Abiogenesis: evidence hoped for and evidence unseen

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:52:06 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.

And what is your explanation for first life?

[SkyEyes]

On Sep 25, 11:55 pm, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:

> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.

(1) We don't know if the first life occurred in mud; (2) The first
"life" was not a cell. Those came later; (3) We *know* abiogenesis
happened, because there's life on Earth, including us. What is in
question is whether it came about by natural means, or by the agency
of a Magic Being. Occam's Razor makes me lean toward the "natural
means" explanation. Well, that and that fact that there's not a shred
of evidence that any Magic Being exists.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

Certainly not magic doo dab cells come together.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

How do you know the first wasn't a cell? Are you making it up? I've read plenty of science publications that call it a protocell - so y.ou know one better? Mud, water, amino juice, teriyaki sauce, whatever you want to call it. del Monte.

[J. J. Lodder]

<Astero...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic mud
>produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.

No faith, no belief, merely the null-hypothesis.
You see a -scientific- reason to reject it?

Jan

[Nick Keighley]

On Sep 26, 7:55 am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:

> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.

everyone believes in abiogenesis it's just some people think it's a
natural process and other people think it's done by magic spirits.

do you think the planets are pushed around by angels?

[Ernest Major]

In message
<14cde599-3fb4-45c7...@r14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> writes

>On Sep 26, 7:55 am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic
>>mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.
>
>everyone believes in abiogenesis it's just some people think it's a
>natural process and other people think it's done by magic spirits.

Steady-state panspermists are rare (as geocentrists?), but there might
be some left.

>
>do you think the planets are pushed around by angels?
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Karel]

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific about which aspects
of abiogenesis you object to as unscientific, see for instance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

or any of the more specialized articles that are referred to there.

If I read that page and translate your "magic mud to protocell" to
the clay hypothesis of the first formation of complex organic
molecules (see my link, or directly:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Clay_hypothesis

it is clear that the clay hypothesis has not been developed to
explain protocells, so your mud to protocell representation is
incorrect, and it is considered to have serious problems, so
where is the faith?

But this is Wikipedia, better references are welcome.

Regards,

Karel

[eridanus]

El miércoles, 26 de septiembre de 2012 07:55:05 UTC+1, (desconocido) escribió:
> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.

I do not see what is the problem with religious freakish and faith.

They all have faith in fake gods.
What is the problem of changing their faith from their fake god and put
it in science? They do not even are obliged to study maths, genetics
or theoretical physics; not they even need to memorize the periodic table
of elements and all their numbers. It is a boring thing to learn this by
rote, unless one is going to compete in an International Memory Context.

Then, if one believes in the bible, what is the problem to forget the
bible and start to believe in science?
At least, science have given us a lot more of goods and promises than
any fake gods and their priests that are always asking us more money.

Eridanus

[Ron O]

On Sep 26, 1:55 am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.

So true in Asteroidse case that you wonder if it is just projection or
stupidity. You can't find very many people that would claim that
abiogenesis did not happen. It is pretty much a no brainer. Life
exists and it likely didn't always exist. Clowns like AsteroidSe even
have their own version of abiogenesis, but they are usually too
embarassed to put it forward. Anyone can just ask him where his
creator came from or how does he know that his creator even exists to
observe "evidence hoped for and evidence unseen." Basket case
argumentation.

Ron Okimoto

[Slow Vehicle]

On Sep 26, 2:25 am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> How do you know the first wasn't a cell? Are you making it up? I've read plenty of science publications that call it a protocell - so y.ou know one better?

Citation?
For that matter, indication that you understand what "protocell"
means?

>Mud, water, amino juice, teriyaki sauce, whatever you want to call it. del Monte.

...or an indication that you could detect the differences among these
substances?


...

[Robert Camp]

On Sep 26, 1:20�am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Certainly not magic doo dab cells come together.

Finally, a creationist who knows what he's talking about.

None that I've asked previously can explain to me how I can
empirically distinguish between "magic" and "miracle." Would you mind
doing so for me?

RLC

[R.Dean]

One can certainly be critical without advancing an alternative
explanation. You know this Jill.

[R.Dean]

On 9/26/2012 3:50 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
> On Sep 25, 11:55 pm, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.
>
> (1) We don't know if the first life occurred in mud; (2) The first
> "life" was not a cell. Those came later; (3) We *know* abiogenesis
> happened, because there's life on Earth, including us.
>

This is not evidence. Life comes only from pre-existing life. - Pasteur
(biogenesis)

What is in
> question is whether it came about by natural means, or by the agency
> of a Magic Being. Occam's Razor makes me lean toward the "natural
> means" explanation. Well, that and that fact that there's not a shred
> of evidence that any Magic Being exists.
>

Since life comes only from life, this is empirical evidence of a
pre-existing living being who "breathed life into dead matter". IE life
from pre-existing life. The burden of proof thus is yours to
offer empirical evidence that life actually arose independent of
life.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

Yes, you cannot apply the scientific method to a singular event of the past. Plus science notes that scientists trying to create life in the labs have failed.

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:31:23 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

I may be wrong about this but my impression is that biology has
learned one or two things since 1864.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

A - no
Bio -life
Genesis - creations

a living being creating life from matter is not abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis was invented as a word that defines the spontaneous origin of life devoid of any living being involvement.

In other words a means no, bio means life and since God is living any belief that includes God creating is not abiogenesis.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Claiming evolutionary science assumes magic is not being critical.

Mitchell Coffey

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

It,s just that there is no scientific confirmation of abiogenesis and evolution.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

Citation?

It's commonly believed that there was a first cell. For instance:

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html

[Ernest Major]

In message <94c2d6a1-8aff-41d0...@googlegroups.com>,
Astero...@yahoo.com writes

>It,s just that there is no scientific confirmation of abiogenesis and
>evolution.
>

Unless you wish to seriously consider the alternative that life has
existed from the very beginning of the universe (and, for consensus
cosmology, that somehow continuity has been maintained from life capable
of living in a quark-gluon plasma to the current terrestrial biosphere)
- or that life and the universe have no beginning (are you a Hoylean)
the existence of contemporary life is scientific confirmation of
abiogenesis.

Scientific confirmation of both evolution and common descent is
voluminuous.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message <fdF8s.377919$Sz6....@fx27.am4>, R.Dean <"R.
Dean"@gmail.com> writes

>On 9/26/2012 3:50 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 11:55 pm, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic
>>>mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.
>>
>> (1) We don't know if the first life occurred in mud; (2) The first
>> "life" was not a cell. Those came later; (3) We *know* abiogenesis
>> happened, because there's life on Earth, including us.
>>
>This is not evidence. Life comes only from pre-existing life. - Pasteur
>(biogenesis)

Denying evidence doesn't make it go away. Nor is overplaying Pasteur's
observations a valid argument.

>
>
> What is in
>> question is whether it came about by natural means, or by the agency
>> of a Magic Being. Occam's Razor makes me lean toward the "natural
>> means" explanation. Well, that and that fact that there's not a shred
>> of evidence that any Magic Being exists.
>>
>Since life comes only from life, this is empirical evidence of a
>pre-existing living being who "breathed life into dead matter". IE
>life from pre-existing life. The burden of proof thus is yours to
>offer empirical evidence that life actually arose independent of
>life.

The implications of your claims here are that God did not create life (I
would agree with you there) and that either the universe is infinitely
old (I am agnostic on that point) or that the origin of life is
synchronous with the origin of the universe and continuity has been
maintained from the hypothetical earliest life living in very different
conditions to the current terrestrial biosphere (I am severely skeptical
of this possibility).
--
alias Ernest Major

[Slow Vehicle]

On Sep 26, 9:40�am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yes, you cannot apply the scientific method to a singular event of the past. Plus science notes that scientists trying to create life in the labs have failed.

...and there you have it, folks!
"godditit"!
(and it's not fair to ask questions about it, because, well, because,
um..."godditit"!)

...and that's how we know that "godditit"...

[Slow Vehicle]

On Sep 26, 9:50�am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

>...since God is living...

<snip>

?

[Slow Vehicle]

On Sep 26, 10:10�am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It,s just that there is no scientific confirmation of abiogenesis and evolution.

...whereas there's all SORTS of "scientific confirmation" that "god"
is "alive"...

...care to share any?

[Kalkidas]

Magic is existing technology which is known to the operator but unknown
to the one who considers it "magic".

Miracles are wish-fulfillment by sheer will, without any intervening
technology.

By those definitions magic is real but miracles are not.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

It's not as you say. You're claim is blindnaturedunnit.

[R.Dean]

One doesn't have to offer magic, deity, or any alternative explanation.
One can be completely negative without any positive answers.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
>

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:52:06 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:

> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis.
> Magic mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.

Are you claiming life does not exist?


--
"I think he believes error bars are where people like him who
are consistently wrong go to drink."

[R.Dean]

This is a catch 22 situation: the genetic code is without any biological
function unless it is translated. But the machinery
by which the code is translated is contained within the code
itself. IOW the code cannot be translated without the products
of own translation.
This constitutes a really baffling circle: it seems for any
attempt to form a model or theory of the origin of the genetic
code is confounded by a vicious circle. - Karl Popper

(not an exact quote, but the meaning is present)

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

Abiogenesis doesn't take place for obvious reasons. It's incredible and doesn't fit in with everyday scientific observations. We observe biogenesis everyday - that is life giving birth to life. We see genetic information being transferred. We do not see RNA being created from non-living matter.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

[Paul J Gans]

Nitpick: 1828. Wohler's synthesis of urea. Of course there are
always those who are slow to give up favorite ideas such as
"vitalism".

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[R.Dean]

On 9/26/2012 12:33 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <fdF8s.377919$Sz6....@fx27.am4>, R.Dean <"R.
> Dean"@gmail.com> writes
>> On 9/26/2012 3:50 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
>>> On Sep 25, 11:55 pm, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic
>>>> mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.
>>>
>>> (1) We don't know if the first life occurred in mud; (2) The first
>>> "life" was not a cell. Those came later; (3) We *know* abiogenesis
>>> happened, because there's life on Earth, including us.
>>>
>> This is not evidence. Life comes only from pre-existing life. -
>> Pasteur (biogenesis)
>
> Denying evidence doesn't make it go away. Nor is overplaying Pasteur's
> observations a valid argument.
>

Overplaying? According to who opinion?

>>
>>
>> What is in
>>> question is whether it came about by natural means, or by the agency
>>> of a Magic Being. Occam's Razor makes me lean toward the "natural
>>> means" explanation. Well, that and that fact that there's not a shred
>>> of evidence that any Magic Being exists.
>>>
>> Since life comes only from life, this is empirical evidence of a
>> pre-existing living being who "breathed life into dead matter". IE
>> life from pre-existing life. The burden of proof thus is yours to
>> offer empirical evidence that life actually arose independent of
>> life.
>
> The implications of your claims here are that God did not create life (I
> would agree with you there) and that either the universe is infinitely
> old
>

The Big Bang strongly implies the universe had a beginning, thus, cannot
be infinitely old. (I am agnostic on that point) Ok.

or that the origin of life is
> synchronous with the origin of the universe and continuity has been
> maintained from the hypothetical earliest life living in very different
> conditions to the current terrestrial biosphere (I am severely skeptical
> of this possibility).
>

This resolves nothing in your favor, It only pushes the origin of life
further back in time and beyond the reaches of scientific endeavor.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:52:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Astero...@yahoo.com:

>No wonder

That goes with "no intelligence" and "no knowledge". Enjoy
it.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[R.Dean]

There is an axium: "proof is in the pudding".
Fact # 1) there is extant life on planet earth;
fact-2) in the 4.5 billion year history of the
earth, there is not a single case of life from
non-life that can be verified by empirical
evidence.
The conclusion: A living being that breathed the
breath of life is a distinct possibility. The
very existence of life is proof in the pudding.

[Ernest Major]

In message <mBH8s.441068$qc4.1...@fx18.am4>, R.Dean <"R.

Dean"@gmail.com> writes
>On 9/26/2012 12:33 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <fdF8s.377919$Sz6....@fx27.am4>, R.Dean <"R.
>> Dean"@gmail.com> writes
>>> On 9/26/2012 3:50 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
>>>> On Sep 25, 11:55 pm, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic
>>>>> mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.
>>>>
>>>> (1) We don't know if the first life occurred in mud; (2) The first
>>>> "life" was not a cell. Those came later; (3) We *know* abiogenesis
>>>> happened, because there's life on Earth, including us.
>>>>
>>> This is not evidence. Life comes only from pre-existing life. -
>>> Pasteur (biogenesis)
>>
>> Denying evidence doesn't make it go away. Nor is overplaying Pasteur's
>> observations a valid argument.
>>
>Overplaying? According to who opinion?

The great majority of biologists for a start.

>>>
>>>
>>> What is in
>>>> question is whether it came about by natural means, or by the agency
>>>> of a Magic Being. Occam's Razor makes me lean toward the "natural
>>>> means" explanation. Well, that and that fact that there's not a shred
>>>> of evidence that any Magic Being exists.
>>>>
>>> Since life comes only from life, this is empirical evidence of a
>>> pre-existing living being who "breathed life into dead matter". IE
>>> life from pre-existing life. The burden of proof thus is yours to
>>> offer empirical evidence that life actually arose independent of
>>> life.
>>
>> The implications of your claims here are that God did not create life (I
>> would agree with you there) and that either the universe is infinitely
>> old
>>
>The Big Bang strongly implies the universe had a beginning, thus,
>cannot be infinitely old. (I am agnostic on that point) Ok.

The evidence of the Big Bang implies that those parts of the universe
causally connected to the contemporary earth were once very much hotter,
very small denser, and very much smaller. To convert that to a strong
implication that the universe has a beginning requires ignoring quantum
mechanics.

>
> or that the origin of life is
>> synchronous with the origin of the universe and continuity has been
>> maintained from the hypothetical earliest life living in very different
>> conditions to the current terrestrial biosphere (I am severely skeptical
>> of this possibility).
>>
>This resolves nothing in your favor, It only pushes the origin of life
>further back in time and beyond the reaches of scientific endeavor.
>

My favour? That was the implication of your position, not mine.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Richard Norman]

I was reacting to the Pasteur reference. But we may both be wrong
about what has been learned in the past 180 or so years. The truth
was revealed first to Moses and then to a succession of followers some
4000 to 2000 years ago. If you beleive Romney, there were more recent
revelations of truth on the golden plates in 1823.

[R.Dean]

On 9/26/2012 2:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <mBH8s.441068$qc4.1...@fx18.am4>, R.Dean <"R.
> Dean"@gmail.com> writes
>> On 9/26/2012 12:33 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>> In message <fdF8s.377919$Sz6....@fx27.am4>, R.Dean <"R.
>>> Dean"@gmail.com> writes
>>>> On 9/26/2012 3:50 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 25, 11:55 pm, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic
>>>>>> mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) We don't know if the first life occurred in mud; (2) The first
>>>>> "life" was not a cell. Those came later; (3) We *know* abiogenesis
>>>>> happened, because there's life on Earth, including us.
>>>>>
>>>> This is not evidence. Life comes only from pre-existing life. -
>>>> Pasteur (biogenesis)
>>>
>>> Denying evidence doesn't make it go away. Nor is overplaying Pasteur's
>>> observations a valid argument.
>>>
>> Overplaying? According to who opinion?
>
> The great majority of biologists for a start.
>

Of course, are they not taught this at the universities?

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is in
>>>>> question is whether it came about by natural means, or by the agency
>>>>> of a Magic Being. Occam's Razor makes me lean toward the "natural
>>>>> means" explanation. Well, that and that fact that there's not a shred
>>>>> of evidence that any Magic Being exists.
>>>>>
>>>> Since life comes only from life, this is empirical evidence of a
>>>> pre-existing living being who "breathed life into dead matter". IE
>>>> life from pre-existing life. The burden of proof thus is yours to
>>>> offer empirical evidence that life actually arose independent of
>>>> life.
>>>
>>> The implications of your claims here are that God did not create life (I
>>> would agree with you there) and that either the universe is infinitely
>>> old
>>>
>> The Big Bang strongly implies the universe had a beginning, thus,
>> cannot be infinitely old. (I am agnostic on that point) Ok.
>
> The evidence of the Big Bang implies that those parts of the universe
> causally connected to the contemporary earth were once very much hotter,
> very small denser, and very much smaller. To convert that to a strong
> implication that the universe has a beginning requires ignoring quantum
> mechanics.
>

So, the universe did not begin with the B.B? Was Einstein wrong?

>>
>> or that the origin of life is
>>> synchronous with the origin of the universe and continuity has been
>>> maintained from the hypothetical earliest life living in very different
>>> conditions to the current terrestrial biosphere (I am severely skeptical
>>> of this possibility).
>>>
>> This resolves nothing in your favor, It only pushes the origin of
>> life further back in time and beyond the reaches of scientific endeavor.
>>
> My favour? That was the implication of your position, not mine.
>

No, you spoke of hypothetical life in the current terrestrial biosphere.
Sorry, I did not suggest anything of the sort.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Sep 26, 12:35 pm, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/26/2012 12:48 PM, Slow Vehicle wrote:> On Sep 26, 10:10 am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> It,s just that there is no scientific confirmation of abiogenesis and evolution.
>
> > ...whereas there's all SORTS of "scientific confirmation" that "god"
> > is "alive"...
>
> > ...care to share any?
>
> There is an axium: "proof is in the pudding".
> Fact # 1) there is extant life on planet earth;
> fact-2) in the 4.5 billion year history of the
> earth, there is not a single case of life from
> non-life that can be verified by empirical
> evidence.

...you are right--not a single case of a human person being made from
non-living dirt...

> The conclusion: A living being that breathed the
> breath of life is a distinct possibility. The
> very existence of life is proof in the pudding.

Do you understand the fallacy or circular reasoning?
I appreciate your opinion...now present evidence, please.

[R.Dean]

What golden plates? I haven't heard Romney say anything about gold
plates. What is this about?

[R.Dean]

On 9/26/2012 3:23 PM, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> On Sep 26, 12:35 pm, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/26/2012 12:48 PM, Slow Vehicle wrote:> On Sep 26, 10:10 am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> It,s just that there is no scientific confirmation of abiogenesis and evolution.
>>
>>> ...whereas there's all SORTS of "scientific confirmation" that "god"
>>> is "alive"...
>>
>>> ...care to share any?
>>
>> There is an axium: "proof is in the pudding".
>> Fact # 1) there is extant life on planet earth;
>> fact-2) in the 4.5 billion year history of the
>> earth, there is not a single case of life from
>> non-life that can be verified by empirical
>> evidence.
>
> ...you are right--not a single case of a human person being made from
> non-living dirt...
>

This is in regards to any reproducing life form, including the first
reproducing cell or protocell.

>
>> The conclusion: A living being that breathed the
>> breath of life is a distinct possibility. The
>> very existence of life is proof in the pudding.
>
> Do you understand the fallacy or circular reasoning?
> I appreciate your opinion...now present evidence, please.
>

This is straight forward logic. The existence of life where only
pre-existing can account for life is evidence.

Please re-read what I wrote.

[eridanus]

El miércoles, 26 de septiembre de 2012 10:10:05 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder escribió:

> <Astero...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic mud
>
> >produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.
>
>
>

> No faith, no belief, merely the null-hypothesis.
>
> You see a -scientific- reason to reject it?
>
>
>
> Jan

there is not any shame in accept we ignore something. If we are
not yet able to explain abiogenesis it is not any problem. It is
most what we ignore than what we really know in science.

Nevertheless, in objective terms science had taught us a lot more
than the Koran, the Vedas or the Bible, put together.

It is thanks to science that humans had achieved the amazing
technological development. If we were following the "wisdom"
of any the existing holy books, we would be a lot more in retard
than the Middle Ages. For even during the middle ages, humans had
been developing technology thanks to our independent thinking,
not by reading holy books.

Eridanus

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:26:14 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates

[Ernest Major]

In message <NCI8s.170228$356....@fx07.am4>, R.Dean <"R.

We don't know whether the universe began with the B.B.

Have your a citation that Einstein held that position. (Note that the
Big Bang was proposed not by Einstein, but by a Catholic priest. That
General Relativity is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, and hence
extrapolation of Lemaītre's model back to a singularity is unsafe has
long been known; Einstein would have been aware of this, and hence I
have no reason to conclude either way on the question as to whether
Einstein held a position that the universe begin with the Big Bang.)

Even if Einstein did hold such as position, as we don't know whether the
universe began with the B.B. we wouldn't be able to say whether he was
wrong or not.

>>>
>>> or that the origin of life is
>>>> synchronous with the origin of the universe and continuity has been
>>>> maintained from the hypothetical earliest life living in very different
>>>> conditions to the current terrestrial biosphere (I am severely skeptical
>>>> of this possibility).
>>>>
>>> This resolves nothing in your favor, It only pushes the origin of
>>> life further back in time and beyond the reaches of scientific endeavor.
>>>
>> My favour? That was the implication of your position, not mine.
>>
>No, you spoke of hypothetical life in the current terrestrial
>biosphere.

No. I did not speak of hypothetical life in the current terrestrial
biosphere. It is your hypothesis that life only comes from life that
leads to the conclusion that quark-gluon plasma life existed, and that
there is continuity from that to us. As I said before I am severely
skeptical of this possibility.

>Sorry, I did not suggest anything of the sort.
>

You asserted that life only comes from life.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Robert Camp]

It's not logic. But it does have some minimal coherence as an argument
- assuming that the nature of your "living being" which "breathed the
breath of life" is a metaphor for panspermia or some other
naturalistic causal agency (e.g., aliens).

In other words, your "logic" only follows if you're comfortable
rejecting any inference to supernatural/transcendental/divine agency.

RLC

[Robert Camp]

On Sep 26, 10:15�am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 07:30:46 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
>

> <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 26, 1:20�am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Certainly not magic doo dab cells come together.
>
> >Finally, a creationist who knows what he's talking about.
>
> >None that I've asked previously can explain to me how I can
> >empirically distinguish between "magic" and "miracle." Would you mind
> >doing so for me?
>
> >RLC
>
> Magic is existing technology which is known to the operator but unknown
> to the one who considers it "magic".

This is an acceptable definition of stage magic. It is not the
colloquial "magic" referred to, for example, by the OP; a phenomenon
often spoken of derisively and considered an offensive comparison (to
their own beliefs), by most creationists.

> Miracles are wish-fulfillment by sheer will, without any intervening
> technology.

This is also an acceptable (to me, at least) definition, but as with
magic, it bears no relation to common usage by believers.

> By those definitions magic is real but miracles are not.

Sentiments with which I can agree, except as they relate to my
previous question.

RLC

[Robert Camp]

On Sep 26, 11:05 am, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Abiogenesis doesn't take place for obvious reasons. It's incredible

It may well be incredible to you (consider looking up the logical
fallacy - "argument from incredulity"), but that condition can be
remedied by education.

> and doesn't fit in with everyday scientific observations.

Not only does it fit with everyday scientific observations, it makes
little sense without them.

> We observe biogenesis everyday - that is life giving birth to life. We see genetic information being transferred. We do not see RNA being created from non-living matter.

Neither do we see continents slamming together to create the
Himalayas, the Andes or the Sierra. Do you also doubt the provenance
of mountain ranges? (Consider not using dusty old canards like "Were
you there?")

RLC

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:06:42 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 9/26/2012 3:14 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:52:06 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com

>> wrote:
>>
>>> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.
>>
>>

>> And what is your explanation for first life?
>>
>One can certainly be critical without advancing an alternative
>explanation. You know this Jill.

I asked in an effort to encourage dialog. Do you think my question
unreasonable?

IMO the OP's comments don't rise to the level of criticism. They are
merely unsupported assertion.

[Robert Camp]

On Sep 26, 12:25�pm, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/26/2012 2:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>

> > In message <mBH8s.441068$qc4.159...@fx18.am4>, R.Dean <"R.

> > Dean"@gmail.com> writes
> >> On 9/26/2012 12:33 PM, Ernest Major wrote:

> >>> In message <fdF8s.377919$Sz6.13...@fx27.am4>, R.Dean <"R.

> >>> Dean"@gmail.com> writes
> >>>> On 9/26/2012 3:50 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 25, 11:55 pm, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic
> >>>>>> mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.
>
> >>>>> (1) We don't know if the first life occurred in mud; (2) The first
> >>>>> "life" was not a cell. �Those came later; (3) We *know* abiogenesis
> >>>>> happened, because there's life on Earth, including us.
>
> >>>> This is not evidence. Life comes only from pre-existing life. -
> >>>> Pasteur (biogenesis)
>
> >>> Denying evidence doesn't make it go away. Nor is overplaying Pasteur's
> >>> observations a valid argument.
>
> >> Overplaying? According to who opinion?
>
> > The great majority of biologists for a start.
>
> �>
> Of course, are they not taught this at the universities?

Interesting. Should we assume then that you do not seek out biologists
when you wish to know something about biology? If so do you also
follow this policy when seeking out knowledge about physics, or
chemistry, or anything for that matter...or do you only apply the
standard when it conflicts with personal philosophy?

RLC

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:26:14 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates

[Paul J Gans]

R.Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:

Too bad that the origin of life was not circular. Incorrect
ideas lead to wrong conclusions.

[Paul J Gans]

There are times when the surge of illogic and fantasy from some posting
here just sweeps over me like a flood. Does nobody on that side
understand evidence? Reason? Logic?

I think we are dying of a surfeit of loons.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:10:04 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> It,s just that there is no scientific confirmation of abiogenesis and evolution.

OK: are these just expressions of faith, or do you have reasons for these assertions?

Mitchell Coffey

[Kalkidas]

The crucial issue is whether anything can come into being by just
wishing for it. Judeo-Christian-Islamic Fundamentalists tend to believe
in creation ex nihilo, and have a fuzzy notion that God somehow just
wills things into existence without personally having to get down to the
details of how they work, i.e. without actually having to make them
step-by-step and piece-by-piece.

Obviously, such acts are impossible since they exclude instrumental,
formal, and material causality.

[Paul J Gans]

Oh my. They are the plates that contained, in "reformed Egyptian",
the text of the Book of Mormon. These were translated into English
by Joseph Smith who found them as directed by an angel. The plates
were later returned to a crypt where they remain, hidden from us.

[Slow Vehicle]

Certainly:

<quote>

>There is an axium: "proof is in the pudding".

...the "axium", "proof is in the pudding" is a phrase that, according
to the Urban Dictionary, "when uttered, instantly identifies the
speaker as being incredibly stupid and illiterate."
While I find that a bit harsh, it is demonstrably true that the
original phrase was, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating",
which means, "the quality of something cannot be judged without
experiencing it."

So, let us experience your argument:

>Fact # 1) there is extant life on planet earth;

Not bad so far. It is demonstrable that there is, currently, on
planet earth, that which we define as "life".

>fact-2) in the 4.5 billion year history of the
>earth, there is not a single case of life from
>non-life that can be verified by empirical
>evidence.

...and now we do begin to stray. At most, you can support the claim
that you are not aware of a single case of "life" from "non-life".
This does, in fact, mean that biopoesis has not been observed and that
information widely disseminated; but that may just be a quibble.

More important, your statement, intended to eliminate biopoesis from
gradually organizing self-replicating molecules; also eliminates
biopoesis from the hand of a supernatural creator-being.
Further, if, to rescue the infirmity of your syllogism, you hope to
sneak in horny aliens (who are already alive, ha ha!) jizzbombing the
planet to produce life as we know it, all you have done is push back
the occasion of biopoesis from non-living substances to one remove.
Substituting an infinite regression of irresponsible fructifiers does
not remove the "life from non-life" problem; moreover, it multiplies
entities for no reason.

>The conclusion: A living being that breathed the
>breath of life is a distinct possibility.

Your conclusion is assumed in your premise; the very nature of a
circular argument.
If this is likely, where do _you_ think the "living being that
breathed the breath of life came from, and the life within it?
Welcome to another iteration of the argument orobouros...

> The very existence of life is proof in the pudding.

Please consider using the "axium" correctly.
At most, you have demonstrated an argument that states that life must
have come from life, because life must have come from life.

You have not demonstrated that what you are calling "abiogenesis", but
to which I and others refer as "biopoeisis" (to avoid the conflation
of an archaic idea with speculations of how life got started), did not
happen...only that in your opinion, it is more likely that it happened
through a miracle. Or after the planet was administered too many
roofie coladas.

...none of which has any bearing on the reality of ToE.

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:25:57 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>
wrote in talk.origins:

If you are making a claim that happens to be contrary to the physical
evidence, it is quite challenging to use evidence to support your claim.
Sometimes you can use logic and reason (as long as you start out with
indefensible propositions) to argue for your contrary-to-reality
beliefs.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/26/12 8:36 AM, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yes, you cannot apply the scientific method to a singular
> event of the past.

I can, and I am not alone.

> Plus science notes that scientists trying to create life in the labs
> have failed.

Not true. They have brought life to Cameroonian chironomids which had
been frozen in liquid helium and thus were clearly lifeless.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/26/12 8:45 AM, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> In other words a means no, bio means life and since God is living
> any belief that includes God creating is not abiogenesis.

God is not living.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:25:03 PM UTC-4, R.Dean wrote:
> On 9/26/2012 2:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>
> > In message <mBH8s.441068$qc4.1...@fx18.am4>, R.Dean <"R.
>
> > Dean"@gmail.com> writes
>
> >> On 9/26/2012 12:33 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>
> >>> In message <fdF8s.377919$Sz6....@fx27.am4>, R.Dean <"R.
>
> >>> Dean"@gmail.com> writes
>
> >>>> On 9/26/2012 3:50 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sep 25, 11:55 pm, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic
>
> >>>>>> mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> (1) We don't know if the first life occurred in mud; (2) The first
>
> >>>>> "life" was not a cell. Those came later; (3) We *know* abiogenesis
>
> >>>>> happened, because there's life on Earth, including us.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>> This is not evidence. Life comes only from pre-existing life. -
>
> >>>> Pasteur (biogenesis)
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Denying evidence doesn't make it go away. Nor is overplaying Pasteur's
>
> >>> observations a valid argument.
>
> >>>
>
> >> Overplaying? According to who opinion?
>
> >
>
> > The great majority of biologists for a start.
>
> >
>
> Of course, are they not taught this at the universities?

[snip]

They're also taught *why* that opinion is generally believed to be true.

I'm curious about arguments like yours, which are common in all fields among people who wish to deny the conclusion of a long-settled academic debates. With all respect, have you never attended a university? Do you think classes are taught like high schools and trade schools, where you might be taught mechanical proficiency in some field, with only slim provision of background knowledge and the methodologies used for advancing knowledge in the field?

Do you think universities teach you, by rote, how to use the Pythagorean Theorem without proofs? That physics classes tell you tell you E=MCsqr, but not its derivation? Do you think biology classes teach you long list of accepted facts that you are to jot down and memorize, with no clue why they are believed to be true?

Checkout the Wikipedia page on Pasteur's bio-genesis experiment. It's very through on what it was actually about. It in fact has no application to the early-Earth abiogenesis issue.

Mitchell Coffey

[Bob Berger]

In article <k4002g$3bj$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans says...

Did this Smith guy pay his fair share of taxes on all gold? And is that crypt in
one of them offshore banks where Romney hides his billions.

[Paul J Gans]

Being often logic-driven I try not to argue contrary to the physical
evidence. However, being human, I sometimes fail. For this I have
been condemned by my supernatural overlords to read talk.origins
essentially daily.

[R.Dean]

This is utter nonsense! I did some checking. These plates were
conveniently taken up to heaven, so they cannot be verified by an
independent agency. But according to Reed, Romney is not the face
of Mormonism. This religion is as distinct and different from
traditional Christianity as is Islam.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates
>

[John S. Wilkins]

R.Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:

> of Mormonism. This religion is as distinct and different from
> traditional Christianity as is Islam.

That's an interesting comparison. Islam is a mixture of traditional
Arabian religions (mostly polytheist), Jewish and Christian religions.
Mormonism is a mixture of late British Israelitism, Christianity, and
Jewish religion, and is polytheist. In many ways Islam represents a
movement away from traditional religions while Mormonism represents a
move back. I'm unsure which I prefer.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[John S. Wilkins]

Also check out our own talkorigins.org site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

*cough*
>
> Mitchell Coffey

[Glenn]

"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1kr2wea.ty17w9yrpgskN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...

> R.Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > of Mormonism. This religion is as distinct and different from
> > traditional Christianity as is Islam.
>
> That's an interesting comparison. Islam is a mixture of traditional
> Arabian religions (mostly polytheist), Jewish and Christian religions.
> Mormonism is a mixture of late British Israelitism, Christianity, and
> Jewish religion, and is polytheist. In many ways Islam represents a
> movement away from traditional religions while Mormonism represents a
> move back. I'm unsure which I prefer.
> --

Both think you are headed straight to hell. The former is willing to send you
there first class.

[jillery]

R.Dean is yet another IDer who fails to understand how apparently
baffling circles evolve from straight lines.

[Robert Camp]

On Sep 26, 3:40 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:00:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The logic of this notion depends upon the kind of God one conceives of
as doing the wishing. If God is omnipotent there is no need to
consider the details as concepts like having to make something step-by-
step are no longer relevant. Omnipotence is virtually synonymous with
"wishing makes it so." Of course omnipotent gods present plenty of
other logical difficulties.

> Obviously, such acts are impossible since they exclude instrumental,
> formal, and material causality.

Agreed. On the other hand simply postulating that one's preferred
deity actually gets down to the nitty-gritty in the process of
creating universes or granting wishes doesn't exempt the existence of
that god from evidential requirements, or leave it anything but the
teensiest bit more rational than the omni-everything variety.

RLC

[R.Dean]

On 9/26/2012 6:14 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:06:42 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/26/2012 3:14 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:52:06 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.
>>>
>>>
>>> And what is your explanation for first life?
>>>
>> One can certainly be critical without advancing an alternative
>> explanation. You know this Jill.
>
>
> I asked in an effort to encourage dialog. Do you think my question
> unreasonable?
<

Not under the circumstances you put forth.

>
> IMO the OP's comments don't rise to the level of criticism. They are
> merely unsupported assertion.
>

I must admit his description lacked the etwas to invite rational or even
civil discussion.

[R.Dean]

My point was, once taught they work within a prescribed methodology. IOW
they accept the basis and fundamental concept upon which they
order and build their careers.

>
> RLC
>

[R.Dean]

Did you read this? If so, please explain where the fallacy in
the Popperian reasoning lies.

[R.Dean]

I must admit I'm no scholar when it comes to Christian beliefs, but I
have no idea how this fits into Christian doctrine or dogma. I've
never heard anything about this from any christian literature, papers
preacher or priest. Is it Christian?
Nor have I heard about Romney discussing this.

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:09:03 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

I concur.

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:43:49 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

It is Mormon dogma. Romney hasn't made a point of following it.

[R.Dean]

Really? I thought it meant don't jump to conclusions without tasting
the pudding. Ie don't assume anything. I stand corrected.

>
> While I find that a bit harsh, it is demonstrably true that the
> original phrase was, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating",
> which means, "the quality of something cannot be judged without
> experiencing it."
>

OK, this is not at too much of a variance to my original view.

>
> So, let us experience your argument:
>
>> Fact # 1) there is extant life on planet earth;
>
> Not bad so far. It is demonstrable that there is, currently, on
> planet earth, that which we define as "life".
>
>> fact-2) in the 4.5 billion year history of the
>> earth, there is not a single case of life from
>> non-life that can be verified by empirical
>> evidence.
>
> ...and now we do begin to stray. At most, you can support the claim
> that you are not aware of a single case of "life" from "non-life".
>

It is _not_ my place to support a negative. If you are certain that
life has arisen independently of pre-existing life it's your
obligation to support this positive declaration.

>
> This does, in fact, mean that biopoesis has not been observed and that
> information widely disseminated; but that may just be a quibble.
>

Biopoesis simply relates to the origin of life, which has not been
observed.

>
> More important, your statement, intended to eliminate biopoesis from
> gradually organizing self-replicating molecules; also eliminates
> biopoesis from the hand of a supernatural creator-being.
> Further, if, to rescue the infirmity of your syllogism, you hope to
> sneak in horny aliens (who are already alive, ha ha!) jizzbombing the
> planet to produce life as we know it, all you have done is push back
> the occasion of biopoesis from non-living substances to one remove.
> Substituting an infinite regression of irresponsible fructifiers does
> not remove the "life from non-life" problem; moreover, it multiplies
> entities for no reason.
>
>> The conclusion: A living being that breathed the
>> breath of life is a distinct possibility.
>
> Your conclusion is assumed in your premise; the very nature of a
> circular argument.
> If this is likely, where do _you_ think the "living being that
> breathed the breath of life came from, and the life within it?
> Welcome to another iteration of the argument orobouros...
>
>> The very existence of life is proof in the pudding.
>
> Please consider using the "axium" correctly.
> At most, you have demonstrated an argument that states that life must
> have come from life, because life must have come from life.
>

This statement "life comes only from preexisting life" is traced back to
Louis Pasteur and Rudy Verchaw it's called "biogenesis". It has
never been falsified.

>
> You have not demonstrated that what you are calling "abiogenesis", but
> to which I and others refer as "biopoeisis" (to avoid the conflation
> of an archaic idea with speculations of how life got started), did not
> happen...only that in your opinion, it is more likely that it happened
> through a miracle. Or after the planet was administered too many
> roofie coladas.
>

As I pointed out there is no exception to the statement that "life comes
only from preexisting life". It therefore, stands as a indisputable fact.

>
> ...none of which has any bearing on the reality of ToE.
>

OK. I didn't think we were discussing ToE in this thread.

Thank you, for the enlightening discussion.
>

[R.Dean]

If Obama continues coming for the wealth of Americas rich. The rich will
leave the country with their wealth. Only the poor will remain
and no rich to tax. Then where will we be? When the poor can vote to
take for themselves the earnings of the producers, the country will
radically change.

[R.Dean]

On 9/26/2012 9:46 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> R.Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> of Mormonism. This religion is as distinct and different from
>> traditional Christianity as is Islam.
>
> That's an interesting comparison. Islam is a mixture of traditional
> Arabian religions (mostly polytheist), Jewish and Christian religions.
> Mormonism is a mixture of late British Israelitism, Christianity, and
> Jewish religion, and is polytheist. In many ways Islam represents a
> movement away from traditional religions while Mormonism represents a
> move back. I'm unsure which I prefer.
>

I think my comparison is valid.

[R.Dean]

This was very close to Popper's statement. Yet, no one has actually
come to grips with it. It's being evaded.

I believe I could locate the exact quote if it were requested. Might
take a while, but I have an idea where it is.

[walksalone]

"R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in
news:fdF8s.377919$Sz6....@fx27.am4:

> On 9/26/2012 3:50 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 11:55 pm, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:

snip

>> (1) We don't know if the first life occurred in mud; (2) The first
>> "life" was not a cell. Those came later; (3) We *know* abiogenesis
>> happened, because there's life on Earth, including us.
> >
> This is not evidence. Life comes only from pre-existing life. -
> Pasteur (biogenesis)

Isn't he the fellow that proved just the opposite, the one with a bottle,
meat, & no maggots? Or is that another one I've in mind.

> What is in
>> question is whether it came about by natural means, or by the agency
>> of a Magic Being. Occam's Razor makes me lean toward the "natural
>> means" explanation. Well, that and that fact that there's not a
>> shred of evidence that any Magic Being exists.

> Since life comes only from life, this is empirical evidence of a

Off hand, the volcanic, & cold, sea vents give rest to that claim. & that
life is celluar. As far as I,'ve read. [Not much, not that curious]

http://www.teachersdomain.org/asset/tdc02_vid_deepseavents/default/
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/deep-sea-vents-just-
north-of-antarctica-flourish-with-species-never-seen-
before/2011/12/19/gIQAX4NgYP_story.html>
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/10.14/15-vent.html
http://venturedeepocean.org/life/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/07/deepest-hydrothermal-vent/
http://scientistatwork.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/leaving-astoria-for-
hydrate-ridge/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm

> pre-existing living being who "breathed life into dead matter". IE
> life from pre-existing life. The burden of proof thus is yours to
> offer empirical evidence that life actually arose independent of
> life.

How so, if you claim that there is this black fella, B umba, or someone
like him running around, isn't it yours to show? Even if ypou don't call
them by name? A point I am curious about, but not curious enough to look
it up. After all, I'v e doubts about Bumba & his ilk. Such as.


ai' tojon adamas agu'gux akongo
alatangana allah amma amma
amun antu anu aondo
apap aramazd archonssaboth arebati
ataa naa nygongmo aten atl atua fafine
atua i raropuka atum avalokitesvara awonawilona
ayi' uru'n toyo,n baiame brahma bulai
bulgang bumba cacoch cagu
cakra ce acatl cghene
chiconahuiehecatl
chnum
chul tatic chites vaneg
cihuacoatl quilaztli
cipacctonal citalatonac citalicue dharma
dyaus pitar e alom e quaholom ehecatl
el elohim elkunirsa ellel
emli hin enki epimetheus e'ros
es fidi mukullu hachacyum hao
Hindu hiranyagarbha hun hunapa hunab ku
hurracan ihoioi iksvaku il
imana imra ipalnemoani isten
isten itzam zacal nok iusaas izanangi no
kami
iznami no kami jehova jok julunggul
ka tyelo kaia kalunga kami musubi no
kami
kasisia kitanitowit kucumatz kukulkan
kumarbi kumokums kun tu ban pok kun tu bzan po
kyumbe kwoth laima lesa
leza libanza lisa lodur
lowalangi mahatala makemake maheo
maito mal malamanganga'e malamangangaifo
manitu manohel toehel manu marduk
mayon mbomba mbotumbo mehet weret
mkulumncandi moma mula djadi mungo
na'ininwn na' pe nahui ollin nainuema
nammu nanahuatl naeau narayana
nareu ne'nenkicex nediyon nefertuim
neith ngai niamye nu gua
nu kua nudimmud nut nyame
nzapa o kuni nushi no mikoto
ocelotl oduduwa ohoroxtotil olodumare
orisa nla orisania pachacmac panao
pemba pore prajapati promethus
prthu ptah purusa qamai'ts
quat quetzelcatl quetzacoatl quiahuti
raluvimbha re rigenmucha rubanga
ruhganga sa samael seyon
shomde sirao siva somtus
suku taka mi mitsubi no kami
tangara tate tawa te aka la roe
te manva roa te tanga engae teharonhiawagon
telavelik tenanto'mni tenanto'mwan thareon
tiamat tiki tino taata tirawa
tlaltchuti tloque nahauque tomor tomwo'get
tontiuh toro tororut totilma'il
trumual tsunigoab tvastar
umanssi ashi kabi hiko ji no kami
umvelinkwangi ungud unkulunkulu unumbote
unumbotte uru'n ajy toyo'n vahguru vairacocha
venda vile & ve visnu visvakarman
waka wakan tonka wakonda weir kumbamba
ya'qhicin yaldaboth yaro yahu
yahwe yehl yemekonji yhwh
yng yoalechutli yoalli echecatl Ancient Spider

It seems to me, unless you are a real true blue believer, you can't even
give reasonable evidence for any creator entity, let alone a reason for
such activity.

No matter what, should there be a creator, it was far from perfect, &
probably a sub contractor.

Pretty positive statement, but the universe backs it up, as does human
life.

walksalone who has never realy understood the need of some to rely on
wishes versus what can be shown. Nor a need to be contrary because they
can. & that includes myself.

I do not believe in God, because I believe in man. Whatever
his mistakes, man has for thousands of years past
been working to undo the botched job your God has made.
勇mma Goldman

[John S. Wilkins]

R.Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/26/2012 10:43 PM, jillery wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:20:49 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> > <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> R.Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 9/26/2012 12:15 PM, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> Citation?
> >>>>
> >>>> It's commonly believed that there was a first cell. For instance:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html
> >>>>
> >>> This is a catch 22 situation: the genetic code is without any biological
> >>> function unless it is translated. But the machinery
> >>> by which the code is translated is contained within the code
> >>> itself. IOW the code cannot be translated without the products
> >>> of own translation.
> >>> This constitutes a really baffling circle: it seems for any
> >>> attempt to form a model or theory of the origin of the genetic
> >>> code is confounded by a vicious circle. - Karl Popper
> >>
> >>> (not an exact quote, but the meaning is present)
> >>
> >> Too bad that the origin of life was not circular. Incorrect
> >> ideas lead to wrong conclusions.
> >
> >
> > R.Dean is yet another IDer who fails to understand how apparently
> > baffling circles evolve from straight lines.
> >
> This was very close to Popper's statement. Yet, no one has actually
> come to grips with it. It's being evaded.

Had nobody ever heard of a sine wave?

>
> I believe I could locate the exact quote if it were requested. Might
> take a while, but I have an idea where it is.

[John S. Wilkins]

Quite unlike Christianity then, right?

[walksalone]

Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
news:94c2d6a1-8aff-41d0...@googlegroups.com:

> It,s just that there is no scientific confirmation of abiogenesis and
> evolution.
>
>

Oh really? This means thatg all those individuals,in the sciences,
especially those in the biological field, have wasted their lives, &
worse, lied to others.

Tell you what, why don't you explain how salt, NaCl if you are not
familiar with that notation, is formed. & then tell the class why
carbon, hydrogen, & oxygen can not react the same way, with other
elements.

No one knows the pivotal point for what we call life, not even your
version of it. hat is known is that fully functioning organisi,ms do not
form without access to chemicals, & that is only the simplest of life
forms.
If your argument is that humans & other miulti-cellular life forms can
not poof into existence from a solution, or clay, no one will argue
against you.

But that is not what you said, now is it?

I admire Confucius. He was the first man who did not receive a divine
inspiration.

Voltaire

[Glenn]

"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message

news:1kr3b2w.g2ovyt1coyxkvN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...

> Glenn <glenns...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> > news:1kr2wea.ty17w9yrpgskN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> > > R.Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > of Mormonism. This religion is as distinct and different from
> > > > traditional Christianity as is Islam.
> > >
> > > That's an interesting comparison. Islam is a mixture of traditional
> > > Arabian religions (mostly polytheist), Jewish and Christian religions.
> > > Mormonism is a mixture of late British Israelitism, Christianity, and
> > > Jewish religion, and is polytheist. In many ways Islam represents a
> > > movement away from traditional religions while Mormonism represents a
> > > move back. I'm unsure which I prefer.
> > > --
> > Both think you are headed straight to hell. The former is willing to send
you
> > there first class.
>
> Quite unlike Christianity then, right?
> --

Christianity isn't removed from the belief, if that's what you mean.

By the way, Islam is not polytheist. That will earn you a first class ticket.

[Ernest Major]

In message <OyQ8s.144$Kc7...@fx20.am4>, R.Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
writes

Ribozymes don't need translation.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message <9QQ8s.145$Kc7...@fx20.am4>, R.Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
writes

>On 9/26/2012 6:37 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> R.Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/26/2012 2:55 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:11:40 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>>> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:31:23 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/26/2012 3:50 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sep 25, 11:55 pm, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis.
>>>>>>>>>Magic mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

You aware that Romney is a Mormon, and a former stake president? (He was
also a bishop, but that's a minor rank in the Mormon hierarchy; stake
president is more important.)

Given his role in the Mormon church it is not unreasonable to infer that
he believes Mormon doctrine.
--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 01:29:40 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

That would be a good thing to do if the issue I raised was that you
misrepresented what Popper said. For argument's sake, it's easy
enough to find the quote and identify where Popper said it. It's
quoted rather often on Creationist websites and blogs:

****************************************************
"‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing
riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function
unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of
the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the
machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is
the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty
macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus
the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its
translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious
circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the
genesis of the genetic code."

Popper, K.R., 1974. Scientific Reduction and the Essential
Incompleteness of All Science.
*************************************************

So I stipulate that what you wrote agrees in substance to what Popper
meant. And if Popper were the final authority on the origin of life,
your point would be made, and that would be the end of it.

Popper's assertion parallels that of Irreducible Complexity, that
there exists a complex cellular mechanism which must exist in toto and
all at once in order to function. Of course, to apply this
observation to the origin of life, one must assume, as you do above,
that life began using the same mechanisms and processes that life uses
today. Given the cell's complexity, that's very unlikely. Instead,
life must have started with simpler precursor processes, which then
evolved toward the mechanisms we observe today.

Of course, it's a common tactic of Creationists to identify a topic
where science lacks specific answers, and then declares that ignorance
as evidence for a Creative Designer. It's called God of the Gaps, and
while some think that line of reasoning persuasive, I don't. I am no
expert on this subject, but I find this link useful, written by people
who are:

<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html>

Also, you may be aware of Venter Institute, which has avoided concerns
about how life might have started, and created their own completely
synthetic life:

<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/52.full>

I suppose one could say this is an example of intelligent design, but
I hasten to point out that Venter make no claims of using supernatural
processes.

[jillery]

Since matters of pedantry is always at stake, I point out that Romney
is a former Governor of the State of Massachusetts.

[Nick Keighley]

On Sep 26, 4:10 pm, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/26/2012 3:14 AM, jillery wrote:> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:52:06 -0700 (PDT), AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com

> > wrote:
>
> >> No wonder everyone exercises faith to believe in abiogenesis. Magic mud produces that magic protocell. Faith unseen, belief to the max.
>
> > And what is your explanation for first life?
>
> One can certainly be critical without advancing an alternative
> explanation. You know this Jill.

one suspects that someone who has a problem with physical abiogenesis
has some sort of axe to grind

[Nick Keighley]

On Sep 26, 5:10 pm, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:

> It,s just that there is no scientific confirmation of abiogenesis and evolution.

It,s -> It's

there's plenty of evidence for evolution try a Natural History museum,
London has quite a good one.

If natural abiogenesis doesn't occur we're left with a gaping hole

[Burkhard]

On Sep 27, 10:30 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <OyQ8s.144$Kc7...@fx20.am4>, R.Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
> writes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 9/26/2012 6:20 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> R.Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> On 9/26/2012 12:15 PM, AsteroidSe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> Citation?
>
> >>>> It's commonly believed that there was a first cell. For instance:
>
> >>>>http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html
>
> >>> This is a catch 22 situation: the genetic code is without any biological
> >>> function unless it is translated. But the machinery
> >>> by which the code is translated is contained within the code
> >>> itself. IOW the code cannot be translated without the products
> >>> of own translation.
> >>> This constitutes a really baffling circle: it seems for any
> >>> attempt to form a model or theory of the origin of the genetic
> >>> code is confounded by a vicious circle.  - Karl Popper
>
> >>> (not an exact quote, but the meaning is present)
>
> >> Too bad that the origin of life was not circular.  Incorrect
> >> ideas lead to wrong conclusions.
>
> >Did you read this? If so, please explain where the fallacy in
> >the Popperian reasoning lies.
>
> Ribozymes don't need translation.
> --

Ha, how do YOU call them in Chinese then?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <k3vv41$s5i$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Too bad that the origin of life was not circular. Incorrect
> ideas lead to wrong conclusions.

Canonical example, two housewives arguing across the backyard fence,
who cannot agree because they are arguing from different premises.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <vAN8s.2$1R...@fx07.am4>, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is utter nonsense! I did some checking. These plates were
> conveniently taken up to heaven, so they cannot be verified by an
> independent agency. But according to Reed, Romney is not the face

> of Mormonism. This religion is as distinct and different from
> traditional Christianity as is Islam.

The plates did not go down a well like the 12th Iman? But at least
some Sunnis say that Shiites are not really Muslims.

I know the believers of the various Abrahamic religions treasure the
differences, but.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kr2wea.ty17w9yrpgskN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> That's an interesting comparison. Islam is a mixture of traditional
> Arabian religions (mostly polytheist), Jewish and Christian religions.
> Mormonism is a mixture of late British Israelitism, Christianity, and
> Jewish religion, and is polytheist. In many ways Islam represents a
> movement away from traditional religions while Mormonism represents a
> move back. I'm unsure which I prefer.

I woulda thunk, "dislike less" rather than prefer.

[Richard Norman]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 06:10:44 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Since pedantry is my particular specialty, I point out that
Massachusetts is a commonwealth, not a state (nor even a stake).

[Walter Bushell]

In article <IfvtxkEV...@meden.invalid>,

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Steady-state panspermists are rare (as geocentrists?), but there might
> be some left.

Certainly steady-state panspermism (belike it should be called
panoviasm[2] because we refer to single cells as "she" usually) is
less absurd than geocentrism, but it has no Abrahamic scriptural
warrant, except for Mormons perhaps where it fits in nicely with the
theology.

In some Hindu theology the eye of Bhraman closes and the Universe is
created (as Bhraman's dream) opens and the Universe is destroyed (as
dreams disappears when you wake up) closes and a new Universe (just
like the old Universe) is created etcetera, etcetera, etcetera[1]. But
this does not really provide a basis for panovaism, because nothing
passes between Universes which are not ultimately real. "Time passes
slowly when you're caught in a dream.


[1] Considered a bad form, but used here to indicate the repetitious
nature of the process which goes on eternally.

[2] The panspermists laid an egg. Am I guilty of egging on pnyikos?

[Slow Vehicle]

On Sep 26, 11:15 pm, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >> There is an axium: "proof is in the pudding".
>
> > ...the "axium", "proof is in the pudding" is a phrase that, according
> > to the Urban Dictionary, "when uttered,  instantly identifies the
> > speaker as being incredibly stupid and illiterate."
>
>  >
> Really? I thought it meant don't jump to conclusions without tasting
> the pudding. Ie don't assume anything. I stand corrected.

>  >> While I find that a bit harsh, it is demonstrably true that the
> > original phrase was, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating",
> > which means, "the quality of something cannot be judged without
> > experiencing it."
>
>  >
> OK, this is not at too much of a variance to my original view.
>
> > So, let us experience your argument:
>
> >> Fact # 1) there is extant life on planet earth;
>
> > Not bad so far.  It is demonstrable that there is, currently, on
> > planet earth, that which we define as "life".
>
> >> fact-2) in the 4.5 billion year history of the
> >> earth, there is not a single case of life from
> >> non-life that can be verified by empirical
> >> evidence.
>
> > ...and now we do begin to stray. At most, you can support the claim
> > that you are not aware of a single case of "life" from "non-life".
>
>  >
> It is _not_ my place to support a negative.

And yet, your entire argument is that "life from non-life" as you put
it dd NOT happen...so, yes, you have claimed a negative.

> If you are certain that
> life has arisen independently of pre-existing life it's your
> obligation to support this positive declaration.

Try again. I am certain that life exists.
How life came to exist is not yet understood.
I am of the opinion that juzzbombing aliens, or lonely bronze-age
"gods", are less likely than natural biopoeisis.

>  >> This does, in fact, mean that biopoesis has not been observed and that
> > information widely disseminated; but that may just be a quibble.

<snip>

> Biopoesis simply relates to the origin of life, which has not been
> observed.

Neither have panspermic seeding, nor special, divine creation...

<snip>

> This statement "life comes only from preexisting life" is traced back to
> Louis Pasteur and Rudy Verchaw it's called "biogenesis". It has
> never been falsified.

Which is why the term "abiogenesis" can be misleading. Pasteur and
the boys were working to disprove the idea that maggots sprang from
rotting meat, and mice from spoiling wheat, on god's command, by a
discrete act of creation.

OTH, either "life" has always existed, or, at some point, stuff that
was "alive" developed form stuff that was "not alive".
In my opinion, natural biopoesis is a more parsimonious explanation
than your "living being breathing the breath of life"...which, BTW, if
it was 'alive", either always existed, or at some point, developed out
of stuff that was "not alive"...an infinite recursion.

<snip>

> As I pointed out there is no exception to the statement that "life comes
> only from preexisting life". It therefore, stands as a indisputable fact.

As I pointed out, you are either pretending that your "living being
breathing the breath of life" has always existed; or you are
overlooking the fact that, if it has not always existed, at some
point, it had to come form"non life". It _isn't_ "turtles all the way
down."

There _is_ an exception to "life comes only form prexisting life"--
unless you are claiming that life has always existed.

> > ...none of which has any bearing on the reality of ToE.
>
> OK. I didn't think we were discussing ToE in this thread.

Since this is, after all, TO, I believe that the thrust of the
original post in this thread was the usual, "You can't prove
biopoesis, therefore all of ToE is a lie". So that may not have been
directed at you. Too many posters conflate theorigins of life and its
subsequent development.

> Thank you, for the enlightening discussion.

I wonder if you would be so kind as to elucidate, or expand upon, the
idea of the "living being breathing the breath of life" (and forgive
me if I am misquoting you, or misstating your point...I would like to
understand what you are saying).

Thank you.

[Slow Vehicle]

On a "cell" phone?

[James Beck]

It's 'ribozyme' in Chinese, too.