Re: Here is my beef on Abiogenesis and evolution the fairy story for
Joseki
On Dec 3, 3:22 pm, George <gburk...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> Ok here is the beef on Abiogenesis and imaginary myth of evolution!
> Are you trying to say that Abiogenesis or "chemical evolution", is the
> study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter or
> is this is how it did arise. Ok I get it you don’t want to make
> decisive statements that will defeat you, have faith! What is your
> position specifically as to life sustaining itself after achieving
> existence is someone saying that the chemical reaction we call fire is
> alive? Now Abiogenesis should not be confused with evolution, I agree
Wow.. what is he smoking?
No real scientist will admit to abiogenesis as Man's origin because it
has not been demonstrated via the scientific method. Posting on TO is
like teling George Bush there is no WMD in Iraq.
,
> which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. I
> get that also but when we talk evolution are we speaking of micro or
> macro evolution. You see Micro-evolution is the adaptations and
> changes within a species and that is in harmony with the scriptures.
> However, I would not call it Micro-Evolution evolution at all as it
> does not exist, I would call it what it is, adaptation within the
> species. It certainly does not validate Macro-evolution since Macro-
> evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Someone
> is missing there links! I know that Evolutionist usually argue that
> those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there
> is nothing that the evolutionist observe in science that creationist
> or Christians as a whole disagree with. It is what you see in your
> imagination that no one else can see, and that we find disingenuous
> especially when you say it is a fact. Perhaps someone needs to clean
> their glass. Now Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of
> life", can they form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life,
> into life? The Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which
> involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth tried to do that
> and failed. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into
> proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by
> nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose? I believe
> how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis. So what is
> your guess are you using the Miller–Urey experiment or do you have a
> different take on chemical evolution. If you fail to give me specifics
> then you will say that I am putting words in your mouth like macro
> evolution verses micro evolution places words in my mouth that I do
> not accept. But, to fire out a debate lets refute that organic
> chemistry can even suggest the creation of life! Organic Chemistry
> demonstrates that if even small amounts of amino acids combine to for
> excess water for polypeptides, the polypeptides will immediately be
> broken back into amino acids. The phenomenon is covered by the law of
> reverse action. It is valid for all reversible actions. If water is
> present and every textbook in high school and college says it is so
> that any polypeptides which might be formed would breakdown
> immediately. That would reveal the last place on earth where life
> could be formed accidently would be the oceans. All such superstition
> imagination is a non-scientific faith without any evidence of any
> kind. But, the facts oppose this religious dogma as amino acids must
> have correct chirality. All amino acids for all living protoplasm’s
> must have a chirality called laevorotary, not dextrorotary.
> All molecules in vital synthesis of proteins must be optically pure
> without any traces of dextrorotary isomers. None of millers’ amino
> acids are suitable for any biogenesis as carbon atoms in amino acids
> have their 4 valences as opposite. It is like matching a right handed
> glove with a left hand glove. True they are identical in chemical
> structure, but they are not identical in spatial structure and chains
> of molecules cannot be made of these different structures. The
> chirality of the amino acids determines the properties of the
> resulting proteins. Dextrorotary proteins lead to completely different
> protein chains, Laevorotary is absolute necessary. Proteins which do
> not fit into the metabolism of living organisms are very often lethal!
> The protein chains of life are 100 left-hand gloves fitting into each
> other while cell metabolism is 1000’s. Nucleic Acids are dextrorotary.
> Amino acids are laevorotary. Cells break down dextrorotary acids and
> rebuild them into laevorotary.
>
> Jer 8:9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo,
> they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?
>
> My conclusion: All building blocks of amino acids produced by any
> evolutionist by any means are racemates (50-50). Under no
> circumstances whatsoever could they form a living protein either by
> design or accident!
>
> Isa 40:5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh
> shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. 6 The
> voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass,
> and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 The
> grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD
> bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth,
> the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
ilbe...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
10x40,000 th probability of a cell popping into existence demonstrates
sheer desperation to repel intelligent planned design which always
requires a PERSONAL BEING . Life begats life...this has always been
an established scientific law which is violated by atheism .
Abiogenesis and thus Pond Scum to Human Being...masquerades as
science, but in actuality is religious philosophy. Abiogenesis is so
engrained into our textbooks that if it were altered now, the masses
would loose trust in the Folks donned in white lab coats who simply
cant afford for the supernatural Creator to exist . I wonder why
people dont want a personal Creator for a personal Cosmos to exist ?
What do u suppose that is all about ?
Devils Advocaat
Seems you can't even quote the event the probability refers to without
getting it wrong.
Dan Listermann
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc36a4c6-84ad-4e7a...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
sheer desperation to repel intelligent planned design which always
requires a PERSONAL BEING"
Whoever said that life began by "a cell"popping into existence?" .
Syd M.
Nope.
PDW
Syd M.
> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Illiterate Dave did.
PDW
Joseki
>
> > 10x40,000 th probability of a cell popping into existence
>
> Seems you can't even quote the event the probability refers to without
> getting it wrong.
Neither o f you understand the concept of probability. Abiogenesis has
a probability of 0.
From a math point of view do you know why?
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Dave just repeats the lies that creationist websites give him.
Dan Listermann
"Joseki" <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:708a7a23-f757-481d...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Please, please enlighten us, please!
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That has already been done on another thread. But if you insist.
Probability Of An Event
The event must be demonstrated to have been observed to occurred.
P(A) = The Number Of Ways Event A Can Occur
The total number Of Possible Outcomes
The probability of event A is the number of ways event A can occur
divided by the total number of possible outcomes
Since abiogenesis has not been observed. A=0 thus P(0)=0
once abiogenesis has been observed, you will have a different result.
Dan Listermann
On Dec 4, 10:11 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:708a7a23-f757-481d...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 4, 9:03 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Neither o f you understand the concept of probability. Abiogenesis has
> a probability of 0.
>
> From a math point of view do you know why?
>
> Please, please enlighten us, please!
That has already been done on another thread. But if you insist.
Probability Of An Event
The event must be demonstrated to have been observed to occurred.
Why? And, what do you mean by "observed," besides the obvious?
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:145c03a5-1ca4-4266...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 4, 10:11 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:708a7a23-f757-481d...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 4, 9:03 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Neither o f you understand the concept of probability. Abiogenesis has
> > a probability of 0.
>
> > From a math point of view do you know why?
>
> > Please, please enlighten us, please!
>
> That has already been done on another thread. But if you insist.
>
> Probability Of An Event
> The event must be demonstrated to have been observed to occurred.
>
> Why? And, what do you mean by "observed," besides the obvious?
the "obvious" would be abiogenesis has been duplicated and observed.
When dealing with probabilities, the sample space is 100% or
1.
The entire sample space is made up of A + -A .
Anything in the sample space is either in A _or -A .
You cant duplicate abiogenesis then your sample = null or zero.
Robert Weldon
Well, since we are here, abiogenesis has to have happened, so that would
make the probability 1.
Firelock
Note that you also haven't observed nor can duplicate biogenisis
through the action of your god, so by your own logic that never
occurred either.
--
Walt
Dan Listermann
On Dec 4, 10:51 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:145c03a5-1ca4-4266...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 4, 10:11 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:708a7a23-f757-481d...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 4, 9:03 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Neither o f you understand the concept of probability. Abiogenesis has
> > a probability of 0.
>
> > From a math point of view do you know why?
>
> > Please, please enlighten us, please!
>
> That has already been done on another thread. But if you insist.
>
> Probability Of An Event
> The event must be demonstrated to have been observed to occurred.
>
> Why? And, what do you mean by "observed," besides the obvious?
the "obvious" would be abiogenesis has been duplicated and observed.
I fully expect to see east artificial abiogenists performed in my lifetime.
So then you will retreat to "artificial" as an argument demanding a time
machine for "proof."
huge
And what probability would you put on agodogenesis?
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
WangoTango
says...
Goal post moving is a time honored ploy of 'those' guys.
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:145c03a5-1ca4-4266...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 4, 10:11 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:708a7a23-f757-481d...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Dec 4, 9:03 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Neither o f you understand the concept of probability. Abiogenesis has
> >> a probability of 0.
>
> >> From a math point of view do you know why?
>
> >> Please, please enlighten us, please!
>
> >That has already been done on another thread. But if you insist.
>
> >Probability Of An Event
> >The event must be demonstrated to have been observed to occurred.
> >P(A) = The Number Of Ways Event A Can Occur
> >The total number Of Possible Outcomes
>
> >The probability of event A is the number of ways event A can occur
> >divided by the total number of possible outcomes
>
> >Since abiogenesis has not been observed. A=0 thus P(0)=0
>
> >once abiogenesis has been observed, you will have a different result.
>
> Well, since we are here, abiogenesis has to have happened, so that would
> make the probability 1.
Since we are her that mean the galactic green turtle pooped out of his
colon.
that makes the probility of the galactic green turtle being the origin
of man 1 (since we are here)
Joseki
went over your head it did yes? Where have I written I have proof of a
god?
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6a7d99f4-8f4f-4fb6...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 4, 10:51 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:145c03a5-1ca4-4266...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 4, 10:11 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:708a7a23-f757-481d...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 4, 9:03 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Neither o f you understand the concept of probability. Abiogenesis has
> > > a probability of 0.
>
> > > From a math point of view do you know why?
>
> > > Please, please enlighten us, please!
>
> > That has already been done on another thread. But if you insist.
>
> > Probability Of An Event
> > The event must be demonstrated to have been observed to occurred.
>
> > Why? And, what do you mean by "observed," besides the obvious?
>
> the "obvious" would be abiogenesis has been duplicated and observed.
>
> I fully expect to see east artificial abiogenists performed in my lifetime.
That is your Belief? it make you a believer, therefor for you
abiogenesis is metaphysical.
> So then you will retreat to "artificial" as an argument demanding a time
> machine for "proof."
or a singularity.
Joseki
The same. No human has seen God make anything.
Dan Listermann
That is pushing things. I am merely observing that technology is moving
very rapidly and this sort of secret is ripe for unlocking. It has nothing
to do with "faith." I also believe that driverless cars will be with us
soon, religious faith? I don't think so.
> So then you will retreat to "artificial" as an argument demanding a time
> machine for "proof."
"or a singularity."
Sure, you could retreat to that point if it helps you get through the night.
Devils Advocaat
I don't need to see a die being rolled to know that there are six
possible outcomes, each one of which has a 1 in 6 chance of occurring.
So tell me where did you get this idea that an event has to be
observed before the probability of that event happening can be
calculated?
Devils Advocaat
Fact: the event for which IlBeBauck is throwing the value of 1 in
10^40,000 is NOT the probability of a cell popping into existence.
It is, according to the late Frederick Hoyle the probability of the
formation of two thousand enzymes forming by chance.
The said enzymes being those that for some reason or other Frederick
Hoyle considered essential for a living organism.
So how about you tell me, how it is from a single post of mine that
you can presume that I know nothing about probability?
Joseki
> On 4 Dec, 15:48, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 10:11 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:708a7a23-f757-481d...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 4, 9:03 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Neither o f you understand the concept of probability. Abiogenesis has
> > > a probability of 0.
>
> > > From a math point of view do you know why?
>
> > > Please, please enlighten us, please!
>
> > That has already been done on another thread. But if you insist.
>
> > Probability Of An Event
> > The event must be demonstrated to have been observed to occurred.
> > P(A) = The Number Of Ways Event A Can Occur
> > The total number Of Possible Outcomes
>
> > The probability of event A is the number of ways event A can occur
> > divided by the total number of possible outcomes
>
> > Since abiogenesis has not been observed. A=0 thus P(0)=0
>
> > once abiogenesis has been observed, you will have a different result.
>
> I don't need to see a die being rolled to know that there are six
> possible outcomes, each one of which has a 1 in 6 chance of occurring.
>
irrelevant; you know what a die is. you seen one before. Have you seen
abiogenesis before? can you describe it for us? How does it work?
> So tell me where did you get this idea that an event has to be
> observed before the probability of that event happening can be
> calculated?
simple mathematic theory. look it up.
Joseki
Simple, because you don't. If you did. you would understand what Hoyle
was saying. The formation of amino acids has been observed.
Abiogenesis has not been. Hoyle was not writing about abiogenesis. He
was writing about what is needed in an living organism. I hope you can
understand the difference.
Devils Advocaat
> On Dec 4, 4:38 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Dec, 15:48, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 4, 10:11 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:708a7a23-f757-481d...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Dec 4, 9:03 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Neither o f you understand the concept of probability. Abiogenesis has
> > > > a probability of 0.
>
> > > > From a math point of view do you know why?
>
> > > > Please, please enlighten us, please!
>
> > > That has already been done on another thread. But if you insist.
>
> > > Probability Of An Event
> > > The event must be demonstrated to have been observed to occurred.
> > > P(A) = The Number Of Ways Event A Can Occur
> > > The total number Of Possible Outcomes
>
> > > The probability of event A is the number of ways event A can occur
> > > divided by the total number of possible outcomes
>
> > > Since abiogenesis has not been observed. A=0 thus P(0)=0
>
> > > once abiogenesis has been observed, you will have a different result.
>
> > I don't need to see a die being rolled to know that there are six
> > possible outcomes, each one of which has a 1 in 6 chance of occurring.
>
> irrelevant; you know what a die is. you seen one before. Have you seen
> abiogenesis before? can you describe it for us? How does it work?
It is relevant, and the die is not an event, it is the producer of
events, so it looks to me like you are goalpost moving.
And even if someone had never seen a die before, you could describe
one to them and they would still be able to work out that there are
six possible outcomes of rolling a die and conclude correctly that
each of those events has a 1 in 6 chance of occurring.
Of course I haven't seen abiogenesis happen, I am not old enough to
have done so.
But I do know that complex organic molecules can form abiotically, and
I do know that self-replicating molecules exist without being produced
by living organisms.
So it is reasonable to assume that life can emerge from non-living
matter under certain conditions, which as yet have not been precisely
worked out, but that isn't to say that no one can work out what those
conditions were.
>
> > So tell me where did you get this idea that an event has to be
> > observed before the probability of that event happening can be
> > calculated?
>
> simple mathematic theory. look it up.
Evasion on your part, I asked you to tell me where you got that idea
from, the reason why I asked was I have never in my life been told in
any class on probability that an event has to be observed before its
probability can be calculated.
Devils Advocaat
Wow, an assumption stated to support a previously stated assumption.
> If you did. you would understand what Hoyle
> was saying.
I do understand what Hoyle was saying, it is the other poster
(IlBeBauck) who doesn't know that, even though it has been pointed out
to him before.
> The formation of amino acids has been observed.
> Abiogenesis has not been. Hoyle was not writing about abiogenesis.
You seem to have missed out the fact that I have already stated that
Hoyle wasn't referring to abiogenesis.
> He
> was writing about what is needed in an living organism. I hope you can
> understand the difference.
Enzymes are what Hoyle was referring to, and they are NOT the only
things needed in a living organism as you should know.
Indeed I do understand the difference as my previous post shows, but
which you seem to have misunderstood what I have posted.
Joseki
Actually the die is an event, for probability it is also a sample. It
is not a producer of anything. do you know what you are talking about?
> And even if someone had never seen a die before, you could describe
> one to them and they would still be able to work out that there are
> six possible outcomes of rolling a die and conclude correctly that
> each of those events has a 1 in 6 chance of occurring.
Aand this is true because you say so? I really think you don't have a
clue.
>
> Of course I haven't seen abiogenesis happen, I am not old enough to
> have done so.
>
So... abiogenesis is common place, and you believe it to have
happened?
> But I do know that complex organic molecules can form abiotically, and
> I do know that self-replicating molecules exist without being produced
> by living organisms.
>
And yet it is not abiogenesis. what is your point?
> So it is reasonable to assume that life can emerge from non-living
> matter under certain conditions, which as yet have not been precisely
> worked out, but that isn't to say that no one can work out what those
> conditions were.
>
I can Assume, that life emerge from cosmic pooh from the invisible
goatman of the extraverse. Demonstrating it is another matter.
Assumption is a funny term.
>
> > > So tell me where did you get this idea that an event has to be
> > > observed before the probability of that event happening can be
> > > calculated?
>
> > simple mathematic theory. look it up.
>
> Evasion on your part, I asked you to tell me where you got that idea
> from, the reason why I asked was I have never in my life been told in
> any class on probability that an event has to be observed before its
> probability can be calculated.
You didn't pay attention in class. Let me make this easy for you.
calculate the probability of you having a conversation with Julius
Caesar, Dictator of Rome? I'm not joking and it is not a trick
question. it is a math question. Lets see if you learn anything in
class.
Paul_AtreidestheMuadib
> On Dec 4, 10:11 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:708a7a23-f757-481d...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 4, 9:03 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Neither o f you understand the concept of probability. Abiogenesis has
> > a probability of 0.
>
> > From a math point of view do you know why?
>
> > Please, please enlighten us, please!
>
Paul_AtreidestheMuadib
PROBABILITIES,are forbidden in biology and chemistry
Devils Advocaat
Joseki
répondre à la question: je suis curieux
Devils Advocaat
From "Everyday Math Demystified" chapter eight, a small extract that
proves your view erroneous:
"An event is a single occurrence or trial in the course of an
experiment. An outcome is the result of an event".
>
> > And even if someone had never seen a die before, you could describe
> > one to them and they would still be able to work out that there are
> > six possible outcomes of rolling a die and conclude correctly that
> > each of those events has a 1 in 6 chance of occurring.
>
> Aand this is true because you say so? I really think you don't have a
> clue.
>
Not because I say so, but because it happens.
>
> > Of course I haven't seen abiogenesis happen, I am not old enough to
> > have done so.
>
> So... abiogenesis is common place, and you believe it to have
> happened?
I never said that abiogenesis is commonplace.
If abiogenesis didn't happen, what other scientific explanation would
there be for the emergence of life?
>
> > But I do know that complex organic molecules can form abiotically, and
> > I do know that self-replicating molecules exist without being produced
> > by living organisms.
>
> And yet it is not abiogenesis. what is your point?
Self replicating molecules are a key component of living organisms,
that is my point.
>
> > So it is reasonable to assume that life can emerge from non-living
> > matter under certain conditions, which as yet have not been precisely
> > worked out, but that isn't to say that no one can work out what those
> > conditions were.
>
> I can Assume, that life emerge from cosmic pooh from the invisible
> goatman of the extraverse. Demonstrating it is another matter.
>
> Assumption is a funny term.
>
Given the available evidence the assumption that life emerged from non-
living matter as described by the hypothesis of abiogenesis is far
more reasonable than your asinine comment above.
>
> > > > So tell me where did you get this idea that an event has to be
> > > > observed before the probability of that event happening can be
> > > > calculated?
>
> > > simple mathematic theory. look it up.
>
> > Evasion on your part, I asked you to tell me where you got that idea
> > from, the reason why I asked was I have never in my life been told in
> > any class on probability that an event has to be observed before its
> > probability can be calculated.
>
> You didn't pay attention in class. Let me make this easy for you.
> calculate the probability of you having a conversation with Julius
> Caesar, Dictator of Rome? I'm not joking and it is not a trick
> question. it is a math question. Lets see if you learn anything in
> class.
And you are still evading my question.
Joseki
Abiogenesis is not an event. try again.
> > > And even if someone had never seen a die before, you could describe
> > > one to them and they would still be able to work out that there are
> > > six possible outcomes of rolling a die and conclude correctly that
> > > each of those events has a 1 in 6 chance of occurring.
>
> > Aand this is true because you say so? I really think you don't have a
> > clue.
>
> Not because I say so, but because it happens.
>
>
>
> > > Of course I haven't seen abiogenesis happen, I am not old enough to
> > > have done so.
>
> > So... abiogenesis is common place, and you believe it to have
> > happened?
>
> I never said that abiogenesis is commonplace.
>
> If abiogenesis didn't happen, what other scientific explanation would
> there be for the emergence of life?
>
What if Life like energy and matter can be created nor destroyed. just
converted?
>
>
> > > But I do know that complex organic molecules can form abiotically, and
> > > I do know that self-replicating molecules exist without being produced
> > > by living organisms.
>
> > And yet it is not abiogenesis. what is your point?
>
> Self replicating molecules are a key component of living organisms,
> that is my point.
>
Still doesn't demonstrate abiogenesis.
> > > So it is reasonable to assume that life can emerge from non-living
> > > matter under certain conditions, which as yet have not been precisely
> > > worked out, but that isn't to say that no one can work out what those
> > > conditions were.
>
> > I can Assume, that life emerge from cosmic pooh from the invisible
> > goatman of the extraverse. Demonstrating it is another matter.
>
> > Assumption is a funny term.
>
> Given the available evidence the assumption that life emerged from non-
> living matter as described by the hypothesis of abiogenesis is far
> more reasonable than your asinine comment above.
>
>
No it is not. you can't demonstrate one nor the other. And that is
Math and Science.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > So tell me where did you get this idea that an event has to be
> > > > > observed before the probability of that event happening can be
> > > > > calculated?
>
> > > > simple mathematic theory. look it up.
>
> > > Evasion on your part, I asked you to tell me where you got that idea
> > > from, the reason why I asked was I have never in my life been told in
> > > any class on probability that an event has to be observed before its
> > > probability can be calculated.
>
> > You didn't pay attention in class. Let me make this easy for you.
> > calculate the probability of you having a conversation with Julius
> > Caesar, Dictator of Rome? I'm not joking and it is not a trick
> > question. it is a math question. Lets see if you learn anything in
> > class.
>
> And you are still evading my question.
I did answer it. you missed it. or didn't understand it.
huge
> On Dec 6, 2:06 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 5 Dec, 07:43, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 5, 1:26 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 5 Dec, 04:50, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 4, 4:38 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On 4 Dec, 15:48, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Dec 4, 10:11 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > > > > > >news:708a7a23-f757-481d-902d-
ebcee5...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Indeed. And, when you can't observe a thing, you find the
explanation that does not needlessly multiply entities:
If a broom falls over that was leaning against the wall I assume
that it just succumbed to gravity and air currents and possibly
some vibrations. I do not presume that a magical
Yoda came down from Jupiter and knocked it down just to fuck
with me.
>>
>> > You didn't pay attention in class. Let me make this easy for you.
>> > calculate the probability of you having a conversation with Julius
>> > Caesar, Dictator of Rome? I'm not joking and it is not a trick
>> > question. it is a math question. Lets see if you learn anything in
>> > class.
>>
>> And you are still evading my question.
>
> I did answer it. you missed it. or didn't understand it.
--
grisha
Probability is defined for values between 0 and 1 or 0% and 100%.
Stop using quotes of quotes of cheat sheets. If you do not read
originals, try to read original cheat sheets.
> > > Isa 40:5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh
> > > shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. 6 The
> > > voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass,
> > > and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 The
> > > grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD
> > > bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth,
> > > the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> 10x40,000 th probability of a cell popping into existence demonstrates
> sheer desperation to repel intelligent planned design which always
> requires a PERSONAL BEING . Life begats life...this has always been
> an established scientific law which is violated by atheism .
> Abiogenesis and thus Pond Scum to Human Being...masquerades as
> science, but in actuality is religious philosophy. Abiogenesis is so
> engrained into our textbooks that if it were altered now, the masses
> would loose trust in the Folks donned in white lab coats who simply
> cant afford for the supernatural Creator to exist . I wonder why
> people dont want a personal Creator for a personal Cosmos to exist ?
> What do u suppose that is all about ?
Joseki
> Hey, terminator, go learn something. 10x40,000 is equal to 400,000.
> Probability is defined for values between 0 and 1 or 0% and 100%.
> Stop using quotes of quotes of cheat sheets. If you do not read
> originals, try to read original cheat sheets.
>
Someone here know their math laws.
curtjester1
> On talk.origin
>
> On Dec 3, 3:22 pm, George <gburk...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok here is the beef on Abiogenesis and imaginary myth of evolution!
> > Are you trying to say that Abiogenesis or "chemical evolution", is the
> > study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter or
> > is this is how it did arise. Ok I get it you don’t want to make
> > decisive statements that will defeat you, have faith! What is your
> > position specifically as to life sustaining itself after achieving
> > existence is someone saying that the chemical reaction we call fire is
> > alive? Now Abiogenesis should not be confused with evolution, I agree
>
> Wow.. what is he smoking?
>
> No real scientist will admit to abiogenesis as Man's origin because it
> has not been demonstrated via the scientific method. Posting on TO is
> like teling George Bush there is no WMD in Iraq.
>
> ,
a good bet. Some have considered the odds so difficult and
astronomical that it has been suggested to be impossible with 'to the
nth' numbers that get too high go to a point of 'never happening' by
scientists themselves.
http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_Evolution/origin_of_life.html
I think there was one in there that the odds of life had to be
compared to not only winning a state lotto which is say one in ten
million, but it would have to many successive lotto wins.
CJ
Free Lunch
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
True News is a website that lies when it comes to science. Don't be
fooled by their evangelical bent. Their articles are from the same old
liars who have been presenting the same old falsehoods about origins.
If you want to learn about science, you would do best to actually go to
science sites to find out about science, not to science-hating sites
from religious folks who are committed to lying about origins.
Understanding Evolution <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/> is a very good
site for those who are not very informed about evolution or science. It
doesn't spend time debunking the lies of anti-evolution religious
doctrines, but helps you learn about what actually has been discovered
at a simple enough level for any reasonably educated person to follow
along. If you want to know why ID/Creationists are liars, you'll do well
to to to the talk.origins archive <http://www.talkorigins.org/>. It
pulls no punches in showing the number of lies that anti-evolution
creationists are willing to tell to defend their failed doctrines.
Joseki
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:02:44 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
> to to to the talk.origins archive <http://www.talkorigins.org/>. It
> pulls no punches in showing the number of lies that anti-evolution
> creationists are willing to tell to defend their failed doctrines.
Reading Talk.Origins Faqs is like reading why republicans agree with
Obama on health reform.
Free Lunch
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in
<cc564f37-8ede-4fcf...@r40g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
Jabbers, you have committed yourself to ignorance and foolishness for
years now. I expect nothing but lies from you and you do not disappoint
me. You seem to be very proud of your foolishness.
alt.biology, sci.skeptic removed because Jabbers has a history of
trolling where his lies are completely off topic.
Joseki
.
>
> >Reading Talk.Origins Faqs is like reading why republicans agree with
> >Obama on health reform.
>
> Jabbers, you have committed yourself to ignorance and foolishness for
> years now. I expect nothing but lies from you and you do not disappoint
> me. You seem to be very proud of your foolishness.
>
> alt.biology, sci.skeptic removed because Jabbers has a history of
> trolling where his lies are completely off topic.
You removed the groups because you know I'm right. Talk.Origins serve
one purpose; to feed their own ego. Just like any other group of
people who feel insecure, they only exist to bash creationists. If
they get out smarted, then they will find some lame excuse to ban or
censure their antagonist. They will not accept any peered review
argument of any aspect of TOE. The circular arguments are a bore.
An example, if you mentioned Rape as a biological and evolutionary
trait of human reproduction since man walked on all fours, they go
Bonkers, even if you present peered review material from biologist.
They dump the science aspect of it and get into political
correctness.
Don't believe me.. go ahead and make the post in TO and see how fast
DIG will toss you out.
Parish *~
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc36a4c6-84ad-4e7a...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I wonder why
people dont want a personal Creator for a personal Cosmos to exist ?
What do u suppose that is all about ?
Why do you suppose some need a "personal creator?" Life may have been
seeded here from another galaxy billions of years ago. No supernatural
beings needed.
Joseki
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 18:39:57 -0800 (PST), Joseki
>
> --
>
I hit a nerve.
curtjester1
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:02:44 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Creating odds is nothing new in speculating what might be in the
formation of anything. Evolutionists have given quite high impossible
odds and have been used. Most evolutionists that even tackle
abiogenesis don't want to deal with the possibilities that can be
entertained generally, and will give a 'religious' or highly
speculative scenario(s) why things should go their way. If you want
to give us 'scientific odds', then go for it. We won't hold our
breaths, though.
CJ
Joseki
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:41:08 -0800 (PST), Joseki
>
> --
>
good for you.
Firelock
> On Dec 4, 11:29 am, Firelock <firelock...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 11:14 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 4, 10:51 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > On Dec 4, 10:11 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > On Dec 4, 9:03 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Neither o f you understand the concept of probability. Abiogenesis has
> > > > > a probability of 0.
>
> > > > > From a math point of view do you know why?
>
> > > > > Please, please enlighten us, please!
>
> > > > That has already been done on another thread. But if you insist.
>
> > > > Probability Of An Event
> > > > The event must be demonstrated to have been observed to occurred.
>
>
> > > the "obvious" would be abiogenesis has been duplicated and observed.
>
> > > When dealing with probabilities, the sample space is 100% or
> > > 1.
> > > The entire sample space is made up of A + -A .
> > > Anything in the sample space is either in A _or -A .
>
> > > You cant duplicate abiogenesis then your sample = null or zero.
>
> > Note that you also haven't observed nor can duplicate biogenisis
> > through the action of your god, so by your own logic that never
> > occurred either.
>
> > --
> > Walt
>
> went over your head it did yes?
If believing that makes you happy, who am I to interfere?
>Where have I written I have proof of a
> god?
Oh, I know you can't *prove* it. You're claiming that you
wandered in here with your misunderstanding of science
to 'disprove' abiogenesis while having nothing else in
mind (like "therefore, God") to replace it with?
--
Walt
Free Lunch
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in
<ceafa431-de3b-4004...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>:
No, you did not hit a nerve. You engaged in despicable behavior and have
never repented of it.
Free Lunch
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<97381a27-8022-4b18...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
The religious alternative was proven false centuries ago.
Joseki
And thus you are wrong again. I did not come in here to disprove
anything I been here on these groups for over a decade or even more.
You have not seen write any place in these thread that I am disproving
abiogenesis.
How can I disprove of abiogenesis, when there is no proof of
abiogenesis occurring to begin with?
Joseki
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 11:30:06 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> <97381a27-8022-4b18-a673-e21ffcbe1...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
same argument how can you prove something is false when you can't
prove that it is true?
Joseki
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:41:08 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> <ceafa431-de3b-4004-bf99-2b5e3a40a...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>:
Repent for what exactly? please describe said "dispicable behavior"
I didn't engage in bashing creationist, even though I am not a
creationist?
I challenge anyone here to go over to talk. origins and tell me have
reading a few thread, they are not bashing people who do not share
their point of view.
Firelock
Silly monkey, you've done a poor job of showing me wrong
a first time, you're a bit short of an again.
> I did not come in here to disprove
> anything I been here on these groups for over a decade or even more.
That's why you're presenting an ill-formed logical proof
trying to show that abiogenesis is - what, exactly?
> You have not seen write any place in these thread that I am disproving
> abiogenesis.
That part, at least, is true - because you haven't written
anything that shows you can do anything, much less
prove, disprove or even sensibly discuss anything.
> How can I disprove of abiogenesis, when there is no proof of
> abiogenesis occurring to begin with?
So you admit that your posts were...what, exactly? A typed
form of mental masturbation? Trying to sound like you mean
something when you try to apply strict binary probability
to a scientific theory?
--
Walt
Joseki
ad- hom attack noted. there no poor job. Your wrong, it that simple.
> > I did not come in here to disprove
> > anything I been here on these groups for over a decade or even more.
>
> That's why you're presenting an ill-formed logical proof
> trying to show that abiogenesis is - what, exactly?
>
What are you talking about? I can't show anyone what abiogensis is,
because I have not seen it. Have you? has anyone?
> > You have not seen write any place in these thread that I am disproving
> > abiogenesis.
>
> That part, at least, is true - because you haven't written
> anything that shows you can do anything, much less
> prove, disprove or even sensibly discuss anything.
>
You are not making any sense here.
> > How can I disprove of abiogenesis, when there is no proof of
> > abiogenesis occurring to begin with?
>
> So you admit that your posts were...what, exactly? A typed
> form of mental masturbation? Trying to sound like you mean
> something when you try to apply strict binary probability
> to a scientific theory?
>
Again what are you talking about?
> --
> Walt
Firelock
> What are you talking about?
Your yammering, Joe - what did you think I was talking about?
--
Walt
Joseki
yammering? where?
Joseki
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:18:57 -0800 (PST), Joseki
>
> >I challenge anyone here to go over to talk. origins and tell me have
> >reading a few thread, they are not bashing people who do not share
> >their point of view.
>
>
That may be true. But they were a rough bunch.
> Something or other about catching flies and honey. It works, y'know
With them... Don't think so. It was an will always be a one side
argument. Fanaticism doesn't always apply to religion.
www.49s.eu
Hi
do you have some books to suggest me for mathematic for lottery (chaos
etc)?
Thank you very much.
Alan Ford
> do you have some books to suggest me for mathematic for lottery (chaos
> etc)?
Here's mathematics for lottery:
House wins, you lose.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Teresita
> Life may have been
> seeded here from another galaxy billions of years ago. No supernatural
> beings needed.
It's life-seeding cosmic turtles all the way down!
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Drafterman
> On Dec 3, 5:10 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On talk.origin
>
> > On Dec 3, 3:22 pm, George <gburk...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ok here is the beef on Abiogenesis and imaginary myth of evolution!
> > > Are you trying to say that Abiogenesis or "chemical evolution", is the
> > > study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter or
> > > is this is how it did arise. Ok I get it you don’t want to make
> > > decisive statements that will defeat you, have faith! What is your
> > > position specifically as to life sustaining itself after achieving
> > > existence is someone saying that the chemical reaction we call fire is
> > > alive? Now Abiogenesis should not be confused with evolution, I agree
>
> > Wow.. what is he smoking?
>
> > No real scientist will admit to abiogenesis as Man's origin because it
> > has not been demonstrated via the scientific method. Posting on TO is
> > like teling George Bush there is no WMD in Iraq.
>
> > ,
>
> > > get that also but when we talk evolution are we speaking of micro or
> > > macro evolution. You see Micro-evolution is the adaptations and
> > > changes within a species and that is in harmony with the scriptures.
> > > However, I would not call it Micro-Evolution evolution at all as it
> > > does not exist, I would call it what it is, adaptation within the
> > > species. It certainly does not validate Macro-evolution since Macro-
> > > evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Someone
> > > is missing there links! I know that Evolutionist usually argue that
> > > those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there
> > > is nothing that the evolutionist observe in science that creationist
> > > or Christians as a whole disagree with. It is what you see in your
> > > imagination that no one else can see, and that we find disingenuous
> > > especially when you say it is a fact. Perhaps someone needs to clean
> > > their glass. Now Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of
> > > life", can they form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life,
> > > into life? The Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which
> > > involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth tried to do that
> > > and failed. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into
> > > proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by
> > > nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose? I believe
> > > how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis. So what is
> > > your guess are you using the Miller–Urey experiment or do you have a
> > > different take on chemical evolution. If you fail to give me specifics
> > > then you will say that I am putting words in your mouth like macro
> > > evolution verses micro evolution places words in my mouth that I do
> > > not accept. But, to fire out a debate lets refute that organic
> > > chemistry can even suggest the creation of life! Organic Chemistry
> > > demonstrates that if even small amounts of amino acids combine to for
> > > excess water for polypeptides, the polypeptides will immediately be
> > > broken back into amino acids. The phenomenon is covered by the law of
> > > reverse action. It is valid for all reversible actions. If water is
> > > present and every textbook in high school and college says it is so
> > > that any polypeptides which might be formed would breakdown
> > > immediately. That would reveal the last place on earth where life
> > > could be formed accidently would be the oceans. All such superstition
> > > imagination is a non-scientific faith without any evidence of any
> > > kind. But, the facts oppose this religious dogma as amino acids must
> > > have correct chirality. All amino acids for all living protoplasm’s
> > > must have a chirality called laevorotary, not dextrorotary.
> > > All molecules in vital synthesis of proteins must be optically pure
> > > without any traces of dextrorotary isomers. None of millers’ amino
> > > acids are suitable for any biogenesis as carbon atoms in amino acids
> > > have their 4 valences as opposite. It is like matching a right handed
> > > glove with a left hand glove. True they are identical in chemical
> > > structure, but they are not identical in spatial structure and chains
> > > of molecules cannot be made of these different structures. The
> > > chirality of the amino acids determines the properties of the
> > > resulting proteins. Dextrorotary proteins lead to completely different
> > > protein chains, Laevorotary is absolute necessary. Proteins which do
> > > not fit into the metabolism of living organisms are very often lethal!
> > > The protein chains of life are 100 left-hand gloves fitting into each
> > > other while cell metabolism is 1000’s. Nucleic Acids are dextrorotary.
> > > Amino acids are laevorotary. Cells break down dextrorotary acids and
> > > rebuild them into laevorotary.
>
> > > Jer 8:9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo,
> > > they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?
>
> > > My conclusion: All building blocks of amino acids produced by any
> > > evolutionist by any means are racemates (50-50). Under no
> > > circumstances whatsoever could they form a living protein either by
> > > design or accident!
>
> > > Isa 40:5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh
> > > shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. 6 The
> > > voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass,
> > > and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 The
> > > grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD
> > > bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth,
> > > the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> sheer desperation to repel intelligent planned design which always
> requires a PERSONAL BEING .
No one seriously posits a "cell popping into existence" as a
hypothesis for abiogenesis.
> Life begats life...this has always been
> an established scientific law which is violated by atheism .
You seem to have your words confused. We are talking about
abiogenesis, not atheism. In any event, even Christians accept
abiogenesis, they just think their God did it, rather than natural
causes.
Biogenesis as proposed by Pasteur was simply a refutation of the
notion that macroscopic organisms (such as maggots) did not
spontaneously appear.
> Abiogenesis and thus Pond Scum to Human Being...masquerades as
> science, but in actuality is religious philosophy.
It would be more accurate to say that abiogenesis represents a class
of hypothesis about how life arose from non-life. In no serious
scientific text is any single abiogensis hypothesis presented as
theory or fact.
> Abiogenesis is so
> engrained into our textbooks that if it were altered now, the masses
> would loose trust in the Folks donned in white lab coats who simply
> cant afford for the supernatural Creator to exist .
Paranoid delusion. Change is in the nature of science and from which
it gains strength and validity. That change may cast doubt into
people's minds is a flaw in their thinking, not in the scientific
process. I reiterate that no specific abiogenesis hypothesis is
presented as fact in a scientifically accurate piece of literature.
> I wonder why
> people dont want a personal Creator for a personal Cosmos to exist ?
I don't think it has anything to do with want, but a rigorous
adherence to the conclusions evidence and reasoning take us.
> What do u suppose that is all about ?
Critical thinking.
Drafterman
> On Dec 3, 6:10 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On talk.origin
>
> > On Dec 3, 3:22 pm, George <gburk...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ok here is the beef on Abiogenesis and imaginary myth of evolution!
> > > Are you trying to say that Abiogenesis or "chemical evolution", is the
> > > study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter or
> > > is this is how it did arise. Ok I get it you don’t want to make
> > > decisive statements that will defeat you, have faith! What is your
> > > position specifically as to life sustaining itself after achieving
> > > existence is someone saying that the chemical reaction we call fire is
> > > alive? Now Abiogenesis should not be confused with evolution, I agree
>
> > Wow.. what is he smoking?
>
> > No real scientist will admit to abiogenesis as Man's origin because it
> > has not been demonstrated via the scientific method. Posting on TO is
> > like teling George Bush there is no WMD in Iraq.
>
> > ,
>
> a good bet. Some have considered the odds so difficult and
> astronomical that it has been suggested to be impossible with 'to the
> nth' numbers that get too high go to a point of 'never happening' by
> scientists themselves.
>
> http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_Evolution/origin_of_life.html
>
> I think there was one in there that the odds of life had to be
> compared to not only winning a state lotto which is say one in ten
> million, but it would have to many successive lotto wins.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If the odds are greater than 0, then it's possible. Period.
Drafterman
>
> - Show quoted text -
You do realize that abiogenesis and evolution are completely separate
and independent subjects, right?
Free Lunch
<draft...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Science-denying creationists cannot tell evolution from the Big Bang.
They are proud of their ignorance and implicitly say that God wants them
to be ignorant.
Joseki
> On Dec 4, 9:02 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> You seem to have your words confused. We are talking about
> abiogenesis, not atheism. In any event, even Christians accept
> abiogenesis, they just think their God did it, rather than natural
> causes.
>
then it is not abiogenesis.
Drafterman
Inasmuch as abiogenesis is necessarily limited to natural causes, I
agree.
But the general concept of "life from non-life" is something that is
even accepted by Christian mythology.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Remember in the movie Dumb and Dumber where Jim Carrey asks about how
much the chances are with Lauren Holly and him being boyfriend and
girlfriend? She says, not good. What are the odds, Jim says? About
a million to one, Lauren says. So, you mean I stand a chance!!! Is
that what an evolutionist will state publicly for his likes on
abiogenisis happening? Of course it's a little more than a million to
one...<hint>.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
How would you know that God didn't create the abiogenesis through a
systematic way creative, intricate, sequence of events, that one might
have for a definition as 'evolution'?
CJ
Smiler
Please, first, provide your objective evidence that any supernatural beings
exist and, secondly, provide evidence that the supernatural being you
provide evidence for is your god. Your beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books
are not evidence.
Until you provide such objective evidence for any god existing, there's no
reason to believe any deities do exist.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Drafterman
I'll take that as a "No".
For your edification:
Evolution is a subject that takes life's existence as a given and is
agnostic (in the general philosophical sense) with regards to how life
arose. In short: evolution doesn't care *how* life appeared, just that
life does, in fact, exist, and this is how it *evolves*.
Conversely, abiogenesis is the general concept that life arose from
non-life and is agnostic (in the general philosophical sense) with
regards to what happens to life once it exists. In short: abiogenesis
doesn't care *what* life does once it appears, just that life did, in
fact, arise from non-life and we're trying to figure out how.
I hope this clears up any confusion, such that you will not, in the
future, continue to conflate evolution and abiogenesis. If you have
any further questions, I'd be happy to address them.
Drafterman
I am stating nothing with regards to the separate and distinct
subjects of evolution and abiogenesis.
I am stating that, contrary to your assertion that odds can be so high
(or, rather, low) as to make something impossible. Things which are
impossible have, by definition, odds of 0. To state otherwise is a
mathematical error.
On a related note I find it hard to believe that a scientist,
accurately speaking in his capacity as a scientist, would perpetuate
this error. Scientists admit to the possibility of even the most
statistically unlikely of events (such as the quantum tunneling of
macroscopic objects) even if such odds make an event so unlikely to
occur even given multiple spans of the entire time frame of the
universe.
To emphasize: I am not conceding any point regarding the likelihood of
any specific abiogenesis scenario but rather I am addressing the
mathematical error you made by claiming that impossible events can
have odds greater than 0.
grisha
stating it as a fact. We as well do not know, at least do not know
yet, if and how life originated from non-live. Until we know one way
or the other, biogenesis should be labeled as unknown, exactly what it
is.
Considering that we do not have any valid evidences for God/god/gods
existence, I would not put much hope on finding that God did it.
Joseki
uh... no it is not.
Joseki
>
> Please, first, provide your objective evidence that any supernatural beings
> exist
Define Supratural.
Drafterman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Genesis 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,"
curtjester1
Why should I when you can't even define evolution or an exact word for
objective?
I will say this that evolution is not an alternative when one has to
show how life can change in a systematic way to get the life here on
earth as we know it.
First if evolution were a viable concept it must show not only why a
penis developed the way it did, and say a vagina the way it did; how
it was able to function as a life producing product as well. It would
have to show what good a penis would be without sperm, and say without
all the eggs a vagina might have stored as well. It would seem to me,
they would have to be all there at once, and not arriving at different
periods. It would also have to have all the necessary functions of
birthing as well as all the other systems that MUST operate to have
those entitites viable. IOW, I can't see any of this just happening
with a likeliness of good odds much less any odds. Finding some
religiously tainted evolutionary thought to make it appear not only
viable but likely and sophisticated has to be asked as well for
anyone's stab at validity for their concepts. I have never heard this
from any scientific/evolutionary thought. Sorry.
Your beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books
> are not evidence.
The are evidence when intricate details of civilizations are forecast
for the future and they have sufficed my satisifaction for coming
true. I also believe the words of Jesus Christ which never seem
contradictory in logic, reliability, and moral uprightness. When he
says...in Matt. 19:4..."He who created them male and female"...I
believe him and my holy books *IS* evidence.
> Until you provide such objective evidence for any god existing, there's no
> reason to believe any deities do exist.
>
Only from your perspective, which you have no reason given to say they
don't exist, and to provide any viable theory why the male and female,
and their reproduction systems came about or how they could come about
without all the necessary biological bells and whistles...I won't even
try.
CJ
> --
> Smiler
> The godless one
> a.a.# 2279
> All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
> perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
make sense out of it.
> For your edification:
>
> Evolution is a subject that takes life's existence as a given and is
> agnostic (in the general philosophical sense) with regards to how life
> arose. In short: evolution doesn't care *how* life appeared, just that
> life does, in fact, exist, and this is how it *evolves*.
>
It doesn't take into account the pre-life evolution that must take
place if one is going to eliminate a god.
> Conversely, abiogenesis is the general concept that life arose from
> non-life and is agnostic (in the general philosophical sense) with
> regards to what happens to life once it exists. In short: abiogenesis
> doesn't care *what* life does once it appears, just that life did, in
> fact, arise from non-life and we're trying to figure out how.
>
Good luck figuring that out. It will give evolutionary theory a much
needed boost.
> I hope this clears up any confusion, such that you will not, in the
> future, continue to conflate evolution and abiogenesis. If you have
> any further questions, I'd be happy to address them.- Hide quoted text -
>
Not me. I deal with concepts. And evolution is one of those words
that have many concepts alluded to in people trying to define exactly
what it is.
CJ
curtjester1
abiogenesis to it.
> I am stating that, contrary to your assertion that odds can be so high
> (or, rather, low) as to make something impossible. Things which are
> impossible have, by definition, odds of 0. To state otherwise is a
> mathematical error.
>
Which is what many evolutionists have given as well as others in
making the abiogenesis possibility of happening on it's own...0..a
mathematical error...thus implying it needed help.
> On a related note I find it hard to believe that a scientist,
> accurately speaking in his capacity as a scientist, would perpetuate
> this error. Scientists admit to the possibility of even the most
> statistically unlikely of events (such as the quantum tunneling of
> macroscopic objects) even if such odds make an event so unlikely to
> occur even given multiple spans of the entire time frame of the
> universe.
>
Well, I tend to think of this as the, when all else fails, use the
time as the elixir will do for me excuse. Time isn't really a
scientific concept though. One example might be...if one were take
their watch off and dismantle into pieces..and put it in a little
cup...that would have some movement...and let that cup go and go where
the parts would tend to intermingle...like clothes in a dryer...and do
this long periods of time...even forever...I would conclude...as many
would..that you would never a watch that would be put together as a
whole watch.
> To emphasize: I am not conceding any point regarding the likelihood of
> any specific abiogenesis scenario but rather I am addressing the
> mathematical error you made by claiming that impossible events can
> have odds greater than 0.- Hide quoted text -
>
There is a number that some scientists have claimed a number that has
a NO value to it. It is something like 10 to the 30th power. When
odds get that high, then the odds of it happening are too great for it
ever happening. I think of a lucky abiogenesis in those terms.
CJ
Drafterman
There is no sense to be hade. Abiogenesis and evolution are
definitively different. They are isolated. This is not a case of
mistaken identity.
>
> > For your edification:
>
> > Evolution is a subject that takes life's existence as a given and is
> > agnostic (in the general philosophical sense) with regards to how life
> > arose. In short: evolution doesn't care *how* life appeared, just that
> > life does, in fact, exist, and this is how it *evolves*.
>
> It doesn't take into account the pre-life evolution that must take
> place if one is going to eliminate a god.
Correct. Evolution does not care how life got where it is.
>
> > Conversely, abiogenesis is the general concept that life arose from
> > non-life and is agnostic (in the general philosophical sense) with
> > regards to what happens to life once it exists. In short: abiogenesis
> > doesn't care *what* life does once it appears, just that life did, in
> > fact, arise from non-life and we're trying to figure out how.
>
> Good luck figuring that out. It will give evolutionary theory a much
> needed boost.
No, it will not. Abiogenesis has no bearing on evolution and vice
versa.
>
> > I hope this clears up any confusion, such that you will not, in the
> > future, continue to conflate evolution and abiogenesis. If you have
> > any further questions, I'd be happy to address them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Not me. I deal with concepts. And evolution is one of those words
> that have many concepts alluded to in people trying to define exactly
> what it is.
Evolution has a clear definition in the scientific sense.
>
> CJ
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> We definitely do not know and it is exactly the reason to avoid
> stating it as a fact. We as well do not know, at least do not know
> yet, if and how life originated from non-live. Until we know one way
> or the other, biogenesis should be labeled as unknown, exactly what it
> is.
>
label it 'known' because of how intricate life is, and seemingly in
need of some crafty engineering.
> Considering that we do not have any valid evidences for God/god/gods
> existence, I would not put much hope on finding that God did it.
>
Well when observation in a general sense doesn't give you an answer,
it would be hard to dismiss a god. If one could give a little peek
for anything arising and going into a next step or a few subsequent
ones, we would give that a lot of attention. Of course even that
wouldn't preclude a God..as it could be his way of making. When I
find that intricate things just happen on their own, I'll try to
reconsider.
CJ
Drafterman
Who's trying to do that?
>
> > I am stating that, contrary to your assertion that odds can be so high
> > (or, rather, low) as to make something impossible. Things which are
> > impossible have, by definition, odds of 0. To state otherwise is a
> > mathematical error.
>
> Which is what many evolutionists have given as well as others in
> making the abiogenesis possibility of happening on it's own...0..a
> mathematical error...thus implying it needed help.
You're conflating evolution and abiogenesis again. I ask that you
correct your error before we proceed on this point.
>
> > On a related note I find it hard to believe that a scientist,
> > accurately speaking in his capacity as a scientist, would perpetuate
> > this error. Scientists admit to the possibility of even the most
> > statistically unlikely of events (such as the quantum tunneling of
> > macroscopic objects) even if such odds make an event so unlikely to
> > occur even given multiple spans of the entire time frame of the
> > universe.
>
> Well, I tend to think of this as the, when all else fails, use the
> time as the elixir will do for me excuse. Time isn't really a
> scientific concept though. One example might be...if one were take
> their watch off and dismantle into pieces..and put it in a little
> cup...that would have some movement...and let that cup go and go where
> the parts would tend to intermingle...like clothes in a dryer...and do
> this long periods of time...even forever...I would conclude...as many
> would..that you would never a watch that would be put together as a
> whole watch.
The relevance of this example has been shown to be nil, time and time
again. The laws of physics aren't such that watch pieces will
regularly assemble into watches through random motion. They are,
however, such that chemical elements will combine in certain
combinations and react with each other in certain ways. Many
experiments have been done to show, under the right conditions,
ingredients necessary for life can assemble on their own.
>
> > To emphasize: I am not conceding any point regarding the likelihood of
> > any specific abiogenesis scenario but rather I am addressing the
> > mathematical error you made by claiming that impossible events can
> > have odds greater than 0.- Hide quoted text -
>
> There is a number that some scientists have claimed a number that has
> a NO value to it. It is something like 10 to the 30th power. When
> odds get that high, then the odds of it happening are too great for it
> ever happening.
Then they are wrong. Any odds other than 0 represents a possibility.
Without a reference, though, your claim remains inscrutable.
Joseki
>
> - Show quoted text -
Man wasn't alive yet.
Try again.
curtjester1
definition.
>
> > > For your edification:
>
> > > Evolution is a subject that takes life's existence as a given and is
> > > agnostic (in the general philosophical sense) with regards to how life
> > > arose. In short: evolution doesn't care *how* life appeared, just that
> > > life does, in fact, exist, and this is how it *evolves*.
>
> > It doesn't take into account the pre-life evolution that must take
> > place if one is going to eliminate a god.
>
> Correct. Evolution does not care how life got where it is.
>
>
>
> > > Conversely, abiogenesis is the general concept that life arose from
> > > non-life and is agnostic (in the general philosophical sense) with
> > > regards to what happens to life once it exists. In short: abiogenesis
> > > doesn't care *what* life does once it appears, just that life did, in
> > > fact, arise from non-life and we're trying to figure out how.
>
> > Good luck figuring that out. It will give evolutionary theory a much
> > needed boost.
>
> No, it will not. Abiogenesis has no bearing on evolution and vice
> versa.
>
>
By selective definitions. It tends to be quite related at face
value. Only definitions can keep them separate.
>
> > > I hope this clears up any confusion, such that you will not, in the
> > > future, continue to conflate evolution and abiogenesis. If you have
> > > any further questions, I'd be happy to address them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Not me. I deal with concepts. And evolution is one of those words
> > that have many concepts alluded to in people trying to define exactly
> > what it is.
>
> Evolution has a clear definition in the scientific sense.
>
>
Clear as mud. Varying definitions of evolution would make it
'unclear', even amongst proponents of evolution. And mere change is
way too vague.
CJ
curtjester1
a first 'aft-abiogensis' with all life that is known today on earth.
It's just as impossible one second before as after.
>
> > > I am stating that, contrary to your assertion that odds can be so high
> > > (or, rather, low) as to make something impossible. Things which are
> > > impossible have, by definition, odds of 0. To state otherwise is a
> > > mathematical error.
>
> > Which is what many evolutionists have given as well as others in
> > making the abiogenesis possibility of happening on it's own...0..a
> > mathematical error...thus implying it needed help.
>
> You're conflating evolution and abiogenesis again. I ask that you
> correct your error before we proceed on this point.
>
>
No, I am not. I gave their take on abiogensis possibilities.
>
> > > On a related note I find it hard to believe that a scientist,
> > > accurately speaking in his capacity as a scientist, would perpetuate
> > > this error. Scientists admit to the possibility of even the most
> > > statistically unlikely of events (such as the quantum tunneling of
> > > macroscopic objects) even if such odds make an event so unlikely to
> > > occur even given multiple spans of the entire time frame of the
> > > universe.
>
> > Well, I tend to think of this as the, when all else fails, use the
> > time as the elixir will do for me excuse. Time isn't really a
> > scientific concept though. One example might be...if one were take
> > their watch off and dismantle into pieces..and put it in a little
> > cup...that would have some movement...and let that cup go and go where
> > the parts would tend to intermingle...like clothes in a dryer...and do
> > this long periods of time...even forever...I would conclude...as many
> > would..that you would never a watch that would be put together as a
> > whole watch.
>
> The relevance of this example has been shown to be nil, time and time
> again. The laws of physics aren't such that watch pieces will
> regularly assemble into watches through random motion. They are,
> however, such that chemical elements will combine in certain
> combinations and react with each other in certain ways. Many
> experiments have been done to show, under the right conditions,
> ingredients necessary for life can assemble on their own.
>
>
That is so, but those chemicals and their intermingling's still don't
have an abiogentic or evolutionary trail. Chemicals or atoms are high
physics and high mathematics. They don't form on their own that we
can see, as they are already there. The physics motions of molecules
are so complex that having a cup of parts is hardly anything to say
that their formations on their own are likely and a cup's contents are
not by 'chemical reasoning' just doesn't quite make it. And all the
experiments of 'necessary ingredients' have shown that spontaneousness
is out of the question. Not only spontaneousness is out of the
question, experiments that are controlled with manuevering conditions
to ones fantasies hasn't produced one iota of life either. So there
isn't anything we should deem 'worthy' by something as a "necessary
ingredient" or "assembling on their own."
>
> > > To emphasize: I am not conceding any point regarding the likelihood of
> > > any specific abiogenesis scenario but rather I am addressing the
> > > mathematical error you made by claiming that impossible events can
> > > have odds greater than 0.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > There is a number that some scientists have claimed a number that has
> > a NO value to it. It is something like 10 to the 30th power. When
> > odds get that high, then the odds of it happening are too great for it
> > ever happening.
>
> Then they are wrong. Any odds other than 0 represents a possibility.
> Without a reference, though, your claim remains inscrutable.
It would be a discussion I would like to see have bantered back and
forth. I would only be one to watch and not participate. You can
look them up in books and challenge them if you want.
CJ
Drafterman
Why would I need to try? You basically conceded the point. Man wasn't
alive. Then he was. Non-life to life.
Thank you.
Drafterman
A typo. I meant to say "There is no sense to be had"
> They are only isolated by one's personal preference for
> definition.
They are isolated by the definitions as used in the scientific sense,
which is all that matters here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > For your edification:
>
> > > > Evolution is a subject that takes life's existence as a given and is
> > > > agnostic (in the general philosophical sense) with regards to how life
> > > > arose. In short: evolution doesn't care *how* life appeared, just that
> > > > life does, in fact, exist, and this is how it *evolves*.
>
> > > It doesn't take into account the pre-life evolution that must take
> > > place if one is going to eliminate a god.
>
> > Correct. Evolution does not care how life got where it is.
>
> > > > Conversely, abiogenesis is the general concept that life arose from
> > > > non-life and is agnostic (in the general philosophical sense) with
> > > > regards to what happens to life once it exists. In short: abiogenesis
> > > > doesn't care *what* life does once it appears, just that life did, in
> > > > fact, arise from non-life and we're trying to figure out how.
>
> > > Good luck figuring that out. It will give evolutionary theory a much
> > > needed boost.
>
> > No, it will not. Abiogenesis has no bearing on evolution and vice
> > versa.
>
> By selective definitions.
By the only definitions that matter here.
> It tends to be quite related at face
> value. Only definitions can keep them separate.
And that is exactly what they do.
>
>
>
> > > > I hope this clears up any confusion, such that you will not, in the
> > > > future, continue to conflate evolution and abiogenesis. If you have
> > > > any further questions, I'd be happy to address them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > Not me. I deal with concepts. And evolution is one of those words
> > > that have many concepts alluded to in people trying to define exactly
> > > what it is.
>
> > Evolution has a clear definition in the scientific sense.
>
> Clear as mud. Varying definitions of evolution would make it
> 'unclear', even amongst proponents of evolution. And mere change is
> way too vague.
I really can't address this unless you reveal your sources for these
multiple definitions which you consider to be confusing.
Smiler
Try using a dictionary, then define your god.
>
> I will say this that evolution is not an alternative when one has to
> show how life can change in a systematic way to get the life here on
> earth as we know it.
>
There is no evidence that any other method is true. There is plenty of
evidence that the theory of evolution is true, the fact that evolution has
been seen to occur many times, in repeatable experiments, being one of
example of that evidence.
> First if evolution were a viable concept it must show not only why a
> penis developed the way it did, and say a vagina the way it did; how
> it was able to function as a life producing product as well. It would
> have to show what good a penis would be without sperm, and say without
> all the eggs a vagina might have stored as well. It would seem to me,
> they would have to be all there at once, and not arriving at different
> periods. It would also have to have all the necessary functions of
> birthing as well as all the other systems that MUST operate to have
> those entitites viable. IOW, I can't see any of this just happening
> with a likeliness of good odds much less any odds. Finding some
> religiously tainted evolutionary thought to make it appear not only
> viable but likely and sophisticated has to be asked as well for
> anyone's stab at validity for their concepts. I have never heard this
> from any scientific/evolutionary thought. Sorry.
>
Read some science books and get an education. I'm not your teacher.
>
> Your beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books
>> are not evidence.
>
> The are evidence when intricate details of civilizations are forecast
> for the future and they have sufficed my satisifaction for coming
> true. I also believe the words of Jesus Christ which never seem
> contradictory in logic, reliability, and moral uprightness. When he
> says...in Matt. 19:4..."He who created them male and female"...I
> believe him and my holy books *IS* evidence.
>
If 'holy' books are true to you, you must also believe in the Hindu gods,
Vishna and Ganesh, as descirbed in their 'holy' book, the Vedas.
If not, why not?
>> Until you provide such objective evidence for any god existing,
>> there's no reason to believe any deities do exist.
>>
> Only from your perspective, which you have no reason given to say they
> don't exist,
I don't need a reason to not believe your unevidenced fairy stories about
gods.
Can you give a reason to say why leprechauns don't exist?
> and to provide any viable theory why the male and female,
> and their reproduction systems came about or how they could come about
> without all the necessary biological bells and whistles...I won't even
> try.
>
See above.
Smiler
No such word as 'Supratural' in the English language.
Joseki
There is no evidence that any other method is true. There is plenty
of
evidence that the theory of evolution is true, the fact that evolution
has
been seen to occur many times, in repeatable experiments, being one
of
example of that evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah.. please give us a few examples...
grisha
> On Dec 16, 12:11 am, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:> We definitely do not know and it is exactly the reason to avoid
> > stating it as a fact. We as well do not know, at least do not know
> > yet, if and how life originated from non-live. Until we know one way
> > or the other, biogenesis should be labeled as unknown, exactly what it
> > is.
>
> Well I take it your "we" is a collective body of skeptics. I like to
> label it 'known' because of how intricate life is, and seemingly in
> need of some crafty engineering.
>
We was meant as humanity. What does "seemingly" means in this
context?
> > Considering that we do not have any valid evidences for God/god/gods
> > existence, I would not put much hope on finding that God did it.
>
> Well when observation in a general sense doesn't give you an answer,
> it would be hard to dismiss a god. If one could give a little peek
> for anything arising and going into a next step or a few subsequent
> ones, we would give that a lot of attention. Of course even that
> wouldn't preclude a God..as it could be his way of making. When I
> find that intricate things just happen on their own, I'll try to
> reconsider.
Well when observation in a general sense doesn't give you an answer,
it would be hard to introduce a god without valid arguments and
evidences. When we will have it, I will be very willing to
curtjester1
to rally behind. It's an opinion that is used to make something
convenient, not especially worthy in the definitive sense. "All that
matters" is just a euphemism to what one wants to discuss, not that it
has any particular relevance or dogma weight (unless you have a union
of posters that are in solidarity...which wouldn't mean much
either...:))
Common knowledge. Just google opinions for evolutionary or creation
definitions and you will get an ample supply. Articles are written on
just 'them'. I already gave one on an evolution spouting that all life
came from the original form of life. I doubt anyone can do much with
that one, even though some try to make it dogma.
CJ
CJ
curtjester1
so I shall just refrain from the juvenile request.
>
> > I will say this that evolution is not an alternative when one has to
> > show how life can change in a systematic way to get the life here on
> > earth as we know it.
>
> There is no evidence that any other method is true. There is plenty of
> evidence that the theory of evolution is true, the fact that evolution has
> been seen to occur many times, in repeatable experiments, being one of
> example of that evidence.
>
It would be much more correct to say that there is no evidence at all
than to say that there is "no other" method. Assuming one's point is
always a way of truth and not a means of defining truth, isn't it?
> > First if evolution were a viable concept it must show not only why a
> > penis developed the way it did, and say a vagina the way it did; how
> > it was able to function as a life producing product as well. It would
> > have to show what good a penis would be without sperm, and say without
> > all the eggs a vagina might have stored as well. It would seem to me,
> > they would have to be all there at once, and not arriving at different
> > periods. It would also have to have all the necessary functions of
> > birthing as well as all the other systems that MUST operate to have
> > those entitites viable. IOW, I can't see any of this just happening
> > with a likeliness of good odds much less any odds. Finding some
> > religiously tainted evolutionary thought to make it appear not only
> > viable but likely and sophisticated has to be asked as well for
> > anyone's stab at validity for their concepts. I have never heard this
> > from any scientific/evolutionary thought. Sorry.
>
> Read some science books and get an education. I'm not your teacher.
>
>
Why read when it should be stated eloquently in books already? Found
any to support what I said in proof, scenario, or counterargument?
>
> > Your beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books
> >> are not evidence.
>
> > The are evidence when intricate details of civilizations are forecast
> > for the future and they have sufficed my satisifaction for coming
> > true. I also believe the words of Jesus Christ which never seem
> > contradictory in logic, reliability, and moral uprightness. When he
> > says...in Matt. 19:4..."He who created them male and female"...I
> > believe him and my holy books *IS* evidence.
>
> If 'holy' books are true to you, you must also believe in the Hindu gods,
> Vishna and Ganesh, as descirbed in their 'holy' book, the Vedas.
> If not, why not?
>
I believe there are those that are named those types of gods and have
a following....even as the Bible has many gods and definitions to
human to false gods. If it is just mere philosophy, I don't give it
much personal relevance. If it defines life, and covers many authors
and generations, has the same connecting thoughts, proves prophecy to
be said for the future and come true; I pay attention.
> >> Until you provide such objective evidence for any god existing,
> >> there's no reason to believe any deities do exist.
>
> > Only from your perspective, which you have no reason given to say they
> > don't exist,
>
> I don't need a reason to not believe your unevidenced fairy stories about
> gods.
> Can you give a reason to say why leprechauns don't exist?
>
I don't try to prove negatives for even my holy book says gods have
the power to perform miracles and make things appear which do not, and
yet can still convince the unwary.
> > and to provide any viable theory why the male and female,
> > and their reproduction systems came about or how they could come about
> > without all the necessary biological bells and whistles...I won't even
> > try.
>
> See above.
>
Why wouldn't one want to prove something so necessary and basic as it
has everything to do with a theory they are spouting?
CJ
> --
> Smiler
> The godless one
> a.a.# 2279
> All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
> perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
arrowhead shape of a stone, that it was made by humans, and that the
humans made it as a weapon, and a certain civilization was
responsible. And yet when much more magnifcent things are in our
environment that are millions of times more complicated, why can't
those things deemed as being made? Hard to make your scenario as
valid when complicated things are excluded and the simple is
included. Many go for the seeing is believing...yet they believe in
the non-maker when they don't have any other proof of something being
made. And of course we do believe in things made we cannot see like a
radio being made workable through an invisible radio wave. We just
have faith, don't we?
CJ
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Drafterman
Sure there is. For the sake of convenience, scientific theories, laws
and concepts are generally represented by simply phrases like "general
relativity", "quantum mechanics", "thermodynamics", and - of course -
"abiogenesis" and "evolution". Yes, in the general linguistic sense,
those words can have varying meanings, but if we are talking about the
concepts as expressed by science then it makes sense that we should
limit their use to how they actually are expressed by science.
> It's just a barricade
> to rally behind. It's an opinion that is used to make something
> convenient, not especially worthy in the definitive sense.
To state that "abiogenesis" and "evolution" have clear and specific
scientific meanings is not an opinion.
> "All that
> matters" is just a euphemism to what one wants to discuss, not that it
> has any particular relevance or dogma weight (unless you have a union
> of posters that are in solidarity...which wouldn't mean much
> either...:))
Well, obviously. People generally decide to participate in topics they
want to discuss. In this case the topic was the scientific concepts of
"abiogenesis" and "evolution". I am simply explaining that it would be
appropriate to use the words as science uses them, since we are
talking about the scientific concepts.
Then that would be your problem. I would recommend different sources.
These are two good resources:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.talkorigins.org/
> Articles are written on
> just 'them'. I already gave one on an evolution spouting that all life
> came from the original form of life.
This hardly supports your attempts to conflate evolution and
abiogenesis. Rather, it supports the fact that evolution makes no
mention (and, thus, doesn't care about), of how the "original form of
life" came to be.