get to the probabilities
the creationists expouse would require boat-loads of observations. Other-
wise its just one set of arguers against another set of arguers. However,
there is still that issue of the one observation we are able to make....
> However, it is possible to give an estimate based on
> reasonable assumptions. Amino acids and nucleic acids are the building
> blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which spiral left and right. All
> life consists of only one of these forms. Since both forms are generated
> equally by inorganic chemical processes, it seems hard to imagine that life
> could have originated having only one of these forms. Recently it has been
> claimed that meteorites have an excess of one form over another. But due to
> racemization, these forms tend to equalize over time, so we can expect that
> in a primitive earth, there would have been essentially equal numbers of
> both forms.
So, when you sit down to play bridge, are out equally amused at the vast
inprobability that you get the hand you are dealt from all possible hands?
What about the next hand. By the time you finish up a rubber, the improb-
ability is astoundingly high. Yet it happened, and will the next time you
sit down and play bridge. Unless you can grasp this, you cannot see the
gaping hole in the creationsists argument.
Pastor Dave
That's not true at all. The calculations for life to
come into being period, are well beyond the realm of
possibility. There is no chance that it happened. And
while you believe that life created itself, you show
your foolishness in that for something to create
itself, it would have to have existed prior to its
creation, in order to create itself.
The fact is, that there is NO WAY that non-living
matter became life. That was proven wrong over 100
years ago and yet you cling to that idea, as if it had
some merit. You evolutionists over simplify the
problem by leaps and bounds. My guess is that you
don't even have a clue what it would take, for life to
form. You simply reject God and therefore, wave the
flag of abiogenesis around, since that means that you
can live any way you want and you think that allows you
to avoid an objective, absolute morality.
Pastor Dave Raymond
--
In the beginning, God created...
The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
get off the pulpit.
Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest
fools in nature; for they see there is a world
that could not make itself, and yet they will not
own there is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
Pastor Dave
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>In alt.talk.creationism, "William Allen Scheer"
><dans...@ANTISPAMBLOCKREMOVEME.excite.com> wrote in
><vgp4rcs...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>>I don't suspect I could without putting out a lot more effort than I am
>>willing at this point. I read Science, Scientific American and Nature at the
>>local library. I don't have a stack of back issues to search through.
>>
>>This is intriguing. Is it in fact the case that the notion of abiogenesis is
>>NOT a part of evolutionary theory, as commonly taught in High School and
>>College courses in the U.S.?
>
>I don't trust most High School textbooks,
That's funny. You did when you went to high schools
and they told you how life came from non-life and
evolved into what we are today. Or, are you saying
that you rejected the idea until much later in life?
Pastor Dave
Bull. You know and I know, that without one, the other
crumbles.
Pastor Dave
And yet you preach that you do know how it started.
Believing in evolution requires a belief in
abiogenesis.
Pastor Dave
Mitch...@aol.com (Mitch Alsup) wrote:
>"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
>> According to the theory of evolution,
>
>The rest of this sentance has nothing to do with evolution, but has to do
>with how life became out of non-life. One of these theories is abiogeniss.
>
> taken in the broad sense, living
>> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
>> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists
>> often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is
>> difficult to do.
>
>It is impossibly EASY to perform this calculation. Initial condition
>a large planet roasting at nearly 100 degrees as mater acreate. Later,
>almost at the very instant when water condensed and tempertures did not
>outlaw the formation of living chemical loops, life sprang up. 1 planet,
>1 observation. Therefore, the probability that life arose on earth is 1.00.
Are you stoned, or stupid? Do you think this somehow
proves what you believe? Please show us exactly how
abiogenesis happened. You'd be doing us all a favor,
since no one else has been able to. Please show us how
100 degree water brings forth life. Please show us how
condensing water brings forth life, especially when it
doesn't do that today. If it did it then, then there's
no reason why experiments can't bring forth life today,
yet they don't.
Zachriel
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dhvqgvk478vhk36f5...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:29 +0000 (UTC),
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
>
> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
> >> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
> >> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by
ordinary
> >> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
> >
> >This is not according to the theory of evolution. The theory of
> >evolution, as applied to biological evolution, can only apply if there
> >is biology.
>
> Bull. You know and I know, that without one, the other
> crumbles.
No. If God (or aliens) planted the first life on earth, it would not change
the factual nature of evolution.
David Jensen
wrote in <jfvqgv09e728adeqo...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:26:14 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
><da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.talk.creationism, "William Allen Scheer"
>><dans...@ANTISPAMBLOCKREMOVEME.excite.com> wrote in
>><vgp4rcs...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>
>>>I don't suspect I could without putting out a lot more effort than I am
>>>willing at this point. I read Science, Scientific American and Nature at the
>>>local library. I don't have a stack of back issues to search through.
>>>
>>>This is intriguing. Is it in fact the case that the notion of abiogenesis is
>>>NOT a part of evolutionary theory, as commonly taught in High School and
>>>College courses in the U.S.?
>>
>>I don't trust most High School textbooks,
>
>That's funny. You did when you went to high schools
>and they told you how life came from non-life and
>evolved into what we are today. Or, are you saying
>that you rejected the idea until much later in life?
I went to a conservative religious high school. The best science teacher
I had there, for chemistry and physics, now has a PhD in biology. He
accepts creation as a matter of faith, but he does not make false claims
about science based on his religious beliefs.
The person I actually had for biology knew very little science and did
not teach anything about the origins of life or of species. No one told
me that abiogenesis was part of evolution. As far as I know, you are
just making that up. If you have a reference to a textbook that tells us
this, please present it, otherwise I will conclude that this is just
part of your imagination.
What specific mechanisms in evolution do you reject? What evidence do
you have to support this?
David Jensen
I do not preach.
There was a time on earth when there was no life. There is life on earth
now. Somehow life began. That is abiogenesis. It has nothing directly to
do with how life has changed since it began.
David Jensen
There is life. Your calculations are erroneous.
> There is no chance that it happened.
There is life.
>And
>while you believe that life created itself, you show
>your foolishness in that for something to create
>itself, it would have to have existed prior to its
>creation, in order to create itself.
You mischaracterize the problem.
>The fact is, that there is NO WAY that non-living
>matter became life. That was proven wrong over 100
>years ago and yet you cling to that idea, as if it had
>some merit. You evolutionists over simplify the
>problem by leaps and bounds. My guess is that you
>don't even have a clue what it would take, for life to
>form. You simply reject God and therefore, wave the
>flag of abiogenesis around, since that means that you
>can live any way you want and you think that allows you
>to avoid an objective, absolute morality.
No one ever proved what you claim. Since you are ignorant of science,
you should not make claims about it.
David Jensen
>On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:29 +0000 (UTC),
>ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
>
>>"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
>>> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
>>> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
>>> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
>>
>>This is not according to the theory of evolution. The theory of
>>evolution, as applied to biological evolution, can only apply if there
>>is biology.
>
>Bull. You know and I know, that without one, the other
>crumbles.
No, I don't know that. What's more, I don't think you can show it, I
think your response will just be another assertion, without evidence,
that you are right.
David Jensen
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:10:16 +0000 (UTC),
>Mitch...@aol.com (Mitch Alsup) wrote:
>
>>"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
>>> According to the theory of evolution,
>>
>>The rest of this sentance has nothing to do with evolution, but has to do
>>with how life became out of non-life. One of these theories is abiogeniss.
>>
>> taken in the broad sense, living
>>> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
>>> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists
>>> often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is
>>> difficult to do.
>>
>>It is impossibly EASY to perform this calculation. Initial condition
>>a large planet roasting at nearly 100 degrees as mater acreate. Later,
>>almost at the very instant when water condensed and tempertures did not
>>outlaw the formation of living chemical loops, life sprang up. 1 planet,
>>1 observation. Therefore, the probability that life arose on earth is 1.00.
>
>Are you stoned, or stupid? Do you think this somehow
>proves what you believe? Please show us exactly how
>abiogenesis happened.
The fact that we do not know exactly how abiogenesis happened does not
negate the fact that there once was no life on earth. This has nothing
to do with evolution at all.
> You'd be doing us all a favor,
>since no one else has been able to. Please show us how
>100 degree water brings forth life. Please show us how
>condensing water brings forth life, especially when it
>doesn't do that today. If it did it then, then there's
>no reason why experiments can't bring forth life today,
>yet they don't.
Tell me exactly what the earth was like immediately before life began.
Joe Blow
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:26:14 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
> <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
> >In alt.talk.creationism, "William Allen Scheer"
> ><dans...@ANTISPAMBLOCKREMOVEME.excite.com> wrote in
> ><vgp4rcs...@corp.supernews.com>:
> >
> >>I don't suspect I could without putting out a lot more effort than I am
> >>willing at this point. I read Science, Scientific American and Nature at the
> >>local library. I don't have a stack of back issues to search through.
> >>
> >>This is intriguing. Is it in fact the case that the notion of abiogenesis is
> >>NOT a part of evolutionary theory, as commonly taught in High School and
> >>College courses in the U.S.?
> >
> >I don't trust most High School textbooks,
>
> That's funny. You did when you went to high schools
> and they told you how life came from non-life and
> evolved into what we are today. Or, are you saying
> that you rejected the idea until much later in life?
For me, that hypothesis was presented and the evidence that
was known at that time was presented. The scientific
theory of evolution was what followed. Life can't evolve
if life does not exist. So you might say that life is
an assumption of evolution.
Joe
Joe Blow
Yes life is assumed in evolution.
Joe
Joe Blow
There are many ways to calculate that probability. You
are choosing to take the product of the unknown steps.
Since they are currently unknown, you are assigning a
nil probability for each of these steps. It is no
wonder that creationists cannot get scientific papers
published.
The other way of understanding that result is using
conditional probabilities. The probability that life
started given that life exists is 1. It says nothing
about the method or steps of the creation of life.
> The fact is, that there is NO WAY that non-living
> matter became life. That was proven wrong over 100
> years ago and yet you cling to that idea, as if it had
> some merit. You evolutionists over simplify the
> problem by leaps and bounds. My guess is that you
> don't even have a clue what it would take, for life to
> form. You simply reject God and therefore, wave the
> flag of abiogenesis around, since that means that you
> can live any way you want and you think that allows you
> to avoid an objective, absolute morality.
There is absolutely no proof that life from non-life
using the kinds of ideas that Miller first demonstrated
is impossible. On the contrary, the kinds of baby steps
that are postulated along the way are surprisingly easy
to produce.
Your claim that we reject God is without foundation. On
the other hand, you take a clear stand that rejects the
wonderful world that God created and science helps us
understand.
As for absolute morality, I am not interested in your
enforcement of your interpretation of absolute right and
wrong. Absolute morality reduces to "might makes right".
Joe
Joe Blow
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:29 +0000 (UTC),
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
>
> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
> >> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
> >> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
> >> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
> >
> >This is not according to the theory of evolution. The theory of
> >evolution, as applied to biological evolution, can only apply if there
> >is biology.
>
> Bull. You know and I know, that without one, the other
> crumbles.
Yes, life is an assumption of evolution.
Joe
Joe Blow
Dave, all he is saying is that for all of our observations, the
conditional probability of life starting on a habitable planet
is 1. In order to reduce that, we need to find another habitable
planet where life did not form. It has nothing to do with
the process that started life.
Considering that the first (probably) creation of life on earth
took a billion years or so is one indication of the complexity
of the process.
Joe
Elmer Bataitis
> The fact is, that there is NO WAY that non-living
> matter became life.
I just love Dave's theology. Yeah, that Genesis 2:7 is soooo way wrong.
;-)
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************
David Sienkiewicz
> Mitch...@aol.com (Mitch Alsup) wrote:
>
> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
> >> According to the theory of evolution,
> >
> >The rest of this sentance has nothing to do with evolution, but has to do
> >with how life became out of non-life. One of these theories is abiogeniss.
> >
> > taken in the broad sense, living
> >> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
> >> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists
> >> often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is
> >> difficult to do.
> >
> >It is impossibly EASY to perform this calculation. Initial condition
> >a large planet roasting at nearly 100 degrees as mater acreate. Later,
> >almost at the very instant when water condensed and tempertures did not
> >outlaw the formation of living chemical loops, life sprang up. 1 planet,
> >1 observation. Therefore, the probability that life arose on earth is 1.00.
>
> Are you stoned, or stupid?
My, my, my! What a marvelous christian attitude!
Who was it who ordained you, "Pastor?" No pastor that I know - and I
know and have known several over the years - would ever think of
addressing someone in this way in public.
> Do you think this somehow
> proves what you believe? Please show us exactly how
> abiogenesis happened. You'd be doing us all a favor,
> since no one else has been able to. Please show us how
> 100 degree water brings forth life.
Chances are pretty good he can't do that, Dave, because no one really
knows.
How abiogenesis occurred remeains an hypothesis at best.
It DID happen, however. Once there was no life. Now there's life.
Just because we can't explain how it happened doesn't mean that it
didn't happen, Dave.
Evolution is a fact, but we've only begun to understand it. Gravity
is a fact, too, even though we don't fully understand it, either.
Thunderstorms, floodings, lightning - these are all facts of nature
and they were no less facts of nature simply because humans didn't
understand them and so attributed them to the actions of gods.
Not being able to explain something does not mean that it never
happened.
> Please show us how
> condensing water brings forth life, especially when it
> doesn't do that today.
Are you sure of that, Dave?
> If it did it then, then there's
> no reason why experiments can't bring forth life today,
> yet they don't.
There is every reason, Dave. Men couldn't fly for centuries before
the Wright brothers. The knowledge and technology wasn't there.
It's pretty stupid to presume that simply because man can't duplicate
something, it couldn't have happened.
< snip >
David Sienkiewicz
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:29 +0000 (UTC),
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
>
> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
> >> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
> >> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
> >> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
> >
> >This is not according to the theory of evolution. The theory of
> >evolution, as applied to biological evolution, can only apply if there
> >is biology.
>
> Bull. You know and I know, that without one, the other
> crumbles.
No, that's not true, either, Dave.
Life cannot evolve if life is not present. That much is true; but how
life arose from nonliving matter has been determined to be a separate
science. Both concepts work quite well independently. Evolution does
not deal with the origin of life. It is certainly true that life must
exist in order to evolve. But whether life arose by natural
processes, was placed here by otherworldy beings (including gods) or
was here all along, living things HAVE evolved.
That's a fact, Dave. You can't escape it.
David Sienkiewicz
Whether by the actions of God or by natural means, there was no life
on Earth and now there is life.
Abiogenesis - life from nonliving matter - is a fact, Dave.
And no, accepting that evolution occurred does not mean that one MUST
accept that abiogenesis by your definition (life arose by entirely
naturalistic means) also occurred. God could very well have planted
the first living forms here. Or he might have put in motion the
mechanisms by which life arose and so he had a direct hand.
Evolution occurred and does occur regardless.
Tom
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:29 +0000 (UTC),
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
>
> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
> >> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
> >> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by
ordinary
> >> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
> >
> >This is not according to the theory of evolution. The theory of
> >evolution, as applied to biological evolution, can only apply if there
> >is biology.
>
> crumbles.
Tom: Only in your mind "Pastor". That is what you wish to believe, based on
your interpretation if Genesis. Evolution happened and it is shown in many
places and ways that it did. How life stared on earth isn't really known
although there are many ideas. Regardless of who life started evolution
directed the life that was originally started. Tell me "Pastor", how do you
explain that the fossil record shows that almost all species that ever lived
are no longer here? Did God zap all of them and if so, how? Remember you
can't say the flood because according to your interpretation of the bible
good old God preserved all of the "kinds".
Pastor Dave
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>In alt.talk.creationism, Pastor Dave <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com>
>wrote in <jfvqgv09e728adeqo...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:26:14 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
>><da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.talk.creationism, "William Allen Scheer"
>>><dans...@ANTISPAMBLOCKREMOVEME.excite.com> wrote in
>>><vgp4rcs...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>>
>>>>I don't suspect I could without putting out a lot more effort than I am
>>>>willing at this point. I read Science, Scientific American and Nature at the
>>>>local library. I don't have a stack of back issues to search through.
>>>>
>>>>This is intriguing. Is it in fact the case that the notion of abiogenesis is
>>>>NOT a part of evolutionary theory, as commonly taught in High School and
>>>>College courses in the U.S.?
>>>
>>>I don't trust most High School textbooks,
>>
>>That's funny. You did when you went to high schools
>>and they told you how life came from non-life and
>>evolved into what we are today. Or, are you saying
>>that you rejected the idea until much later in life?
>
>I went to a conservative religious high school. The best science teacher
>I had there, for chemistry and physics, now has a PhD in biology. He
>accepts creation as a matter of faith, but he does not make false claims
>about science based on his religious beliefs.
In other words, he bows his "faith" to man.
>The person I actually had for biology knew very little science and did
>not teach anything about the origins of life or of species. No one told
>me that abiogenesis was part of evolution. As far as I know, you are
>just making that up. If you have a reference to a textbook that tells us
>this, please present it, otherwise I will conclude that this is just
>part of your imagination.
Oh, just about all of them start off by telling you how
it rained on the rocks and here's life. Don't play
dumb. You forget, you just admitted that you didn't go
to public high school. I did.
>What specific mechanisms in evolution do you reject? What evidence do
>you have to support this?
I don't have to prove a thing. You're the one in a
Biblical newsgroup stating that it happened. You prove
it did.
Pastor Dave
<an...@zachriel.com> wrote:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:dhvqgvk478vhk36f5...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:29 +0000 (UTC),
>> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
>>
>> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
>news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
>> >> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
>> >> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by
>ordinary
>> >> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
>> >
>> >This is not according to the theory of evolution. The theory of
>> >evolution, as applied to biological evolution, can only apply if there
>> >is biology.
>>
>> Bull. You know and I know, that without one, the other
>> crumbles.
>
>No. If God (or aliens) planted the first life on earth, it would not change
>the factual nature of evolution.
There is no, "factual nature of evolution".
Pastor Dave
david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote:
>Pastor Dave <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dhvqgvk478vhk36f5...@4ax.com>...
>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:29 +0000 (UTC),
>> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
>>
>> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
>> >> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
>> >> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
>> >> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
>> >
>> >This is not according to the theory of evolution. The theory of
>> >evolution, as applied to biological evolution, can only apply if there
>> >is biology.
>>
>> Bull. You know and I know, that without one, the other
>> crumbles.
>
>No, that's not true, either, Dave.
>
>Life cannot evolve if life is not present. That much is true; but how
>life arose from nonliving matter has been determined to be a separate
>science.
And since it was proven over 100 years ago that
abiogenesis doesn't happen, now what?
>Both concepts work quite well independently.
How so, considering abiogenesis cannot happen?
>Evolution does
>not deal with the origin of life. It is certainly true that life must
>exist in order to evolve. But whether life arose by natural
>processes, was placed here by otherworldy beings (including gods) or
>was here all along, living things HAVE evolved.
>
>That's a fact, Dave. You can't escape it.
You CLAIM that they "have evolved". You can't prove
it, however.
Pastor Dave
david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote:
Why does the evolutionist pull God into it, whenever
it's convenient and yet claim that science doesn't deal
with the question of God? According to evolutionists,
the study of abiogenesis is studied as a naturalistic
event. This is what the goal is. To find out how life
could have arose out of non-living matter, all by
itself, which of course, doesn't make any sense,
because whatever created itself would have to have
existed already, in order to create itself. That's
illogical.
>And no, accepting that evolution occurred does not mean that one MUST
>accept that abiogenesis by your definition (life arose by entirely
>naturalistic means) also occurred. God could very well have planted
>the first living forms here. Or he might have put in motion the
>mechanisms by which life arose and so he had a direct hand.
>
>Evolution occurred and does occur regardless.
Prove it. Prove to me that all life evolved from a
single celled organism.
Pastor Dave
(Joe Blow) wrote:
That's ridiculous. The fact is, that life could not
have arose by itself. NASA will tell you that, by
stating what the conditions of the Earth were. And if
the Earth were "habitable" at that point, then oxygen
would have been present and you cannot get life to form
with oxygen present, since whatever formed would
quickly oxidize. Of course, you can't get life to form
without oxygen present either.
>Considering that the first (probably) creation of life on earth
>took a billion years or so is one indication of the complexity
>of the process.
Sorry, but you wouldn't have had that much time and
even if you did, it still wouldn't be enough time.
Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have
estimated the chance of man evolving, at approximately
1 in 10(with 2 billion zeros after it). This takes us
well beyond "Borel's Single Law of Chance". This means
no chance at all.
The fact is, that abiogenesis was proven false over 100
years ago. It can't happen.
Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) - the now
discredited idea that living organisms can arise
spontaneously from inanimate matter. This theory was
supported by such observations as maggots appearing on
rotten meat left outdoors, which led to the mistaken
conclusion that the meat itself, rather than adult
flies laying eggs in the meat, created the maggots.
- Dictionary of Theories
Biogenesis - This refers to the production of living
organisms from other living organisms. Biogenesis
refers especially to the fundamental concept of modern
biology, that life comes only from the reproduction of
living things and that species can produce offspring
only of the same species. - Dictionary of Theories
David Jensen
No. He accepted all that we can learn from God, including all of the
evidence about life on earth and the history of the universe. He did not
rely on what someone else taught him about how to interpret some
Mesopotamian myths adapted by the Hebrews.
I see that you still tell lies after writing "in other words".
>>The person I actually had for biology knew very little science and did
>>not teach anything about the origins of life or of species. No one told
>>me that abiogenesis was part of evolution. As far as I know, you are
>>just making that up. If you have a reference to a textbook that tells us
>>this, please present it, otherwise I will conclude that this is just
>>part of your imagination.
>
>Oh, just about all of them start off by telling you how
>it rained on the rocks and here's life. Don't play
>dumb. You forget, you just admitted that you didn't go
>to public high school. I did.
I have no reason to trust your claims. You have made too many false
claims for me to consider you a reliable witness.
>>What specific mechanisms in evolution do you reject? What evidence do
>>you have to support this?
>
>I don't have to prove a thing. You're the one in a
>Biblical newsgroup stating that it happened. You prove
>it did.
This is not a Biblical newsgroup.
You have yet to show that your religious claims are Biblical.
David Jensen
wrote in <tr7tgv04fd19lm3ok...@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:22:06 GMT, "Zachriel"
><an...@zachriel.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:dhvqgvk478vhk36f5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:29 +0000 (UTC),
>>> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
>>news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
>>> >> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
>>> >> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by
>>ordinary
>>> >> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
>>> >
>>> >This is not according to the theory of evolution. The theory of
>>> >evolution, as applied to biological evolution, can only apply if there
>>> >is biology.
>>>
>>> Bull. You know and I know, that without one, the other
>>> crumbles.
>>
>>No. If God (or aliens) planted the first life on earth, it would not change
>>the factual nature of evolution.
>
>There is no, "factual nature of evolution".
>
How do you explain the evidence?
>
>Pastor Dave Raymond
David Jensen
wrote in <5u7tgvorkltfck1g2...@4ax.com>:
>On 10 Jul 2003 10:51:41 -0700,
>david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote:
>
>>Pastor Dave <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dhvqgvk478vhk36f5...@4ax.com>...
>>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:29 +0000 (UTC),
>>> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
>>> >> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
>>> >> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
>>> >> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
>>> >
>>> >This is not according to the theory of evolution. The theory of
>>> >evolution, as applied to biological evolution, can only apply if there
>>> >is biology.
>>>
>>> Bull. You know and I know, that without one, the other
>>> crumbles.
>>
>>No, that's not true, either, Dave.
>>
>>Life cannot evolve if life is not present. That much is true; but how
>>life arose from nonliving matter has been determined to be a separate
>>science.
>
>And since it was proven over 100 years ago that
>abiogenesis doesn't happen, now what?
No, it was not.
>
>>Both concepts work quite well independently.
>
>How so, considering abiogenesis cannot happen?
Why not?
>
>>Evolution does
>>not deal with the origin of life. It is certainly true that life must
>>exist in order to evolve. But whether life arose by natural
>>processes, was placed here by otherworldy beings (including gods) or
>>was here all along, living things HAVE evolved.
>>
>>That's a fact, Dave. You can't escape it.
>
>You CLAIM that they "have evolved". You can't prove
>it, however.
The evidence shows that evolution is happening.
>
>Pastor Dave Raymond
David Jensen
wrote in <d98tgvoofhekka7h6...@4ax.com>:
>On 10 Jul 2003 10:04:28 -0700, joe...@volcanomail.com
>(Joe Blow) wrote:
...
>>Dave, all he is saying is that for all of our observations, the
>>conditional probability of life starting on a habitable planet
>>is 1. In order to reduce that, we need to find another habitable
>>planet where life did not form. It has nothing to do with
>>the process that started life.
>
>That's ridiculous. The fact is, that life could not
>have arose by itself.
That is not a fact.
> NASA will tell you that, by
>stating what the conditions of the Earth were. And if
>the Earth were "habitable" at that point, then oxygen
>would have been present and you cannot get life to form
>with oxygen present, since whatever formed would
>quickly oxidize.
Where did you get the idea there was free oxygen before life arose on
earth?
>Of course, you can't get life to form
>without oxygen present either.
Why not?
>>Considering that the first (probably) creation of life on earth
>>took a billion years or so is one indication of the complexity
>>of the process.
>
>Sorry, but you wouldn't have had that much time and
>even if you did, it still wouldn't be enough time.
Why not?
>Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have
>estimated the chance of man evolving, at approximately
>1 in 10(with 2 billion zeros after it). This takes us
>well beyond "Borel's Single Law of Chance". This means
>no chance at all.
Where did you get your estimate from?
>The fact is, that abiogenesis was proven false over 100
>years ago. It can't happen.
Assuming that you are not referring to Pasteur's work, since it has
nothing to do with abiogenesis, who proved this?
>Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) - the now
>discredited idea that living organisms can arise
>spontaneously from inanimate matter. This theory was
>supported by such observations as maggots appearing on
>rotten meat left outdoors, which led to the mistaken
>conclusion that the meat itself, rather than adult
>flies laying eggs in the meat, created the maggots.
>- Dictionary of Theories
Spontaneous generation is not abiogenesis in this context. Pasteur
proved that complex creatures did not arise just from rotting flesh,
this is not at all what abiogenesis is about.
>Biogenesis - This refers to the production of living
>organisms from other living organisms. Biogenesis
>refers especially to the fundamental concept of modern
>biology, that life comes only from the reproduction of
>living things and that species can produce offspring
>only of the same species. - Dictionary of Theories
So?
You really need to learn more than the dictionary tells you to show that
you know what you are talking about.
Joe Blow
That is what I meant by habitable.
> And if
> the Earth were "habitable" at that point, then oxygen
> would have been present and you cannot get life to form
> with oxygen present, since whatever formed would
> quickly oxidize. Of course, you can't get life to form
> without oxygen present either.
This is not true. Remember, all we need is a set of self-
replicating chemicals, that are self-sustaining, and are
subject to Darwinian evolution. Nobody says oxygen molecules
are part of the definition.
There are many forms of life, even today, that live and
reproduce in oxygen free environments. You assume that
live today is essentially the same as the original life
form.
> >Considering that the first (probably) creation of life on earth
> >took a billion years or so is one indication of the complexity
> >of the process.
>
> Sorry, but you wouldn't have had that much time and
> even if you did, it still wouldn't be enough time.
> Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have
> estimated the chance of man evolving, at approximately
> 1 in 10(with 2 billion zeros after it). This takes us
> well beyond "Borel's Single Law of Chance". This means
> no chance at all.
Sorry Dave, Borel himself, in "Probability and Certainty",
says, "We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that
the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution
of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties
of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence
we ought nevertheless admit."
Without that kind of understanding Borel cannot apply his
calculations.
> The fact is, that abiogenesis was proven false over 100
> years ago. It can't happen.
Not true, never happened.
> Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) - the now
> discredited idea that living organisms can arise
> spontaneously from inanimate matter. This theory was
> supported by such observations as maggots appearing on
> rotten meat left outdoors, which led to the mistaken
> conclusion that the meat itself, rather than adult
> flies laying eggs in the meat, created the maggots.
> - Dictionary of Theories
You are talking about the silly theory that maggots
spring magically from an under-treated wound. The
way you are using abiogensis is not about the formation
of filthy maggots; it is about the formation of a simple
living entity. Self-replicating, self-sustaining, and
subject to Darwinian evolution, if I remember your cite.
> Biogenesis - This refers to the production of living
> organisms from other living organisms. Biogenesis
> refers especially to the fundamental concept of modern
> biology, that life comes only from the reproduction of
> living things and that species can produce offspring
> only of the same species. - Dictionary of Theories
Biogenesis refers to how life has replicated itself ever
since.
How does your Dictionary of Theories define evolution and
creationism?
Joe
Joe Blow
> On 10 Jul 2003 10:51:41 -0700,
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote:
>
> >Pastor Dave <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dhvqgvk478vhk36f5...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:29 +0000 (UTC),
> >> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
> >> >> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
> >> >> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
> >> >> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
> >> >
> >> >This is not according to the theory of evolution. The theory of
> >> >evolution, as applied to biological evolution, can only apply if there
> >> >is biology.
> >>
> >> Bull. You know and I know, that without one, the other
> >> crumbles.
> >
> >No, that's not true, either, Dave.
> >
> >Life cannot evolve if life is not present. That much is true; but how
> >life arose from nonliving matter has been determined to be a separate
> >science.
>
> And since it was proven over 100 years ago that
> abiogenesis doesn't happen, now what?
You know that that is not true.
> >Both concepts work quite well independently.
>
> How so, considering abiogenesis cannot happen?
You still know that that is not true, as above.
> >Evolution does
> >not deal with the origin of life. It is certainly true that life must
> >exist in order to evolve. But whether life arose by natural
> >processes, was placed here by otherworldy beings (including gods) or
> >was here all along, living things HAVE evolved.
> >
> >That's a fact, Dave. You can't escape it.
>
> You CLAIM that they "have evolved". You can't prove
> it, however.
No, it is possible that God, every few years, intervenes and
creates a new species. How does that fit with your theory
of creation?
Joe
Dave
>
> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
> chemical and physical processes.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis necessarily preceeds all evolution. Abiogenesis does seem,
indeed by definition, to be much more likely than any supernatural
event. Certainly living organisms today operate by ordinary chemical
and physical processes.
> Creationists often attempt to calculate the probability of this
> occurring, which is difficult to do. However, it is possible to give
> an estimate based on reasonable assumptions.
No it isn't. We have no idea what the first self-replicating molecule
was and such a primitive molecule may very well be extinct or unable
to exist in modern earthly conditions.
> Amino acids and nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, and they
> come in two forms, which spiral left and right. All life consists of
> only one of these forms.
Modern cells are certain to be a far cry from the first primitive
self-replicating molecules and fairly irrelevant to the discussion. It
does seem interesting that amino acids have been detected in
interstellar space. It would seem that they form naturally.
David Sienkiewicz
Science DOESN'T deal with the question of God, Dave, but if
abiogenesis is the simple idea that life came from nonliving matter by
some mechanism, is it not possible that that mechanism can be God?
Science says that it's possible; but cannot address it if there is no
empirical evidence for God.
Frankly, I think such a simple concept is far too deep for you.
> According to evolutionists,
> the study of abiogenesis is studied as a naturalistic
> event. This is what the goal is. To find out how life
> could have arose out of non-living matter, all by
> itself,
Well, no, not "all by itself."
> which of course, doesn't make any sense,
Of course it doesn't, but that's not what science says anyway.
You've "fudged" yet another definition.
> because whatever created itself would have to have
> existed already, in order to create itself. That's
> illogical.
Of course it is. You've "fudged" yet another definition.
> >And no, accepting that evolution occurred does not mean that one MUST
> >accept that abiogenesis by your definition (life arose by entirely
> >naturalistic means) also occurred. God could very well have planted
> >the first living forms here. Or he might have put in motion the
> >mechanisms by which life arose and so he had a direct hand.
> >
> >Evolution occurred and does occur regardless.
>
> Prove it. Prove to me that all life evolved from a
> single celled organism.
More accurately, a population of such organisms.
But Dave, I have a question: Why should we prove it to YOU?
Who are YOU?
Dave, the simple fact is this: No amount of evidence or "proof" will
suffice for you. You do not understand the concepts and they frighten
you. It cannot be proven to YOU or anyone who "thinks" like you.
Secondly, science doesn't deal in "proof," anyway, as has been
explained. It can either support a concept with available evidence or
it can disprove that concept.
Now, basically, Dave, you KNOW that your last demand above is
unreasonable. You tossed it out rhetorically, knowing that no one is
going to give you a complete education in evolutionary biology in this
newsgroup.
You will, of course, rhetorically respond with something like "see,
folks, I ask for proof and they can't give it." That, of course, will
be a bit premature.
Two things have to happen, Dave. Three things, actually.
You have to show me that YOU are someone who is worthy of that sort of
effort.
Secondly, YOU have to show ME that you are amenable to "proof." That
means no more fudging of definitions, no more rhetoric, no more lying
about what others are saying, no more selective snippings of comments,
no more dodging of questions and no more evasion of evidence that IS
presented.
Third, I then must gather all of the available information and
condense it in a form acceptable for this forum that can then be
submitted in a series of posts that might be viewed as part of a
newsgroup debate.
Was that what you were doing, Dave - challenging me to debate? If so,
I accept.
If you expect me to teach you evolutionary biology in a single post, I
won't do that because I don't think it can be done.
YOU have to be "teachable." If *I* am going to go to all that effort,
YOU have to show me that you are worth it.
So far, I'm not impressed.
Are you?
< snip >
David Sienkiewicz
> On 10 Jul 2003 10:51:41 -0700,
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote:
>
> >Pastor Dave <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dhvqgvk478vhk36f5...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:29 +0000 (UTC),
> >> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
> >> >> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
> >> >> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
> >> >> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
> >> >
> >> >This is not according to the theory of evolution. The theory of
> >> >evolution, as applied to biological evolution, can only apply if there
> >> >is biology.
> >>
> >> Bull. You know and I know, that without one, the other
> >> crumbles.
> >
> >No, that's not true, either, Dave.
> >
> >Life cannot evolve if life is not present. That much is true; but how
> >life arose from nonliving matter has been determined to be a separate
> >science.
>
> And since it was proven over 100 years ago that
> abiogenesis doesn't happen, now what?
Who did that, Dave? Why can't you ever cite anything specific?
Well? Was it Pasteur? Pasteur disproved SPONTANEOUS GENERATION,
generally of metazoan life, from nonliving matter, Dave.
He did not disprove abiogenesis.
Now what?
> >Both concepts work quite well independently.
>
> How so, considering abiogenesis cannot happen?
Abiogenesis cannot happen?
That's news to me. What's your evidence?
> >Evolution does
> >not deal with the origin of life. It is certainly true that life must
> >exist in order to evolve. But whether life arose by natural
> >processes, was placed here by otherworldy beings (including gods) or
> >was here all along, living things HAVE evolved.
> >
> >That's a fact, Dave. You can't escape it.
>
> You CLAIM that they "have evolved".
No, Dave, I KNOW they have evolved.
> You can't prove it, however.
No one can "prove" it, Dave, because, as you have been repeatedly
told, science doesn't prove anything.
I can support it with evidence, however.
Care to debate it?
I don't mean with your selective snippages and dodgings - I mean a
REAL newsgroup debate.
< snip >
Mitch Alsup
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:10:16 +0000 (UTC),
>
> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
> >> According to the theory of evolution,
> >
> >with how life became out of non-life. One of these theories is abiogeniss.
> >
> >> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
> >> often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is
> >> difficult to do.
> >
> >a large planet roasting at nearly 100 degrees as mater acreate. Later,
> >almost at the very instant when water condensed and tempertures did not
> >outlaw the formation of living chemical loops, life sprang up. 1 planet,
> >1 observation. Therefore, the probability that life arose on earth is 1.00.
>
> Are you stoned, or stupid? Do you think this somehow
> proves what you believe?
It was not my point to show how abiogennisis ocurred, that is for those who
research the issue. However, it was my point to show that the propability
argument used by the creationists does not hold water. We have 1 event, a
planet on which we are living. Once the planet did not exist, and when
it came into being, it was too hot for what we know as life today to have
the property we now call life. Yet, now there is life. So, we have the
observation that the planet we exist upon has life upon it. 1 observaton
(earth); 1 observation (life exists). S0 the probability that life arose
on earth is 1.00m, or 1 observed ocurrance after 1 observation. These are
the facts.
> Please show us exactly how
> abiogenesis happened.
My bet is that the scientists will show how this happened a long time
before the creationists show how god created the universe. Well, I'm
waiting........But not holding my breath.
> You'd be doing us all a favor,
> since no one else has been able to. Please show us how
> 100 degree water brings forth life.
It does not, it supresses life as we understand it, however, it may
have been instrumental in creating some of the building blocks of life
such as amino acids.
> Please show us how
> condensing water brings forth life, especially when it
> doesn't do that today.
Condensing the water just removes the biggest impediment to life
(requirement for liquid water) as we understand it.
> If it did it then, then there's
> no reason why experiments can't bring forth life today,
> yet they don't.
Yet, but once again, science will reate new and novel life forms
a very long time before creationists do.........
>
>
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
> --
>
> In the beginning, Man created God in his own image........
Pastor Dave
That's a nice fairy tale you tell. Now prove it.
Pastor Dave Raymond
--
In the beginning, God created...
Rogue
<nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>DAVE
>That's a nice fairy tale you tell. Now prove it.
JERRY
Interesting that you want to demand proof of everyone else you try to
debate but you don't show a damned thing. You are a liar and a fraud.
I'm still waiting for you to show proof of your claims to me and quit
running away from the debate when I prove you wrong and kick your ass.
David Jensen
wrote in <4ssvgvorchq1kmmcs...@4ax.com>:
Why can't you accept the fact that the stories you tell have been
disproven?
>
>Pastor Dave Raymond
Joe Blow
Here is a nice web site that gives an intro to what we know about
primitive cells:
www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_bio_1.html
Organic molecules found in outer space are talked about here:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0004/29tarstardust/
http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0419021.htm
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/releases/2002/J02-122.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/amino_acids_020327.html
Joe
Jakub Gaudasinski
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:29:01 +0000 (UTC), "Lane Lewis"
> <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
> >news:NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net...
> >> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living
> >> matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by
ordinary
Creationists
> >> often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is
> >> difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an estimate based on
> >> blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which spiral left and
right.
> >All
generated
> >> equally by inorganic chemical processes, it seems hard to imagine that
> >life
> >> could have originated having only one of these forms. Recently it has
been
> >> claimed that meteorites have an excess of one form over another. But
due
> >to
> >> racemization, these forms tend to equalize over time, so we can expect
> >that
> >> in a primitive earth, there would have been essentially equal numbers
of
> >> both forms.
> >> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html
> >>
> >
> >And the fallacy of your argument is shown in the very next sentence.
> >
> >[qt]
> >Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it
> >would have needed about 256 genes
> >[fin]
> >
> >Life as we know it now has nothing to do with the way life started out.
This
> >is the big lie of all creationist in that they calculate the odds for
life
> >as it exist now, not the way it existed 3.5 billion years ago. Perhaps
when
> >they can tell us the correct process they could calculate the correct
odds
> >but until that time we will have to accept that they are being less then
> >honest in what they profess.
>
> That's not true at all. The calculations for life to
> come into being period, are well beyond the realm of
> possibility. There is no chance that it happened. And
> while you believe that life created itself, you show
> your foolishness in that for something to create
> itself, it would have to have existed prior to its
> creation, in order to create itself.
>
> The fact is, that there is NO WAY that non-living
> years ago and yet you cling to that idea, as if it had
> some merit. You evolutionists over simplify the
> problem by leaps and bounds. My guess is that you
> don't even have a clue what it would take, for life to
> form. You simply reject God and therefore, wave the
> flag of abiogenesis around, since that means that you
> can live any way you want and you think that allows you
> to avoid an objective, absolute morality.
>
[snip sig]
I think I have explained the heart of probability to all you funides and
religious fanatics out there once before. But maybe "pastor" missed it. The
probability of the 'correct' combination occuring is exactly the same as
with the odds of 1:2 at any time. What probability states is a quotient of
the "worst case scenario". A scenario which might manifest itself but does
not have to. Hence, given that life is present on this planet, the "correct"
primordial combination of molecules must have come into being, regardless of
the odds behind it. If you have 10^100 combinations each written on a piece
of paper [hypothetically], and you have all of these in a big potato sack,
you reach in and by chance select one, the "law" of probability does NOT say
that this will be the wrong combination. It says that it most likely is but
whether it is "right" or "wrong" always has a probability of 1:2. If you can
provide a more logical model, please do so, otherwise do yourself a favour
and read up what you have missed on high school math.
Jakub
Lane Lewis
Whoaa Pastor slow down, you just let it leak that god is impossible.
Personally I just love it when you stumble head first into the fallacy of
christian doctrain. You keep using logic like that and you'll be a regular
in alt.atheism. Note that we can work on the fallacy of Pascal's wager next
if you like.
Lane
snip
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
Martin Thomas
> The fact is, that there is NO WAY that non-living
> matter became life. That was proven wrong over 100
> years ago and yet you cling to that idea, as if it had
> some merit.
It was once widely believed that life could arise from non living
matter. In particular, a lot of experiments were carried out to
investigate the apparently spontaneous production of maggots in
rotting fruit. Today, of course, we know that those experiments
were flawed, since maggots hatch from eggs which were so small
that the medieval experimenters missed them. The Bible even
claims that is how God created life, Genesis 2: 'the LORD God
formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.'
So, I suggest that the dogmatic idea that life cannot possibly
arise from non life is a recent innovation, formed in reaction
to Darwin.
Can anyone cast any light on that?
-
Martin Thomas
mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
Martin Thomas
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:22:06 GMT, "Zachriel"
> <an...@zachriel.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:dhvqgvk478vhk36f5...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:59:29 +0000 (UTC),
> >> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
> news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
> >> >> According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense,
> >> >> living matter arose at some point in the past from non-living
> >> >> matter by ordinary
> >> >> chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
> >> >
> >> >This is not according to the theory of evolution. The theory of
> >> >evolution, as applied to biological evolution, can only apply if there
> >> >is biology.
> >>
> >> Bull. You know and I know, that without one, the other
> >> crumbles.
Many Christians believe that God created life directly and then
allowed or used evolution to create the vast range of species
we have today. Such Christians often believ that God then
intervened in some way to give early man a soul. (Most of them
believe that God gave woman a soul as well.)
> >No. If God (or aliens) planted the first life on earth, it would not change
> >the factual nature of evolution.
>
> There is no, "factual nature of evolution".
Of course there is.
Creationists believe that the factual nature of evolution is
that evolution did not happen - or only happened to a very
limited extent. And evolutionists believe that the factual
nature of evolution is that evolution did happen.
-
Martin Thomas
mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
Martin Thomas
> "Simply I" <I...@Here.com> wrote in message
> news:<NDMOa.133$wW.9...@news.uswest.net>...
> > According to the theory of evolution,
>
> with how life became out of non-life. One of these theories is abiogeniss.
>
> > matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary
> > often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is
> > difficult to do.
>
> a large planet roasting at nearly 100 degrees as mater acreate. Later,
> almost at the very instant when water condensed and tempertures did not
> outlaw the formation of living chemical loops, life sprang up. 1 planet,
> 1 observation. Therefore, the probability that life arose on earth is 1.00.
OK, if life arose on Earth, the probability that life arose on
Earth is 1.00, but there are at least 3 other possibilities:
that it arose elsewhere and drifted here, as Fred Hoyle
believed; that it arose elsewhere and was deliberately planted
here by intelligent aliens; that it was created by a god who
temporarily suspended the usual laws of physics. (I don't take
the last one very seriously, but mention it for completeness.)
In any case, the interesting probabilities to consider are
the probabilities that:
(1) life would arise on a planet like the Earth, as it
was a few billion years ago. This is evidently the probability
that David Plaistedan was interested in.
(2)life would arise on a some planet in the known universe,
given the state of the universe as it was at some specified
moment. (This may be extremely difficult to calculate until
we have explored beyond the solar system)
Many of us are hoping that a detailed theory of abiogenesis
will soon emerge for which probability (1) is close to 1.
If that happens, then that theory will probably get
a wide following.
If a theory emerges for which the probability of (1) is close
to zero, but that of (2) might be near to 1.00, it will get less
support, but this could happen if life of the kind we have on
Earth is just not very common in the universe.
This thread stated with David Plaistedan taking a particular
theory of how abiogenesis occurred and showing that (1) is
about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, which does, therefore,
cast considerable doubt on the theory.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html
Of course, the theory he discredits is a ridiculous strawman,
which no scientist is likely to take seriously, but I see
nothing wrong with his argument from probability.
-
Martin Thomas
mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
Dave Oldridge
news:a439e7a4.03071...@posting.google.com:
> Pastor Dave <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<d8vqgv8copms5ttnc...@4ax.com>...
> So, I suggest that the dogmatic idea that life cannot possibly
> arise from non life is a recent innovation, formed in reaction
> to Darwin.
> Can anyone cast any light on that?
It's a load of crap, basically. Sometimes they start with 100-year-old
experiments that prove that maggots come from eggs and sometimes they trot
out the voodoo statistics citing phony probabilities that neither they nor
anyone else knows or can verify.
The FACT is there is life on earth and there once was not. The FACT is
that the universe itself was once in a condition where life, as we know it,
would not have been possible. Thus it is self evident that life has a
beginning, whether in a special miracle or just plain chemistry.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Pastor Dave
You wish the odds were that small. In reality, all
you're saying is that because we're here and you
believe in abiogenesis, by blind chance, that proves
it. I'm sorry, you're going to have to do better than
that.
Pastor Dave
(Joe Blow) wrote:
Words, nothing more. The fact is, that a single living
cell is far more complex than any computer man has
created. There is no proof that they were ever as
simple as you claim and even then, you still cannot
show abiogenesis to have happened.
>Organic molecules found in outer space are talked about here:
>http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0004/29tarstardust/
>http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0419021.htm
>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/releases/2002/J02-122.html
>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/amino_acids_020327.html
I am not concerned with this. A molecule is a far cry
from what you believe.
elmer bataitis
Dave wrote:
> A molecule is a far cry
> from what you believe.
Dave, care to explain what DNA is? ;-)
Raymond E. Griffith
mart...@netscape.net wrote on 7/13/03 11:51 PM:
There is a severe problem with the following statement from that URL:
"The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which
it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the
chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two
to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power."
The problem is in forgetting that while both kinds can be generated, right
handed propellers tend to combine exclusively with right handed propellers.
Biochemically, the right hand is preferred. Therefore, there is no need to
have exclusively one form in a mixture.
http://rsc.anu.edu.au/rscnews/jun01/Speakezy3.htm
You should beware of Creationist probability statements. They are nearly
always wrong.
Raymond E. Griffith
Jakub Gaudasinski
The odds arent that small you idiot! Im not arguing the odds at all. They
are just as big as what they were calculated, but what you are missing is
the fact that huge odds agains something do not mean that its impossible.
You give a whole new meaning to reading between the lines. What I have
illustrated to you is the way probability works no matter what the odds are.
In reality all that im saying is that you dont have the slightest clue as to
how nonlinear systems work. Probability is merely the first step and if you
cant get your thick fundie head around it then I cant help that. I assume
that you know well that denying and dodging does not really make you right.
So again...
If you have 10^100 combinations each written on a piece of paper
[hypothetically], and you have all of these in a big potato sack, you reach
in and by chance select one, the "law" of probability does NOT say that this
will be the wrong combination. It says that it MOST LIKELY IS WRONG but
whether it is "right" or "wrong" always has a probability of 1:2. With every
'wrong' the probability of 'right' increases. Henceforth it is possible to
get it right the first time... and although Im not saying that it happened
the first time around, probability as such does NOT prohibit it.
Got it now, "pastor"? If you want email me and i'll repeat it for you again
and spare these people here from reading the same posts over and over.
Pastor Dave
You can try to reduce the odds all you want, but we're
not picking pieces of paper out of a big potato sack
and the reality is, that it is not a single event
that's under discussion. The odds would have to have
been overcome time and time again, each step of the way
and this increases the problem for the believer in
abiogenesis by chance. The chances of winning the
lottery every day for your entire life are better.
David Jensen
wrote in <qfk5hvc1hjlfek0i2...@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:54:59 +0930, "Jakub Gaudasinski"
><ae_q at internode dot deleteme dot on dot net> wrote:
....
>>Got it now, "pastor"? If you want email me and i'll repeat it for you again
>>and spare these people here from reading the same posts over and over.
>
>You can try to reduce the odds all you want, but we're
>not picking pieces of paper out of a big potato sack
>and the reality is, that it is not a single event
>that's under discussion. The odds would have to have
>been overcome time and time again, each step of the way
>and this increases the problem for the believer in
>abiogenesis by chance. The chances of winning the
>lottery every day for your entire life are better.
There are no odds in the problem. There once was a time when earth had
no life on it. Now earth has life on it. Something happened to allow
life to occur. As far as I am aware, there is no generally accepted
model of abiogenesis, but since you are assigning odds, could you tell
us what exactly happened.
Tell us each step in the process and why you have assigned the odds to
them that you have.
Elmer Bataitis
> You can try to reduce the odds all you want, but we're
> not picking pieces of paper out of a big potato sack
> and the reality is, that it is not a single event
> that's under discussion.
It isn't? I thought you were arguing the improbability of abiogenesis?
> The odds would have to have
> been overcome time and time again, each step of the way.....
Why?? What steps are there Dave. How many of them, *exactly*?
> and this increases the problem for the believer in
> abiogenesis by chance. The chances of winning the
> lottery every day for your entire life are better.
Dave, 1/10^10000 does not now, and will never, equal zero.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************
Pastor Dave
Once again, the evolutionist is guilty of
oversimplification and tries to lay the burden of proof
on someone else. The fact is, that while the
evolutionist accuses the Creationist of believing in
magic, in reality, not only does the evolutionist
believe in magic, they also take the magician out of
the equation and then claim it to be a rational
approach.
David Jensen
I didn't assign probabilities, you did. Is your failure to answer the
question a final admission that your so-called probabilities are
completely and dishonestly made up?
>Pastor Dave Raymond
Tom
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6dp5hvgas6bq1efa7...@4ax.com...
> oversimplification and tries to lay the burden of proof
> on someone else. The fact is, that while the
> evolutionist accuses the Creationist of believing in
> magic, in reality, not only does the evolutionist
> believe in magic, they also take the magician out of
> the equation and then claim it to be a rational
> approach.
Tom: The fact is, you can't answer the question. Abiogenesis occurred on
this planet. Only the truly ignorant deny this.
Joe Blow
Of course it has words; that is how we communicate. Don't you think
it gives a description of the kinds of things we were talking about?
Here we talk about the various cell types that are still available to
observe. Some are more primitive than others. Some cannot handle
oxygenated environments, some don't have a nucleus, and so on. At least
by starting with something like this we can us topics and language
consistently in our explorations.
Granted, by most measures, a simple living cell is not approximated by
any computer. But the converse also applies. Take speed of input to
output. A computer is much faster. Take autonomy. A living cell can
pretty be left alone to fend for itself, unlike computers.
If you want to use complexity as a standard, we will have to agree as
to what that means.
And the bottom line is that if we look at living cells today, some are
much simpler than you might expect. That is the kind of point I was
aiming at.
> >Organic molecules found in outer space are talked about here:
> >http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0004/29tarstardust/
> >http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0419021.htm
> >http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/releases/2002/J02-122.html
> >http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/amino_acids_020327.html
>
> I am not concerned with this. A molecule is a far cry
> from what you believe.
You should look at these. They are not talking about your typical amino
acid. They are talking about large bio-molecules.
Joe
Jakub Gaudasinski
HAHAHAHA... yep. Keep on dodging, "pastor". Thats what you do best. May I
suggest once again learning something about chemistry before you make bold
statements like that. All Im arguing with you here is probability, it really
makes no difference to me if its abiogenesis or not. You seem to think that
"odds" are some sort of thinking mechanism.
Jakub
Jakub Gaudasinski
"Rogue" <rogu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f100fb2.125301890@nntp...
Hey, thats the only thing "pastor" can actually do... dodge and run away
when his ignorance is exposed time and time again. Its strange to notice
that he doesnt actually get tired of it.
Jakub
Jakub Gaudasinski
If you arent concerned with evidence, "pastor", then what ARE you concerned
with? I'd imagine you dont even know what the hell a molecule is... and if
you do then do explain, please. If you dont then thats just another dodge,
Pastor Dave. So keep on dodging.
Jakub
Wayne Bagguley
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4ssvgvorchq1kmmcs...@4ax.com...
I've got a photo, that should be good enough for you.
-
Wayne
Wayne Bagguley
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:qfk5hvc1hjlfek0i2...@4ax.com...
Which laws of physics promote lottery wins for certain individuals?
Tell me, Dave, if I chop the DNA of a t-macrophague virus up
randomly, and mix it about, randomly, what are the chances of it
fitting together exaclty just through this random mixing?
-
Wayne
Wayne Bagguley
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:oeb5hvsrn660311ag...@4ax.com...
So you must reject the Bible then because that is just words, nothing more.
> The fact is, that a single living
> cell is far more complex than any computer man has
> created.
What units are you measuring complexity with?
What method are you using?
> There is no proof that they were ever as
> simple as you claim and even then, you still cannot
> show abiogenesis to have happened.
And you have yet to show that it didn't or can't happen.
> >Organic molecules found in outer space are talked about here:
> >http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0004/29tarstardust/
> >http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0419021.htm
> >http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/releases/2002/J02-122.html
> >http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/amino_acids_020327.html
>
> I am not concerned with this. A molecule is a far cry
> from what you believe.
Organic molecules are not, however. Also, would you like to name a
component of the human body which is not a molecule or a collection
of molecules?
-
Wayne