| 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 |
05 Jan 2007 09:26:49 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:zPhnh.7460$w91.1655@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Free Lunch" wrote in message
news:br7rp2htdcvq4ct0kgmtemgf7kkqueu3ni@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
WHY do those who "demand evidence" also say that they believe in
spontaneous generation without evidence, and which is a scientific
impossibility?
Abiogenesis has evidence to support it and is completely possible.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living
organisms can arise
spontaneously from
inanimate matter; spontaneous
generation.
Source: Dictionary.com
Unabridged
I think you have been told of the differences between dictionary definitions
and scientific terms so I won't comment on them again. If this, like your
Wald quote, is all you have then you need to leave the forum.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bindlestiff" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
06 Jan 2007 09:06:07 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 01:26:55 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:br7rp2htdcvq4ct0kgmtemgf7kkqueu3ni@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
WHY do those who "demand evidence" also say that they believe in
spontaneous generation without evidence, and which is a scientific
impossibility?
Abiogenesis has evidence to support it and is completely possible.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living
organisms can arise spontaneously from
inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged
Abiogenesis Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Hutchinson 0.02
sec.
Ads by GoooooogleEndoscopia Endoscopio
Utilizado Olympus Pentax Fujinon Endoscopio Sistemas
www.endoscopio.com
Human Antibodies
generated from Phage Display Libraries in just 8 weeks
www.A-by-D.com
BioGenesis-Free Shipping
Quality nutritional supplements from BioGenesis, Metagenics & more
www.familypharmacy.net ?Page tools
Printer friendly
Cite / link
Email
Feedback
Get a t-shirt of "Abiogenesis"
This article focuses on the history of the theory of abiogenesis (the
spontaneous generation of life from non-living sources). For
abiogenesis as a scientific study, see main article, Origin of life
Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its
most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter.
Today the term is primarily used to refer to theories about the
chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea, and most
probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living
but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
04 Jan 2007 08:08:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 01:26:55 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<zPhnh.7460$w91.1655@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:br7rp2htdcvq4ct0kgmtemgf7kkqueu3ni@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
WHY do those who "demand evidence" also say that they believe in
spontaneous generation without evidence, and which is a scientific
impossibility?
Abiogenesis has evidence to support it and is completely possible.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living
organisms can arise spontaneously from
inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged
That dictionary definition is incorrect as far as the beginning of life
on earth is concerned. It was only discredited for complex life as a
result of rotting flesh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
05 Jan 2007 01:02:51 AM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:tmcrp2pod9jauav5kl9f73nal74ssdnbdp@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Free Lunch" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
WHY do those who "demand evidence" also say that they believe in
spontaneous generation without evidence, and which is a scientific
impossibility?
Abiogenesis has evidence to support it and is completely possible.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living
organisms can arise spontaneously from
inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged
That dictionary definition is incorrect as far as the beginning of life
on earth is concerned.
Were you there?
It was only discredited for complex life as a
result of rotting flesh.
Living organisms do not spontaneously arise of
themselves from inanimate matter. That would
be a scientific impossibility. This points to a
creation.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
05 Jan 2007 09:28:47 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:vKmnh.7568$w91.6023@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Free Lunch" wrote in message
news:tmcrp2pod9jauav5kl9f73nal74ssdnbdp@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Free Lunch" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
WHY do those who "demand evidence" also say that they believe in
spontaneous generation without evidence, and which is a scientific
impossibility?
Abiogenesis has evidence to support it and is completely possible.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living
organisms can arise
spontaneously from
inanimate matter;
spontaneous generation.
Source: Dictionary.com
Unabridged
That dictionary definition is incorrect as far as the beginning of life
on earth is concerned.
Were you there?
Has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
It was only discredited for complex life as a
result of rotting flesh.
Living organisms do not spontaneously arise of
themselves from inanimate matter. That would
be a scientific impossibility. This points to a
creation.
Do a little research( other than on creationist crap sites) about the work
done in abiogenesis and learn something!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
05 Jan 2007 01:11:59 AM |
|
|
In our last episode, <vKmnh.7568$w91.6023@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented Andrew broadcast on alt.atheism:
Living organisms do not spontaneously arise of
themselves from inanimate matter.
But self-replicating molecules can, and once they do, it is just about
inevitable that living organisms will arise from them.
That would be a scientific impossibility.
Well, no. It is actually quite probable.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Save the whales! Collect the whole set!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bindlestiff" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
06 Jan 2007 10:49:20 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:02:51 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:tmcrp2pod9jauav5kl9f73nal74ssdnbdp@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Free Lunch" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
WHY do those who "demand evidence" also say that they believe in
spontaneous generation without evidence, and which is a scientific
impossibility?
Abiogenesis has evidence to support it and is completely possible.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living
organisms can arise spontaneously from
inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged
That dictionary definition is incorrect as far as the beginning of life
on earth is concerned.
Were you at the Crucifixion?
Were you there?
It was only discredited for complex life as a
result of rotting flesh.
Living organisms do not spontaneously arise of
themselves from inanimate matter.
No one has made that claim since Pasteur refuted it.
You are being dishonest, or very silly.
The hypothesis, that life can arise from inanimate matter, does not
use the word, "spontaneous", or even suggest it.
So why do you?
That would
be a scientific impossibility. This points to a
creation.
Yes, it would, were your assertions true; But they are not, so it does
not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
05 Jan 2007 08:10:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:02:51 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> in
<vKmnh.7568$w91.6023@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:tmcrp2pod9jauav5kl9f73nal74ssdnbdp@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Free Lunch" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
WHY do those who "demand evidence" also say that they believe in
spontaneous generation without evidence, and which is a scientific
impossibility?
Abiogenesis has evidence to support it and is completely possible.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living
organisms can arise spontaneously from
inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged
That dictionary definition is incorrect as far as the beginning of life
on earth is concerned.
Were you there?
Were you?
It was only discredited for complex life as a
result of rotting flesh.
Living organisms do not spontaneously arise of
themselves from inanimate matter. That would
be a scientific impossibility. This points to a
creation.
Or a process rather than a spontaneous event.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
05 Jan 2007 05:39:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:02:51 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<vKmnh.7568$w91.6023@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:tmcrp2pod9jauav5kl9f73nal74ssdnbdp@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Free Lunch" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
WHY do those who "demand evidence" also say that they believe in
spontaneous generation without evidence, and which is a scientific
impossibility?
Abiogenesis has evidence to support it and is completely possible.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living
organisms can arise spontaneously from
inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged
That dictionary definition is incorrect as far as the beginning of life
on earth is concerned.
Were you there?
I understand words. You do not.
It was only discredited for complex life as a
result of rotting flesh.
Living organisms do not spontaneously arise of
themselves from inanimate matter. That would
be a scientific impossibility. This points to a
creation.
It is not a scientific impossibility and you have no evidence to back up
your claim.
Learn something.
--
"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: "Bindlestiff" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
06 Jan 2007 09:26:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:08:15 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 01:26:55 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<zPhnh.7460$w91.1655@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:br7rp2htdcvq4ct0kgmtemgf7kkqueu3ni@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
WHY do those who "demand evidence" also say that they believe in
spontaneous generation without evidence, and which is a scientific
impossibility?
Abiogenesis has evidence to support it and is completely possible.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living
organisms can arise spontaneously from
inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged
That dictionary definition is incorrect as far as the beginning of life
on earth is concerned. It was only discredited for complex life as a
result of rotting flesh.
I think that I see two stumbling blocks, here. The first is that too
often, dictionaries do not list the scientific usage of a word. The
best known example of this, is "theory".
The second, is the apparently inherent ignorance, although reading
these groups for the past month or so, I would not discount
dishonesty, of so many of my fellow Christians
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
06 Jan 2007 09:59:06 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:26:14 GMT, Bindlestiff
<the_bindlestiff@hotmail.com> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:08:15 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 01:26:55 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<zPhnh.7460$w91.1655@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:br7rp2htdcvq4ct0kgmtemgf7kkqueu3ni@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
WHY do those who "demand evidence" also say that they believe in
spontaneous generation without evidence, and which is a scientific
impossibility?
Abiogenesis has evidence to support it and is completely possible.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living
organisms can arise spontaneously from
inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged
That dictionary definition is incorrect as far as the beginning of life
on earth is concerned. It was only discredited for complex life as a
result of rotting flesh.
I think that I see two stumbling blocks, here. The first is that too
often, dictionaries do not list the scientific usage of a word. The
best known example of this, is "theory".
The second, is the apparently inherent ignorance, although reading
these groups for the past month or so, I would not discount
dishonesty, of so many of my fellow Christians
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. To many a theory is
simply a wild guess, although in science it means no such thing. Add
to that the fact that most creationists have never actually read
anything about evolution except the garbage put forth in creationist
publications. Then you have the "lying for the Lord is OK" mentality
that many (if not all) creationists seem to embrace. For me, that's
the worst part of the creationist mentality. The belief that through
lies you can lead others to some "Truth". If their god requires you to
believe deliberate lies, then I want no part of it.
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you
dreamt up after being drunk all night." [Isaac Asimov]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
04 Jan 2007 07:29:38 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:24:08 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:kimop2lt962s92evg664cv1nbcafg1iqrt@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"j.m. #1491" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
<j.m.1491@gmx.net> wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"AnonCoward" wrote:
As I stated before, the statement that "Abiogenesis is the theory
that life (e.g. simple cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life
molecules under proper conditions" is false. There is no theory of
abiogenesis that makes such a claim.
Ralf
Then the only alternative is that life was made by a
most wonderful and all powerful Creator --- God.
Wow.
The ONLY alternative is a God.
The ONLY alternative is a Creator-God.
The ONLY alternative is a is an all powerful Creator-God.
The ONLY alternative is a is a most wonderful and all powerful
Creator-God.
Now, I'd say that's not one alternative, that's four. And I didn't
even get to do combinatorics.
They are basically the same thing.
I would be really interested in a detailed explanation. How do you
arrive from your law of biogenesis at the conclusion that there is a
'most wonderfull', 'all powerfull' 'Creator-god' that is all those
things, and also, possibly, a 'most awfull' 'impotent' 'Creator-god'?
Do you have a different alternative,
Well, you know, if your law of biogenesis is true, then the alternative
hypothesis is that there an infinite sequence of creators.
You are thinking from the only paradigm that you know, that of
time, space and matter - but we have a Creator who transcends
time, space and matter.
No evidence supports your claim.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
~ Romans 1:20 ~
In other words, the vidence is all around us.
No it isn't. I can write a book claiming the moon is made of
green cheese, but that doesn't make it so, does it?
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
04 Jan 2007 10:08:08 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
<snip>
No it isn't. I can write a book claiming the moon is made of
green cheese, but that doesn't make it so, does it?
Well, obliviously not. It is a well documented fact that it is made of
yellow cheese!
Goto and zoom in: http://moon.google.com/
--
j.m.
#1491
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
04 Jan 2007 05:52:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:24:08 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<YI3nh.10518$X72.1104@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:kimop2lt962s92evg664cv1nbcafg1iqrt@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"j.m. #1491" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
<j.m.1491@gmx.net> wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"AnonCoward" wrote:
As I stated before, the statement that "Abiogenesis is the theory
that life (e.g. simple cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life
molecules under proper conditions" is false. There is no theory of
abiogenesis that makes such a claim.
Ralf
Then the only alternative is that life was made by a
most wonderful and all powerful Creator --- God.
Wow.
The ONLY alternative is a God.
The ONLY alternative is a Creator-God.
The ONLY alternative is a is an all powerful Creator-God.
The ONLY alternative is a is a most wonderful and all powerful
Creator-God.
Now, I'd say that's not one alternative, that's four. And I didn't
even get to do combinatorics.
They are basically the same thing.
I would be really interested in a detailed explanation. How do you
arrive from your law of biogenesis at the conclusion that there is a
'most wonderfull', 'all powerfull' 'Creator-god' that is all those
things, and also, possibly, a 'most awfull' 'impotent' 'Creator-god'?
Do you have a different alternative,
Well, you know, if your law of biogenesis is true, then the alternative
hypothesis is that there an infinite sequence of creators.
You are thinking from the only paradigm that you know, that of
time, space and matter - but we have a Creator who transcends
time, space and matter.
No evidence supports your claim.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
~ Romans 1:20 ~
No, that assertion in from the Epistle to the Romans merely begs the
question.
In other words, the vidence is all around us. Therefore if we fail
to see, it is because of *other factors* - not for lack of evidence.
Except that, in reality, there is no evidence at all. The epistle is
wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Proven Using "Andrew Logic": Satan Created Us. |
31 Dec 2006 06:38:16 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"AnonCoward" wrote in message news:4597332d$0$17176$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
As I stated before, the statement that "Abiogenesis is the theory
that life (e.g. simple cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life
molecules under proper conditions" is false. There is no theory
of abiogenesis that makes such a claim.
Ralf
Then the only alternative is that life was made by a
most wonderful and all powerful Creator --- God.
No! It was made by Satan. It's a fact.
I don't have to defend that claim. It's true just because I asserted
it online - by *Andrew and Vernon* rules.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
31 Dec 2006 10:31:38 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 11:25:14 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<u6Nlh.9037$X72.7289@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"AnonCoward" wrote in message news:4597332d$0$17176$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
As I stated before, the statement that "Abiogenesis is the theory
that life (e.g. simple cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life
molecules under proper conditions" is false. There is no theory
of abiogenesis that makes such a claim.
Ralf
Then the only alternative is that life was made by a
most wonderful and all powerful Creator --- God.
Which god? What evidence exists for that god?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "vernon stillhere@anhere" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
31 Dec 2006 10:13:56 AM |
|
|
"_AnonCoward" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:4597332d$0$17176$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote in message
news:4596a0bc$0$28658$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
:
: "_AnonCoward" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
: news:4595dded$0$27074$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
: >
: > "Peter" <bloke@@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
: > news:1D3lh.230600$Pk.158989@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > <snip>
: >
: > : The instructions within the DNA of a single cell if written out
: > : would fill a thousand 600 page books. Each cell is a world
: > : brimming with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of
: > : atoms called molecules. Our 46 [human] chromosome 'threads'
: > : linked together would measure more than six feet. Yet the
: > : [cell] nucleus that contains them is less than four ten-
: > : thousandths of an inch in diameter."
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > : If you had a few trillion pieces of paper with a letter printed
: > : on each one and threw them all in the air, the chances of them
: > : forming an orderly sequence that would be understandable are
: > : zero, no matter how many time you repeated the process. I cannot
: > : accept that life happened spontaneously. It is totally illogical
: > :
: > : http://www.wasdarwinright.com/simplecells-f.htm
: >
: >
: > You're getting your information from flawed sources. The link
: > you've provided above states "Abiogenesis is the theory that life
: > (e.g. simple cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life
: > molecules under proper conditions." This is simply a false
: > statement. There is no theory of abiogenesis that makes such a
: > claim.
: >
: >
: > Ralf
:
: FYI
:
: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
: a·bi·o·gen·e·sis /?e?ba?o?'d??n?s?s, ?æbio?-/ Pronunciation
: Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-]
: Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
: -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can
: arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
That is a definition of the term, not a theory. As I stated before,
the statement that "Abiogenesis is the theory that life (e.g. simple
cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper
conditions" is false. There is no theory of abiogenesis that makes
such a claim.
Why would a member of the Atheist religion bother with definitions?
All they have to do is go into semantic tirade of pedantic nonsense, their
basis for their religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
31 Dec 2006 11:15:47 AM |
|
|
"vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote in message
news:4597e1c0$0$28652$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
"_AnonCoward" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:4597332d$0$17176$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote in message
news:4596a0bc$0$28658$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
:
: "_AnonCoward" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
: news:4595dded$0$27074$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
: >
: > "Peter" <bloke@@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
: > news:1D3lh.230600$Pk.158989@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > <snip>
: >
: > : The instructions within the DNA of a single cell if written out
: > : would fill a thousand 600 page books. Each cell is a world
: > : brimming with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of
: > : atoms called molecules. Our 46 [human] chromosome 'threads'
: > : linked together would measure more than six feet. Yet the
: > : [cell] nucleus that contains them is less than four ten-
: > : thousandths of an inch in diameter."
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > : If you had a few trillion pieces of paper with a letter printed
: > : on each one and threw them all in the air, the chances of them
: > : forming an orderly sequence that would be understandable are
: > : zero, no matter how many time you repeated the process. I cannot
: > : accept that life happened spontaneously. It is totally illogical
: > :
: > : http://www.wasdarwinright.com/simplecells-f.htm
: >
: >
: > You're getting your information from flawed sources. The link
: > you've provided above states "Abiogenesis is the theory that life
: > (e.g. simple cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life
: > molecules under proper conditions." This is simply a false
: > statement. There is no theory of abiogenesis that makes such a
: > claim.
: >
: >
: > Ralf
:
: FYI
:
: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
: a·bi·o·gen·e·sis /?e?ba?o?'d??n?s?s, ?æbio?-/ Pronunciation
: Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-]
: Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
: -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can
: arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
That is a definition of the term, not a theory. As I stated before,
the statement that "Abiogenesis is the theory that life (e.g. simple
cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper
conditions" is false. There is no theory of abiogenesis that makes
such a claim.
Why would a member of the Atheist religion bother with definitions?
All they have to do is go into semantic tirade of pedantic nonsense, their
basis for their religion.
Why would a creationist Christian not understand that atheism is not a
religion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
31 Dec 2006 11:20:56 AM |
|
|
Ralph wrote:
"vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote in message
news:4597e1c0$0$28652$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
"_AnonCoward" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:4597332d$0$17176$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote in message
news:4596a0bc$0$28658$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
:
: "_AnonCoward" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
: news:4595dded$0$27074$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
: >
: > "Peter" <bloke@@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
: > news:1D3lh.230600$Pk.158989@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > <snip>
: >
: > : The instructions within the DNA of a single cell if written out
: > : would fill a thousand 600 page books. Each cell is a world
: > : brimming with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of
: > : atoms called molecules. Our 46 [human] chromosome 'threads'
: > : linked together would measure more than six feet. Yet the
: > : [cell] nucleus that contains them is less than four ten-
: > : thousandths of an inch in diameter."
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > : If you had a few trillion pieces of paper with a letter printed
: > : on each one and threw them all in the air, the chances of them
: > : forming an orderly sequence that would be understandable are
: > : zero, no matter how many time you repeated the process. I cannot
: > : accept that life happened spontaneously. It is totally illogical
: > :
: > : http://www.wasdarwinright.com/simplecells-f.htm
: >
: >
: > You're getting your information from flawed sources. The link
: > you've provided above states "Abiogenesis is the theory that life
: > (e.g. simple cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life
: > molecules under proper conditions." This is simply a false
: > statement. There is no theory of abiogenesis that makes such a
: > claim.
: >
: >
: > Ralf
:
: FYI
:
: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
: a·bi·o·gen·e·sis /?e?ba?o?'d??n?s?s, ?æbio?-/ Pronunciation
: Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-]
: Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
: -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can
: arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
That is a definition of the term, not a theory. As I stated before,
the statement that "Abiogenesis is the theory that life (e.g. simple
cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper
conditions" is false. There is no theory of abiogenesis that makes
such a claim.
Why would a member of the Atheist religion bother with definitions?
All they have to do is go into semantic tirade of pedantic nonsense, their
basis for their religion.
Why would a creationist Christian not understand that atheism is not a
religion?
Deep inside even the likes of Vernon and Andrew know the depravity of their position and therefore they want to drag
others down into the same sewer with them?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
31 Dec 2006 10:50:10 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:13:56 -0700, in alt.atheism
"vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote in
<4597e1c0$0$28652$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>:
"_AnonCoward" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:4597332d$0$17176$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote in message
news:4596a0bc$0$28658$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
:
: "_AnonCoward" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
: news:4595dded$0$27074$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
: >
: > "Peter" <bloke@@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
: > news:1D3lh.230600$Pk.158989@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > <snip>
: >
: > : The instructions within the DNA of a single cell if written out
: > : would fill a thousand 600 page books. Each cell is a world
: > : brimming with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of
: > : atoms called molecules. Our 46 [human] chromosome 'threads'
: > : linked together would measure more than six feet. Yet the
: > : [cell] nucleus that contains them is less than four ten-
: > : thousandths of an inch in diameter."
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > : If you had a few trillion pieces of paper with a letter printed
: > : on each one and threw them all in the air, the chances of them
: > : forming an orderly sequence that would be understandable are
: > : zero, no matter how many time you repeated the process. I cannot
: > : accept that life happened spontaneously. It is totally illogical
: > :
: > : http://www.wasdarwinright.com/simplecells-f.htm
: >
: >
: > You're getting your information from flawed sources. The link
: > you've provided above states "Abiogenesis is the theory that life
: > (e.g. simple cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life
: > molecules under proper conditions." This is simply a false
: > statement. There is no theory of abiogenesis that makes such a
: > claim.
: >
: >
: > Ralf
:
: FYI
:
: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
: a·bi·o·gen·e·sis /?e?ba?o?'d??n?s?s, ?æbio?-/ Pronunciation
: Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-]
: Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
: -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can
: arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
That is a definition of the term, not a theory. As I stated before,
the statement that "Abiogenesis is the theory that life (e.g. simple
cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper
conditions" is false. There is no theory of abiogenesis that makes
such a claim.
Why would a member of the Atheist religion bother with definitions?
As you know, atheism is not a religion.
All they have to do is go into semantic tirade of pedantic nonsense, their
basis for their religion.
Why are you complaining about semantics? You are the one who is relying
on an incomplete dictionary entry to try to prove that there is no life
on earth.
--
"... There's glory for you."
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till
I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's
all."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Andrew and Vernon Taken Down on Abiogenesis |
31 Dec 2006 05:19:10 PM |
|
|
vernon wrote:
Why would a member of the Atheist religion bother with definitions?
All they have to do is go into semantic tirade of pedantic nonsense, their
basis for their religion.
Talking of definitions, I've defined you and Andrew as lying asswipes
right here:
http://tinyurl.com/yjv4mn
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 12:04:29 PM |
|
|
"vernon" wrote in message news:4596a0bc$0$28658$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
"_AnonCoward" wrote: >>
"Peter" wrote:
<snip>
: The instructions within the DNA of a single cell if written out
: would fill a thousand 600 page books. Each cell is a world brimming
: with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of atoms called
: molecules. Our 46 [human] chromosome 'threads' linked together
: would measure more than six feet. Yet the [cell] nucleus that
: contains them is less than four ten-thousandths of an inch in
: diameter."
:
:
:
: If you had a few trillion pieces of paper with a letter printed on
: each one and threw them all in the air, the chances of them forming
: an orderly sequence that would be understandable are zero, no matter
: how many time you repeated the process. I cannot accept that life
: happened spontaneously. It is totally illogical
:
: http://www.wasdarwinright.com/simplecells-f.htm
You're getting your information from flawed sources. The link you've
provided above states "Abiogenesis is the theory that life (e.g.
simple cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under
proper conditions." This is simply a false statement. There is no
theory of abiogenesis that makes such a claim.
Ralf
FYI
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter;
spontaneous generation.
That's what I tried to tell them, but many refuse to listen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 06:57:20 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:NSxlh.8793$X72.7047@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"vernon" wrote in message
news:4596a0bc$0$28658$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
"_AnonCoward" wrote: >>
"Peter" wrote:
<snip>
: The instructions within the DNA of a single cell if written out
: would fill a thousand 600 page books. Each cell is a world brimming
: with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of atoms called
: molecules. Our 46 [human] chromosome 'threads' linked together
: would measure more than six feet. Yet the [cell] nucleus that
: contains them is less than four ten-thousandths of an inch in
: diameter."
:
:
:
: If you had a few trillion pieces of paper with a letter printed on
: each one and threw them all in the air, the chances of them forming
: an orderly sequence that would be understandable are zero, no matter
: how many time you repeated the process. I cannot accept that life
: happened spontaneously. It is totally illogical
:
: http://www.wasdarwinright.com/simplecells-f.htm
You're getting your information from flawed sources. The link you've
provided above states "Abiogenesis is the theory that life (e.g.
simple cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under
proper conditions." This is simply a false statement. There is no
theory of abiogenesis that makes such a claim.
Ralf
FYI
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living
organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter;
spontaneous generation.
That's what I tried to tell them, but many refuse to listen.
Perhaps it is because you're wrong. The dictionary gives many definitions
for a theory but none of them exactly fir the scientific definition of a
theory.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 09:54:43 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"vernon" wrote in message news:4596a0bc$0$28658$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews=
..com...
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
a=B7bi=B7o=B7gen=B7e=B7sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory th=
at living organisms
can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
That's what I tried to tell them, but many refuse to listen.
Who was it "discredited" by, Andy? Dictionary.com?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 02:00:27 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
That's what I tried to tell them, but many refuse to listen.
You mean like you refuse to listen to the truth and continue
disseminating your transparent lies, you pathetic little hypocrite?
Why are you still running from the truth, Chickenshit? From me? From
the debate you can find neither the guts nor the evidence to partake
in? How pathetic you are.
Budikka?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 12:23:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:04:29 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<NSxlh.8793$X72.7047@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"vernon" wrote in message news:4596a0bc$0$28658$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
"_AnonCoward" wrote: >>
"Peter" wrote:
<snip>
: The instructions within the DNA of a single cell if written out
: would fill a thousand 600 page books. Each cell is a world brimming
: with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of atoms called
: molecules. Our 46 [human] chromosome 'threads' linked together
: would measure more than six feet. Yet the [cell] nucleus that
: contains them is less than four ten-thousandths of an inch in
: diameter."
:
:
:
: If you had a few trillion pieces of paper with a letter printed on
: each one and threw them all in the air, the chances of them forming
: an orderly sequence that would be understandable are zero, no matter
: how many time you repeated the process. I cannot accept that life
: happened spontaneously. It is totally illogical
:
: http://www.wasdarwinright.com/simplecells-f.htm
You're getting your information from flawed sources. The link you've
provided above states "Abiogenesis is the theory that life (e.g.
simple cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under
proper conditions." This is simply a false statement. There is no
theory of abiogenesis that makes such a claim.
Ralf
FYI
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis -noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter;
spontaneous generation.
That's what I tried to tell them, but many refuse to listen.
Selecting a bad definition does not an argument make.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 03:15:03 AM |
|
|
"_AnonCoward" wrote in message news:4595dded$0$27074$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Peter" wrote:
: The instructions within the DNA of a single cell if written out
: would fill a thousand 600 page books. Each cell is a world brimming
: with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of atoms called
: molecules. Our 46 [human] chromosome 'threads' linked together
: would measure more than six feet. Yet the [cell] nucleus that
: contains them is less than four ten-thousandths of an inch in
: diameter."
:
:
:
: If you had a few trillion pieces of paper with a letter printed on
: each one and threw them all in the air, the chances of them forming
: an orderly sequence that would be understandable are zero, no matter
: how many time you repeated the process. I cannot accept that life
: happened spontaneously. It is totally illogical
:
: http://www.wasdarwinright.com/simplecells-f.htm
You're getting your information from flawed sources. The link you've
provided above states "Abiogenesis is the theory that life (e.g.
simple cells) can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under
proper conditions." This is simply a false statement.
That is what the word means.
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (noun): The supposed development of living organisms
from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis,
spontaneous generation.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abiogenesis
There is no theory of abiogenesis that makes such a claim.
There are numerous theories of Abiogenesis, all of which are
false because they are all contrary to a number of established
laws of science. It has never been observed or replicated even
with our most advanced technology.
And without abiogenesis there can be no beginning for the great
evolutionary hoax which is the idol of the anti-God multitudes.
That is why the atheists on this thread become so vehement and
excited to defend their idol theory which begins with abiogenesis,
because the only alternative is special creation by an all powerful
Creator - God.
So, they are willing to sacrifice truth and sear their conscience
simply to continue in their delusion. However I am convinced
that God infinitely loves every one of them, including you.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "vernon stillhere@anhere" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 08:11:46 AM |
|
|
"Peter" <bloke@@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1D3lh.230600$Pk.158989@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
If you had a few trillion pieces of paper with a letter printed on each
one and threw them all in the air, the chances of them forming an orderly
sequence that would be understandable are zero, no matter how many time
you repeated the process. I cannot accept that life happened
spontaneously. It is totally illogical
Your logic stated that life did happen spontaneously.
God created the parts.
God put together the parts in an orderly fashion (spontaneously) and created
an automatic reversal system (Dust to dust)
BTW
Protons, neutrons, molecules, etc are mathematical and thought crutches used
to describe varying concentrations of energy, often called fields. When
everyone grasps that concept there becomes "One God".
A sort of example in electronics.
Neophytes talk of electrons flowing in a conductor from negative source to
positive..
A little more knowledge says "current" flows from positive to negative.
A little more knowledge says that all current occurs at the surface of a
"conductor" and not internal.
A little more knowledge states that current can be created with a magnetic
field independent of any positive and negative "ends".
A little more knowledge shows that "currents" in one entity can "create"
currents in another entity.
A little more knowledge shows that all thought processes are actually
electrical field variations within and around the live entity.
Amazing how much (little) we know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 08:52:33 AM |
|
|
vernon wrote:
<snip airheaded blather>
A little more knowledge shows that all thought processes are actually
electrical field variations within and around the live entity.
And how much knowledge does it take to state that "pigs are humans' closest relatives?"
Amazing how much (little) we know.
Amazing how little *you* know and still be able not to hang yourself accidentally by your shoelaces...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "vernon stillhere@anhere" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 12:56:01 PM |
|
|
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:4vkodiF1c8t2lU2@mid.individual.net...
vernon wrote:
<snip airheaded blather>
Yep, over your head. You have zero education or knowledge in science.
he he he he he he
You REALLY ARE simple. Amazing.
A little more knowledge shows that all thought processes are actually
electrical field variations within and around the live entity.
And how much knowledge does it take to state that "pigs are humans'
closest relatives?"
Closest relatives???
Your ignorance, bias, hatred is showing.
As I have stated before to you, get an education is science and in
philosophy and in English.
Your ignorance tells you that genetically similar even infers related.
This is fun. You are so illustrative of the ignorance in the typical
evolutionist religion.
Amazing how much (little) we know.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
