| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"WDS" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2008 09:58:05 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Abiogensis |
Keima,
The Darwinist followers are so brain-washed in their religion that they'll
reply to you with canned dogma, without any thought to your points. Part of
the problem is that Darwinism is one of the last vestiges of philosophical
science, a science that wasn't based on empirical evidence. Until the
Creationists became involved in science, the word "science" was all about
'opinion' and 'think so'. Since that time, nearly every single discipline
of science has been founded by a Creationist.
But Darwinists continue to follow their teachings based on philosophical
doctrine. Science is their enemy. They will be ex-communicated by their
brethren if they acknowledge issues such as spontaneous generation of
polymer sequences.
"Keima Sente" <Shodan@weiqui.org> wrote in message
news:fnhs8i$b90$3@news.albasani.net...
If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact,
it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described
as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a
theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and
by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory
are fulfilled.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to
observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it
is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when
evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been
verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it.
Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an
inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate
such a theory to the level of fact?
On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that
the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible.
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task," Professor Wald
of Harvard University acknowledges, "to concede that the spontaneous
generation of a living organism is impossible." But what does this
proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: "Yet here we are-as a
result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Does that sound like
objective science?
British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as
"simple dogmatism-asserting that what you want to believe did in fact
happen."28 How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this
apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist
Loren Eiseley conceded: "After having chided the theologian for his
reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable
position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the
assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place
today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."
Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory appears
better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many
supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such matters
in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the
overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding dogmatism
prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the scientific
method.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
27 Jan 2008 10:17:42 AM |
|
|
"WDS" <wdsnews.0605@oregoncity.com> wrote in
news:479c9e67$0$14455$88260bb3@free.teranews.com to alt.atheism on 27
Jan 2008:
The Darwinist followers are so brain-washed in their religion that
they'll reply to you with canned dogma, without any thought to your
points. Part of the problem is that Darwinism is one of the last
vestiges of philosophical science, a science that wasn't based on
empirical evidence. Until the Creationists became involved in
science, the word "science" was all about 'opinion' and 'think so'.
Since that time, nearly every single discipline of science has been
founded by a Creationist.
Cramming so many lies into a sentence! Wow! For "Creationist" read
"making ***** up". You got science? Point to it in your reply below:
I promise not to hold my breath.
--
David Silverman D.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
The monkeys are loose in the library again. They're gibbbering something
about "Answers In Genesis".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PondMeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
27 Jan 2008 06:39:08 PM |
|
|
Darwinist?
On Jan 27, 10:58 am, "WDS" <wdsnews.0...@oregoncity.com> wrote:
Keima,
The Darwinist followers are so brain-washed in their religion that they'll
reply to you with canned dogma, without any thought to your points. Part of
the problem is that Darwinism is one of the last vestiges of philosophical
science, a science that wasn't based on empirical evidence. Until the
Creationists became involved in science, the word "science" was all about
'opinion' and 'think so'. Since that time, nearly every single discipline
of science has been founded by a Creationist.
But Darwinists continue to follow their teachings based on philosophical
doctrine. Science is their enemy. They will be ex-communicated by their
brethren if they acknowledge issues such as spontaneous generation of
polymer sequences.
"Keima Sente" <Sho...@weiqui.org> wrote in message
news:fnhs8i$b90$3@news.albasani.net...
If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact,
it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described
as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a
theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and
by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory
are fulfilled.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to
observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it
is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when
evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been
verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it.
Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an
inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate
such a theory to the level of fact?
On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that
the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible.
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task," Professor Wald
of Harvard University acknowledges, "to concede that the spontaneous
generation of a living organism is impossible." But what does this
proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: "Yet here we are-as a
result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Does that sound like
objective science?
British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as
"simple dogmatism-asserting that what you want to believe did in fact
happen."28 How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this
apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist
Loren Eiseley conceded: "After having chided the theologian for his
reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable
position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the
assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place
today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."
Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory appears
better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many
supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such matters
in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the
overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding dogmatism
prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the scientific
method.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "WDS" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
28 Jan 2008 02:42:36 AM |
|
|
I'm just noting that not one single Darwinist acknowledged the issue of
spontaneous generation of polymer sequences. ...takes education rather than
brain-washing to even see the words let alone understand them or respond to
REAL science.
"PondMeister" <zodriol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80801901-c1b2-4083-9c08-e13eda42eed8@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Darwinist?
On Jan 27, 10:58 am, "WDS" <wdsnews.0...@oregoncity.com> wrote:
Keima,
The Darwinist followers are so brain-washed in their religion that
they'll
reply to you with canned dogma, without any thought to your points. Part
of
the problem is that Darwinism is one of the last vestiges of
philosophical
science, a science that wasn't based on empirical evidence. Until the
Creationists became involved in science, the word "science" was all about
'opinion' and 'think so'. Since that time, nearly every single
discipline
of science has been founded by a Creationist.
But Darwinists continue to follow their teachings based on philosophical
doctrine. Science is their enemy. They will be ex-communicated by their
brethren if they acknowledge issues such as spontaneous generation of
polymer sequences.
"Keima Sente" <Sho...@weiqui.org> wrote in message
news:fnhs8i$b90$3@news.albasani.net...
If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific
fact,
it should be established by the scientific method. This has been
described
as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a
theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations
and
by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory
are fulfilled.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible
to
observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that
it
is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when
evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been
verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat
it.
Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an
inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to
elevate
such a theory to the level of fact?
On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion
that
the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not
possible.
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task," Professor
Wald
of Harvard University acknowledges, "to concede that the spontaneous
generation of a living organism is impossible." But what does this
proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: "Yet here we
are-as a
result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Does that sound like
objective science?
British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as
"simple dogmatism-asserting that what you want to believe did in fact
happen."28 How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this
apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known
evolutionist
Loren Eiseley conceded: "After having chided the theologian for his
reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable
position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the
assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take
place
today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."
Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory
appears
better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many
supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such
matters
in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the
overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding
dogmatism
prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the scientific
method.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
30 Jan 2008 06:50:06 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:42:36 -0800, "WDS"
<wdsnews.0605@oregoncity.com> wrote:
I'm just noting that not one single Darwinist acknowledged the issue of
spontaneous generation of polymer sequences. ...takes education rather than
brain-washing to even see the words let alone understand them or respond to
REAL science.
So I guess that eliminates you then, eh, Sport?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
30 Jan 2008 06:45:38 AM |
|
|
WDS said the following on 1/28/2008 12:42 AM:
I'm just noting that not one single Darwinist acknowledged the issue of
spontaneous generation of polymer sequences.
Considering that "Darwinism" is only concerned with the evolution of
life AFTER it came into being, I don't really see a problem here.
...takes education rather than
brain-washing to even see the words let alone understand them or respond to
REAL science.
There was no life on Earth when it was formed.
There is life on Earth now.
Therefore, abiogenesis happened.
It's not really that hard.
The argument now, is how that abiogenesis happened, and "Darwinism"
(read: Evolution) is not concerned with it.
Only fools and the ignorant try to link abiogenesis with the evolution
of life after it was formed.
"PondMeister" <zodriol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80801901-c1b2-4083-9c08-e13eda42eed8@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Darwinist?
On Jan 27, 10:58 am, "WDS" <wdsnews.0...@oregoncity.com> wrote:
Keima,
The Darwinist followers are so brain-washed in their religion that
they'll
reply to you with canned dogma, without any thought to your points. Part
of
the problem is that Darwinism is one of the last vestiges of
philosophical
science, a science that wasn't based on empirical evidence. Until the
Creationists became involved in science, the word "science" was all about
'opinion' and 'think so'. Since that time, nearly every single
discipline
of science has been founded by a Creationist.
But Darwinists continue to follow their teachings based on philosophical
doctrine. Science is their enemy. They will be ex-communicated by their
brethren if they acknowledge issues such as spontaneous generation of
polymer sequences.
"Keima Sente" <Sho...@weiqui.org> wrote in message
news:fnhs8i$b90$3@news.albasani.net...
If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific
fact,
it should be established by the scientific method. This has been
described
as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a
theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations
and
by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory
are fulfilled.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible
to
observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that
it
is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when
evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been
verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat
it.
Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an
inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to
elevate
such a theory to the level of fact?
On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion
that
the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not
possible.
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task," Professor
Wald
of Harvard University acknowledges, "to concede that the spontaneous
generation of a living organism is impossible." But what does this
proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: "Yet here we
are-as a
result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Does that sound like
objective science?
British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as
"simple dogmatism-asserting that what you want to believe did in fact
happen."28 How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this
apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known
evolutionist
Loren Eiseley conceded: "After having chided the theologian for his
reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable
position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the
assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take
place
today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."
Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory
appears
better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many
supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such
matters
in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the
overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding
dogmatism
prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the scientific
method.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "curtjester1" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
30 Jan 2008 06:52:12 AM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 7:45=A0am, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
WDS said the following on 1/28/2008 12:42 AM:
I'm just noting that not one single Darwinist acknowledged the issue of
spontaneous generation of polymer sequences. =A0
Considering that "Darwinism" is only concerned with the evolution of
life AFTER it came into being, I don't really see a problem here.
I do, because it's really saying evolution *doesn't work* when we go
*too far* back.
...takes education rather than
brain-washing to even see the words let alone understand them or respond=
to
REAL science.
There was no life on Earth when it was formed.
There is life on Earth now.
Therefore, abiogenesis happened.
It *happened* because there is no evolution explaining it. Of course
it happened, but the only logical explanation is evolution didn't
happen and creation did happen.
It's not really that hard.
The argument now, is how that abiogenesis happened, and "Darwinism"
(read: Evolution) is not concerned with it.
Of course, because it 'messes' with it's theory.
Only fools and the ignorant try to link abiogenesis with the evolution
of life after it was formed.
Only fools avoid proof of their theory so they can go on their 'merry
way'.
CJ
"PondMeister" <zodr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80801901-c1b2-4083-9c08-e13eda42eed8@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...=
Darwinist?
On Jan 27, 10:58 am, "WDS" <wdsnews.0...@oregoncity.com> wrote:
Keima,
The Darwinist followers are so brain-washed in their religion that
they'll
reply to you with canned dogma, without any thought to your points. =
=A0Part
of
the problem is that Darwinism is one of the last vestiges of
philosophical
science, a science that wasn't based on empirical evidence. =A0Until t=
he
Creationists became involved in science, the word "science" was all ab=
out
'opinion' and 'think so'. =A0Since that time, nearly every single
discipline
of science has been founded by a Creationist.
But Darwinists continue to follow their teachings based on philosophic=
al
doctrine. =A0Science is their enemy. =A0They will be ex-communicated b=
y their
brethren if they acknowledge issues such as spontaneous generation of
polymer sequences.
"Keima Sente" <Sho...@weiqui.org> wrote in message
news:fnhs8i$b90$3@news.albasani.net...
If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific
fact,
it should be established by the scientific method. This has been
described
as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a=
theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observation=
s
and
by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theo=
ry
are fulfilled.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possibl=
e
to
observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that=
it
is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when
evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been
verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat=
it.
Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an=
inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to
elevate
such a theory to the level of fact?
=A0On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusi=
on
that
the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not
possible.
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task," Professor
Wald
of Harvard University acknowledges, "to concede that the spontaneous
generation of a living organism is impossible." But what does this
proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: "Yet here we
are-as a
result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Does that sound like
objective science?
=A0British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasonin=
g as
"simple dogmatism-asserting that what you want to believe did in fact=
happen."28 How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this=
apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known
evolutionist
Loren Eiseley conceded: "After having chided the theologian for his
reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable
position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the
assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take
place
today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."
Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory
appears
better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many=
supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such
matters
in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the
overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding
dogmatism
prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the scientific
method.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
--
****************************************************
* =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0*
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting =A0*
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of =A0 *
* separation between church and state." =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0*
* =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --Thomas Jefferson, 1802=
*
****************************************************- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
30 Jan 2008 06:58:15 AM |
|
|
curtjester1 said the following on 1/30/2008 4:52 AM:
On Jan 30, 7:45 am, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
WDS said the following on 1/28/2008 12:42 AM:
I'm just noting that not one single Darwinist acknowledged the issue of
spontaneous generation of polymer sequences.
Considering that "Darwinism" is only concerned with the evolution of
life AFTER it came into being, I don't really see a problem here.
I do, because it's really saying evolution *doesn't work* when we go
*too far* back.
Well, considering that you need life for evolution to happen...
...takes education rather than
brain-washing to even see the words let alone understand them or respond to
REAL science.
There was no life on Earth when it was formed.
There is life on Earth now.
Therefore, abiogenesis happened.
It *happened* because there is no evolution explaining it.
Right. Evolution is only concerned with already living things that
reproduce.
Of course
it happened, but the only logical explanation is evolution didn't
happen and creation did happen.
Yes. But "creation" is a loaded word and is too easily applied to the
word "creator", which presupposes an anthropomorphic entity.
It's not really that hard.
The argument now, is how that abiogenesis happened, and "Darwinism"
(read: Evolution) is not concerned with it.
Of course, because it 'messes' with it's theory.
Not at all. Read the theory. It is only concerned with life AFTER it
is formed.
Only fools and the ignorant try to link abiogenesis with the evolution
of life after it was formed.
Only fools avoid proof of their theory so they can go on their 'merry
way'.
What proof?
<snipped the rest because top posting is considered rude>
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "curtjester1" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
30 Jan 2008 10:07:51 AM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 7:58=A0am, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
curtjester1 said the following on 1/30/2008 4:52 AM:
On Jan 30, 7:45 am, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
WDS said the following on 1/28/2008 12:42 AM:
I'm just noting that not one single Darwinist acknowledged the issue o=
f
spontaneous generation of polymer sequences. =A0
Considering that "Darwinism" is only concerned with the evolution of
life AFTER it came into being, I don't really see a problem here.
I do, because it's really saying evolution *doesn't work* when we go
*too far* back.
Well, considering that you need life for evolution to happen...
But why doesn't evolution start life that it needs to have for it to
possibly happen?
...takes education rather than
brain-washing to even see the words let alone understand them or respo=
nd to
REAL science.
There was no life on Earth when it was formed.
There is life on Earth now.
Therefore, abiogenesis happened.
It *happened* because there is no evolution explaining it. =A0
Right. =A0Evolution is only concerned with already living things that
reproduce.
It too many is an incomplete concept because they would rationalize it
should show continuity all the way back. They also would rationalize
that the beginnings of life should be more observable and
distinguished than latter and more complicated forms of life. Then of
course, the theory depends on something all ready in seemingly
completed form and complex. And the change they want to impress
people with, is just change and not necessarily having to be a viable
theory, as we see many subjective opinions in that field.
CJ
Of course
it happened, but the only logical explanation is evolution didn't
happen and creation did happen.
Yes. =A0But "creation" is a loaded word and is too easily applied to the
word "creator", which presupposes an anthropomorphic entity.
It's not really that hard.
The argument now, is how that abiogenesis happened, and "Darwinism"
(read: Evolution) is not concerned with it.
Of course, because it 'messes' with it's theory.
Not at all. =A0Read the theory. =A0It is only concerned with life AFTER it=
is formed.
Only fools and the ignorant try to link abiogenesis with the evolution
of life after it was formed.
Only fools avoid proof of their theory so they can go on their 'merry
way'.
What proof?
<snipped the rest because top posting is considered rude>
--
****************************************************
* =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0*
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting =A0*
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of =A0 *
* separation between church and state." =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0*
* =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --Thomas Jefferson, 1802=
*
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
30 Jan 2008 02:21:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:07:51 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtjester1@hotmail.com> wrote:
But why doesn't evolution start life that it needs to have for it to
possibly happen?
Because evolution is a result, not a cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "curtjester1" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
30 Jan 2008 07:46:13 PM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 3:21 pm, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:07:51 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
But why doesn't evolution start life that it needs to have for it to
possibly happen?
Because evolution is a result, not a cause.
Pithy little generalizations are not going to work. You only define
evolution they you want to. It doesn't mean by many a folk that it
transcends from the beginning 'start' to all forms of life being
ancestors of one another, but that is exaclty what is taught and
implied many times in the schools. Why can't one argue that there are
barriers to what certain things in the past could have become?
CJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
31 Jan 2008 06:06:55 PM |
|
|
curtjester1 wrote:
On Jan 30, 3:21 pm, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:07:51 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
But why doesn't evolution start life that it needs to have for it to
possibly happen?
Because evolution is a result, not a cause.
Pithy little generalizations are not going to work. You only define
evolution they you want to. It doesn't mean by many a folk that it
transcends from the beginning 'start' to all forms of life being
ancestors of one another, but that is exaclty what is taught and
implied many times in the schools.
Can you give some examples from real school textbooks? Or are you making
that up because you don't know what you are talking about?
Why can't one argue that there are
barriers to what certain things in the past could have become?
CJ
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
27 Jan 2008 11:29:49 AM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 7:58=A0am, "WDS" <wdsnews.0...@oregoncity.com> wrote:
The Darwinist followers are so brain-washed in their religion that they'll=
reply to you with canned dogma, without any thought to your points. =A0Par=
t of
the problem is that Darwinism is one of the last vestiges of philosophical=
science, a science that wasn't based on empirical evidence. =A0Until the
Creationists became involved in science, the word "science" was all about
'opinion' and 'think so'. =A0Since that time, nearly every single discipli=
ne
of science has been founded by a Creationist.
But Darwinists continue to follow their teachings based on philosophical
doctrine. =A0Science is their enemy. =A0They will be ex-communicated by th=
eir
brethren if they acknowledge issues such as spontaneous generation of
polymer sequences.
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
28 Jan 2008 08:04:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:58:05 -0800 in
479c9e67$0$14455$88260bb3@free.teranews.com, "WDS"
<wdsnews.0605@oregoncity.com> wrote:
Keima,
The Darwinist followers are so brain-washed in their religion that
they'll reply to you with canned dogma, without any thought to your
points. Part of the problem is that Darwinism is one of the last
vestiges of philosophical science, a science that wasn't based on
empirical evidence. Until the Creationists became involved in science,
the word "science" was all about 'opinion' and 'think so'. Since that
time, nearly every single discipline of science has been founded by a
Creationist.
WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
WAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
It's Christmas, for goodness sake. Think about the baby Jesus...
up in that tower, letting his hair down... so that the three
wise men can climb up and spin the dradel and see if there
are six more weeks of winter. -- Karen Walker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
27 Jan 2008 10:19:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:58:05 -0800, "WDS"
<wdsnews.0605@oregoncity.com> wrote:
Keima,
The Darwinist
No such thing outside the lies of creationists who pretend that
accepting reality is an -ism.
followers
Nothing to "follow", liar.
are so brain-washed
Brainwashed about what, liar? Reality?
in their religion that they'll
What "religion", liar?
reply to you with canned dogma,
What "canned dogma", liar?
without any thought to your points. Part of
What "points", liar?
the problem is that Darwinism
No such thing, liar.
is one of the last vestiges of philosophical
science,
Hardly, liar. Whether you like it or no the observations that were
labeled evolution won't go away just because in-denial religious
lunatics cover their eyes and ears, and lie to people with a better
grasp on reality.
a science that wasn't based on empirical evidence. Until the
Hardly, liar. the word "evolution" was originally applied to the
observed change and divergence over time, in collated and catalogued
fossil collections two to three hundred years ago.
In spite of what you liars pretend, Darwin's wasn't even the first
explanation for it. Just the first scientifically derived one. It
wasn't even controversial among the educated, even the educated
laymen, of Darwin's time.
Creationists became involved in science, the word "science" was all about
Creationists don't know what science is, liar.
'opinion' and 'think so'.
Liar. It's all about modelling reality and testing those models.
Since that time, nearly every single discipline
of science has been founded by a Creationist.
Liar. Creationists don't even do science.
But Darwinists
No such thing, liar.
continue to follow their teachings
What "teachings", liar?
based on philosophical
doctrine.
What "philosophical doctrine", liar?
Science is their enemy.
Liar.
They will be ex-communicated by their
brethren if they acknowledge issues such as spontaneous generation of
polymer sequences.
Good thing that's your deliberate straw man then, isn't it liar?
What is it with you mind-bogglingly stupid liars?
Why don't creationists and fundamentalists have a shred of honesty?
What do you imagine lying about people and what they do, to their
faces, is ever going to achieve?
Everything you have just described is how your head-in-the-sand cult
works. I won't even dignify it by calling it a religion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
