| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Darwinsghost" |
| Date: |
03 Oct 2005 06:36:18 PM |
| Object: |
Louis Pasteur |
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from
which we are all supposed to have descended—come into existence?
Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most people
then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile
of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more than a hundred
years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly demonstrated that
life can come only from preexisting life.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the
most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the
chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions of
years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth
were far different”
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton,
in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a living cell
and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or
a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to
conceive.”10 The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some
haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. The Bible’s
explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in that life was created by God,
is convincingly in harmony with the facts.
.
|
|
| User: "RustY©" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
04 Oct 2005 07:10:30 AM |
|
|
"Darwinsghost" <Cracklin@mygrandchildisamonkey.org> wrote in message
news:Tfj0f.70$922.277619@news.sisna.com...
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life?
42 ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
04 Oct 2005 07:40:41 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:10:30 GMT in alt.atheism, RustY© ("RustY©"
<No.Mail@All.Thanks>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Darwinsghost" <Cracklin@mygrandchildisamonkey.org> wrote in message
news:Tfj0f.70$922.277619@news.sisna.com...
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life?
42 ?
But given this the question tells you more about the nature of the
universe than it is perhaps wise to know.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
03 Oct 2005 06:40:36 PM |
|
|
Darwinsghost <Cracklin@mygrandchildisamonkey.org> wrote in
news:Tfj0f.70$922.277619@news.sisna.com:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
life.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the
most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
on the earth were far different”
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a
living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as
a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it
is possible to conceive.”10 The idea that nonliving material could
come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
impossible. The Bible’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in
that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
facts.
If "life came from life" then what life created god?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
03 Oct 2005 09:04:08 PM |
|
|
Darwinsghost <Cracklin@mygrandchildisamonkey.org> wrote in news:Tfj0f.70
$922.277619@news.sisna.com:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from
A good question, but not one that evolution tries to answer any more than
most people working in celestial mechanics try to discover the origin of
gravity.
which we are all supposed to have descended—come into existence?
Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most
people
then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a
pile
of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more than a hundred
years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly demonstrated that
life can come only from preexisting life.
Pasteur never demonstrated any such thing--and your claim that he did
would probably cause him to turn over in his grave. What Pasteur
demonstrated is that maggots come from eggs laid by flies and do not
arise de novo in rotting meat (as everyone at the time thought they did).
This cannot be generalized to a "proof" that all life comes from existing
life, though that would seem to be a fairly reasonable rule of thumb (not
natural law). So, either you are deficient in logic, or you are simply
telling this fib about Pasteur's work for the effect you hope it will
have on those who are ignorant of logic and science. Which is it?
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the
They mostly don't. Some scientists (mostly biochemists) are studying the
possible chemical pathways by which life may have originated. And THEY,
of course, are interested in showing that their hypotheses lead to
biological evolution as we already know and understand it.
most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
the
chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions
of
years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth
were far different”
While it's probably true that life cannot arise de novo in such a life-
rich environment as we enjoy today, that's because existing life would
eat the tasty bits before they assembled into anything that could evolve
in competition with existing life.
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton,
in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a living cell
and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or
a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to
conceive.”10 The idea that nonliving material could come to life by
some
haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. The Bible’s
explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in that life was created by
God,
is convincingly in harmony with the facts.
I'm not so sure that this gap isn't just an artifact of our placing the
bar too high. Eukaryote cellular life is very complicated. Prokaryote
bacteria are much simpler. But viruses and phages reproduce and evolve
with much, much simpler genomes even than those. And we can synthesize
self-replicating molecules that do it which contain fewer than 200 atoms.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
03 Oct 2005 08:16:47 PM |
|
|
Darwinsghost <Cracklin@mygrandchildisamonkey.org> wrote in news:Tfj0f.70
$922.277619@news.sisna.com:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from
which we are all supposed to have descended—come into existence?
That is unknown. Very little research has actually been done on the
subject. I see that Harvard University are putting up a million or so a
year for initial funding to look into it. It is obvious from astronomical
observations that organic precursors to life are very common throughout the
observable universe and as the Miller-Urey experiment shows they form
readily in suspected early earth conditions. Note that Nasa scientists have
recently shown that the Earth's early atmosphere was indeed reducing.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17804
Some day science might discover how life actually started until then it is
open to investigation.
Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most people
then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile
of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more than a hundred
years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly demonstrated that
life can come only from preexisting life.
Yes. Creationists used to believe that modern life forms spontaneously
sprung into existence from piles of rubbish. Even the creationists now
accept Pasteur's counter demonstration.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the
most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago.
Not chance, chemistry. Life has existed on Earth for at least three billion
years.
What
about the principle that Pasteur proved?
He proved that modern life forms don't spontaneously arise.
The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the
chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
The encyclopedia is wrong. Pasteur tested only a very limited set of
conditions and for a very short time. There still exist some environments
of Earth today which could possibly be suitable for the production of
organic self replicators. The main possibility would be in the hydrothermal
environments under the sea. The main thing that would stop this occurring
today is the presence of existing bacteria which would immediately consume
any such life precursors.
Billions of
years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth
were far different”
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing.
There is no difference between living and non living matter. Matter in your
body is no different to matter in a rock.
Michael Denton,
in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a living cell
and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or
a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to
conceive.”10 The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some
haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible.
Argument from ignorance fallacy.
The Bible’s
explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in that life was created by God,
is convincingly in harmony with the facts.
Except that Denton's argument applied to god would prove that god is
impossible.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atreides" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
04 Oct 2005 06:02:48 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
That is unknown. Very little research has actually been done on the
subject.
Actually it has been, and then abandoned for the most part.
ounter demonstration.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the
most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago.
Not chance, chemistry. Life has existed on Earth for at least three billion
years.
And it has not been duplicated in any Lab. Talk to Stan Miller.
What
about the principle that Pasteur proved?
He proved that modern life forms don't spontaneously arise.
And Ancient life has?
The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the
chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
The encyclopedia is wrong.
write to them.
Billions of
years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth
were far different”
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing.
We know this because?
There is no difference between living and non living matter. Matter in your
body is no different to matter in a rock.
Well then lets bring a rock to life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
04 Oct 2005 07:40:42 PM |
|
|
Atreides <baboon@mygrandchild.org> wrote in
news:wSD0f.130$SK.1336422@news.sisna.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
That is unknown. Very little research has actually been done on the
subject.
Actually it has been, and then abandoned for the most part.
Very very little. How much research dollars do you think? Even the million
bucks Harvard are going to put up is a pittance compared to what is spent
on other areas of research.
ounter demonstration.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the
most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago.
Not chance, chemistry. Life has existed on Earth for at least three
billion years.
And it has not been duplicated in any Lab. Talk to Stan Miller.
One short low budget experiment.
What
about the principle that Pasteur proved?
He proved that modern life forms don't spontaneously arise.
And Ancient life has?
Since the Earth was at one time compeletly hostile to life i.e molten rock.
It is safe to assume one of the following:
1. Life arose on Earth.
2. Life arrived on Earth from elsewhere.
Once life exists. The theory of evolution explains subsequent development
of life from the ancient forms to the modern.
The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
The encyclopedia is wrong.
write to them.
Why would I bother. Traditional encyclopedia's are pretty much a thing of
the past. The publishers will soon realise this.
Billions of
years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth
were far different”
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing.
We know this because?
There is no difference between living and non living matter. Matter in
your body is no different to matter in a rock.
Well then lets bring a rock to life.
Plants incorporate the minerals from rocks and the gases from the air into
living tissues all the time. The matter is still matter.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atreides" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
05 Oct 2005 06:13:30 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Atreides <baboon@mygrandchild.org> wrote in
news:wSD0f.130$SK.1336422@news.sisna.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
That is unknown. Very little research has actually been done on the
subject.
Actually it has been, and then abandoned for the most part.
Very very little. How much research dollars do you think? Even the million
bucks Harvard are going to put up is a pittance compared to what is spent
on other areas of research.
ounter demonstration.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the
most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago.
Not chance, chemistry. Life has existed on Earth for at least three
billion years.
And it has not been duplicated in any Lab. Talk to Stan Miller.
One short low budget experiment.
What
about the principle that Pasteur proved?
He proved that modern life forms don't spontaneously arise.
And Ancient life has?
Since the Earth was at one time compeletly hostile to life i.e molten rock.
It is safe to assume one of the following:
1. Life arose on Earth.
2. Life arrived on Earth from elsewhere.
Once life exists. The theory of evolution explains subsequent development
of life from the ancient forms to the modern.
How about terraforming? Have you ever prepare a salt water aquarium?
Have any idea how long it takes?
There is no difference between living and non living matter. Matter in
your body is no different to matter in a rock.
Well then lets bring a rock to life.
Plants incorporate the minerals from rocks and the gases from the air into
living tissues all the time. The matter is still matter.
No problem. Let feed a rock some plant food.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur - JAB ALERT!!! |
05 Oct 2005 11:18:37 PM |
|
|
"Atreides" JABRIOL <jabthebaboons@grandchildisILLEGITIMATE.org> wrote in
message news:y6Z0f.48$c24.550931@news.sisna.com...
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Atreides <jabthebaboons@grandchildisdisfellowshipped.org> wrote in
news:wSD0f.130$SK.1336422@news.sisna.com:
Please remove rec.ponds and AFN if you must reply to JABRIOL from ARJ-W.
Thanks your for your co-operation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
04 Oct 2005 01:18:48 AM |
|
|
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to
answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life?from which we are all supposed to have descended?come into
existence?
Energy + chemistry = life.
The rest are mere details.
Your god cannot possibly exist and its easy to prove. Thus god
cannot had anythibng to do with life or anything else.
ThusPart 1
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed for
the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and
Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually logically
derivable from the claimed attribute of omnipotence and
so aren't not truely independent attributes, and may be
considered special aspects of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the only
such god, that he is is immortal and that god has always
existed that are not important for this discussion and for
now, can be ignored. They are secondary arguments and in
no way are foundational or truely necessary, except those
that can be logically derived from the attributes listed
above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a definition
not for a particular god, but an entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here. Christianity
claims one may attain salvation only through Jesus, Islam
claims the Christian dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous. Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a personal,
creator, omni-everything god. I have coined a term,
The Grand God of Grand Theologies for this sort of god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have adopted this
class of god as their basic attributes concerning the nature
of god. But it is important to remember here that what is
being discussed here is a class of gods, not particular gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand Theologies
holding to this basic class of god as their basic
definitions of what god is at god's most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it collapses
rather easily into internal self contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by Epicurus
in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes back
to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is still popular,
and is championed most notably today by Alvin Plantinga.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do evil.
Ability to do evil is less evil than lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature incapable
of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature, this good
nature is not allowed to cound againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count against
man's free will than it does for god's free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will and god
does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free will, thus
free will is not a true necessity at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and can give
man a god like free will and a god like good nature
incapable of moral evil, god must do so or god is not
moral, not omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can have
a god like free will and a god like good nature.
Either way, free will cannot explain away the existance
of evil. This free will defense then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a specific
personal
and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct
decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator god, it
is
solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god, god
then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have
any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with a god
that creates all and knows all precludes free will for all
beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is incoherent
and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this Grand God,
has been defined here with as few terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally flawed.
God's good nature and free will doom claims free
will makes evil necessary for man to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further doom claims of
god's omnibenevolence and man's free will Free will cannot
exist for man. All evil is the direct and knowing creation
of god contradicting claims of omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible, free will
cannot be a good quality, much less neccesary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims and viability
of an entire class of possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also fail, as do dogmas or
secondary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined, specific gods
cannot, nor can claims such as this or that Grand God sent this
or that relevation to man or some prophet.
***********
abiogenesis and evolutuion win by default.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atreides" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
04 Oct 2005 06:04:45 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to
answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life?from which we are all supposed to have descended?come into
existence?
Energy + chemistry = life.
The rest are mere details.
Speculation. Not proven nor duplicated, nor falsified. Try again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
03 Oct 2005 09:33:05 PM |
|
|
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life?
<snip garbage>
Fortunately, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of
life. The word "evolution" (as well as the science itself) describes
the progression of life, not the beginning. "Genesis" or, concurrently,
"abiogenesis," describe the origin of life.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, these are the kinds of posts that get
made when the uneducated are given questions to ask by the zealots.
--
James B
aa #944
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
-David Hume
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
04 Oct 2005 02:32:58 AM |
|
|
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life?
Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Try again.
<snip the rest>
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Question with boldness even the existence of a *
* God; because, if there be one, he must approve *
* of the homage of reason, than that of *
* blindfolded fear." --Thomas Jefferson *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
09 Oct 2005 01:52:08 AM |
|
|
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from
They have "failed" to answer it because it's not part of evolution.
which we are all supposed to have descended—come into existence?
Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most people
then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile
of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more than a hundred
years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly demonstrated that
life can come only from preexisting life.
Nope. Pasteur only ruled out a specific form of abiogenesis.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the
most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the
chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions of
years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth
were far different”
Nope. Pasteur only showed that abiogenesis did not occur at room
temperature on the earth's surface. He never experimented near volcanic
vents under the oceans' surface.
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton,
in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a living cell
and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or
a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to
conceive.”10 The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some
haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. The Bible’s
explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in that life was created by God,
is convincingly in harmony with the facts.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Triceratop" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
09 Oct 2005 03:40:22 AM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from
They have "failed" to answer it because it's not part of evolution.
Actually at one time it was. Theories like the primordial soup was in
apogee during the day. But the failure of Stan Miller and other's
quickly seperated abiogenesis from the rest of the evolutionist crowd.
The cry: the origin of life is not part of evolution.. was a cop out
excuse for the inability to produce life in a test tube with a supposed
primative atomosphere.
which we are all supposed to have descended—come into existence?
Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most
people then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and
that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more
than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly
demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting life.
Nope. Pasteur only ruled out a specific form of abiogenesis.
Are ther other types of abiogenesis?
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the
most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
on the earth were far different”
Nope. Pasteur only showed that abiogenesis did not occur at room
temperature on the earth's surface. He never experimented near volcanic
vents under the oceans' surface.
should not be difficult to do with today technology. why has it not been
done?
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a
living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as
a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it
is possible to conceive.”10 The idea that nonliving material could
come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
impossible. The Bible’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in
that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the facts.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
09 Oct 2005 03:56:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 04:40:22 -0400, in alt.atheism , Triceratop
<dino@saurlane.ee> in <1I42f.150$es7.1777808@news.sisna.com> wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from
They have "failed" to answer it because it's not part of evolution.
Actually at one time it was.
Nonsense. Evolution theory explains the diversity of life: it
presupposes the existence of life.
Theories like the primordial soup was in
apogee during the day.
"The day" being about 150 years ago.
But the failure of Stan Miller and other's
quickly seperated abiogenesis from the rest of the evolutionist crowd.
Nope, they were already separate. Now what do you think of clay as a
template? And do you think that the energy levels of the photons has
any relevance to black smokers as a location for the origin of life?
Or, perhaps, you don't know what is being done in the field today.
The cry: the origin of life is not part of evolution.. was a cop out
excuse for the inability to produce life in a test tube with a supposed
primative atomosphere.
Sorry, but the details of the origin of life have no bearing on its
subsequent diversification. Life could have arose via natural
processes or been poofed into existence, it does not change our
understanding of the evidence for change since then.
which we are all supposed to have descended—come into existence?
Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most
people then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and
that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more
than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly
demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting life.
Nope. Pasteur only ruled out a specific form of abiogenesis.
Are ther other types of abiogenesis?
Pasteur ruled out things like rags turning into rats and food
spontaneously producing flies. That has no bearing on how life arose
on earth some 4 billion years ago.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the
most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
on the earth were far different”
Nope. Pasteur only showed that abiogenesis did not occur at room
temperature on the earth's surface. He never experimented near volcanic
vents under the oceans' surface.
should not be difficult to do with today technology. why has it not been
done?
Why should it "not be difficult"? An optimistic guess would say that
it took scores of millions of years and millions of cubic miles for
life to form, we have only know of DNA for 50. Give me funds for a
100,000 years long experiment and I might be able to produce life.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Triceratop" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
09 Oct 2005 08:47:08 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 04:40:22 -0400, in alt.atheism , Triceratop
<dino@saurlane.ee> in <1I42f.150$es7.1777808@news.sisna.com> wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from
They have "failed" to answer it because it's not part of evolution.
Actually at one time it was.
Nonsense. Evolution theory explains the diversity of life: it
presupposes the existence of life.
Theories like the primordial soup was in
apogee during the day.
"The day" being about 150 years ago.
Thanks for admitting it. Which was the point.
But the failure of Stan Miller and other's
quickly seperated abiogenesis from the rest of the evolutionist crowd.
Nope, they were already separate. Now what do you think of clay as a
template? And do you think that the energy levels of the photons has
any relevance to black smokers as a location for the origin of life?
Or, perhaps, you don't know what is being done in the field today.
It may. But once it can be done in a lab...
The cry: the origin of life is not part of evolution.. was a cop out
excuse for the inability to produce life in a test tube with a supposed
primative atomosphere.
Sorry, but the details of the origin of life have no bearing on its
subsequent diversification. Life could have arose via natural
processes or been poofed into existence, it does not change our
understanding of the evidence for change since then.
And this natural process was?????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
09 Oct 2005 10:34:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:47:08 -0400, in alt.atheism , Triceratop
<dino@saurlane.ee> in <CKj2f.74$WQ3.342110@news.sisna.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 04:40:22 -0400, in alt.atheism , Triceratop
<dino@saurlane.ee> in <1I42f.150$es7.1777808@news.sisna.com> wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from
They have "failed" to answer it because it's not part of evolution.
Actually at one time it was.
Nonsense. Evolution theory explains the diversity of life: it
presupposes the existence of life.
Theories like the primordial soup was in
apogee during the day.
"The day" being about 150 years ago.
Thanks for admitting it. Which was the point.
Admitting what? That 150 years ago people had little clue about the
origin of life? BFD. It was never part of evolution though it was part
of biology.
But the failure of Stan Miller and other's
quickly seperated abiogenesis from the rest of the evolutionist crowd.
Nope, they were already separate. Now what do you think of clay as a
template? And do you think that the energy levels of the photons has
any relevance to black smokers as a location for the origin of life?
Or, perhaps, you don't know what is being done in the field today.
It may.
Your "it" has no reference here. I asked you some questions about some
active areas of abiogenesis research. If you don't know then just
admit you don't know about the relevant science. But you should then
stop writing as though you did.
But once it can be done in a lab...
I see. So if we can't do it, then it is impossible for it to be
natural, so it was designed. And if we can do it, then that also shows
it was designed. IOW "designed" has no real meaning.
The cry: the origin of life is not part of evolution.. was a cop out
excuse for the inability to produce life in a test tube with a supposed
primative atomosphere.
Sorry, but the details of the origin of life have no bearing on its
subsequent diversification. Life could have arose via natural
processes or been poofed into existence, it does not change our
understanding of the evidence for change since then.
And this natural process was?????
Something we are currently exploring. Something we learn more and more
about every day. 150 years ago people wondered if it was possible for
natural processes to produce any "organic" (old meaning, coming from
life, not new meaning, carbon containing) material. Now we know of
many. 100 years ago people did not know about DNA, now we do. We now
know of plenty of natural processes that can produce various
precursors to living cells. Our *current* ignorance is a statement
about *our* knowledge, not about the world. Scientists are not so
arrogant as to assert that if they don't currently know something then
it can't be known.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
09 Oct 2005 12:19:26 PM |
|
|
Triceratop wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from
They have "failed" to answer it because it's not part of evolution.
Actually at one time it was. Theories like the primordial soup was in
apogee during the day. But the failure of Stan Miller and other's
quickly seperated abiogenesis from the rest of the evolutionist crowd.
The cry: the origin of life is not part of evolution.. was a cop out
excuse for the inability to produce life in a test tube with a supposed
primative atomosphere.
Primordial soup was a biological theory/hypothesis. But was it part of
evolution?
which we are all supposed to have descended—come into existence?
Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most
people then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and
that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more
than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly
demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting life.
Nope. Pasteur only ruled out a specific form of abiogenesis.
Are ther other types of abiogenesis?
That's what biologists are exploring.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the
most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
on the earth were far different”
Nope. Pasteur only showed that abiogenesis did not occur at room
temperature on the earth's surface. He never experimented near
volcanic vents under the oceans' surface.
should not be difficult to do with today technology. why has it not been
done?
Why is it not "difficult"?
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a
living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
it is possible to conceive.”10 The idea that nonliving material could
come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
impossible. The Bible’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in
that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the facts.
Colin Day aa #1500
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Triceratop" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
09 Oct 2005 03:43:34 PM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
Triceratop wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life—from
They have "failed" to answer it because it's not part of evolution.
Actually at one time it was. Theories like the primordial soup was in
apogee during the day. But the failure of Stan Miller and other's
quickly seperated abiogenesis from the rest of the evolutionist crowd.
The cry: the origin of life is not part of evolution.. was a cop out
excuse for the inability to produce life in a test tube with a
supposed primative atomosphere.
Primordial soup was a biological theory/hypothesis. But was it part of
evolution?
Life in the Universe", Scientific American special issue, October 1994.
A collection of ten articles. Important topics covered include the
evolution of the Earth (Allegre & Schneider), the origin of life on
Earth (Orgel), the evolution of life on Earth (Gould), and the search
for extraterrestrial life (Sagan).
here you go:
Re: What is primordial soup?
Area of science: Evolution ID: 1008952963.Ev ... "Primordial soup" is a
rather
old fashioned term, used to describe a theory for how the organic
compounds ...
www.madsci.org/posts/archives/ dec2001/1009210259.Ev.r.html - 5k -
Cached - Similar pages
Stirring the primordial soup : Nature
ConceptStirring the primordial soup. William R. Taylor1 ... Maynard
Smith, J.
& Szathmáry, E. The Major Transitions in Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press,
1995). ...
www.nature.com/nature/journal/ v434/n7034/full/434705a.html - Similar pages
Nope. Pasteur only ruled out a specific form of abiogenesis.
Are ther other types of abiogenesis?
That's what biologists are exploring.
so it is an unkown.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and
energy sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years
ago. What about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book
Encyclopedia explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise
spontaneously under the chemical and physical conditions present on
the earth today. Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and
physical conditions on the earth were far different”
Nope. Pasteur only showed that abiogenesis did not occur at room
temperature on the earth's surface. He never experimented near
volcanic vents under the oceans' surface.
should not be difficult to do with today technology. why has it not
been done?
Why is it not "difficult"?
science has the answer to all :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
09 Oct 2005 03:59:09 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 16:43:34 -0400, in alt.atheism , Triceratop
<dino@saurlane.ee> in <0if2f.20$sm4.363568@news.sisna.com> wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Triceratop wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life—from
They have "failed" to answer it because it's not part of evolution.
Actually at one time it was. Theories like the primordial soup was in
apogee during the day. But the failure of Stan Miller and other's
quickly seperated abiogenesis from the rest of the evolutionist crowd.
The cry: the origin of life is not part of evolution.. was a cop out
excuse for the inability to produce life in a test tube with a
supposed primative atomosphere.
Primordial soup was a biological theory/hypothesis. But was it part of
evolution?
Life in the Universe", Scientific American special issue, October 1994.
A collection of ten articles. Important topics covered include the
evolution of the Earth (Allegre & Schneider), the origin of life on
Earth (Orgel), the evolution of life on Earth (Gould), and the search
for extraterrestrial life (Sagan).
here you go:
Re: What is primordial soup?
Area of science: Evolution ID: 1008952963.Ev ... "Primordial soup" is a
rather
old fashioned term, used to describe a theory for how the organic
compounds ...
www.madsci.org/posts/archives/ dec2001/1009210259.Ev.r.html - 5k -
Cached - Similar pages
No mention of evolution.
Stirring the primordial soup : Nature
ConceptStirring the primordial soup. William R. Taylor1 ... Maynard
Smith, J.
& Szathmáry, E. The Major Transitions in Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press,
1995). ...
www.nature.com/nature/journal/ v434/n7034/full/434705a.html - Similar pages
Article unavailable without paying. Did you read it and if so, give us
a quote showing that this was part of the theory of evolution.
Nope. Pasteur only ruled out a specific form of abiogenesis.
Are ther other types of abiogenesis?
That's what biologists are exploring.
so it is an unkown.
Yes, we currently don't know how it happened. 50 years ago we did not
know about DNA. 100 years ago we did not know how the Sun worked.
Science advances.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and
energy sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years
ago. What about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book
Encyclopedia explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise
spontaneously under the chemical and physical conditions present on
the earth today. Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and
physical conditions on the earth were far different”
Nope. Pasteur only showed that abiogenesis did not occur at room
temperature on the earth's surface. He never experimented near
volcanic vents under the oceans' surface.
should not be difficult to do with today technology. why has it not
been done?
Why is it not "difficult"?
science has the answer to all :-)
I see. You have a strawman and think it is powerful.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
04 Oct 2005 03:06:17 AM |
|
|
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life?
We don't know yet. Now, *that* was pretty easy to answer...
How did the first simple form of life-from
which we are all supposed to have descended-come into existence?
Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most people
then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile
of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more than a hundred
years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly demonstrated that
life can come only from preexisting life.
Louis Pasteur demonstrated no such thing. He only showed that
rats, mice, maggots & flies cannot arise fully formed from garbage.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life?
Evolutionists - as far as the term actually exists - don't
even try to explain that. They only explain how life changed over
time once it came into existence.
According to the
most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago.
There are various hypotheses of abiogenesis - which is actually a
specialism within chemistry and not evolutionary biology. Fact is
that organic molecules form readily from ordinary chemical reactions.
What about the principle that Pasteur proved?
What about it?
The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the
chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions of
years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth
were far different"
Pasteur had nothing to say about abiogenesis, be it nowadays or in
the past.
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing.
Actually, there is no difference between living and non-living
matter.
Michael Denton,
in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
A book that has been readily debunked...
, says: "Between a living cell
and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or
a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to
conceive."
What about organic self-replicating polymers? It's funny that
he simply skips them.
10 The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some
haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible.
Of course, there is no involvement of "haphazard chance".
The Bible's
explanation, that 'life came from life' in that life was created by God,
is convincingly in harmony with the facts.
Only if you ignore named facts.
RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
03 Oct 2005 08:15:48 PM |
|
|
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life-from
which we are all supposed to have descended-come into existence?
That has nothing to do with evolution, duh.Evolution isn't about
abiogenesis. It is about what happened AFTERWARD. Evolution
is a fact no matter how life came into existence. But I suppose you
are one of these cowardly hit and run posters who can't stand behind
the ***** you spew.
Centuries ago, th is would not have appeared to be a problem. Most people
then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile
of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more than a hundred
years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur cl early demonstrated that
life can come only from preexisting life.
Nope.
"The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others
disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice,
maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They
disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of
biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form
from increasingly complex molecules."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "DeeDee deElder" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
03 Oct 2005 09:42:18 PM |
|
|
<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1128388548.234530.184060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life-from
which we are all supposed to have descended-come into existence?
That has nothing to do with evolution, duh.Evolution isn't about
abiogenesis. It is about what happened AFTERWARD. Evolution
is a fact no matter how life came into existence. But I suppose you
are one of these cowardly hit and run posters who can't stand behind
the ***** you spew.
==================================
It is one of those posters. It's another JABRIOL sock-puppet from ARJ-W.
Please remove AFN since this subject is totally off-topic there. Before
replying to a JABRIOL sock please check the header and remove unrelated NGs.
Thanks so much :-)
--
DeeDee .....
http://quotes.watchtower.ca/
http://www.truthandgrace.com/Watchtower.htm
=======================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
04 Oct 2005 02:33:35 AM |
|
|
Darwinsghost wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life?
You know who else hasn't answered this question? Cooks,
mathematicians, architects and ballerinas. But then, like evolution,
which only applies *after* life has arisen, none of that has anything to
do with biological origins. Your ignorance is appalling.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
04 Oct 2005 06:33:54 AM |
|
|
In <Tfj0f.70$922.277619@news.sisna.com>, Darwinsghost
<Cracklin@mygrandchildisamonkey.org> wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life?
This is not and never has been an issue of evolutionary theory. Only the
ignorant fail to understand that the ToE begins with life already extant.
It is a theory which explains the "origin of species" not a theory of the
"origin of life."
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2D511CBB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
05 Oct 2005 08:03:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:36:18 -0400, Darwinsghost
<Cracklin@mygrandchildisamonkey.org> wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life?
***** off, brainless one. Evolution doesn't deal with the 'orgin of
life' as you're fully aware. FOAD-in the most painful way possible.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
03 Oct 2005 06:45:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:36:18 -0400, Darwinsghost
<Cracklin@mygrandchildisamonkey.org> wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from
which we are all supposed to have descended—come into existence?
Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most people
then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile
of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more than a hundred
years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly demonstrated that
life can come only from preexisting life.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the
most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the
chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions of
years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth
were far different”
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton,
in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a living cell
Denton is a liar and an idiot. Just like the other creationists. He is
deliberately ignorant of what he hypocritically attacks.
and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or
a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to
conceive.”10 The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some
Why don't you show his maths. Because that statement is nonsense.
haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. The Bible’s
explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in that life was created by God,
is convincingly in harmony with the facts.
A stupid falsehood.
What is it with you morons? We wouldn't even know how ignorant and
stupid you were if you didn't rub your stupidity in our faces.
Modern science isn't some "evolutionist catechism".
And the origins of life arent even part of evolution.
You're not interested, but if you were you would read up on a field
called abiogenesis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
05 Oct 2005 10:28:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:45:45 -0400, in alt.atheism , Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> in
<nbg3k1hhbkmq3jq8hldv4gc9egjsi714iv@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:36:18 -0400, Darwinsghost
<Cracklin@mygrandchildisamonkey.org> wrote:
[snip]
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton,
in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a living cell
Denton is a liar and an idiot. Just like the other creationists. He is
deliberately ignorant of what he hypocritically attacks.
Denton is neither a liar, an idiot, or a creationist. You, however,
are willing to substitute your personal ignorant insults in the place
of reasoned argument.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Louis Pasteur |
09 Oct 2005 02:13:21 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:45:45 -0400, in alt.atheism , Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> in
<nbg3k1hhbkmq3jq8hldv4gc9egjsi714iv@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:36:18 -0400, Darwinsghost
<Cracklin@mygrandchildisamonkey.org> wrote:
[snip]
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton,
in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a living cell
Denton is a liar and an idiot. Just like the other creationists. He is
deliberately ignorant of what he hypocritically attacks.
Denton is neither a liar, an idiot, or a creationist. You, however,
are willing to substitute your personal ignorant insults in the place
of reasoned argument.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
What reasoned argument? Stating that because we don't fully understand
the development of life (but have damn good indications of how it
happened) therefore we have to buy the Bible's idiotic "life came from
life" is hardly reasonable. In fact, it's childish and stupid.
Wexford
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
