| 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: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 05:47:02 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:bbaap29aq3eiiqqssfl0o3tpqnfutevi1n@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"SeppoP" wrote in message news:4vjv9nF1cdp72U1@mid.individual.net...
Peter wrote:
I cannot accept that life happened spontaneously. It
is totally illogical
Wow. Great argument.
So to you, it IS logical to believe that life just "happened spontaneously."
So to you, it IS logical to believe that god is alive yet
wasn't created, in direct violation of the law..the law
of biogenesis?
It would be illogical if one did not understand God, to
therefore dismiss established laws of science which
point to Him as the Author of life.
Andrew
Amazing!
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: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:50:14 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:Wkslh.8679$X72.4545@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Don Kresch" wrote in message
news:bbaap29aq3eiiqqssfl0o3tpqnfutevi1n@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"SeppoP" wrote in message news:4vjv9nF1cdp72U1@mid.individual.net...
Peter wrote:
I cannot accept that life happened spontaneously. It is totally
illogical
Wow. Great argument.
So to you, it IS logical to believe that life just "happened
spontaneously."
So to you, it IS logical to believe that god is alive yet
wasn't created, in direct violation of the law..the law of biogenesis?
It would be illogical if one did not understand God, to
therefore dismiss established laws of science which point to Him as the
Author of life.
Andrew
:-)))))))))))))))))))))).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 10:28:56 AM |
|
|
Andrew <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
It would be illogical if one did not understand God, to therefore
dismiss established laws of science which point to Him
as the Author of life.
Let's flip this around, shall we?
It would be illogical if one did not understand Science, to therefore
dismiss established verses of the Bible which point to the scientific
method as the Means of knowledge.
See? This doesn't make any sense either...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 09:55:18 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:bbaap29aq3eiiqqssfl0o3tpqnfutevi1n@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"SeppoP" wrote in message news:4vjv9nF1cdp72U1@mid.individual.net...
Peter wrote:
I cannot accept that life happened spontaneously. It
is totally illogical
Wow. Great argument.
So to you, it IS logical to believe that life just "happened spontaneously."
So to you, it IS logical to believe that god is alive yet
wasn't created, in direct violation of the law..the law
of biogenesis?
It would be illogical if one did not understand God, to
therefore dismiss established laws of science which
point to Him as the Author of life.
What? It's illogical to dismiss unsupported assertions of deities
because some people refuse to understand science?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 09:24:34 AM |
|
|
How about that debate, Andrew? I see you making endless assertions. I
see absolutely no rationale or science to support your assertions.
And I see you running from me every time I challenge you, ask you a
question, or invite you to debate evolution.
I see you too scared to even acknowledge my messages.
What's up with that, Andrew? Why are you such a *****-poor witness for
your god?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:10:20 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:47:02 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:bbaap29aq3eiiqqssfl0o3tpqnfutevi1n@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"SeppoP" wrote in message news:4vjv9nF1cdp72U1@mid.individual.net...
Peter wrote:
I cannot accept that life happened spontaneously. It
is totally illogical
Wow. Great argument.
So to you, it IS logical to believe that life just "happened spontaneously."
So to you, it IS logical to believe that god is alive yet
wasn't created, in direct violation of the law..the law
of biogenesis?
It would be illogical if one did not understand God, to
therefore dismiss established laws of science which
point to Him as the Author of life.
You mean the law...the law of biogenesis, which states that
life can only come from life, which means that god is alive, which
means that god must have been created by something alive.
You can try to deny that all you like, but I'm just using your
own words against you. I know that you're both too stupid and too
dishonest to admit that your own argument sucks, but that's just part
of you being a fundy. Fundies, by definition, are both stupid and have
a terminal case of being unable to tell the truth.
So do enjoy lying for your beliefs, Andy. Everyone else is
just laughing at you.
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 |
29 Dec 2006 09:32:36 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:26:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<CP7lh.4849$w91.3425@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"SeppoP" wrote in message news:4vjv9nF1cdp72U1@mid.individual.net...
Peter wrote:
I cannot accept that life happened spontaneously. It
is totally illogical
Wow. Great argument.
So to you, it IS logical to believe that life just "happened spontaneously."
It happened as a result of natural chemical reactions. I'm guessing that
you don't really understand what a spontaneous chemical reaction is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 09:43:55 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:26:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<CP7lh.4849$w91.3425@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"SeppoP" wrote in message news:4vjv9nF1cdp72U1@mid.individual.net...
Peter wrote:
I cannot accept that life happened spontaneously. It
is totally illogical
Wow. Great argument.
So to you, it IS logical to believe that life just "happened spontaneously."
It happened as a result of natural chemical reactions. I'm guessing that
you don't really understand what a spontaneous chemical reaction is.
Andy apparently thinks that all chemical reactions are all quite random...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 09:57:23 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:43:55 +0200, in alt.atheism
SeppoP <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in
<4vkrdrF1c4k1vU2@mid.individual.net>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:26:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<CP7lh.4849$w91.3425@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"SeppoP" wrote in message news:4vjv9nF1cdp72U1@mid.individual.net...
Peter wrote:
I cannot accept that life happened spontaneously. It
is totally illogical
Wow. Great argument.
So to you, it IS logical to believe that life just "happened spontaneously."
It happened as a result of natural chemical reactions. I'm guessing that
you don't really understand what a spontaneous chemical reaction is.
Andy apparently thinks that all chemical reactions are all quite random...
I wonder if he thinks that spontaneous combustion is unpredictable?
In Andy's world, spontaneous combustion is probably the work of Satan or
some fire fairies. In real life, of course, it is possible to set the
conditions that guarantee spontaneous combustion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
28 Dec 2006 04:59:47 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:oAWkh.4029$pQ3.3403@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
1. living things always come from living things;
2. living things produce only more living things
like themselves.
It says neither of those things.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
23 Jan 2007 07:14:53 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:UZKdnaNSjebJ0QnYnZ2dnUVZ_o-knZ2d@io.com...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:oAWkh.4029$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.
It says neither of those things.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
What does it say? Look it up online
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Biogenesis
Dan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 12:58:29 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:UZKdnaNSjebJ0QnYnZ2dnUVZ_o-knZ2d@io.com...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news: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.
It says neither of those things.
You forgot to finish your sentence again!! What you wanted to say is:
.....says neither of those things, but I haven't a clue what it DOES say.
You got to be an atheist to be that inane.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 11:45:35 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in message
news:4595d343$0$18663$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:UZKdnaNSjebJ0QnYnZ2dnUVZ_o-knZ2d@io.com...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:oAWkh.4029$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.
It says neither of those things.
You forgot to finish your sentence again!!
No, the period indicates the end of the sentence, you fucking moron.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:45:51 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in message
news:4595d343$0$18663$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:UZKdnaNSjebJ0QnYnZ2dnUVZ_o-knZ2d@io.com...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:oAWkh.4029$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.
It says neither of those things.
You forgot to finish your sentence again!! What you wanted to say is:
....says neither of those things, but I haven't a clue what it DOES say.
You got to be an atheist to be that inane.
I know what the law says and it doesn't concern the beginning of life.
Again, I realize that you are stupid so if you need me to parse that
sentence for you I will be happy to do so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 10:19:54 AM |
|
|
Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> 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.
It says neither of those things.
You forgot to finish your sentence again!!
Your little argumentative style is great fun among children. Coming from
an adult, however, it's simply pathetic. Do you understand why, Frank?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 07:14:43 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:oAWkh.4029$pQ3.3403@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
1. living things always come from living things;
Unfortunately, there is not anything like a consensus as to what a "living
thing" really is. Absent any authoritative definition of "life", everyone is
free to define it according to his tastes. Consequently, anyone can refute a
statement like the above simply by fiddling with the definition of "living
things".
Anoher problem is, what does "come from" mean in the context of this
discussion?
For example, someone could say that the sperm and egg by themselves are not
"living things" and therefore the statement is refuted by the observation
that a living thing (i.e. the child) "comes from" them.
2. living things produce only more living things
like themselves.
Same comment as above.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 09:46:45 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in news:oAWkh.4029$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.
Do you even know what a "law" is in science? And what part of the
science DENIES God? It seems to me you're just ***** because
scientists won't be preachers.
"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
Yes, we can deduce this from the known facts. It is known that, at one
time the earth's surface was too extreme for any type of living chemistry
to persist. It is known that, at one time, the universe was in a
condition where living chemistry could not persist. It is known that
living chemistry is NOW PRESENT on the earth. Thus it is clear that, at
some point in the distant past, it BEGAN to exist on the earth.
Now, YOUR specific claim is that this could not have occurred without a
divine miracle, whereas others claim that the universe is so constructed
(whether by divine miracle or not) that it is inevitable. And there are
any number of logical positions in between those.
So, since you claim that a divine miracle occurred, what POSITIVE
evidence do you have supporting the claim? Your negative evidence is
very weak, since it's merely an assertion backed up by nothing whatever.
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.
And you know this how? By faith? It's okay to say it, you know. But
just don't call it science. Because it's not science.
Note that I know of no such "law." And even if I did, I would keep in
mind that a "law" in science is just a very persistent observation, not a
piece of legislation by some deity.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 09:55:41 AM |
|
|
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.
Try to remember law #2, the next time you're sitting on a toilet taking
a #2...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
28 Dec 2006 04:44:33 PM |
|
|
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 is no 'Law of Biogenesis'
Creationists made it up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
23 Jan 2007 06:54:07 AM |
|
|
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167345873.335313.275730@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
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 is no 'Law of Biogenesis'
Creationists made it up.
Do you know the history of this law i.e., do you
know why and how it was advanced and by whom?
Dan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 01:06:39 PM |
|
|
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167345873.335313.275730@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
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 is no 'Law of Biogenesis'
Creationists made it up.
Again, you fail to finish your sentence!! What you wanted to say is:
....There is no law of Biogenesis ...because there are lots of instances
where minerals become living things, and living things reproduce in the form
of minerals. ...But I haven't a clue when and where that happens.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:32:26 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in message
news:4595d348$0$18663$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167345873.335313.275730@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
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 is no 'Law of Biogenesis'
Creationists made it up.
Again, you fail to finish your sentence!! What you wanted to say is:
...There is no law of Biogenesis ...because there are lots of instances
where minerals become living things, and living things reproduce in the
form of minerals. ...But I haven't a clue when and where that happens.
No "Pastor", the sentence is complete. The definition of the 'law of
biogenesis' that creationists use doesn't exist. If you can post a
scientific reference for this I would appreciate it. If you can't then you
should quit attacking my position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 12:20:39 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 12:32:26 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote
the following in alt.atheism:
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in message
news:4595d348$0$18663$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167345873.335313.275730@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
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 is no 'Law of Biogenesis'
Creationists made it up.
Again, you fail to finish your sentence!! What you wanted to say is:
...There is no law of Biogenesis ...because there are lots of instances
where minerals become living things, and living things reproduce in the
form of minerals. ...But I haven't a clue when and where that happens.
No "Pastor", the sentence is complete. The definition of the 'law of
biogenesis' that creationists use doesn't exist. If you can post a
scientific reference for this I would appreciate it. If you can't then you
should quit attacking my position.
Ah, but the creationist mentality has nothing to do with presenting
facts, it has everything to do with gaining converts by any means.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
28 Dec 2006 11:29:23 PM |
|
|
"Conspiracy of Doves" wrote in message
news:1167345873.335313.275730@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
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 is no 'Law of Biogenesis'
Creationists made it up.
"In the field of biology, one of the most commonly accepted and
widely used laws of science is the law of biogenesis. This law was
set forth many years ago to dictate what both theory and experime-
ntal evidence showed to be true among living organisms-that life
comes only from preceding life, and perpetuates itself by reprodu-
cing only its own kind or type." http://www.tiny.cc/P6LGM
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 01:25:07 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:TI1lh.8208$X72.335@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Conspiracy of Doves" wrote in message
news:1167345873.335313.275730@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
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 is no 'Law of Biogenesis'
Creationists made it up.
"In the field of biology, one of the most commonly accepted and widely
used laws of science is the law of biogenesis. This law was
set forth many years ago to dictate what both theory and experime-
ntal evidence showed to be true among living organisms-that life comes
only from preceding life, and perpetuates itself by reprodu-
cing only its own kind or type." http://www.tiny.cc/P6LGM
Andrew
You need top find it on a science site. Creationists crap sites aren't
science!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 09:13:20 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" wrote in message
news:1167345873.335313.275730@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
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 is no 'Law of Biogenesis'
Creationists made it up.
"In the field of biology, one of the most commonly accepted and
widely used laws of science is the law of biogenesis. This law was
set forth many years ago to dictate what both theory and experime-
ntal evidence showed to be true among living organisms-that life
comes only from preceding life, and perpetuates itself by reprodu-
cing only its own kind or type." http://www.tiny.cc/P6LGM
Right. apologeticspress.org. As I said, creationists made it up. Thank
you for confirming my assertion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 09:00:49 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" wrote in message
news:1167345873.335313.275730@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
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 is no 'Law of Biogenesis'
Creationists made it up.
"In the field of biology, one of the most commonly accepted and
widely used laws of science is the law of biogenesis. This law was
set forth many years ago to dictate what both theory and experime-
ntal evidence showed to be true among living organisms-that life
comes only from preceding life, and perpetuates itself by reprodu-
cing only its own kind or type." http://www.tiny.cc/P6LGM
Maybe you'd benefit from reading something other than
"ApologeticsPress."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 07:31:57 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:29:23 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Conspiracy of Doves" wrote in message
news:1167345873.335313.275730@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
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 is no 'Law of Biogenesis'
Creationists made it up.
"In the field of biology, one of the most commonly accepted and
widely used laws of science is the law of biogenesis. This law was
set forth many years ago to dictate what both theory and experime-
ntal evidence showed to be true among living organisms-that life
comes only from preceding life, and perpetuates itself by reprodu-
cing only its own kind or type." http://www.tiny.cc/P6LGM
From apologeticspress.com, which is not a valid site for the
study of biology. Try again--but this time use a biology text.
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: "Old George down on the bayou" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
28 Dec 2006 04:41:18 PM |
|
|
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. 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.
However, in 4+ billion years there could have been a law breaker who
made a small living thing out of the "dust" of the earth (the "dust"
could have been rather wet). Some say, "With God all things are
possible, even abiogenesis." I was not around 4+ billion years ago,
but it could have happened. Not all laws are always obeyed.
Some little tiny living thing, given enough time, could be predestined
to evolve into things we cannot imagine. With God all things
(including biological evolution) are possible.
When us liberals get control of congress, we might repeal the "law"
of biogenesis. You know, that if one or two billion years pass and
nobody brakes the law, why keep the law on the books? ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
28 Dec 2006 11:28:47 PM |
|
|
"Old George down on the bayou" wrote in message
news:1167345678.154482.28020@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
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. 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.
However, in 4+ billion years there could have been a law breaker who
made a small living thing out of the "dust" of the earth (the "dust"
could have been rather wet). Some say, "With God all things are
possible, even abiogenesis." I was not around 4+ billion years ago,
but it could have happened. Not all laws are always obeyed.
No one of us was around 4+ billion years ago. Therefore those who
speculate what may have happened are ~fanaticizing~ to establish *a
belief.* The problem is that the structure of their belief is contrary to
established scientific laws - which means that they have been deveived.
~ Andrew
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
