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
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Dave just repeats the lies that creationist websites give him.
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.
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.
Joseki
.
>
> >Reading Talk.Origins Faqs is like reading why republicans agree with
> >Obama on health reform.
>
> years now. I expect nothing but lies from you and you do not disappoint
> me. You seem to be very proud of your foolishness.
>
Same old crapola from you
> 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.
Joseki
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:41:08 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <ceafa431-de3b-4004-bf99-2b5e3a40a...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>:
> never repented of it.
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.
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.
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/
Smiler
How did the life from that other galaxy start?
(WARNING! I see infinite regression looming)
Maybe it started by, lets guess, abiogenesis.
If it started in another galaxy by abiogenisis, why couldn't it have started
here by the same process?
Still no supernatural beings needed, nor little green men.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Drafterman
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
>
> - 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.
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.
curtjester1
implied concepts by a mere labelling.
> > 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.
>
They may have meanings to those who like the parameters or
distinctions implied, but there isn't anything scientific in the
labelling. And not all scientists would agree that abiogenesis and
evolution are relevant or irrelevant, divided or connected. You're
trying to add 'oomph' by consensus or opinion. It really does nothing
for debate, other than trying to control what will be discussed in the
topic for debate.
> > "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.
>
>
All I do is answer posts in my favorite religion google group.
Parmameters don't have much meaning, and who can be labeled a good
umpire is well not worthy unless God is doin' the umpin'.
CJ
I don't find it a 'problem', and I consider it an 'avoidance' of
realities, and your site would just be one more attempt at a
hypothetical theory/opinion.
> > 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
I don't even attempt to go either way. I think it's irrelevant to do,
just as seeing change is valid in attempting to make dogma on how the
change got there. I believe what I believe by general observation
and attempted logic. I think the logic is better than some of the
evolutionary ways of thinking, is all.
CJ
.> I doubt anyone can do much with
Budikka666
The challenge I offered you in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.
Unmet challenge #3
Provide evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a creator. Show us
this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a creator.
Unmet challenge #4
Support claims that bacteria have never arisen from anything other
than bacteria/life has never arisen from anything but life.
Unmet challenge #5
Provide evidence in support of the creationist claim that information
cannot be added to a genome.
Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" are: specifically
what the mechanism is which (according to creationist claims) prevents
one species from evolving into another species over time.
Unmet Challenge #7
Provide your scientific evidence (as opposed to your LYING,
unsupported bullshit, which has been refuted repeatedly) to support
your creationist claim that life cannot arise from organic chemistry,
when scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that the truth is quite
to the contrary
Unmet Challenge #8
Prove that there's a god out there waiting to judge me when I die.
Otherwise you and your creationist fundie ilk are nothing but pathetic
LIARS and FRAUDS.
Unmet Challenge #9
Prove that we have a soul. Demonstrate scientifically where it is and
what its purpose is.
Unmet Challenge #10
Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
Here's a list of the strongest advocates of creation on Usenet WHO
HAVE FLED one or more of these challenges:
Chicken Adman
Chicken Andrew
Chicken Brother Ted
Chicken Codebreaker
Chicken Curtjester1
Chicken Duke
Chicken Gabriel
Chicken I'll Be Bauck
Chicken Pastor Dave
Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
Case closed. End of story. End of You.
Budikka
Smiler
There is over 150 years worth of evidence for evolution, much of which was
submitted by your co-religionists.
What scientific evidence do you have for creationism?
>
>>> 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?
It is. Your ignorance of these books isn't my problem.
> Found
> any to support what I said in proof, scenario, or counterargument?
>
Do your own research. 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?
>>
> 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.
Which so called biblical prophesies have come true?
>
>
>>>> 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
Neither do I, hence my request for you to do so.
> 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.
You believe EVERYTHING you read?
>
>>> 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?
>
You're the one trying to disprove an accepted scientific fact. A fact also
accepted by the majority of Christians. I've nothing to prove.
Drafterman
I didn't say they did. I'm simply explaining that, as far as talking
about the scientific concepts, the labels are clear and well defined.
Abiogenesis and evolution are separate and distinct and do not
overlap.
>
> > > 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.
>
> They may have meanings to those who like the parameters or
> distinctions implied, but there isn't anything scientific in the
> labelling.
There is plenty scientific in what the labels represent, as labeled by
scientists.
> And not all scientists would agree that abiogenesis and
> evolution are relevant or irrelevant, divided or connected. You're
> trying to add 'oomph' by consensus or opinion. It really does nothing
> for debate, other than trying to control what will be discussed in the
> topic for debate.
I find it ironic that in the same paragraph you inaccurately accuse me
of attempting to support my point through reference to a consensus
(which I'm not) you then attempt to support your point by such a
reference.
As far as controlling what is discussed in a debate, I do not see
anything wrong with using language in its appropriate context and
sticking to the topic. Or would you prefer we talk about sports?
>
> > > "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.
>
> All I do is answer posts in my favorite religion google group.
> Parmameters don't have much meaning, and who can be labeled a good
> umpire is well not worthy unless God is doin' the umpin'.
I'm sorry you have such a disdain for language and constructive
discussion.
Free Lunch
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Because there is no evidence that they were 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?
No, we have physical evidence. It is religious folks who try to equate
their evidence-free claims with scientific discoveries and then take
offense when people laugh at their foolishness.
huge
They just can't seem to get a very simple fact into their head:
If we have to explain complex organisms as made by a god,
then we have, have, have to explain who made the god by
_exactly_ the same frigging argument.
Are they stupid? YES!
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
grisha
curtjester1
when it avoids discussing merely what it doesn't like discussing. You
can't say 'Origins' and have that any more meaningful than saying
Creationism, Evolutionism, or Planet Seeding...is relevant or non-
relevant to each other.
> > 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.
>
It is to those who are independent and daring. Having barricades or
cliche's is not under my 'guidelines'.
> > "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.
>
>
Well it is part of the topic because it's one's BEEF on them
(abiogenesis and evolution). So people can say anything they want and
can dis or align themselves with their deem worthy scientific concepts
or not. I like to use Einstein's relativity to show that there is
intelligence at times. It really has nothing to do with what people
do in considering the general earth evolution.
Even if they were 'good' what would it prove as far as making say a
beef on Abiogenesis?
> > 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.
So what? Why would I care about something that doesn't want to deal
with what I am interested in? I am more into researching what
evolutionists seem to leave out in theory and how a spontaneous
abiogenesis is way unlikely.
CJ
Budikka666
curtjester1
microscope? Who needs science for a God, when the logic of why we are
so intricate in all life forms that support engineering for it's
existence? Why depend on outlandish odds of chemicals and explosions
starting life to support a theory when it sounds outlandish and can't
be shown?
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> 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?
>
> It is. Your ignorance of these books isn't my problem.
>
Then show or tell us how body parts came about individually with all
the components it needed to recreate life, through all birthing
processes and all the needed systems to control that process. It
always gets more difficult than the chicken and the egg, doesn't it?
The male and the female...the sperm and the egg, the how, who and
when would know it would work and why. It's actually beyond
ridiculous to think they came in a nifty way through trials within the
environment. But you do! Back er' up?!
> > Found
> > any to support what I said in proof, scenario, or counterargument?
>
> Do your own research. I'm not your teacher.
>
>
It would have been shown in front of me with all the people that do
attempt to conflate opinions to form a scenarioed web that must be
spun to counteract what I say. I am just waiting. They do link all
sorts of stuff ya know.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> 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.
>
> Which so called biblical prophesies have come true?
>
>
There are over 300 just concerning the Christ way before his arrival.
There are many others concerning civilizations, world powers, specific
events, rulers...and such. Just have to have a genuine interest, and
will wait for that before getting any specifics.
>
> >>>> 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
>
> Neither do I, hence my request for you to do so.
>
But they could exist. I just don't care that they did if they did.
> > 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.
>
> You believe EVERYTHING you read?
>
>
No. Example, what you are saying.
>
> >>> 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?
>
> You're the one trying to disprove an accepted scientific fact. A fact also
> accepted by the majority of Christians. I've nothing to prove.
>
Which theory of evolution do you spout? There are how many?
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 -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
boundary. I like talking about Einstein and how it relates to logic
and pre-earth concepts. It's scientific yet, probably not liked in
the evolution on earth world.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > They may have meanings to those who like the parameters or
> > distinctions implied, but there isn't anything scientific in the
> > labelling.
>
> There is plenty scientific in what the labels represent, as labeled by
> scientists.
>
Yes as well as special interests and groups they may represent. I
don't care to be corralled or confined..as a matter of interest, and
what I deem as significant or necessary.
> > And not all scientists would agree that abiogenesis and
> > evolution are relevant or irrelevant, divided or connected. You're
> > trying to add 'oomph' by consensus or opinion. It really does nothing
> > for debate, other than trying to control what will be discussed in the
> > topic for debate.
>
> I find it ironic that in the same paragraph you inaccurately accuse me
> of attempting to support my point through reference to a consensus
> (which I'm not) you then attempt to support your point by such a
> reference.
>
Well I have run across enough 'consenus' with your viewpoint. I just
don't see it desirable for my interest in what could be interest
points under say 'Origins'.
> As far as controlling what is discussed in a debate, I do not see
> anything wrong with using language in its appropriate context and
> sticking to the topic. Or would you prefer we talk about sports?
>
>
It's a matter of worthiness. I debate other topics unrelated, like in
the JFK case, about say the rilfe being found in the Book Depository.
Some people who even agree with my side in general get into the rifle
and own many models etc and can talk circles around me...on certain
parts of the rifle...which I deem ancillary and even unnecessary. If
I can prove that the rifle was never ordered or never received
verifiably at a post office, and can show a false papertrail around
the rilfe....the rilfe becomes mute as a point of interest and a
necessary item for discussion. I feel the same about these topics of
abiogenesis and evolution. I try to pick out the stuff that is
absolutely necessary.
>
> > > > "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.
>
> > All I do is answer posts in my favorite religion google group.
> > Parmameters don't have much meaning, and who can be labeled a good
> > umpire is well not worthy unless God is doin' the umpin'.
>
> I'm sorry you have such a disdain for language and constructive
> discussion.
>
I think you think of it as 'disdain' as I have a firm stance on what I
would do. I really care for the God angle. If evolution,
creationism, abiogenesis, planet seeding...comes into play..so be it.
CJ
curtjester1
observations worthy to you for belief. So I used something small like
an arrowhead to show that people will draw all sorts of belief
conclusions surrounding it....finding it, when it was used, what
tribe, used for war, for food,...so it's tied into what they observed
and what they formed a belief about it for. If that simple thing is
'beliefable", why isn't something so much more intricate in structure
than arrowhead, believable? Aren't our 'made' bodies and all the
systems within seem like that is so?
CJ
Budikka666
curtjester1
Budikka666
Smiler
One can't see many things proven to exist through a microscope.
Do you claim that electons don't exist?
> Who needs science for a God, when the logic of why we are
> so intricate in all life forms that support engineering for it's
> existence?
That is your belief, not mine. Beliefs are not evidence.
> Why depend on outlandish odds of chemicals and explosions
> starting life to support a theory when it sounds outlandish and can't
> be shown?
Can you show objective evidence for a 'creation'?
Were you there? Did you see it?
Look it up. I'm not your teacher.
>
>>> Found
>>> any to support what I said in proof, scenario, or counterargument?
>>
>> Do your own research. I'm not your teacher.
>>
>>
> It would have been shown in front of me with all the people that do
> attempt to conflate opinions to form a scenarioed web that must be
> spun to counteract what I say. I am just waiting. They do link all
> sorts of stuff ya know.
Care for some dressing for that word salad?
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Which so called biblical prophesies have come true?
>>
>>
> There are over 300 just concerning the Christ way before his arrival.
Would that be like the one that said he would be called Immanuel?
Or the one that said he would be born to a person called Bethlehem?
> There are many others concerning civilizations, world powers, specific
> events, rulers...and such. Just have to have a genuine interest, and
> will wait for that before getting any specifics.
>
Prophesies after the event aren't prophesies.
Vague prophesies like "I prophesy it will rain within the next 24 hours"
aren't prophesies.
Sure things like "I prophesy the sun will rise tomorrow" aren't prophesies.
Give me an accurate, delineated and dated event that has come true following
a prophesy.
>>
>>>>>> 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
>>
>> Neither do I, hence my request for you to do so.
>>
> But they could exist. I just don't care that they did if they did.
So you're agnostic about leprechauns. What makes gods different?
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You believe EVERYTHING you read?
>>
>>
> No. Example, what you are saying.
>
>>
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> You're the one trying to disprove an accepted scientific fact. A
>> fact also accepted by the majority of Christians. I've nothing to
>> prove.
>>
> Which theory of evolution do you spout? There are how many?
>
I've only ever heard of one. The one proposed by Darwin and modified by the
evidence found since he wrote it.
Please name these 'alternative theories'. Who proposed them?
Parish *~
"Teresita" <rub...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.13....@newsguy.com...
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:43:20 -0600, Parish *~ wrote:
>
>> 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!
Or cosmic frogs........
>
> --
> Teresita
> http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
--
The Parrish *~, American-American-American.
* * * * * *
"The Mass is the most perfect form of making good money."
* * * * * * * *
Parish *~
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c585b0b2-8048-4eac...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
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'?
::: Why do you fundies always have to inject a magical fantastical "god"
into everything?
--
The Parrish *~, American-American-American.
* * * * * *
"The Mass is the most perfect form of making quick nice money."
Parish *~
On Dec 15, 6:53 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Why should I when you can't even define evolution or an exact word for
objective?
::: Huh? Evolution is change over time. How can you say it's never been
defined? This is why people call fundies like you liars and how you drive
people away from religion.
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.
::: And look at what a poor "creation" they are! The evidence shows your
god is a poor "creator" as you surely agree. Vaginas rip during childbirth
killing the woman. Ovaries become cancerous and kill the women. Uteruses
become cancerous and tubal pregnancies kill the women. Fibroid tumors cause
women agony as does endometriosis. Men suffer from impotency and prostate
cancer that kill them. On and on it goes proving there is no god or the god
is a poor creator - don't you agree?
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.
::: Vaginas don't store eggs. Ovaries do. What good did a penis do your
God? Isn't he "male" and we're supposedly created in his image?
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.
::: It's clear you know nothing about evolution despite all the excellent
information online - don't you agree?
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.
::: How are they evidence when they were written by man and make some
outrageous claims?
> 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.
--
The Parrish *~, American-American-American.
* * * * * *
"The Mass is the most perfect form of making money."
Parish *~
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:88fef12e-e1f7-4c23...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
> find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
> has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
> pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
>
> Case closed. End of story. End of You.
>
> Budikka
Can you believe Duke the Puke is still claiming YOU ran away from him and
his tough questions?
--
The Parrish *~, American-American-American.
* * * * * *
"The Mass is the most perfect form of making fast easy money."
Parish *~
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.
Crafty engineering? When the human body is so faulty? Your god is a very
poor pathetic engineer.
> 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.
::: Hard to dismiss something there is no evidence for? Sometimes it takes
time to get answers.
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
--
The Parrish *~, American-American-American.
* * * * * *
"The Mass is the most perfect form of making money."
Parish *~
On Dec 17, 10:35 pm, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not following your point.
>
I was trying to draw you into a perspective that would make you own
observations worthy to you for belief. So I used something small like
an arrowhead to show that people will draw all sorts of belief
conclusions surrounding it....finding it, when it was used, what
tribe, used for war, for food,...so it's tied into what they observed
and what they formed a belief about it for. If that simple thing is
'beliefable", why isn't something so much more intricate in structure
than arrowhead, believable? Aren't our 'made' bodies and all the
systems within seem like that is so?
::: No. It seems we evolved as the fossil record shows. We're too faulty to
be created by a "god." Our women die from tubal pregnancies. Men die of
prostate cancer. Children die of a variety of genetic diseases. We often go
blind as we age. We get crippled with arthritis. Don't you agree a god
would have done better?
thomas p.
"Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hgihqi$2aq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:88fef12e-e1f7-4c23...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
>> find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
>> has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
>> pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
>>
>> Case closed. End of story. End of You.
>>
>> Budikka
>
> Can you believe Duke the Puke is still claiming YOU ran away from him and
> his tough questions?
After all these years and after Puke's consistent failure to post anything
remotely
intelligent or even honest, why does anybody ask him anything at all or
respond
to anything he says? He is, after all, a complete zero. It is not that he
is wrong;
he isn't anything at all.
grisha
you using "to believe" as to hold an opinion, yes. If you are using
"to believe" in religion sense, no observations worthy to me for
belief. Even if I have had 99 observations in the row to support a
notion, there is a chance that the next observation will contradict my
notion. And this way to infinity. The scientific knowledge seems
always to be tentative.
Regarding your arrowhead example. Did you ever see Lighthouse and
castle national monument in Texas. Look it up.
Urundai Kozhambu
Budikka666 says...
>
Budikka wrote:
"I have no academic qualifications whatsoever."
Budikka666
wrote:
> In article <cd8593b7-f10b-48c0-85e1-e00b4124a...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Budikka666 says...
>
>
>
> Budikka wrote:
>
> "I have no academic qualifications whatsoever."
And I need none to dismiss creationist and fundie LIES. No one does.
That's how bad creationist and fundie LIES truly are.
Now do you have a point?
Budikka
Urundai Kozhambu
Budikka666 says...
>
>On Dec 19, 1:54=A0pm, Urundai Kozhambu <Urundai_mem...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> In article <cd8593b7-f10b-48c0-85e1-e00b4124a...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Budikka666 says...
>>
>>
>>
>> Budikka wrote:
>>
>> "I have no academic qualifications whatsoever."
>
>And I need none to dismiss creationist and fundie LIES. No one does.
>That's how bad creationist and fundie LIES truly are.
>
>Now do you have a point?
>
>Budikka
There's a difference in believing in something that is not true and 'lying'
about it.
curtjester1
lil bigger so we could see. I think electrons alone prove there is
intelligent design, because they are so mathematical in a high form.
Why would they get there on their own?
> > Who needs science for a God, when the logic of why we are
> > so intricate in all life forms that support engineering for it's
> > existence?
>
> That is your belief, not mine. Beliefs are not evidence.
>
As a lot of science is when their findings are incorporated into
theories, speculations, scenarios..etc
> > Why depend on outlandish odds of chemicals and explosions
> > starting life to support a theory when it sounds outlandish and can't
> > be shown?
>
> Can you show objective evidence for a 'creation'?
I don't want to, and the same can be said for first life without a
creation scenario. I could say, that according to science theory,
that matter cannot be created nor destroyed..via the theory of
relativity. That to me shows that matter had to come from special pre-
existence factor. Most people rely on their sense of observation to
believe. I just believe they use good sense.
> Were you there? Did you see it?
>
>
No, and I don't need that experience to form a belief. I wasn't
around when lots of things were created like a phone or a computer. I
just believe they were made.
It should be there for me to see, in detail, or to see on some science
tv show. Why isn't it there for the public? Logic dictates that they
both had to be there, not only in parts, but a lot of other factors to
get to those parts to work. Blind luck in itself would be the only
factor that a person would depend on just for the mere speculation
that somehow, someway, they would just show up at the same time, odds
beyond comprehension, just to form their belief. They can't, they
haven't, and they won't.
>
> >>> Found
> >>> any to support what I said in proof, scenario, or counterargument?
>
> >> Do your own research. I'm not your teacher.
>
> > It would have been shown in front of me with all the people that do
> > attempt to conflate opinions to form a scenarioed web that must be
> > spun to counteract what I say. I am just waiting. They do link all
> > sorts of stuff ya know.
>
> Care for some dressing for that word salad?
>
>
Chipotle sauce on the side.
>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> >> Which so called biblical prophesies have come true?
>
> > There are over 300 just concerning the Christ way before his arrival.
>
> Would that be like the one that said he would be called Immanuel?
> Or the one that said he would be born to a person called Bethlehem?
>
That's 2..something like 330 more to go.
> > There are many others concerning civilizations, world powers, specific
> > events, rulers...and such. Just have to have a genuine interest, and
> > will wait for that before getting any specifics.
>
> Prophesies after the event aren't prophesies.
Prophecies before and coming true later is what the Bible tells about.
> Vague prophesies like "I prophesy it will rain within the next 24 hours"
> aren't prophesies.
I wouldn't rely on them.
> Sure things like "I prophesy the sun will rise tomorrow" aren't prophesies.
> Give me an accurate, delineated and dated event that has come true following
> a prophesy.
>
>
You can google up the 70 weeks of years prophecy of Daniel. It shows
some 400 years in advance the time of messiah's arrival, his ministry
and death.
>
> >>>>>> 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
>
> >> Neither do I, hence my request for you to do so.
>
> > But they could exist. I just don't care that they did if they did.
>
> So you're agnostic about leprechauns. What makes gods different?
>
>
totally ignorant. I am not suprised by miracles that a God wouldn't
like. It's prophesied that they would exist to make mankind chase
after them
>
> >>> 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.
>
> >> You believe EVERYTHING you read?
>
> > No. Example, what you are saying.
>
> >>>>> 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?
>
> >> You're the one trying to disprove an accepted scientific fact. A
> >> fact also accepted by the majority of Christians. I've nothing to
> >> prove.
>
> > Which theory of evolution do you spout? There are how many?
>
> I've only ever heard of one. The one proposed by Darwin and modified by the
> evidence found since he wrote it.
> Please name these 'alternative theories'. Who proposed them?
>
A quick google will find you ten or so. One that I hear is the first
life is the father of all living lifeforms on earth. That means the
mosquito's leg is in the same family as the giraffe's leg......
CJ
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c585b0b2-8048-4eac...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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'?
>
> ::: Why do you fundies always have to inject a magical fantastical "god"
> into everything?
> --
Because the blind ass luck god, isn't compelling enough.
CJ
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a33a171c-4c29-4715...@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 15, 6:53 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Why should I when you can't even define evolution or an exact word for
> objective?
>
> ::: Huh? Evolution is change over time. How can you say it's never been
> defined? This is why people call fundies like you liars and how you drive
> people away from religion.
>
doesn't decide how much change is relevant. Just because two parents
mate and their is a distinct offspring, denoting change, doesn't say
that the offsprings will change into whatever one fantasizes what they
may become.
> 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.
>
> ::: And look at what a poor "creation" they are! The evidence shows your
> god is a poor "creator" as you surely agree. Vaginas rip during childbirth
> killing the woman. Ovaries become cancerous and kill the women. Uteruses
> become cancerous and tubal pregnancies kill the women. Fibroid tumors cause
> women agony as does endometriosis. Men suffer from impotency and prostate
> cancer that kill them. On and on it goes proving there is no god or the god
> is a poor creator - don't you agree?
>
Well, that's why there is religion to explain why things aren't
perfect. Even so, they are wondrous. The fall of man explains why in
theory we have death which is obvious it needs catalysts like
diseases, genetic tampering, and unforseen occurances to meet it. The
hard birth is a direct curse from Eve, and acts of nature obviously
will be back to a serene state, when the "new earth" is prophesied to
arrive and promised to change what happened in the past. The
end...in Rev..22, the last books says, "the curse will be no more."
Perfect health, and perfect behavior...The curse includes from the
cast from Eden..."to the thorns and thistles,"...IOW, a difficult
life, until mankind is under the umbrella of God's kingdom
> 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.
>
> ::: Vaginas don't store eggs. Ovaries do. What good did a penis do your
> God? Isn't he "male" and we're supposedly created in his image?
>
So not only do you need a vagina and penis arriving at the same time,
you need a vagina with ovaries arriving at the same time...It only
gets more complicated, especially when you add a brain, blood, a
heartbeat..etc etc
> 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.
>
> ::: It's clear you know nothing about evolution despite all the excellent
> information online - don't you agree?
>
I like things that are obvious and watch shows on science and there is
good research, but there is TONS of speculation..especially when a
theory is assumed. Evolution means just change...not that it does in
one's eyes especially. The what got there, the chicken or the egg is
still a conundrum to all. The answer is obvious to many.
> 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.
>
> ::: How are they evidence when they were written by man and make some
> outrageous claims?
>
Men, not man. Some 40 authors over 66 books over centuries. They for
the most part didn't know each other, and kept on the main thread of
God's dealing with mankind in a way that avoids contradictions.
> > 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.
>
I go by the old adage, you don't need a weatherman to know which way
the wind blows. That's how obvious the male, female thing is to me.
Jesus simply stated, "He who created them male and female." I believe
it. It's too easy for those who want sophistication to bolster
themselves as needing complicated opinions to make them feel 'more
intelligent.'
CJ
curtjester1
> I am still not sure I understood you, but I will try to answer. If
> you using "to believe" as to hold an opinion, yes. If you are using
> "to believe" in religion sense, no observations worthy to me for
> belief. Even if I have had 99 observations in the row to support a
> notion, there is a chance that the next observation will contradict my
> notion. And this way to infinity. The scientific knowledge seems
> always to be tentative.
>
say scientifically, that matter cannot be created nor destroyed...by
Einstein. There had to be a creation of something of matter to get to
that point! All that is in that shall we say puny, chaotic state is
highly mathematical and needs physics! Why isn't there more chaos
than that. Why all the order? An atom as high mathematics. It has
to be from something intelligent. All we have for observations down
here are much more intelligent than even that, because of all the
playoffs of greater chemicals and physics going on from the simple
atom. It just makes sense to me.
> Regarding your arrowhead example. Did you ever see Lighthouse and
> castle national monument in Texas. Look it up.
>
No, I'll keep it in mind my next computer session. Thanx.
CJ
Free Lunch
<Urundai...@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Which is more than adequate to show anti-science creationists that they
are ignorant, lying fools.
Free Lunch
<Urundai...@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>In article <dadcfb52-65e1-41ac...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
How many times do you need to ignore those who point you to evidence
that your beliefs are erroneous before you are a liar?
Plenty of evolution deniers here have gone well past seventy times
seven. Are they liars yet?
Free Lunch
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Dec 19, 2:34�pm, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am still not sure I understood you, but I will try to answer. �If
>> you using "to believe" as to hold an opinion, yes. �If you are using
>> "to believe" in religion sense, no observations worthy to me for
>> belief. �Even if I have had 99 observations in the row to support a
>> notion, there is a chance that the next observation will contradict my
>> notion. �And this way to infinity. �The scientific knowledge seems
>> always to be tentative.
>>
>Why does it have to be 'religious' versus anything? I believe that
>say scientifically, that matter cannot be created nor destroyed...by
>Einstein. There had to be a creation of something of matter to get to
>that point!
So, what is the net energy of the universe?
...
Budikka666
Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
Budikka666
wrote:
> In article <dadcfb52-65e1-41ac-90b5-64feb6651...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Indeed, and Curtjester1 is an outright LIAR, as are all creationists
and fundies. I know it. They know it. The difference is that I care
about it. They don't.
Budikka
Urundai Kozhambu
You are using the word 'liar' too loosely in my opinion. My definition of a
liar is someone who knowingly falsifies the truth - usually for some personal
gain.
Creationism, of course, is bullshit, but, just because someone believes in it,
doesn't mean they're liars. Some folks simply cannot comprehend evidence even
if it is spoon fed to them - much less - crammed down their throats. I know
it's frustrating but you don't win an argument just because you say you won an
argument. Budikka, pounding her chest saying, "I won, I won," means nothing
unless she can convince her opponent of at least something. All she
accomplishes is driving folks away while screaming, "I won." That's not a
debate; that's a woman on her period.
Urundai Kozhambu
Budikka666 says...
>
>On Dec 19, 2:15=A0pm, Urundai Kozhambu <Urundai_mem...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> In article <dadcfb52-65e1-41ac-90b5-64feb6651...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Budikka666 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 19, 1:54=3DA0pm, Urundai Kozhambu <Urundai_mem...@newsguy.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> In article <cd8593b7-f10b-48c0-85e1-e00b4124a...@p8g2000yqb.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Budikka666 says...
>>
>> >> Budikka wrote:
>>
>> >> "I have no academic qualifications whatsoever."
>>
>> >That's how bad creationist and fundie LIES truly are.
>>
>> >Now do you have a point?
>>
>> >Budikka
>>
>g'
>> about it.
>
>Indeed, and Curtjester1 is an outright LIAR, as are all creationists
>and fundies. I know it. They know it. The difference is that I care
>about it. They don't.
>
>Budikka
This demonstrates how little you know about people and how they think.
Curtjester is a member of a cult. You would do yourself well to learn about how
cults impact their members. It has nothing to do with lying.
Budikka666
wrote:
> In article <fdfqi5tk5pbpq364cslorjsv2nrooi0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 19 Dec 2009 12:15:13 -0800, Urundai Kozhambu
>
> >>In article <dadcfb52-65e1-41ac-90b5-64feb6651...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >>Budikka666 says...
>
> >>>On Dec 19, 1:54=A0pm, Urundai Kozhambu <Urundai_mem...@newsguy.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>> In article <cd8593b7-f10b-48c0-85e1-e00b4124a...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.=
> >>>com>,
> >>>> Budikka666 says...
>
> >>>> Budikka wrote:
>
> >>>> "I have no academic qualifications whatsoever."
>
> >>>And I need none to dismiss creationist and fundie LIES. No one does.
> >>>That's how bad creationist and fundie LIES truly are.
>
> >>>Now do you have a point?
>
> >>>Budikka
>
> >>There's a difference in believing in something that is not true and 'lying'
> >>about it.
>
> >How many times do you need to ignore those who point you to evidence
> >that your beliefs are erroneous before you are a liar?
>
> >Plenty of evolution deniers here have gone well past seventy times
> >seven. Are they liars yet?
>
> You are using the word 'liar' too loosely in my opinion.
Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one and most of them stink.
Now if you have something to say that's either useful or intelligent
and which you can support, please do get back to us. Otherwise
nothing you say is of any interest to me. Got that?
Budikka
Smiler
Scientific theories are an explanation of the known facts. If further facts,
which throw doubt on the theory, come to light then the theory is either
abandoned or modified to fit those facts. If those facts fit the existing
theory then the theory is strengthened. IOW, theories are falsifiable,
religion isn't. The Theory of Evolution has so much weight of evidence
(facts) supporting it, it is as proven as any theory can be. Evolution
happens, so is a proven fact. There are thousands of fossils, a proven fact.
Some of those fossils show changes over time in the structure of the animals
they are from.
>>> Why depend on outlandish odds of chemicals and explosions
>>> starting life to support a theory when it sounds outlandish and
>>> can't be shown?
>>
>> Can you show objective evidence for a 'creation'?
>
> I don't want to, and the same can be said for first life without a
> creation scenario.
Because you cannot. At present, all the evidence for first life without any
supernatural interference isn't in, but given time and research, it will be
shown to have occurred.
> I could say, that according to science theory,
> that matter cannot be created nor destroyed..via the theory of
> relativity.
What has that got to do with chemicals reacting with each other to form new
compounds?
Matter can be converted into energy and vice versa, according to the theory
of relativity.
> That to me shows that matter had to come from special
> pre- existence factor.
We don't yet know where the energy/matter came from. Maybe we'll never know,
but that's no reason to 'blame' a supernatural being that cannot be shown to
exist. Did the leprechauns do it?
Ask the press why it isn't.
That's 2 that didn't come true. My point is proven.
>
>>> There are many others concerning civilizations, world powers,
>>> specific events, rulers...and such. Just have to have a genuine
>>> interest, and will wait for that before getting any specifics.
>>
>> Prophesies after the event aren't prophesies.
>
> Prophecies before and coming true later is what the Bible tells about.
>
FALSE!
>
>> Vague prophesies like "I prophesy it will rain within the next 24
>> hours" aren't prophesies.
>
> I wouldn't rely on them.
All of the prophesies in the bible are of that kind, yet you still believe
them.
>
>> Sure things like "I prophesy the sun will rise tomorrow" aren't
>> prophesies. Give me an accurate, delineated and dated event that has
>> come true following a prophesy.
>>
>>
> You can google up the 70 weeks of years prophecy of Daniel.
Care to translate that into English. I don't understand Gibberish.
> It shows
> some 400 years in advance the time of messiah's arrival, his ministry
> and death.
>
Let's see.
Before the supposed birth of the supposed Christ, many Jews believed these
predictions. Now suppose I lived in those times and wanted to write a book
about a fictitious messiah that I wanted people to believe in. Wouldn't it
be a good idea to make my messiah character 'fit' the predictions that many
people already believed and so make the fictional character more believable?
But, woops, I got his name wrong and, due to a mistranslation, the family of
Bethlehem became a place called Bethlehem in my story.
>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>
>>>> Neither do I, hence my request for you to do so.
>>
>>> But they could exist. I just don't care that they did if they did.
>>
>> So you're agnostic about leprechauns. What makes gods different?
>>
>>
> totally ignorant.
Thanks for your admission of ignorance, but I had determined that from your
previous posts.
> I am not suprised by miracles that a God wouldn't
> like. It's prophesied that they would exist to make mankind chase
> after them
>
Please show where in the bible the word 'leprechaun' is.
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> You believe EVERYTHING you read?
>>
>>> No. Example, what you are saying.
>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>
>>>> You're the one trying to disprove an accepted scientific fact. A
>>>> fact also accepted by the majority of Christians. I've nothing to
>>>> prove.
>>
>>> Which theory of evolution do you spout? There are how many?
>>
>> I've only ever heard of one. The one proposed by Darwin and modified
>> by the evidence found since he wrote it.
>> Please name these 'alternative theories'. Who proposed them?
>>
> A quick google will find you ten or so. One that I hear is the first
> life is the father of all living lifeforms on earth.
As the first life was neither male nor female the word you seek is
'progenitor'.
> That means the
> mosquito's leg is in the same family as the giraffe's leg......
>
No it doesn't. Family, in scientific taxonomy, has a very specific meaning
which puts insects and mammals in different families.
But, yes, an insect's leg is similar in structure to a mammal's leg. Size
has little to do with it. My wife is 4' 10" tall. There are some women over
6'. Does that make the structure of her legs different from the structure of
a 6 footer's legs?
Our doctor doesn't discriminate. He treats all women's legs the same,
whatever their size.