Re: The Bible And Evolution..compatible?
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d8233e63-280b-4e77...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 11, 9:41 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:687363cc-4208-4729...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 10, 11:40 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:3fb88e47-1f22-42ca...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been
> > > duplicated in a Lab."
>
> > > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over the
> > > place quibbling.
>
> > "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today
> > no more real than God is.
> > Would you agree?"
>
> > Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars religious
> > "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common
> > confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
>
> "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist
> believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was
> the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can
> be proved."
>
> Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
>
> Here, can you accept that the probability of one event or another happening
> or happened can be different, or since "proof" is rather nebulous, must the
> probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old "you atheists are just as
> superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning and it is shot full of holes.
No.. and you don't understand the mathematical concept of Probability.
"proof" is also a math concept.
The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have
"proof" of.
Dan Listermann
"Joseki" <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6168d10b-7f5a-490e...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
Joseki
sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go.
T.H. Ray
> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 12, 9:53 am, "Dan Listermann"
> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> .googlegroups.com...
> > > On Nov 11, 9:41 am, "Dan Listermann"
> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message
> >
> > >
> .googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Nov 10, 11:40 am, "Dan Listermann"
> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message
> >
> > > >
There is no demonstrable barrier to abiogenesis.
Tom
William Hughes
Nor has anyone duplicated a brontosaurus in a lab. Therefore
the probability of a brontosaurus occurring is zero.
(Unless of course the felt effect of gravity was smaller
then)
- William Hughes
Virgil
> > "proof" of."
>
> > LOL! �OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
>
> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go.
No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be
impossible.
Dan Listermann
On December 16, 1903, somebody somewhere said that "man will never fly."
Don't bet against science.
Dan Listermann
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E02381....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
You have to wonder about a person who does not catch the problems with his
statement.
cacak5
And he hasn't, yet
Dan Listermann
"cacak5" <m...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:d7bd2242-38a6-4503...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Wilber and Orville might debate that.
Joseki
Yeah those Brontosaurus Fossils were made with Play-Douh.
Joseki
You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be
observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever.
Darwin123
Scientists have recreated the polio virus and the small pox virus.
They can reliably reproduce these organisms in the laboratory from
basic components. If viruses are living, then abiogenesis has occurred
in the laboratory.
You will now claim that a virus is not "alive."
In any case, your claim can't be that abiogenesis is impossible
since God presumably made abiogenesis come about. So, make a virus
come into existence by breathing on some dirt.
Dan Listermann
Don't you mean "yet?"
Dan Listermann
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba0cc0c2-6531-4ee6...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Happens all the time in the Flintstone Laboratories.
Tim Miller
More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen.
It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or
chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would.
Dan Listermann
"Tim Miller" <replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hdi8hf$k7k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
He seems to think that because it has yet to be observed, it can't happen.
What kind of thinking does this sort of thing reflect?
Tim Miller
Nonexistent?
Joseki
> "Tim Miller" <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:hdi8hf$k7k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dan Listermann wrote:
> >>news:f3eeda51-777f-423f...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >>>>> The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have
> >>>>> "proof" of."
> >>>>> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
> >>>> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go.
> >>> No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be
> >>> impossible.
>
> >> "You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be
> >> observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever."
>
> >> Don't you mean "yet?"
>
> > More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen.
> > It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or
> > chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would.
>
> He seems to think that because it has yet to be observed, it can't happen.
> What kind of thinking does this sort of thing reflect?
Firs you must learn not to assume. I merely stated abiogenesis has not
been demonstrated by the scientific method. I see you have *faith*
that it will.
you do have some strong *beliefs*
Dan Listermann
First you must learn that you have assumed deities.
Then you need to learn the meaning of "yet."
Thirdly, you need to learn the difference between religious "faith" and
common confidence.
You have some strong superstitions.
Virgil
<3ef8250d-7a50-4541...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 7:20�pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > "Tim Miller" <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> >
> > news:hdi8hf$k7k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Dan Listermann wrote:
> > >> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:f3eeda51-777f-423f...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > >>>>> The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have
> > >>>>> "proof" of."
> > >>>>> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
> > >>>> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go.
> > >>> No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be
> > >>> impossible.
> >
> > >> "You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be
> > >> observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever.
Some sort of abiogenesis can be inferred from the present presence of
biology. The issue is whether that abiogenesis required and act of god
or not.
> >
> > >> Don't you mean "yet?"
> >
> > > More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen.
> > > It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or
> > > chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would.
> >
> > He seems to think that because it has yet to be observed, it can't happen.
> > What kind of thinking does this sort of thing reflect?
>
> Firs you must learn not to assume. I merely stated abiogenesis has not
> been demonstrated by the scientific method. I see you have *faith*
> that it will.
\You implied that not having observed it makes its probability of
ocorrurence equal to zero.
> you do have some strong *beliefs*
Nowhere nearly as strong, or as unfounded, as your own.
Joseki
> In article
> <3ef8250d-7a50-4541-9383-9727e2e55...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
That is correct. This is a Math and science issue. please go and study
Mathematical Probability 101.
Dan Listermann
Until December 17, 1903, manned powered flight had never been observed too.
T.H. Ray
> > Firs you must learn not to assume. I merely stated abiogenesis has not
> > been demonstrated by the scientific method. I see you have *faith*
> > that it will.
>
Virgil replied
> \You implied that not having observed it makes its probability of
> ocorrurence equal to zero.
>That is correct. This is a Math and science issue. >please go and study
>Mathematical Probability 101.
Joseki, yours is an argument from ignorance (argumentum
ad ignorantum). Given what we know of evolution, and
given that all elements of organic life are contained
in inorganic matter, and given the phenomenology of
self assembly and self organization (which are, in fact,
observed phenomena)the probability of abiogenesis
occurring at least once in the history of biology is
very close to unity (1.0).
Tom
Tim Miller
His grasp of probability seems to be about as nonexistent as his
grasp of the scientific method...
Parish *~
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
> Some sort of abiogenesis can be inferred from the present presence of
> biology. The issue is whether that abiogenesis required and act of god
> or not.
Why a "god" of some kind? Why not just call it an alien being?
Virgil
"Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Because such an alien being, if biological instead of some sort of god,
would itself only have come into existence through some form of
abiogenesis.
Jon Slaughter
> On Nov 12, 9:53 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> On Nov 11, 9:41 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> On Nov 10, 11:40 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>> "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been
>>>> duplicated in a Lab."
>>
>>>> Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all
>>>> over the place quibbling.
>>
>>> "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of
>>> today no more real than God is.
>>> Would you agree?"
>>
>>> Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars
>>> religious "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith
>>> with common confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
>>
>> "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist
>> believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was
>> the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can
>> be proved."
>>
Just saw this. This is wrong and the misconception is what keeps most
religions from entering the scientific age.
There is almost no contradictions between religion and science. Science
attempts to answer the question about physical things while reigion is a
spiritual or philosophical. The problem is mainly that people "religitize"
science. You find this among so called atheists(who are simply
anti-christians).
The big bang is a religion. It has some scientific evidence but for the most
part is a faith. It is an extrapolation far beyond what real scientific
theory can handle. It is a logical consequence from insufficient evidence.
For most scientists it is a much more logical conclusion than what the bible
proports.
But religion in general, again, is disjoint from science. Religion is a
faith. As soon as something in religion becomes provable it is no more
religion. Of course you do have people that will ignore scientific fact.
Now, mathematical evolution is not contradictory to any religion that I know
of yet it is continually bashed by those of faith. In fact, human evolution,
in a mathematical sense, points more to an "intelligent creator" than
anything else. Even if the big bang were true it does not mean there is no
god. It does contradict the bible but any intelligent person should
understand that the bible is not the word of god.
Many christians do not like darwinism. Darwinism is a form of evolution that
takes into account certain scientific facts but also draws conclusions from
insufficient evidence. It is logical assuming the hypothesis are true.
Darwinism does conflict with the bible, at least on the surface.
Science is simply a methodology for logical and consistent thinking that
tries to be objective as possible regardless of ones opinions or beliefs.
Many religions would themselves a great favor to approach their belief more
scientifically. After all, if they can root out all the crap and leave only
things that are scientific and logical then their beliefs are much more
coherent and probable.
Of course because of ignorance and arrogance this doesn't happen....
In any case the point is that science and religion are not contradictory and
infact and reinforce each other. After all, science started out as a way to
understand what "god" created and continues to be that. Everything that
science proves is actually a step in proving that a god exists(it just might
not be the kinda god that you can imagine).
I'm an agnostic that practices atheism. I have no animosity towards
christanity or most other religions(their are a few I do not like simply
because they are much much worse... yet seemingly are treated better by
atheists).
The nice thing about religion is that it gives many people the passion to do
great things beyond themself and we wouldn't be here if it we all started
out as atheists. A true atheist is much more worthless than anything else.
(The fact of the matter is there are no true atheists)
I wish christianty would not be so afraid of science. Unfortunately most
christians who fear things like "evolution"(darwinism is something a bit
different) simply do not understand it. If one just opens their eyes they
will see the scientific process go on. Evolution is just "growth" or
"change" and does not imply we came from monkeys nor anything else.
Evolution exists and simply by the definition cannot be denied and should
not be.
The biggest problem is that some arrogant atheist comes along and tries to
shoot down any argument by christians(it's almost all against christians as
I never see atheists argue against other religions) and because christians
tend not to have any logical and scientific understanding end up looking
like fools.
Best thing I can tell a christian(or any religious person) is to learn some
science. It's not satan and your not going to go to hell for it. Actually, I
would imagine that if god did create the world then he would prefer you
attempt to understand his creation(sort of admiring what he did) rather than
neglect it. If you learn science then you will not only be able to improve
your own understanding of the world and refine your own beliefs(you might
change them or become even more devout) you will also be able to argue with
the atheists and shoot most of their ignorant arguments down.
One thing I hate is an atheist who is really just an anti-christian. These
are the worse kinda people. They understand that something is wrong with
religion and for some reason simply go all out against christianity. They
become illogical in their hatred for it and end up making all non-religious
look ignorant along with making christians even more unacceptable of
science(since the atheist tends to try and use "science" against them). They
are basically the same as religious fanatics but on the other side.
Personally I have no issues with christianity(again, or most other
religions) and actually believe that for many people religion is necessary
and good. We would not have many of the great artistic things nor many of
the great scientific discoveries. Every atheist I have known has completely
ignored the good things that have come out of christianity while trying to
disprove it by using the bad things(which is illogical in the first place).
As far the bible, I would say it's simply a book mainly about teachings that
are "prefered". It is not the word of god and not intended to be taken
literally. For example, even though I'm agnostic/atheist I agree with many
of the things the bible says. There are, of course, many things I don't
agree with but even many christians don't agree with the either.
Parish *~
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
Even a "god" has to come from somewhere. Something had to "create" it for it
to exist.
Virgil
"Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
> news:Virgil-B15116....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> > In article <hdkp2n$3lt$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
> >> news:Virgil-97C5D3....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> >> > Some sort of abiogenesis can be inferred from the present presence of
> >> > biology. The issue is whether that abiogenesis required and act of god
> >> > or not.
> >>
> >> Why a "god" of some kind? Why not just call it an alien being?
> >
> > Because such an alien being, if biological instead of some sort of god,
> > would itself only have come into existence through some form of
> > abiogenesis.
>
> Even a "god" has to come from somewhere. Something had to "create" it for it
> to exist.
According to standard Christian theology, their god did not have a
beginning, or even a creator, unless it created itself in some sort of
miraculous bootstrap event when time began.
What do you propose as a creator of the original god(s)?
cacak5
Wilbur and Orville did not fly, they built a machine that flew and was
capable of carrying one of them at a time. They no more flew than did
Rozier, Reveillon, and Villette in a balloon 220 years earlier in 1783.
cacak5
Wilbur and Orville did not fly, they built a machine that flew and was
cacak5
Wilbur and Orville did not fly, they built a machine that flew and
Jon Slaughter
Why worry about it? Is it really important? If we cannot even understand our
own ignorance then whats the point of trying to understand the intelligence
of "god"?
Don't you think we first need to figure out how do deal with our own
arrogance before we go question the creater of all this? Surely, whatever
he/it is, and for whatever purpose and if such a thing exists, it is beyond
our comprehension?
Now, may you think your on the same level as the "creator" but I've realized
I'm a bit more ignorant...
Mensanator
wrote:
> Virgil wrote:
> > In article <hdlbjv$4o...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
> >>news:Virgil-B15116....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> >>> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
> >>>>news:Virgil-97C5D3....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> >>>>> Some sort of abiogenesis can be inferred from the present
> >>>>> presence of biology. The issue is whether that abiogenesis
> >>>>> required and act of god or not.
>
> >>>> Why a "god" of some kind? Why not just call it an alien being?
>
> >>> Because such an alien being, if biological instead of some sort of
> >>> god, would itself only have come into existence through some form of
> >>> abiogenesis.
>
> >> Even a "god" has to come from somewhere. Something had to "create"
> >> it for it to exist.
>
> > According to standard Christian theology, their god did not have a
> > beginning, or even a creator, unless it created itself in some sort of
> > miraculous bootstrap event when time began.
>
> > What do you propose as a creator of the original god(s)?
>
> Why worry about it? Is it really important? If we cannot even understand our
> own ignorance then whats the point of trying to understand the intelligence
> of "god"?
>
> Don't you think we first need to figure out how do deal with our own
> arrogance before we go question the creater of all this? Surely, whatever
> he/it is, and for whatever purpose and if such a thing exists, it is beyond
> our comprehension?
Maybe we could get some help from Satan?
>
> Now, may you think your on the same level as the "creator" but
The creaytor would have said "you're".
> I've realized I'm a bit more ignorant...
Duh.
Dan Listermann
Brilliant!
Virgil
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
I am quite willing to ignore the issue, but there are all sorts of
people who do not want to let me do so.
Free Lunch
<d...@listermann.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Except for the arithmetic.
1903 - 1783 = ?
Jimbo
>
And? Are you saying that because we don't yet understand how
something happened, then we must ascribe it to a god?
You have no proof that abiogenesis can't happen, just proof that in
our miniscule section of this vast universe, we can't reproduce it....
yet...
Historically, there have been no shortage of second rate lunkheads
that have said that something "can't" happen.
Then they were proven wrong.
Cory Albrecht
Wilbur and Orville flew their plain in 2003?
Joseki
what id your point?
Joseki
> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>
>
> > In article <hdkp2n$3l...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
> >>news:Virgil-97C5D3....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> >> > Some sort of abiogenesis can be inferred from the present presence of
> >> > biology. The issue is whether that abiogenesis required and act of god
> >> > or not.
>
> >> Why a "god" of some kind? Why not just call it an alien being?
>
> > Because such an alien being, if biological instead of some sort of god,
> > would itself only have come into existence through some form of
> > abiogenesis.
>
> Even a "god" has to come from somewhere. Something had to "create" it for it
> to exist.
So then someone created matter and energy as well.
Joseki
Did I say that? Don't think so.
> You have no proof that abiogenesis can't happen, just proof that in
> our miniscule section of this vast universe, we can't reproduce it....
> yet...
>
I can use the same argument, like a theist would... you have no proof
of a god neither. Doesn't mean there isn't one. I hope you understand
problem here.
> Historically, there have been no shortage of second rate lunkheads
> that have said that something "can't" happen.
>
> Then they were proven wrong.
Neither have I ever said it can't happen. In fact you find in this
thread of me writing anything of a sort.
Jimbo
Never said I did.
> Doesn't mean there isn't one. I hope you understand
> problem here.
I see no problem. Your argument didn't refute what I stated.
>
> > Historically, there have been no shortage of second rate lunkheads
> > that have said that something "can't" happen.
>
> > Then they were proven wrong.
>
> Neither have I ever said it can't happen. In fact you find in this
> thread of me writing anything of a sort.- Hide quoted text -
>
Then what is your problem?
master1729
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:42:04 -0500, "Dan Listermann"
> <d...@listermann.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >
> >"cacak5" <m...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> >news:c7efbe5e-7a32-478f-aa1c-0699370110f6@v25g2000yqk
> .googlegroups.com...
> >On Nov 12, 4:36 pm, "Dan Listermann"
> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >> "cacak5" <m...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> news:d7bd2242-38a6-4503-8a39-9382027fab6e@g23g2000yqh.
> googlegroups.com...
> >> On Nov 12, 3:26 pm, "Dan Listermann"
> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message
> >>
> >>
> >news:94d32070-59b1-48c3-9e8b-a7d14d9998ea@37g2000yqm.
> googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Nov 12, 12:32 pm, "Dan Listermann"
> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message
> >>
> >> >
> >news:6168d10b-7f5a-490e-911a-80c7e7bef62f@a32g2000yqm
> .googlegroups.com...
> >> > > On Nov 12, 9:53 am, "Dan Listermann"
> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message
> >>
> >> > >
> >news:d8233e63-280b-4e77-a3ad-73f7186068f6@r24g2000yqd
> .googlegroups.com...
> >> > > > On Nov 11, 9:41 am, "Dan Listermann"
> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message
> >>
> >> > > >
> >news:687363cc-4208-4729-a8fe-7cd3c8e1d4c2@s15g2000yqs
> .googlegroups.com...
> >> > > > > On Nov 10, 11:40 am, "Dan Listermann"
> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote
> in message
> >>
> >> > > > >
> >news:3fb88e47-1f22-42ca-8bd9-6b43628d5a37@m26g2000yqb
hahaha
typical sci.math.
Joseki
I don't have any? Do You?
I made this statement:
*Abiogenesis can not be demonstrated. It does not pass the scientific
method*
. I explain the reason why. I aso explain how the laws of
probabilities work.
The same reasoning can be applied to "god". No human as see him create
anything. You can not use the scientific method to neither prove or
deny his existence.
Therefore abiogenesis as well as god is a belief, And I use the
secular word belief. not the religious word of definition. The
argument you see in this thread is a battle of "Beliefs" pertaining to
the origin of man. Some believe it was abiogenesis and the long
process of evolution. Others believe it was god. As I just stated
neither can be demonstrated
Is this simple enough for you?.
Ed Prochak
> On Nov 15, 2:46 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Then what is your problem?
>
> I don't have any? Do You?
>
> I made this statement:
>
> *Abiogenesis can not be demonstrated. It does not pass the scientific
> method*
>
> . I explain the reason why. I aso explain how the laws of
> probabilities work.
>
> The same reasoning can be applied to "god". No human as see him create
> anything. You can not use the scientific method to neither prove or
> deny his existence.
>
> Therefore abiogenesis as well as god is a belief, And I use the
> secular word belief. not the religious word of definition. The
> argument you see in this thread is a battle of "Beliefs" pertaining to
> the origin of man. Some believe it was abiogenesis and the long
> process of evolution. Others believe it was god. As I just stated
> neither can be demonstrated
>
> Is this simple enough for you?.
Okay. Keeping strictly to this post, you put two theories on the
table:
the abiogenesis theory AND the god theory
as the source of biological life on earth.
From a scientific point of view, we need to decide between the two.
How do we do it?
Well the general rule is: the theory which is simpler and makes fewer
assumptions is likely closer to the correct one.
Is there such a basis for deciding between these two?
Let's see.
Abiogenesis theory - life sprung from chemical reactions in the early
earth environment.
Does this violate any known physical laws?
NO.
This theory is based on extrapolating back from current biochemistry.
Does this assume any unknown laws or agents?
NO.
This theory does not require reactions beyond those of current
biochemistry.
Is it testable?
YES.
Two ways:
1. reproduce the conditions of early earth and reproduce the events
of early life
2. observe carbon based lifeforms on another planet.
The god theory - life was initiated by a being (nature unknown).
Does this violate any known physical laws?
NO.
It is likely not necessary for this being to violate physical laws.
Does this assume any unknown laws or agents?
YES.
By necessity, this agent cannot be a carbon based life form. So what
exactly is the nature of this being? By occam's razor, this theory is
in trouble.
Is this theory testable?
NO.
Since the agent is unknown, He/She/It cannot be asked to reproduce
the event.
So you can see clearly why the god theory gets little if any support
by scientific thinkers. It is not so much a matter of faith as it is
of logic. In logical terms, the two theories are simply not on the
same level.
Have a nice day.
Ed
Virgil
<64413ce2-ca40-4680...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Abiogenesis does not necessarily mean that no gods were involved, it
just means that there was a time when no biological life existed and
later a time when it did.
There seems to be adequate evidence that there was a time when no
biological life on earth, and later evidence that there was.
If any of the present theories of the genesis of the universe are
correct, there would seem to be a beginning of biological life in the
universe.
Thus the only undecided issue is in the mechanism by which biological
life came into existence. As far as I am aware, the word 'abiogenesis'
itself in no way excludes any mechanism.
Joseki
> On Nov 15, 6:01 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
Snip--------------------------> for brevity.
clap clap clap... Sorry Ed. But your ideas doesn't cut it. Why? Well
if you remember in this thread we commented about observations and how
we can bend them to fit the fact. True scientists won't step to this
level of BS. Let look at what you wrote about abiogenesis being
testable.
You said there are two way to test abiogenesis:
1. reproduce the conditions of early earth and reproduce the events
of early life
=> This was done or attempted by the Urey-Miller experiments. It
failed. You can't use a failure as evidence of Abiogenesis. So far all
experiments of chemical evolution has ended up in failure. It would
be no different in standing on a mountain and talking to God. Asking
him a question, but not getting a reply nor answer.
> 2. observe carbon based lifeforms on another planet.
=> Hasn't happen yet therefore, it becomes a belief that somewhere out
there abiogenesis is happening right now, we just can't see it. Yup
there must be a heaven we just don't know where it is. :-) (sarcasm if
you didn't pick it up)
Now look how you bend your own question about a God.
You said:
Does this assume any unknown laws or agents?
YES.
=> an absurd assumption at best. So you tr to justify by saying:
By necessity, this agent cannot be a carbon based life form.
=>Why not?
So what
exactly is the nature of this being? By occam's razor, this theory is
in trouble.
=> Because you say so? You just reimagined the term "Strawman".
Is this theory testable?
=> about as testable as abiogenesis is.
have a nice day
Joseki
> In article
We don't know that If you are referring to our planet... We don't know
that neither.
> There seems to be adequate evidence that there was a time when no
> biological life on earth, and later evidence that there was.
>
That much is an observable fact.
> If any of the present theories of the genesis of the universe are
> correct, there would seem to be a beginning of biological life in the
> universe.
>
"If" is a big assumption
> Thus the only undecided issue is in the mechanism by which biological
> life came into existence. As far as I am aware, the word 'abiogenesis'
> itself in no way excludes any mechanism.
Actually it does. It is an attempt to explain chemical evolution.
Dan Listermann
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
news:Virgil-97C5D3....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> <3ef8250d-7a50-4541...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 12, 7:20 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>> > "Tim Miller" <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:hdi8hf$k7k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >> On Nov 12, 3:24 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>> > >>>>> have
>> > >>>>> "proof" of."
>> > >>>>> LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
>> > >>> No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be
>> > >>> impossible.
>> >
>> > >> "You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be
>> > >> observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever.
>
> biology. The issue is whether that abiogenesis required and act of god
> or not.
>> >
>> >
>> > > More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen.
>> > > It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or
>> > > chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would.
>> >
>> > He seems to think that because it has yet to be observed, it can't
>> > happen.
>> > What kind of thinking does this sort of thing reflect?
>>
>> Firs you must learn not to assume. I merely stated abiogenesis has not
>> been demonstrated by the scientific method. I see you have *faith*
>> that it will.
>
> \You implied that not having observed it makes its probability of
> ocorrurence equal to zero.
>
>
> Nowhere nearly as strong, or as unfounded, as your own.
But you can't say why, can you?
Dan Listermann
"Joseki" <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:36c74a37-9236-439a...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
what id your point?
Silly, my point ID powered manned flight had never been observed before and
was, using your "logic,' impossible.
Virgil
<56c9b67d-b613-4534...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thus the only undecided issue is in the mechanism by which biological
> > life came into existence. As far as I am aware, the word 'abiogenesis'
> > itself in no way excludes any mechanism.
>
> Actually it does. It is an attempt to explain chemical evolution.
Only in your own dictionary, but not in mine.
'Abiogenesis' is a word expressing the fact that, both planet-wise and
universe-wise, there has been a transition from total absence of
biological life to the presence of biological life.
The word itself does not imply any particular mechanism of transition.
Though there are those who try to imbue it with such implications.
Virgil
"Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
As I have n idea why you have your beliefs, I certainly cannot say why
you have them.
My own ideas about abiogenesis - the transition from a universe without
life to a universe with life on at least one planet - is that there is
no reason to suppose that it occurred purposefully.
Dan Listermann
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
I could not agree more.
Jimbo
...yet...
>
> . I explain the reason why. I aso explain how the laws of
> probabilities work.
>
> The same reasoning can be applied to "god". No human as see him create
> anything. You can not use the scientific method to neither prove or
> deny his existence.
Not my burden of proof. In point of fact, if there weren't wandering
hordes of this god's glassy-eyed sycophants wandering around demanding
that I believe in it, I would not be demanding that anyone prove or
disprove this god thing's existence. However, since these hordes do
exist, and they are making that demand, then they must prove it exists
before I will buy into it. The burden of proof is squarely on their
shoulders.
Jimbo
Waving your hand and popping a universe into existence doesn't violate
any known physical laws?!?!?!??!
Dan Listermann
"Ed Prochak" <edpr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a9557ce-44b4-4d42...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
I won't debate that the two theories are not on the same level. You have an
unusual way of thinking.
Joseki
that was a typo..
> Silly, my point ID powered manned flight had never been observed before and
> was, using your "logic,' impossible.
Excuse my typos.
And your conclusion is in error. Hot air balloons are manned powered
flight. If you would have said nothing ever flew before, you may have
something there. But in the manner you are using your rebuttal, just
doesn't hold water.
Joseki
> In article
>
> Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thus the only undecided issue is in the mechanism by which biological
> > > life came into existence. As far as I am aware, the word 'abiogenesis'
> > > itself in no way excludes any mechanism.
>
> > Actually it does. It is an attempt to explain chemical evolution.
>
> Only in your own dictionary, but not in mine.
Then get a real one.
>
> 'Abiogenesis' is a word expressing the fact that, both planet-wise and
> universe-wise, there has been a transition from total absence of
> biological life to the presence of biological life.
>
Is there other life in the Universe?
Joseki
> In article <235c8$4b00c376$4a53bf9f$22...@FUSE.NET>,
> "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
> >news:Virgil-97C5D3....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> > > In article
and no reason to conclude is was Random.
Joseki
As the burden of proof of abiogenesis is on yours ;-)
Joseki
> "Ed Prochak" <edproc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
This was answered already.
Dan Listermann
"Except that there isn't any evidence that it was not random.
Dan Listermann
"This was answered already."
Right, evasion.
thomas p.
Hot air balloons are not powered flight.
Dan Listermann
that was a typo..
"Excuse my typos.
You are evading my point.
Virgil
<1ddd9cbc-5811-42b6...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 11:19�pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > In article
> > <56c9b67d-b613-4534-a932-0f564da57...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Thus the only undecided issue is in the mechanism by which biological
> > > > life came into existence. As far as I am aware, the word 'abiogenesis'
> > > > itself in no way excludes any mechanism.
> >
> > > Actually it does. It is an attempt to explain chemical evolution.
> >
> > Only in your own dictionary, but not in mine.
>
> Then get a real one.
Mine is quite real enough for all those who do not insist on including
insubstantial spirits in their reality.
>
> >
> > 'Abiogenesis' is a word expressing the fact that, both planet-wise and
> > universe-wise, there has been a transition from total absence of
> > biological life to the presence of biological life.
> >
>
> Is there other life in the Universe?
How is that in any way relevant?
Unless one presumes that biolological life came into being
simultaneously with the universe, there has been a change from a
universe with no life anywhere to a universe with life on at least one
planet.
That changeover is what I mean by as 'abiogenesis'.
Virgil
<39f2444f-a2a1-4f89...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Occam's razor, 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem', says
otherwise.
There is no need to suppose a purposeful entity as a cause for
abiogenesis unless it can be shown that abiogenesis cannot occur without
one.
That theists make that assumption anyway does not justify it.
Joseki
Exactly... my my you are quick study. :-)
Joseki
You have no point.
Joseki
No? what did they use to fly the thing,,, Farts?
Joseki
> In article
>
> Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 11:19 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <56c9b67d-b613-4534-a932-0f564da57...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Thus the only undecided issue is in the mechanism by which biological
> > > > > life came into existence. As far as I am aware, the word 'abiogenesis'
> > > > > itself in no way excludes any mechanism.
>
> > > > Actually it does. It is an attempt to explain chemical evolution.
>
> > > Only in your own dictionary, but not in mine.
>
> > Then get a real one.
>
> Mine is quite real enough for all those who do not insist on including
> insubstantial spirits in their reality.
>
>
Huh? Chemical evolution a spirit? What are you smoking?
>
> > > 'Abiogenesis' is a word expressing the fact that, both planet-wise and
> > > universe-wise, there has been a transition from total absence of
> > > biological life to the presence of biological life.
>
> > Is there other life in the Universe?
>
> How is that in any way relevant?
>
it was brought up.
> Unless one presumes that biolological life came into being
> simultaneously with the universe, there has been a change from a
> universe with no life anywhere to a universe with life on at least one
> planet.
>
> That changeover is what I mean by as 'abiogenesis'.
It has to be establish that Universe never had life in it. That has
not been the case.
Joseki
> In article
which mean nothing at all, unless you into Sherlock Holmes. Next your
going to say that the earth on the back of four elephants.
> There is no need to suppose a purposeful entity as a cause for
> abiogenesis unless it can be shown that abiogenesis cannot occur without
> one.
>
> That theists make that assumption anyway does not justify it.
irrelevant. The same argument could be made to the contrary.
Dan Listermann
"You have no point."
LOL! Try again!
Dan Listermann
So Murphy's science, huh?
Virgil
<b1ea65d7-60fd-4893...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 3:37锟絧m, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1ddd9cbc-5811-42b6-9a59-225858c34...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > 锟絁oseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 15, 11:19锟絧m, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <56c9b67d-b613-4534-a932-0f564da57...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > 锟絁oseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Thus the only undecided issue is in the mechanism by which
> > > > > > biological
> > > > > > life came into existence. As far as I am aware, the word
> > > > > > 'abiogenesis'
> > > > > > itself in no way excludes any mechanism.
> >
> > > > > Actually it does. It is an attempt to explain chemical evolution.
> >
> > > > Only in your own dictionary, but not in mine.
> >
> > > Then get a real one.
> >
> > Mine is quite real enough for all those who do not insist on including
> > insubstantial spirits in their reality.
> >
> >
>
> Huh? Chemical evolution a spirit? What are you smoking?
I'm not the one presuming a spirit world.
> >
> > > > 'Abiogenesis' is a word expressing the fact that, both planet-wise and
> > > > universe-wise, there has been a transition from total absence of
> > > > biological life to the presence of biological life.
> >
> > > Is there other life in the Universe?
> >
> > How is that in any way relevant?
> >
> it was brought up.
>
> > Unless one presumes that biolological life came into being
> > simultaneously with the universe, there has been a change from a
> > universe with no life anywhere to a universe with life on at least one
> > planet.
> >
> > That changeover is what I mean by 锟絘s 'abiogenesis'.
>
> It has to be establish that Universe never had life in it. That has
> not been the case.
From what we know of the universe, it is certainly more reasonable to
assume that at some point there was no biological life in it than to
assume that biological life is coeval with it.
Virgil
<ab6d1ccc-ddab-4234...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Or into science, which is where it is most commonly applied.
> Next your
> going to say that the earth on the back of four elephants.
That would be a case of multiplying entities unnecessarily, immense
elephants if nothing else, so that I would not choose to do it.
Though your ilk might.
>
> > There is no need to suppose a purposeful entity as a cause for
> > abiogenesis unless it can be shown that abiogenesis cannot occur without
> > one.
> >
> > That theists make that assumption anyway does not justify it.
>
> irrelevant. The same argument could be made to the contrary.
Not while conforming to 'entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter
necessitatem'!
Joseki
> In article
>
>
>
>
>
> Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 3:37 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1ddd9cbc-5811-42b6-9a59-225858c34...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > On Nov 15, 11:19 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <56c9b67d-b613-4534-a932-0f564da57...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > > > Thus the only undecided issue is in the mechanism by which
> > > > > > > biological
> > > > > > > life came into existence. As far as I am aware, the word
> > > > > > > 'abiogenesis'
> > > > > > > itself in no way excludes any mechanism.
>
> > > > > > Actually it does. It is an attempt to explain chemical evolution.
>
> > > > > Only in your own dictionary, but not in mine.
>
> > > > Then get a real one.
>
> > > Mine is quite real enough for all those who do not insist on including
> > > insubstantial spirits in their reality.
>
> > Huh? Chemical evolution a spirit? What are you smoking?
>
> I'm not the one presuming a spirit world.
>
I was talking about dictionaries. where did this 'sprit' thing came
up?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > 'Abiogenesis' is a word expressing the fact that, both planet-wise and
> > > > > universe-wise, there has been a transition from total absence of
> > > > > biological life to the presence of biological life.
>
> > > > Is there other life in the Universe?
>
> > > How is that in any way relevant?
>
> > it was brought up.
>
> > > Unless one presumes that biolological life came into being
> > > simultaneously with the universe, there has been a change from a
> > > universe with no life anywhere to a universe with life on at least one
> > > planet.
>
> > > That changeover is what I mean by as 'abiogenesis'.
>
> > It has to be establish that Universe never had life in it. That has
> > not been the case.
>
> From what we know of the universe, it is certainly more reasonable to
> assume that at some point there was no biological life in it than to
> assume that biological life is coeval with it.
Here are some key phrases you are using, but do not understand them:
*From what we know of the universe* This statement tell us, we don't
know everything about the universe, and most likely not in our life
time.
* it is certainly more reasonable to assume* Assumption is the death
trap of scientists. Real scientist prefer to say -I don't know-
As for your entire statement, there is nothing to compare one item
with another.
Joseki
> In article
Circular reasoning. You have strong belief in "nothing"
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unless I organize a band of glassy-eyed abiogenesis sycophants to come
and tell you that you must believe or you'll go to the primordial ooze
from whence you came, all I am obliged to do, or rather science is
obliged to do, is to test the theory, recognize that such science can
take time assuming that the premise was correct to begin with, and
allow people to decide where the evidence leads them. That's why
such things are call theories. It's a lot better, I don't have to
organize abiogenesis inquisitors, spend a buttload of money on
abiogenesis churches, etc... ect... That is how all scientific
endeavor is different than religion, who demands that they have the
absolute truth, 100% of the time, and demand, without proof, that
others must believe.
Cory Albrecht
> In article
> <56c9b67d-b613-4534...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Joseki<jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Thus the only undecided issue is in the mechanism by which biological
>>> life came into existence. As far as I am aware, the word 'abiogenesis'
>>> itself in no way excludes any mechanism.
>>
>> Actually it does. It is an attempt to explain chemical evolution.
Yes and no. Yes in that abiogenesis would be an attempt to explain
"chemical evolution". No in that there have been a number of methods
hypothesized so far but AFAIK not enough research has been done yet to d
strongly support or rule out any of them.
>
> Only in your own dictionary, but not in mine.
>
> 'Abiogenesis' is a word expressing the fact that, both planet-wise and
> universe-wise, there has been a transition from total absence of
> biological life to the presence of biological life.
>
> The word itself does not imply any particular mechanism of transition.
>
> Though there are those who try to imbue it with such implications.
Well, to be fair, in the context of the creation/evolution debate, the
term "abiogenesis" is very commonly used for the non-supernatural,
non-magical "scientific" manner (whatever that manner may be) how life
arose, used in direct contrast to "creation". And so used by both sides.
Virgil
<d0ba77d2-6fc9-4600...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quite so. But WE know enough not to presume what appears to be extremely
unlikely, even if you do not.
>
> * it is certainly more reasonable to assume* Assumption is the death
> trap of scientists. Real scientist prefer to say -I don't know-
Scientists quite often assume that certain things follow from certain
observations. They call such assumptions 'theories'. Without being able
to make such assumptions, there is no such thing as science.
That such assumptions remain always refutable by discovery of evidence
incompatible with those assumptions is also a necessary part of science.
So it appears that you are the one ignorant of what 'science' is.
Virgil
<b389387b-6405-4f52...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Until there is at least some evidence of the sort of 'something' that
you seem to require, 'nothing' is exactly what science says one should
believe in.
Virgil
Cory Albrecht <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is certainly used in that way by the creationists' side of the
debate, but not necessarily that way by the scientists side.
It is perfectly compatible with science that a "creator of the
world/universe" created a world/universe in which natural processes
could, and would, produce life.
Cory Albrecht
Actually, yes, the science side does use it that way.
>
> It is perfectly compatible with science that a "creator of the
> world/universe" created a world/universe in which natural processes
> could, and would, produce life.
No, a supernatural creator is not compatible with science because
science, by definition, deals only with the natural world and explains
(or tries to) things in terms of natural processes. Any explanation that
invokes the supernatural - like saying God created the universe -
becomes manifestly non-science because you cannot test for the supernatural.
Saying "God did it" is a dead end for explanations because you cannot
explain what processes God used and understand how those processes work,
like one can research into, explain and understand how electricity works.
aegis
> On Nov 15, 11:23 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <235c8$4b00c376$4a53bf9f$22...@FUSE.NET>,
> > "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
> > >news:Virgil-97C5D3....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> > > > In article
Jesus christ you are dumb. You have conflated evolution
with abiogenesis and you think abiogenesis is random.
1) Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis.
2) Just what do you think random means?
aegis
> On Nov 12, 1:28 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 12:32 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > On Nov 12, 9:53 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > On Nov 11, 9:41 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > On Nov 10, 11:40 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > "proof" of."
>
> > > LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
>
> > sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go.
>
> They can reliably reproduce these organisms in the laboratory from
> basic components. If viruses are living, then abiogenesis has occurred
> in the laboratory.
> You will now claim that a virus is not "alive."
> In any case, your claim can't be that abiogenesis is impossible
> since God presumably made abiogenesis come about. So, make a virus
> come into existence by breathing on some dirt.
>
Whether viruses are living depends on how you decide to define
life. Say your definition of life includes having a metabolism,
then viruses do not fit that definition.
aegis
> Joseki wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 9:53 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d8233e63-280b-4e77...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Nov 11, 9:41 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:687363cc-4208-4729...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Nov 10, 11:40 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:3fb88e47-1f22-42ca...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been
> >>>> duplicated in a Lab."
>
> >>>> Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all
> >>>> over the place quibbling.
>
> >>> "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of
> >>> today no more real than God is.
> >>> Would you agree?"
>
> >>> Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars
> >>> religious "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith
> >>> with common confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
>
> >> "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist
> >> believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was
> >> the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can
> >> be proved."
>
> religions from entering the scientific age.
>
It's wrong because scientist don't believe "random chance" is how
Abiogenesis came about. To think so is a strawman.
> There is almost no contradictions between religion and science. Science
> attempts to answer the question about physical things while reigion is a
> spiritual or philosophical. The problem is mainly that people "religitize"
> science. You find this among so called atheists(who are simply
> anti-christians).
>
Science offers natural explanations for phenomena. Religion relies
on the supernatural. This is a very important difference.
> The big bang is a religion. It has some scientific evidence but for the most
> part is a faith. It is an extrapolation far beyond what real scientific
> theory can handle. It is a logical consequence from insufficient evidence.
> For most scientists it is a much more logical conclusion than what the bible
> proports.
>
It is a natural explanation for the occurence of an event.
> But religion in general, again, is disjoint from science. Religion is a
> faith. As soon as something in religion becomes provable it is no more
> religion. Of course you do have people that will ignore scientific fact.
>
> Now, mathematical evolution is not contradictory to any religion that I know
> of yet it is continually bashed by those of faith. In fact, human evolution,
> in a mathematical sense, points more to an "intelligent creator" than
> anything else. Even if the big bang were true it does not mean there is no
> god. It does contradict the bible but any intelligent person should
> understand that the bible is not the word of god.
>
What the hell is mathematical evolution? What does mathematics have
to
do with this? Mathematics is a way to think about nature. You
don't need mathematics to describe and understand the main tenets of
evolutionary theory.
And goddamnit, stop conflating big bang with evolutionary theory!
Evolutionary theory has nothign to do with the big bang and the
big bang has nothing to do with evolutionary theory! One is
a theory in biology, the other is a part of cosmology! Why is
this so fucking hard for people to grasp?
> Many christians do not like darwinism. Darwinism is a form of evolution that
> takes into account certain scientific facts but also draws conclusions from
> insufficient evidence. It is logical assuming the hypothesis are true.
> Darwinism does conflict with the bible, at least on the surface.
>
Darwinism was the start of what evolutionary theory is today!
The theory of evolution has since been modified in
accordance with advances in our understanding of nature!
This underscores a significant difference between religion
and science. Religion = rigid, unchanging!
Science = changing!
This is very important to understand.
> Science is simply a methodology for logical and consistent thinking that
> tries to be objective as possible regardless of ones opinions or beliefs.
> Many religions would themselves a great favor to approach their belief more
> scientifically. After all, if they can root out all the crap and leave only
> things that are scientific and logical then their beliefs are much more
> coherent and probable.
Science achieves objectivity because of a process of peer-review!
Honest, respectable men of science help advance scientific
understanding by an exchange and analysis of ideas. No one idea is
held, untouched by anyone else. Consider evolutionary theory,
can you even begin to fathom the number of scientists over the
years that have had a role in establishing the theory as it stands
today? That collective work, and the way in which the work is
handled,
breeds for the necessary objectivity in helping establish/advance
our understanding of nature.
>
> Of course because of ignorance and arrogance this doesn't happen....
>
Bullshit. The kinds of pressures that are in place for advancing
our scientific understanding select against any behaviors which
run against the scientific process. Of course, I suspect you won't
grasp this.
> In any case the point is that science and religion are not contradictory and
> infact and reinforce each other. After all, science started out as a way to
> understand what "god" created and continues to be that. Everything that
> science proves is actually a step in proving that a god exists(it just might
> not be the kinda god that you can imagine).
>
This is psycho-babble. I can't help you out here except by
recommending
that you begin reading up on the history of science and evolutionary
theory
to get a sense of how science works.
> I'm an agnostic that practices atheism. I have no animosity towards
> christanity or most other religions(their are a few I do not like simply
> because they are much much worse... yet seemingly are treated better by
> atheists).
>
> The nice thing about religion is that it gives many people the passion to do
> great things beyond themself and we wouldn't be here if it we all started
> out as atheists. A true atheist is much more worthless than anything else.
> (The fact of the matter is there are no true atheists)
>
"True atheists"? This is idealistic, meaningless talk with wild
conclusions.
> I wish christianty would not be so afraid of science. Unfortunately most
> christians who fear things like "evolution"(darwinism is something a bit
> different) simply do not understand it. If one just opens their eyes they
> will see the scientific process go on. Evolution is just "growth" or
> "change" and does not imply we came from monkeys nor anything else.
> Evolution exists and simply by the definition cannot be denied and should
> not be.
>
Evolution is a fact of nature yes, but is more than "change." In
fact,
consider an environment where organisms are well adapted, and with
little
to no change to that environment for millions of years. What do you
think will happen?
> The biggest problem is that some arrogant atheist comes along and tries to
> shoot down any argument by christians(it's almost all against christians as
> I never see atheists argue against other religions) and because christians
> tend not to have any logical and scientific understanding end up looking
> like fools.
>
Who cares about the religion? If someone demonstrably shows a
misunderstanding
of evolution but purports to understand it, and misrepresents it as a
result,
then they should get a good thrashing. Look, I'll give you some real
good
advice. If you have not spent more than 100 hours of studying about
evolutionary theory, then your understanding of the subject is very
weak.
(And you would need nearly 10000 hours to be an expert in the area).
> Best thing I can tell a christian(or any religious person) is to learn some
> science. It's not satan and your not going to go to hell for it. Actually, I
> would imagine that if god did create the world then he would prefer you
> attempt to understand his creation(sort of admiring what he did) rather than
> neglect it. If you learn science then you will not only be able to improve
> your own understanding of the world and refine your own beliefs(you might
> change them or become even more devout) you will also be able to argue with
> the atheists and shoot most of their ignorant arguments down.
>
Where does this nonsense come from? Why is everything viewed as a
competition? Shoot arguments down? etc? Why is this necessary?
This is the wrong approach to understanding science.
> One thing I hate is an atheist who is really just an anti-christian. These
> are the worse kinda people. They understand that something is wrong with
> religion and for some reason simply go all out against christianity. They
> become illogical in their hatred for it and end up making all non-religious
> look ignorant along with making christians even more unacceptable of
> science(since the atheist tends to try and use "science" against them). They
> are basically the same as religious fanatics but on the other side.
>
Unfortunately, you are a victim of your own criticism.
> Personally I have no issues with christianity(again, or most other
> religions) and actually believe that for many people religion is necessary
> and good. We would not have many of the great artistic things nor many of
> the great scientific discoveries. Every atheist I have known has completely
> ignored the good things that have come out of christianity while trying to
> disprove it by using the bad things(which is illogical in the first place).
>
How many atheists do you actually know? And how many atheists are
there?
Without answering that, that statement about atheists is totally
meaningless.
> As far the bible, I would say it's simply a book mainly about teachings that
> are "prefered". It is not the word of god and not intended to be taken
> literally. For example, even though I'm agnostic/atheist I agree with many
> of the things the bible says. There are, of course, many things I don't
> agree with but even many christians don't agree with the either.
Virgil
Cory Albrecht <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
A supernatural creator who is continually creating or modifying may not
be compatible with science, but a clockmaker creator that after creating
the clock thereafter merely watches it leaves science quite free to
analyse the workings of that clock.
> because
> science, by definition, deals only with the natural world and explains
> (or tries to) things in terms of natural processes.
That presumes a creator of that natural world which cannot after the
initial creation cannot leave its creation alone,
> Any explanation that
> invokes the supernatural - like saying God created the universe -
> becomes manifestly non-science because you cannot test for the supernatural.
It may well be non-science, but, unless one presumes that the creator is
still modifying the way that universe works, it is not at all
anti-sceince.
>
> Saying "God did it" is a dead end
Saying "god is doing it now" certainly is, but if a claim of "godidit"
is sufficiently in the past tense, it is irrelevant to how science works
now.
thomas p.
They did not "fly the thing". Perhaps you think flotation toys are powered
swimming.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, a gas powered hot air balloon (burning gas heats the air) would
be considered powered flight. As far as "flying the thing", not so
much. Not much controlled flight in a balloon since you're pretty
much subject to the dictates of the prevailing winds.
Joseki
> In article
Not at all. It is my bread an butter.
here is a theory, some people who drink see pink elephants.
Joseki
> Virgil wrote, on 09-11-16 07:13 PM:
>
>
>
> > Cory Albrecht<coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Virgil wrote, on 09-11-15 11:19 PM:
> >>> In article
There is a problem here. And the word is "supernatural" There is no
such thing. The word is missed used and abused.
On the other hand saying Abiogenesis did it, is as bad as "God did it"
Dan Listermann
Then you can agree that all deities are based upon assumptions, some pretty
wild!
Dan Listermann
On Nov 16, 8:31 pm, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Virgil wrote, on 09-11-16 07:13 PM:
>
>
"There is a problem here. And the word is "supernatural" There is no
such thing. The word is missed used and abused."
So your deities are not supernatural and can be tested?
Joseki
Ever heard of Chemeical evolution? without it, ther is no biological
evolution... Now put on your dunce hat and go sit in a corner.
>
> 2) Just what do you think random means?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" thus:
Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a
particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or
conscious choice; haphazard.
aegis
If you think evolutionary theory says anything about abiogenesis
then you do not understand evolutionary theory.
Please read http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html
Your mistake has been committed by countless others; and
in all such cases, it is someone that has put little time
in studying evolutionary theory. In fact, I wouldn't be
surprised if you knew very little about chemistry while
taking this position.
To draw strong conclusions about abiogenesis without the
necessary background is a bit like claiming you have
a proof to fermat's last theorem when all you have under
your belt is high school algebra.
Who are you kidding?
>
> > 2) Just what do you think random means?
>
> The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" thus:
>
> Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a
> particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or
> conscious choice; haphazard.
>
I'm not surprised you consulted Oxford English dictionary for
a set of definitions. In all likelihood, it was because you
didn't have a clear definition in mind.
Anyway, that aside, do you think wavy-ripple patterns in
sand, under water, is a random process? If so, why?
If not, why not?
Jimbo
Judging from your posts, you must go hungry a lot.
Jimbo
Who is saying that Abiogenesis did it? Abiogenesis is a theory that
happens to fit the best evidence currently available, no more, no less
than that.