| 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 |
28 Dec 2006 04:46:24 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:oAWkh.4029$pQ3.3403@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
1. living things always come from living things;
2. living things produce only more living things
like themselves.
There has never been an exception. But because
the implications of this law disproves the popular
"mud to man theory" which denies God, they say
that there just ~must~ have been an exception.
"The Law of Biogenesis says that living things
cannot be formed from non-living things. .but there must have been at
least exception in the
distant past -an abiogenesis event."
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Law_of_biogenesis
It is true there was an 'event' in the past. But this
event was an intelligently planned, and purposed
event by an all powerful Creator. To say other-
wise is against the law..the law of biogenesis.
Andrew
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life. You would do well to leave your creationist crap sites and
learn, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
23 Jan 2007 07:11:36 AM |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SOXkh.10818$n57.8309@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:oAWkh.4029$pQ3.3403@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
The *Law of Biogenesis* basically says two things:
1. living things always come from living things;
2. living things produce only more living things
like themselves.
There has never been an exception. But because
the implications of this law disproves the popular
"mud to man theory" which denies God, they say
that there just ~must~ have been an exception.
"The Law of Biogenesis says that living things
cannot be formed from non-living things. .but there must have been at
least exception in the
distant past -an abiogenesis event."
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Law_of_biogenesis
It is true there was an 'event' in the past. But this
event was an intelligently planned, and purposed
event by an all powerful Creator. To say other-
wise is against the law..the law of biogenesis.
Andrew
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life. You would do well to leave your creationist crap sites and
learn, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis
I look up biogenesis on the link you provided. It reads.
BIOGENESIS:
"The theory that life always arises from previously existing
life, and never from things which are not alive (as would
be the case of spontaneous generation).
Production of a chemical Compound by a living organism.
The production of living organisms from other living organisms.
A term stating that new species can only be created
by ancestors who have similar genetic make up."
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
25 Jan 2007 02:19:37 AM |
|
|
"Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:6Qnth.1814$qt.1037@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SOXkh.10818$n57.8309@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:oAWkh.4029$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.
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
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life. You would do well to leave your creationist crap sites
and learn, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis
I look up biogenesis on the link you provided. It reads.
BIOGENESIS:
"The theory that life always arises from previously existing
life, and never from things which are not alive (as would
be the case of spontaneous generation).
Production of a chemical Compound by a living organism.
The production of living organisms from other living organisms.
A term stating that new species can only be created
by ancestors who have similar genetic make up."
Dan
Now look up Abiogenesis and note the qualification: "Supposed
development". Now tell us the difference between it and Biogenesis which has
no "supposed" in in it.
Pastor Frank
abiogenesis
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (aŽbi-o-jen'i-sis) noun
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also
called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
aŽbi·o·ge·net'ic (-j?-net'ik) or aŽbi·o·ge·net'i·cal adjective
aŽbi·og'e·nist (-oj'?-nist) noun
biogenesis
bi·o·gen·e·sis (biŽo-jen'i-sis) also bi·og·e·ny (bi-oj'?-ne) noun
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.
In this sense, also called recapitulation.
biŽo·ge·net'ic (-j?-net'ik) or biŽo·ge·net'i·cal (-i-k?l) adjective
biŽo·ge·net'i·cal·ly adverb
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
23 Jan 2007 11:01:03 AM |
|
|
Dan@V.A. wrote:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SOXkh.10818$n57.8309@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:oAWkh.4029$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.
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
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life. You would do well to leave your creationist crap sites and
learn, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis
I look up biogenesis on the link you provided. It reads.
BIOGENESIS:
"The theory that life always arises from previously existing
life, and never from things which are not alive (as would
be the case of spontaneous generation).
Production of a chemical Compound by a living organism.
The production of living organisms from other living organisms.
A term stating that new species can only be created
by ancestors who have similar genetic make up."
This is a dictionary definition only.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 03:30:23 AM |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SOXkh.10818$n57.8309@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:oAWkh.4029$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.
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
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life. You would do well to leave your creationist crap sites and
learn, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis
You may be little behind the times. There is a lot of research as to
whether intelligentc isn't embedded in nature. ID may not be as far fetched
as you make it sound. See below
Pastor Frank
The Evidence of Design
The huge advances in genetic research in the last four decades have enabled
scientists to unlock some of the vast mysteries of the DNA genetic code
which determines the formation of every organ in your body, the color of
your eyes and whether or not you will have black hair or blonde. The recent
science called Information Theory allows us to analyse mathematically the
information patterns of a written language such as English. Recently
researchers studied the information patterns encoded in the double helix DNA
of simple, one-celled bacteria. Incredibly, the scientists discovered that
identical mathematical information patterns exist in human language as
exists in DNA. The information patterns in a language such as English can be
mathematically analyzed because the information forms a purposeful pattern.
Obviously, by definition, information in a language is purposeful, not
random. If words were thrown together by random chance, they would not
convey information. When we find words in patterns of sentences expressing
meaningful information, we naturally conclude that this information was
created by an intelligent mind like our own.
All living biological organisms are incredibly complex. When we examine the
simplest one-celled bacterial organism, we discover an almost unbelievable
complexity of miniaturized design that makes the technical specifications
for a modern automobile look relatively simple. Biologists realize that the
simplest cell is not simple at all. A cell is an enormously complex
structure that is far more complicated than a computer. The smallest of
cells is composed of over fifty billion atoms arranged into one hundred
different proteins, together with the staggering amount of information
encoded in the DNA and RNA that govern its activities, nutrition, repair,
and replication. The problem for evolution is that it takes all of the above
to function at all. You can't start with part of this material because
everything is necessary to function as a whole.
Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith wrote about the awesome complexity of the biological
cells:
When one considers that the entire chemical information to construct a man,
elephant, frog, or an orchid was compressed into two minuscule reproductive
cells [sperm and egg nuclei, one can only be astounded. In addition to this,
all the information is available on the genes to repair the body (not only
to construct it) when it is injured.
Logically, the discovery of incredibly complex information patterns encoded
within the double helix DNA genetic code governing all biological life
provides overwhelming evidence that an intelligent designer must have
created this DNA. Professor Geisler wrote about the significance of the DNA
information patterns, "It is scientifically necessary to point to
intelligence as the cause of the first living cell."
Where Does the Evidence Lead?
This video presents the entire content of Unlocking the Mystery of
Life in a segmented educational format. Students may explore the theory
of intelligent design, element by element, at home or in a classroom
setting.
For more than a century, Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection
has defined biology. Yet, today a growing number of scientists question
its ability to account for the origin and diversity of life. This six-part
series examines Darwinian evolution and presents a powerful challenge
to its validity-the theory of intelligent design.
Part 1
LIFE: THE BIG QUESTIONS
A new challenge to the theory of natural selection.
Part 2
WHAT DARWIN DIDN'T KNOW
Exploring the complexity of the living cell.
Part 3
MOLECULES & MOUSETRAPS
Molecular machines that defy Darwin's theory.
Part 4
HOW DID LIFE BEGIN?
Why "chance" cannot explain the origin of life.
Part 5
THE LANGUAGE OF LIFE
DNA genetic information, and life on Earth.
Part 6
THE DESIGN INFERENCE
The scientific evidence for intelligent design.
Media Player (1 hour 10 min.) Video [564 kbps]
http://bibleweb.info/=DRIVE=bibleweb-drive/_-_/=DVD-ROM=Bibleweb.Info-06/where-does-the-evidence-lead.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:36:27 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in message
news:4595d32f$0$18663$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SOXkh.10818$n57.8309@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"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.
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
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life. You would do well to leave your creationist crap sites
and learn, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis
You may be little behind the times. There is a lot of research as to
whether intelligentc isn't embedded in nature. ID may not be as far
fetched as you make it sound. See below
Pastor Frank
I'm right with the times, you moron. The thread was about the use and
definition of 'biogenesis' in science. ID wasn't even mentioned. Since you
brought up the subject Frank, perhaps you can tell me the distinguishing
features between intelligent and non-intelligent design.
Thanks a lot,
Tom
< snip crap that Frank posted but doesn't understand>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 10:19:55 AM |
|
|
Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
You would do well to leave your creationist crap sites and learn,
before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
You may be little behind the times.
Actually it is you who is a little behind the times. As measured in
centuries...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 10:52:34 AM |
|
|
"Scott Richter" wrote in message news:1hr4njx.11s3zpcpy4jzmN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Pastor Frank wrote:
You would do well to leave your creationist crap sites and learn,
before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
You may be little behind the times.
Actually it is you who is a little behind the times. As measured in
centuries...
No, as time goes on more advances are made which give emphatic support
to the paradigm of *intelligent design* for life on our little planet. But some
will turn away from the evidence because it obviously points to a Creator,
...as you have done by your deleting such from the post you responded to.
****
The Evidence of Design
The huge advances in genetic research in the last four decades have enabled
scientists to unlock some of the vast mysteries of the DNA genetic code
which determines the formation of every organ in your body, the color of
your eyes and whether or not you will have black hair or blonde. The recent
science called Information Theory allows us to analyse mathematically the
information patterns of a written language such as English. Recently
researchers studied the information patterns encoded in the double helix DNA
of simple, one-celled bacteria. Incredibly, the scientists discovered that
identical mathematical information patterns exist in human language as
exists in DNA. The information patterns in a language such as English can be
mathematically analyzed because the information forms a purposeful pattern.
Obviously, by definition, information in a language is purposeful, not
random. If words were thrown together by random chance, they would not
convey information. When we find words in patterns of sentences expressing
meaningful information, we naturally conclude that this information was
created by an intelligent mind like our own.
All living biological organisms are incredibly complex. When we examine the
simplest one-celled bacterial organism, we discover an almost unbelievable
complexity of miniaturized design that makes the technical specifications
for a modern automobile look relatively simple. Biologists realize that the
simplest cell is not simple at all. A cell is an enormously complex
structure that is far more complicated than a computer. The smallest of
cells is composed of over fifty billion atoms arranged into one hundred
different proteins, together with the staggering amount of information
encoded in the DNA and RNA that govern its activities, nutrition, repair,
and replication. The problem for evolution is that it takes all of the above
to function at all. You can't start with part of this material because
everything is necessary to function as a whole.
Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith wrote about the awesome complexity of the biological
cells:
When one considers that the entire chemical information to construct a man,
elephant, frog, or an orchid was compressed into two minuscule reproductive
cells [sperm and egg nuclei, one can only be astounded. In addition to this,
all the information is available on the genes to repair the body (not only
to construct it) when it is injured.
Logically, the discovery of incredibly complex information patterns encoded
within the double helix DNA genetic code governing all biological life
provides overwhelming evidence that an intelligent designer must have
created this DNA. Professor Geisler wrote about the significance of the DNA
information patterns, "It is scientifically necessary to point to
intelligence as the cause of the first living cell."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:39:00 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:mPwlh.5270$yx6.3621@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Scott Richter" wrote in message
news:1hr4njx.11s3zpcpy4jzmN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Pastor Frank wrote:
You would do well to leave your creationist crap sites and learn,
before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
You may be little behind the times.
Actually it is you who is a little behind the times. As measured in
centuries...
No, as time goes on more advances are made which give emphatic support
to the paradigm of *intelligent design* for life on our little planet. But
some
will turn away from the evidence because it obviously points to a Creator,
..as you have done by your deleting such from the post you responded to.
Okay Andrew, you get the same chance as "Pastor" Frank, tell me how to
distinguish between intelligent design and non-intelligent design.
<snip stolen crap that Andrew doesn't understand>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:42:33 AM |
|
|
Andrew <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
You would do well to leave your creationist crap sites and learn,
before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
You may be little behind the times.
Actually it is you who is a little behind the times. As measured in
centuries...
No, as time goes on more advances are made which give emphatic support
to the paradigm of *intelligent design* for life on our little planet.
But some will turn away from the evidence because it obviously points to a
Creator,
Let's see how many errors are in these two simple sentences:
(1) "More advances are made" There are no "advances", there's only more
quasi science whose true purpose is to inject religion into education
and politics.
(2) "give emphatic support" Only among those whose goals align with (1).
(3) "the paradigm of *intelligent design*" Intelligent design does not
and cannot rise to the level of being considered a paradigm. It is
nothing more than creationism with lipstick. It is just modernized
mythology.
(4) "turn away" No, we're here trying to get through to you that you
have fallen into a hole. A dark, ignorant hole.
(5) "the evidence" No, it is not the evidence, it is the interpretion
that's under discussion. Interpretations that attempt to mimic science
but which fail any basic test of validity.
(6) "obviously points to a Creator" No, not even with your erroneous
interpretation. The Creator is first pre-supposed to exist, and then
pointed to as a result. That's just bad, bad science.
..as you have done by your deleting such from the post you responded to.
No, as I have done to be succinct and focused. Unlike you who repeatedly
posts the same "Evidence of Design" *****, thinking that if you post
it enough times people will eventually come around to your ignorant
world view.
****
The Evidence of Design
[***** snipped...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 04:57:46 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:52:34 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Scott Richter" wrote in message news:1hr4njx.11s3zpcpy4jzmN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Pastor Frank wrote:
You would do well to leave your creationist crap sites and learn,
before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
You may be little behind the times.
Actually it is you who is a little behind the times. As measured in
centuries...
No, as time goes on more advances are made which give emphatic support
to the paradigm of *intelligent design* for life on our little planet.
Just as many as there are for the paradigm of a geocentric
system and that fire is a part of wood.
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 05:01:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 22:57:46 GMT, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote the following in alt.atheism:
In alt.atheism On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:52:34 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Scott Richter" wrote in message news:1hr4njx.11s3zpcpy4jzmN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Pastor Frank wrote:
You would do well to leave your creationist crap sites and learn,
before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
You may be little behind the times.
Actually it is you who is a little behind the times. As measured in
centuries...
No, as time goes on more advances are made which give emphatic support
to the paradigm of *intelligent design* for life on our little planet.
Just as many as there are for the paradigm of a geocentric
system and that fire is a part of wood.
"and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped...."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 12:04:02 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:52:34 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<mPwlh.5270$yx6.3621@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Scott Richter" wrote in message news:1hr4njx.11s3zpcpy4jzmN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Pastor Frank wrote:
You would do well to leave your creationist crap sites and learn,
before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
You may be little behind the times.
Actually it is you who is a little behind the times. As measured in
centuries...
No, as time goes on more advances are made which give emphatic support
to the paradigm of *intelligent design* for life on our little planet. But some
will turn away from the evidence because it obviously points to a Creator,
..as you have done by your deleting such from the post you responded to.
****
The Evidence of Design
The huge advances in genetic research in the last four decades have enabled
scientists to unlock some of the vast mysteries of the DNA genetic code
which determines the formation of every organ in your body, the color of
your eyes and whether or not you will have black hair or blonde. The recent
science called Information Theory allows us to analyse mathematically the
information patterns of a written language such as English. Recently
researchers studied the information patterns encoded in the double helix DNA
of simple, one-celled bacteria. Incredibly, the scientists discovered that
identical mathematical information patterns exist in human language as
exists in DNA. The information patterns in a language such as English can be
mathematically analyzed because the information forms a purposeful pattern.
Obviously, by definition, information in a language is purposeful, not
random. If words were thrown together by random chance, they would not
convey information. When we find words in patterns of sentences expressing
meaningful information, we naturally conclude that this information was
created by an intelligent mind like our own.
All living biological organisms are incredibly complex. When we examine the
simplest one-celled bacterial organism, we discover an almost unbelievable
complexity of miniaturized design that makes the technical specifications
for a modern automobile look relatively simple. Biologists realize that the
simplest cell is not simple at all. A cell is an enormously complex
structure that is far more complicated than a computer. The smallest of
cells is composed of over fifty billion atoms arranged into one hundred
different proteins, together with the staggering amount of information
encoded in the DNA and RNA that govern its activities, nutrition, repair,
and replication. The problem for evolution is that it takes all of the above
to function at all. You can't start with part of this material because
everything is necessary to function as a whole.
Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith wrote about the awesome complexity of the biological
cells:
When one considers that the entire chemical information to construct a man,
elephant, frog, or an orchid was compressed into two minuscule reproductive
cells [sperm and egg nuclei, one can only be astounded. In addition to this,
all the information is available on the genes to repair the body (not only
to construct it) when it is injured.
Logically, the discovery of incredibly complex information patterns encoded
within the double helix DNA genetic code governing all biological life
provides overwhelming evidence that an intelligent designer must have
created this DNA. Professor Geisler wrote about the significance of the DNA
information patterns, "It is scientifically necessary to point to
intelligence as the cause of the first living cell."
When you purport to quote from someone, you need to give a proper
reference (and understand what you are quoting). No scientists are
impressed by the lies of the ID/Creationists.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
28 Dec 2006 11:30:19 PM |
|
|
"Ralph" wrote in message news:SOXkh.10818$n57.8309@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has
..nothing to do with the origin of life.
Please explain to us your origins model, Ralph.
Thank you.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 01:29:34 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:LJ1lh.8210$X72.4939@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Ralph" wrote in message
news:SOXkh.10818$n57.8309@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has ..nothing to do with the origin of
life.
Please explain to us your origins model, Ralph.
Thank you.
I don't have an origins model, Andrew. If I did it wouldn't be called the
law of biogenesis. Did you go to the site I provided for you for the
scientific definition of biogenesis? No you didn't! You prefer to argue from
a position of ignorance, a position you appear to hold with pride.
You are welcome.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 07:32:23 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:30:19 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Ralph" wrote in message news:SOXkh.10818$n57.8309@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has
..nothing to do with the origin of life.
Please explain to us your origins model, Ralph.
Please explain why the law of biogenesis holds yet god was not
created, Andy. You cannot have both, Andy. It's not possible, Andy.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
29 Dec 2006 01:57:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:30:19 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
"Ralph" wrote in message news:SOXkh.10818$n57.8309@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has
..nothing to do with the origin of life.
Please explain to us your origins model, Ralph.
Thank you.
Please explain how "Goddidit" is a useful scientific model.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 04:37:03 AM |
|
|
"Ralph" wrote in message news:SOXkh.10818$n57.8309@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life.
Well, if it is a scientific law as you say, then abiogenesis could
not have happened. Then the only alternative is special creation
by an all powerful Creator - God.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:42:13 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:jjrlh.5214$yx6.4869@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Ralph" wrote in message
news:SOXkh.10818$n57.8309@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life.
Well, if it is a scientific law as you say, then abiogenesis could
not have happened. Then the only alternative is special creation
by an all powerful Creator - God.
Andrew
That is a false dichotomy, look it up Andrew. See if you can read Andrew,
the scientific law of biogenesis has nothing to do with the beginning of
life. What part of that sentence do I need to parse for you so that your
little creationist brain can understand it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 10:19:55 AM |
|
|
Andrew <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life.
Well, if it is a scientific law as you say, then abiogenesis could
not have happened. Then the only alternative is special creation
by an all powerful Creator - God.
The ONLY alternative? What the *****? You can't accept that there could
be an infinite number of alternatives to explain something as complex
and amazing as life? How pathetic it is to think there's only one
alternative, what stunted imagination you have. Stunted, of course, by
religious brainwashing...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:02:48 AM |
|
|
"Scott Richter" wrote in message news:1hr5fz3.4soqgw7efav8N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Andrew wrote:
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life.
Well, if it is a scientific law as you say, then abiogenesis could
not have happened. Then the only alternative is special creation
by an all powerful Creator - God.
The ONLY alternative? What the *****? You can't accept that there could
be an infinite number of alternatives to explain something as complex
and amazing as life? How pathetic it is to think there's only one
alternative, what stunted imagination you have. Stunted, of course, by
religious brainwashing...
I notice that after all this fuming, you failed to give any other alternative.
You said there could be an "infinite number of alternatives." Go ahead
and post about five.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:44:10 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:YYwlh.8768$X72.5519@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Scott Richter" wrote in message
news:1hr5fz3.4soqgw7efav8N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Andrew wrote:
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with
the
origin of life.
Well, if it is a scientific law as you say, then abiogenesis could
not have happened. Then the only alternative is special creation
by an all powerful Creator - God.
The ONLY alternative? What the *****? You can't accept that there could
be an infinite number of alternatives to explain something as complex
and amazing as life? How pathetic it is to think there's only one
alternative, what stunted imagination you have. Stunted, of course, by
religious brainwashing...
I notice that after all this fuming, you failed to give any other
alternative.
You said there could be an "infinite number of alternatives." Go ahead
and post about five.
Andrew
One is that life came to earth from outer space. There are many scenarios is
to how this life could have started elsewhere. It might have been started by
that great god, Theodores, who is known as the mightiest god in the entire
universe.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:22:05 AM |
|
|
Andrew <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life.
Well, if it is a scientific law as you say, then abiogenesis could
not have happened. Then the only alternative is special creation
by an all powerful Creator - God.
The ONLY alternative? What the *****? You can't accept that there could
be an infinite number of alternatives to explain something as complex
and amazing as life? How pathetic it is to think there's only one
alternative, what stunted imagination you have. Stunted, of course, by
religious brainwashing...
I notice that after all this fuming, you failed to give any other alternative.
You said there could be an "infinite number of alternatives." Go ahead
and post about five.
Oh, that's easy. Since you love the Goddidit category, let's start
there:
1. Thor created life
2. Zeus created life
3. Apollo created life
4. Poseidon created life (or at least, the little fishies)
5. Vishnu created life
6. ...
As you can see, this is nothing more than a little reindeer game. Just
like all religion.
The only alternative that's actually true is this: We don't know yet.
But that explanation is certainly NOT part of the Goddidit category.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:47:20 AM |
|
|
"Scott Richter" wrote in message news:1hr5irq.1wcznug16uzei5N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Andrew wrote:
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life.
Well, if it is a scientific law as you say, then abiogenesis could
not have happened. Then the only alternative is special creation
by an all powerful Creator - God.
The ONLY alternative? What the *****? You can't accept that there could
be an infinite number of alternatives to explain something as complex
and amazing as life? How pathetic it is to think there's only one
alternative, what stunted imagination you have. Stunted, of course, by
religious brainwashing...
I notice that after all this fuming, you failed to give any other alternative.
You said there could be an "infinite number of alternatives." Go ahead
and post about five.
Oh, that's easy. Since you love the Goddidit category, let's start
there:
1. Thor created life
2. Zeus created life
3. Apollo created life
4. Poseidon created life (or at least, the little fishies)
5. Vishnu created life
6. ...
Thank you, Scott. You just proved my point that special creation is
the only alternative to the origin of life, since life could not arise by
itself from nonliving chemicals apart from intelligent intervention.
Thanks again.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 01:16:23 PM |
|
|
Andrew <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
Oh, that's easy. Since you love the Goddidit category, let's start
there:
1. Thor created life
2. Zeus created life
3. Apollo created life
4. Poseidon created life (or at least, the little fishies)
5. Vishnu created life
6. ...
Thank you, Scott. You just proved my point that special creation is
the only alternative to the origin of life
If you think a sarcastic response from some stranger on the Internet
constitutes "proof", then we may be getting closer to the cause of your
confusion about science.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 11:51:41 AM |
|
|
Andrew <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
You said there could be an "infinite number of alternatives." Go ahead
and post about five.
Oh, that's easy. Since you love the Goddidit category, let's start
there:
1. Thor created life
2. Zeus created life
3. Apollo created life
4. Poseidon created life (or at least, the little fishies)
5. Vishnu created life
6. ...
Thank you, Scott. You just proved my point that special creation is
the only alternative to the origin of life, since life could not arise by
itself from nonliving chemicals apart from intelligent intervention.
Thanks again.
Wow, not only do you not understand the simplest concepts of
propositional logic, you can't read either. What a surprise...
(And didn't you just complain about snipping parts of a post to alter
the context? I guess you must have forgotten.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
31 Dec 2006 06:11:29 AM |
|
|
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1hr5kkt.1s5bpflhqdraN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Andrew <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
You said there could be an "infinite number of alternatives." Go ahead
and post about five.
Oh, that's easy. Since you love the Goddidit category, let's start
there:
1. Thor created life
2. Zeus created life
3. Apollo created life
4. Poseidon created life (or at least, the little fishies)
5. Vishnu created life
6. ...
Thank you, Scott. You just proved my point that special creation is
the only alternative to the origin of life, since life could not arise by
itself from nonliving chemicals apart from intelligent intervention.
Thanks again.
Wow, not only do you not understand the simplest concepts of
propositional logic, you can't read either. What a surprise...
Although you gave no serious alternative, all of your examples mentioned
creation (by a pseudo-god), not a naturalistic process. Therefore you have
testified that there is no alternative means or explanation to the origin of life
other than - a creation.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 12:26:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:51:41 -0800, (Scott
Richter) wrote the following in alt.atheism:
Andrew <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
You said there could be an "infinite number of alternatives." Go ahead
and post about five.
Oh, that's easy. Since you love the Goddidit category, let's start
there:
1. Thor created life
2. Zeus created life
3. Apollo created life
4. Poseidon created life (or at least, the little fishies)
5. Vishnu created life
6. ...
Thank you, Scott. You just proved my point that special creation is
the only alternative to the origin of life, since life could not arise by
itself from nonliving chemicals apart from intelligent intervention.
Thanks again.
Wow, not only do you not understand the simplest concepts of
propositional logic, you can't read either. What a surprise...
(And didn't you just complain about snipping parts of a post to alter
the context? I guess you must have forgotten.)
Again, winning converts is the only concern of the creationists. How
they do it matters not. They will preach to you endlessly about
Christian morals and in the same breath lie as much as they feel
necessary to promote their world views.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 09:49:53 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Scott Richter" wrote in message news:1hr5irq.1wcznug16uzei5N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Andrew wrote:
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life.
Well, if it is a scientific law as you say, then abiogenesis could
not have happened. Then the only alternative is special creation
by an all powerful Creator - God.
The ONLY alternative? What the *****? You can't accept that there could
be an infinite number of alternatives to explain something as complex
and amazing as life? How pathetic it is to think there's only one
alternative, what stunted imagination you have. Stunted, of course, by
religious brainwashing...
I notice that after all this fuming, you failed to give any other alternative.
You said there could be an "infinite number of alternatives." Go ahead
and post about five.
Oh, that's easy. Since you love the Goddidit category, let's start
there:
1. Thor created life
2. Zeus created life
3. Apollo created life
4. Poseidon created life (or at least, the little fishies)
5. Vishnu created life
6. ...
Thank you, Scott. You just proved my point that special creation is
the only alternative to the origin of life, since life could not arise by
itself from nonliving chemicals apart from intelligent intervention.
Thanks again.
You've worked really hard to be this dense and stupid, haven't you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation and Biogenesis |
30 Dec 2006 12:22:12 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:47:20 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
<ICxlh.5285$yx6.1740@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Scott Richter" wrote in message news:1hr5irq.1wcznug16uzei5N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Andrew wrote:
The scientific 'law of biogenesis' has absolutely nothing to do with the
origin of life.
Well, if it is a scientific law as you say, then abiogenesis could
not have happened. Then the only alternative is special creation
by an all powerful Creator - God.
The ONLY alternative? What the *****? You can't accept that there could
be an infinite number of alternatives to explain something as complex
and amazing as life? How pathetic it is to think there's only one
alternative, what stunted imagination you have. Stunted, of course, by
religious brainwashing...
I notice that after all this fuming, you failed to give any other alternative.
You said there could be an "infinite number of alternatives." Go ahead
and post about five.
Oh, that's easy. Since you love the Goddidit category, let's start
there:
1. Thor created life
2. Zeus created life
3. Apollo created life
4. Poseidon created life (or at least, the little fishies)
5. Vishnu created life
6. ...
Thank you, Scott. You just proved my point that special creation is
the only alternative to the origin of life, since life could not arise by
itself from nonliving chemicals apart from intelligent intervention.
You don't just get to claim something without any evidence, particularly
since we already know that life can and has arisen by itself from
'nonliving' chemicals without any intelligent intervention.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
