| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andrew" |
| Date: |
28 Dec 2006 03:22:28 PM |
| Object: |
Creation and Biogenesis |
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
1. living things always come from living things;
2. living things produce only more living things
like themselves.
There has never been an exception. But because
the implications of this law disproves the popular
"mud to man theory" which denies God, they say
that there just ~must~ have been an exception.
"The Law of Biogenesis says that living things
cannot be formed from non-living things. .but
there must have been at least exception in the
distant past -an abiogenesis event."
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Law_of_biogenesis
It is true there was an 'event' in the past. But this
event was an intelligently planned, and purposed
event by an all powerful Creator. To say other-
wise is against the law..the law of biogenesis.
Andrew
.
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
31 Dec 2006 11:02:46 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:5aNlh.9044$X72.4469@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Don Kresch" wrote in message
news:p16ep2pr5un19br1bn95uhnlcmask8ehll@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"JessHC" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
I'm going to keep asking until you either leave, stop
responding, or admit that there is no such thing as the law of
biogenesis.
Do you think that your immature actions could make the law of
biogenesis go away? How silly!
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis." http://pubbarou.notlong.com
Why do you keep referring to the exact same apologetics website? You
can't be bothered to find out if there is a legitimate website that
supports your claim?
Please cite some items of substance from the site which are defectively
known to be false.
Please cite ANYTHING from that site which is actually true.
"Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so
well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is
called the Law of Biogenesis." In a footnote, the authors stated further:
"Some philosophers
call this a principle instead of a law, but this is a matter of
definition, and def-
initions are arbitrary. Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law
about laws.
Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels
of generalization" -- Biology: A Search for Order in
Complexity, p.74
Andrew, we are all too familiar with the habit of creationists of twisting
quotes to suit creationists needs. As a result of this no creationist quote
can be taken at face value. In this case we both know that you haven't read
the reference you have used so I need to know which crap site you used to
get this reference. IN other words Andrew, we need a reliable source to
verify this garbage. To see the lies of creationist go here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
Thank you,
Ralph
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
31 Dec 2006 09:52:05 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 11:29:05 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:p16ep2pr5un19br1bn95uhnlcmask8ehll@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"JessHC" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
I'm going to keep asking until you either leave, stop
responding, or admit that there is no such thing as the law of
biogenesis.
Do you think that your immature actions could make the law of
biogenesis go away? How silly!
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis." http://pubbarou.notlong.com
Why do you keep referring to the exact same apologetics website? You
can't be bothered to find out if there is a legitimate website that
supports your claim?
Please cite some items of substance from the site which are defectively
known to be false.
Please cite ANYTHING from that site which is actually true.
"Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well
established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law
of Biogenesis."
I said cite anything from that site which is actually true.
That is not true.
So please cite something from that site which is actually
true. And explain why god is exempt from the law..the law of
biogenesis.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 12:02:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:18:06 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<ibxlh.4550$pQ3.743@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"JessHC" wrote in message news:1167492223.471518.299030@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote:
I'm going to keep asking until you either leave, stop
responding, or admit that there is no such thing as the law of
biogenesis.
Do you think that your immature actions could make the law of
biogenesis go away? How silly!
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis." http://pubbarou.notlong.com
Why do you keep referring to the exact same apologetics website? You
can't be bothered to find out if there is a legitimate website that
supports your claim?
Please cite some items of substance from the site which are defectively
known to be false.
I've already pointed to an error in the Doctor's table which claims that
a confirmed theory becomes a law. I'd tell you more, but you have
already made up your mind to ignore science and accept religiously
motivated lies in their place.
The fact remains, there has never been an exception
to the law of biogenesis.
Yes there has. Every time life arises on a planet, that fake law is
violated.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 09:02:22 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:28:46 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:c76ap2tdfodd9jkne4k7on9i1f82e81t7n@4ax.com...
I'm going to keep asking until you either leave, stop
responding, or admit that there is no such thing as the law of
biogenesis.
Do you think that your immature actions could make the law of
biogenesis go away?
Do you think that your hand-waving could make your god not
subject to the law of biogenesis? How silly!
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis."
Why do you post that lie?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:42:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:02:22 GMT, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
In alt.atheism On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:28:46 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:c76ap2tdfodd9jkne4k7on9i1f82e81t7n@4ax.com...
I'm going to keep asking until you either leave, stop
responding, or admit that there is no such thing as the law of
biogenesis.
Do you think that your immature actions could make the law of
biogenesis go away?
Do you think that your hand-waving could make your god not
subject to the law of biogenesis? How silly!
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis."
Why do you post that lie?
Don't you know?
1st Rule of Creationism:
Lying for The Lord is OK.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 04:47:43 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:28:46 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<iMflh.4970$w91.4397@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:c76ap2tdfodd9jkne4k7on9i1f82e81t7n@4ax.com...
I'm going to keep asking until you either leave, stop
responding, or admit that there is no such thing as the law of
biogenesis.
Do you think that your immature actions could make the law of
biogenesis go away? How silly!
The 'law of biogenesis' that you refer to is meaningless.
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis." http://pubbarou.notlong.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 06:51:19 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:31:27 +0000, Andrew wrote:
"MarkA" wrote in message
news:pan.2006.12.28.23.08.01.262654@stopspam.net...
Andrew wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
1. living things always come from living things;
2. living things produce only more living things
like themselves.
There has never been an exception.
You know this how?
If you know of an exception to the above, please let me know so that I may
recant.
I'm not claiming to have perfect knowledge of all things that have ever
happened, as you are doing.
But because the implications of this
law disproves the popular "mud to man theory" which denies God, they
say that there just ~must~ have been an exception.
Theories are never 'proved' or 'disproved'. We DO know, with a high
degree of certainty, that there is no 'magic ingredient' that separates
living from non-living.
Given the existence of living things, it is far more likely that new
living things will come from the reproduction of already living things,
than from abiogenesis. A few billion years ago, when there were no
living things, that may not have been the case. Our ability to collect
useful data from that event is limited, making it hard to study.
Yes it is hard to study it, isn't it Mark.
Mark, can you please explain your
origins model? Thank you.
In a nutshell: non-living, self-organizing molecules acquired the ability
to replicate. The exact details are being worked out.
"The Law of Biogenesis says that living things cannot be formed from
non-living things. .but there must have been at least exception in the
distant past -an abiogenesis event."
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Law_of_biogenesis
It is true there was an 'event' in the past. But this event was an
intelligently planned, and purposed event by an all powerful Creator.
To say other- wise is against the law..the law of biogenesis.
That leaves the question of where the Creator came from. Perhaps He
came from a pre-existing Creator?
Well, the first step for anyone to understand some of these deeper
questions would be to acknowledge His existence, as you have now just
done.
No, I'm speaking hypothetically, as in, "What would it be like to live in
a world without hypothetical questions?" You are positing the existence
of a 'Creator' to explain biogenesis. I am merely pointing out that
doesn't really explain anything, it just changes the object that needs
explaining.
Surely, you already know all of this, and are just a troll. Go back under
your bridge.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
28 Dec 2006 05:44:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:22:28 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
1. living things always come from living things;
2. living things produce only more living things
like themselves.
There has never been an exception.
[...]
What living thing produced your living god? Remember, there has never
been an exception, according to you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
28 Dec 2006 06:04:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:22:28 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
[snip]
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html
Claim CB000:
Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous
generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes
only from previous life.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here?
Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.
Response:
The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the
idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear
fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of
biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from
increasingly complex molecules.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
28 Dec 2006 11:31:55 PM |
|
|
"Carl Wilson" wrote in message news:cpm8p2ti4ttjqj2h5t1hpm59fevne8gqri@4ax.com...
There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive
life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
Tell us Carl, how did (or could) it happen?
No Carl. It is against the law - the law of biogenesis.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 07:33:32 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:31:55 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Carl Wilson" wrote in message news:cpm8p2ti4ttjqj2h5t1hpm59fevne8gqri@4ax.com...
There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive
life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
Tell us Carl, how did (or could) it happen?
No Carl. It is against the law - the law of biogenesis.
And god not being created is against the law - the law of
biogenesis.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 02:24:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:31:55 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
"Carl Wilson" wrote in message news:cpm8p2ti4ttjqj2h5t1hpm59fevne8gqri@4ax.com...
There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive
life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
Tell us Carl, how did (or could) it happen?
I don't know for certain how it happened, and neither do you. However
we humans once didn't understand the cause of lightning either.
"Goddidit" wasn't a good explanation then, and it still isn't today.
No Carl. It is against the law - the law of biogenesis.
Here, let me replace what you dishonestly snipped without marking it.
[snip]
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html
Claim CB000:
Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous
generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes
only from previous life.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here?
Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.
Response:
The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the
idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear
fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of
biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from
increasingly complex molecules.
You creationists might do better if your honesty and integrity matched
your faith.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 01:54:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:22:28 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
There is no such law.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 04:59:39 AM |
|
|
"raven1" wrote in message news:pdi9p2ppgbcgotcodfv75gc4ah09v7u49l@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
There is no such law.
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis." http://pubbarou.notlong.com
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 02:49:06 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:vy6lh.4845$w91.3338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"raven1" wrote in message
news:pdi9p2ppgbcgotcodfv75gc4ah09v7u49l@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
There is no such law.
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis." http://pubbarou.notlong.com
Andrew
No Andrew, take your head out of the sand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 04:44:45 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:49:06 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote
the following in alt.atheism:
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:vy6lh.4845$w91.3338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"raven1" wrote in message
news:pdi9p2ppgbcgotcodfv75gc4ah09v7u49l@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
There is no such law.
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis." http://pubbarou.notlong.com
Andrew
No Andrew, take your head out of the sand.
Perhaps he's afraid of what he might see if he did...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 04:29:58 PM |
|
|
Ralph <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis." http://pubbarou.notlong.com
Andrew
No Andrew, take your head out of the sand.
"Sand"... Haven't heard that euphemism for a certain body part before...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 07:28:50 PM |
|
|
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1hr42rj.12q23q41shhxh8N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Ralph <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis." http://pubbarou.notlong.com
Andrew
No Andrew, take your head out of the sand.
"Sand"... Haven't heard that euphemism for a certain body part before...
Aw, I'm trying to be nice for a change :-))))))).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 09:03:56 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"raven1" wrote in message news:pdi9p2ppgbcgotcodfv75gc4ah09v7u49l@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
There is no such law.
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis." http://pubbarou.notlong.com
What's the matter, no legitimate cite, so you resort to repeatedly
posting apologetics?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 02:34:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:59:39 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
"raven1" wrote in message news:pdi9p2ppgbcgotcodfv75gc4ah09v7u49l@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
There is no such law.
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis." http://pubbarou.notlong.com
Typical creationist reply. Make claims about science, but don't quote
scientific sources. Instead quote religious sources.
Tell me Andrew... When you get sick, do you visit your local auto
mechanic instead of a doctor? I mean, it makes about as much sense...
.
|
|
|
| User: "vernon stillhere@anhere" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 04:00:00 PM |
|
|
"Carl Wilson" <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:douap29bnle2s3q4sd8hfnoc5cd4pgd6j2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:59:39 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
"raven1" wrote in message
news:pdi9p2ppgbcgotcodfv75gc4ah09v7u49l@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
There is no such law.
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis."
Typical creationist reply. Make claims about science, but don't quote
scientific sources. Instead quote religious sources.
Tell me Andrew... When you get sick, do you visit your local auto
mechanic instead of a doctor? I mean, it makes about as much sense...
Actually, the results may be better with the auto mechanic, even if the
recommendation was "Shut up, have a shot of brandy and get back to work.".
Doctors are taught what to do and are taught VERY little about why or the
wherefores of health. Their PRIMARY (most of them) education is from the
leggy drug sales persons visiting them once a month.
Oh, yes the average IQ of the average mechanic is higher that the average
medical Doctor.
The biggest variance between science knowledge and pseudo-science
discussions exists in the Atheist religion.
Science fiction is my very very favorite form of entertainment. Science is
my form of great income. I meet atheists in the former genre and none in
the second. It is absolutely amazing how limited most of both genre are in
the appreciation of the possible and actual facts that exist in science
fiction.
Creationists seem to assume that anything not of the earth is heretical and
Atheists assume knowledge of extra terrestrial (or home galaxy) is proof
that there is no God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 05:13:33 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:00:00 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote
the following in alt.atheism:
"Carl Wilson" <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:douap29bnle2s3q4sd8hfnoc5cd4pgd6j2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:59:39 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
"raven1" wrote in message
news:pdi9p2ppgbcgotcodfv75gc4ah09v7u49l@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
There is no such law.
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis."
Typical creationist reply. Make claims about science, but don't quote
scientific sources. Instead quote religious sources.
Tell me Andrew... When you get sick, do you visit your local auto
mechanic instead of a doctor? I mean, it makes about as much sense...
Actually, the results may be better with the auto mechanic, even if the
recommendation was "Shut up, have a shot of brandy and get back to work.".
Doctors are taught what to do and are taught VERY little about why or the
wherefores of health. Their PRIMARY (most of them) education is from the
leggy drug sales persons visiting them once a month.
Oh, yes the average IQ of the average mechanic is higher that the average
medical Doctor.
Sounds like just a bunch of empty talk to me. I'm willing to bet that
if you should ever get seriously ill, that your first stop won't be a
mechanic.
The biggest variance between science knowledge and pseudo-science
discussions exists in the Atheist religion.
Bet you think "bald" is a hair color, right?
Science fiction is my very very favorite form of entertainment. Science is
my form of great income. I meet atheists in the former genre and none in
the second. It is absolutely amazing how limited most of both genre are in
the appreciation of the possible and actual facts that exist in science
fiction.
Creationists seem to assume that anything not of the earth is heretical and
Atheists assume knowledge of extra terrestrial (or home galaxy) is proof
that there is no God.
I think you just like to type loads of bunk...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 09:43:15 AM |
|
|
vernon wrote:
"Carl Wilson" <carl_w@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:douap29bnle2s3q4sd8hfnoc5cd4pgd6j2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:59:39 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote the following in alt.atheism:
"raven1" wrote in message
news:pdi9p2ppgbcgotcodfv75gc4ah09v7u49l@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
There is no such law.
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis."
Typical creationist reply. Make claims about science, but don't quote
scientific sources. Instead quote religious sources.
Tell me Andrew... When you get sick, do you visit your local auto
mechanic instead of a doctor? I mean, it makes about as much sense...
Actually, the results may be better with the auto mechanic, even if the
recommendation was "Shut up, have a shot of brandy and get back to work.".
Doctors are taught what to do and are taught VERY little about why or the
wherefores of health. Their PRIMARY (most of them) education is from the
leggy drug sales persons visiting them once a month.
Oh, yes the average IQ of the average mechanic is higher that the average
medical Doctor.
The biggest variance between science knowledge and pseudo-science
discussions exists in the Atheist religion.
Golly, what an *****. How is "lack of theism" a religion, when all
it is, is a lack of something?
Science fiction is my very very favorite form of entertainment. Science is
my form of great income. I meet atheists in the former genre and none in
the second.
You're lying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
Some studies have suggested that atheism is particularly prevalent
among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of
the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of
the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly
selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the
existence of God". The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar
percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the
National Academy of Sciences.
http://sciencevsreligion.net/introduction.from%20pdf.htm
The public, in general, has not accepted the assertion by science that
God is not needed. Over 90 percent of us believe, while only 40 percent
of all scientists express faith in God, falling to about 10 percent
among leading scientists.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/angier06/angier06_index.html
According to a 1998 survey published in Nature, only 7 percent of
members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences professed a
belief in a "personal God."
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/sci_relig.htm
Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was
65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was
79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with
few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS
mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological
scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in
immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in
God, 7.5% in immortality).
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
"Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a
personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists on the B.S.
level favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are
considered 'eminent' scientists believe in a personal god or in an
afterlife."
It is absolutely amazing how limited most of both genre are in
the appreciation of the possible and actual facts that exist in science
fiction.
Creationists seem to assume that anything not of the earth is heretical and
Atheists assume knowledge of extra terrestrial (or home galaxy) is proof
that there is no God.
You have objective, verifiable evidence of "God"? Present it. Until
then, I'll continue to lack belief in it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 04:48:45 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:59:39 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
"raven1" wrote in message news:pdi9p2ppgbcgotcodfv75gc4ah09v7u49l@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
There is no such law.
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis." http://pubbarou.notlong.com
Do you have a citation from a peer-reviewed journal, or Biology
textbook to that effect? Your cited source is hardly credible.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 09:35:08 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:59:39 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<vy6lh.4845$w91.3338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"raven1" wrote in message news:pdi9p2ppgbcgotcodfv75gc4ah09v7u49l@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
There is no such law.
"One of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of
science is the law of biogenesis." http://pubbarou.notlong.com
Andrew
Why don't you post the direct address instead of playing games with
<http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2004> and giving us a bunch of
short-link links? I guess you know that religious apologetics, even from
someone who used to be a scientist but has proven that he has abandoned
science, is not a useful argument for you.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Řien" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 02:20:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:22:28 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
1. living things always come from living things;
2. living things produce only more living things
like themselves.
There has never been an exception. But because
the implications of this law disproves the popular
"mud to man theory" which denies God, they say
that there just ~must~ have been an exception.
"The Law of Biogenesis says that living things
cannot be formed from non-living things. .but
there must have been at least exception in the
distant past -an abiogenesis event."
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Law_of_biogenesis
It is true there was an 'event' in the past. But this
event was an intelligently planned, and purposed
event by an all powerful Creator. To say other-
wise is against the law..the law of biogenesis.
Andrew
Were do you get this information about the 'law of biogenesis'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "vernon stillhere@anhere" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 03:25:47 PM |
|
|
"Řien" <H22G4@schurld.net> wrote in message
news:jeidp25vb4j1p1f91jt5e8da3b8uimpq8c@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:22:28 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
1. living things always come from living things;
2. living things produce only more living things
like themselves.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
bi·o·gen·e·sis /?ba?o?'d??n?s?s/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun the production of living organisms from other living organisms.
Also, bi·og·e·ny /ba?'?d??ni/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[bahy-oj-uh-nee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: bio- + genesis, coined by T.H. Huxley in 1870]
-Related forms
bi·o·ge·net·ic /?ba?o?d??'n?t?k/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[bahy-oh-juh-net-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation, bi·o·ge·net·i·cal, bi·og·e·nous, adjective
bi·o·ge·net·i·cal·ly, adverb
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source bi·o·gen·e·sis
(bi'o-jen'i-sis) Pronunciation Key
n.
1.. The principle that living organisms develop only from other
living organisms and not from nonliving matter.
2.. Generation of living organisms from other living organisms.
3.. See biosynthesis.
4.. The supposed recurrence of the evolutionary stages of a species
during the embryonic development and differentiation of a member of that
species. Also called recapitulation.
begin 666 thinsp.png
MB5!.1PT*&@H````-24A$4@````(````$" 8```"D[^XY````!F)+1T0`_P#_
M`/^@O:>3````"7!(67,```L3```+$P$`FIP8````!W1)344'U@(#$08U?<L#
M_@```!9)1$%4>-IC_/__/P,#`P,#$P,48#(`9DX#!9Z@R"T`````245.1*Y"
"8((`
`
end
begin 666 speaker.gif
M1TE&.#EA$0`2`,00`):6EM#0T-G9V<;&QKR\O*FIJ>/CXX.#@WEY>:"@H.SL
M['!P<(R,C+.SL_;V]F9F9O___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````````"'Y! $``! `+ `````1`!(```6-("2.)*0@
M04D*I),\K*HLXFQ P.*4SO&(KH7"L6B47K"%H<> -&@CPF/:0T $C^$CP.A.
MIZ;'`((P,AK?M B0@"0`D (C_14UFG?GG/[3^^]\?0QM`' )9PUH=0I;9 00
M!T8B`U\]!Q !60Z-(T@&"$L(;4\J/D '0D22+5 G-PP(.RHW(PXYM"H\H",A
"`#L`
`
end
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 07:46:04 PM |
|
|
=D8ien wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:22:28 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
1. living things always come from living things;
2. living things produce only more living things
like themselves.
There has never been an exception. But because
the implications of this law disproves the popular
"mud to man theory" which denies God, they say
that there just ~must~ have been an exception.
"The Law of Biogenesis says that living things
cannot be formed from non-living things. .but
there must have been at least exception in the
distant past -an abiogenesis event."
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Law_of_biogenesis
It is true there was an 'event' in the past. But this
event was an intelligently planned, and purposed
event by an all powerful Creator. To say other-
wise is against the law..the law of biogenesis.
Andrew
Were do you get this information about the 'law of biogenesis'?
He plagiarises it blindly and unthinkingly from creationist web sites,
as indeed he does his entire armamentarium. That's why he cannot
discuss it, why he cannot answer questions or respond to challenges,
and why he most certainly could not even begin to hold up his end in a
formal debate on the material.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 02:26:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:20:30 -0600, in alt.atheism
Řien <H22G4@schurld.net> wrote in
<jeidp25vb4j1p1f91jt5e8da3b8uimpq8c@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:22:28 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
1. living things always come from living things;
That is not quite accurate.
2. living things produce only more living things
like themselves.
That is not quite accurate.
There has never been an exception.
That is false.
But because
the implications of this law disproves the popular
"mud to man theory" which denies God, they say
that there just ~must~ have been an exception.
That is meaningless.
"The Law of Biogenesis says that living things
cannot be formed from non-living things. .but
there must have been at least exception in the
distant past -an abiogenesis event."
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Law_of_biogenesis
It is true there was an 'event' in the past. But this
event was an intelligently planned, and purposed
event by an all powerful Creator. To say other-
wise is against the law..the law of biogenesis.
If this were true, though it is not, why doesn't it apply to the
creator?
Andrew
Were do you get this information about the 'law of biogenesis'?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
28 Dec 2006 03:25:41 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:22:28 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<oAWkh.4029$pQ3.3403@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
1. living things always come from living things;
2. living things produce only more living things
like themselves.
There has never been an exception. But because
the implications of this law disproves the popular
"mud to man theory" which denies God, they say
that there just ~must~ have been an exception.
"The Law of Biogenesis says that living things
cannot be formed from non-living things. .but
there must have been at least exception in the
distant past -an abiogenesis event."
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Law_of_biogenesis
It is true there was an 'event' in the past. But this
event was an intelligently planned, and purposed
event by an all powerful Creator. To say other-
wise is against the law..the law of biogenesis.
Nonsense.
Once again, you worship your ignorant claims and refuse to learn.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
