| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MsAnthrope" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2005 08:41:57 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Anyone Here an ADVENTIST?! |
In article <1107423912.431243.254020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Orion7
says...
Don't you know evolution is a farce? You are obviously a product of the
brain washing which goes on in our Schools, Colleges and Universities.
I have seen the desperate lengths these Professors and Scientists go to
make people believe in evolution, even fabricating evidence to support
their unsupportable theories.
1st Rule of Creationism: Ignored evidence will go away
2nd Rule of Creationism: Interpret any challenge as personal insult
3rd Rule of Creationism: Claim evidence then quietly slip away
4th Rule of Creationism: Don't be confused by facts
5th Rule of Creationism: Insist that science ignores your proof
6th Rule of Creationism: Claim superiority for Christian education.
7th Rule of Creationism: Always appear to know more than you do.
8th Rule of Creationism: Shift the burden of proof to your critics.
9th Rule of Creationism: Lying for the Lord is okay.
10th Rule of Creationism: Never acknowledge your demonstrated errors
--
MsAnthrope
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 11:45:09 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:fc0m01d00uq6u4n7kb73hqk2op40g1dm9r@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
If anyone tries to convince you that at one moment there was
nothing
but inanimate matter, and at the next <POOF!> there was a fully
functioning
cell with membranes, RNA, DNA, mitochondria, endoplasmic
reticulum,
and all the rest, then you will be right: this person will be
trying
to hoax you.
I know of no biologist who believes anything remotely like this.
That's why they need to add multi-billions of years to the
equation.
There WERE billions of years. No one with the least bit of
intelligence disputes this.
--
I know that is what you've been taught, but it is actually a grand
Hoax.
FROG BECOMES PRINCE = FAIRY TALE
FROG BECOMES MAN THROUGH (billions of years) EVOLUTION = HOAX
1) what makes the evidence of a 4.5 billion year old earth invalid?
2) what evidence is there for an earth of any other age?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 07:11:46 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:43:45 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:fc0m01d00uq6u4n7kb73hqk2op40g1dm9r@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
If anyone tries to convince you that at one moment there was nothing
but inanimate matter, and at the next <POOF!> there was a fully functioning
cell with membranes, RNA, DNA, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum,
and all the rest, then you will be right: this person will be trying
to hoax you.
I know of no biologist who believes anything remotely like this.
That's why they need to add multi-billions of years to the equation.
There WERE billions of years. No one with the least bit of
intelligence disputes this.
--
I know that is what you've been taught, but it is actually a grand Hoax.
Y'know, you like to call evolution and abiogenesis "hoax"es. Do
you think that somehow makes them hoaxes? D'you think it somehow makes
you sound intelligent?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 12:05:03 AM |
|
|
In article <372v0gF55e573U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:fc0m01d00uq6u4n7kb73hqk2op40g1dm9r@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
If anyone tries to convince you that at one moment there was nothing
but inanimate matter, and at the next <POOF!> there was a fully
functioning
cell with membranes, RNA, DNA, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum,
and all the rest, then you will be right: this person will be trying
to hoax you.
I know of no biologist who believes anything remotely like this.
That's why they need to add multi-billions of years to the equation.
There WERE billions of years. No one with the least bit of
intelligence disputes this.
--
I know that is what you've been taught, but it is actually a grand Hoax.
Does Andrew claim that there weren't billions of years?
FROG BECOMES PRINCE = FAIRY TALE
GodDidIt = HOAX
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 04:35:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:43:45 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
I know that is what you've been taught, but it is actually a grand Hoax.
MAN BECOMES GOD = HOAX
UNIVERSE CREATED = HOAX
BIBLE IS TRUE = HOAX
Yes, I've been taught a lot of hoaxes - by Christians. The difference
between us is that you believe them.
--
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 05:17:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:39:54 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:44:20 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu8aio$sdq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
If anyone tries to convince you that at one moment there was nothing
but inanimate matter, and at the next <POOF!> there was a fully functioning
cell with membranes, RNA, DNA, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum,
and all the rest, then you will be right: this person will be trying
to hoax you.
I know of no biologist who believes anything remotely like this.
That's why they need to add multi-billions of years to the equation.
There WERE billions of years. No one with the least bit of
intelligence disputes this.
Cretinists lack any trace of intelligence.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Feb 2005 12:47:14 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
news:cu8aio$sdq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <36onruF5670miU1@individual.net> "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"johac" wrote in message
news:jhachm-52CE21.22193406022005@news.giganews.com...
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet. (Emphasis
on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a few
amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized
functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a computer
code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher intelligence who
made it.
That is why the evolutionary idea that the cell originated as a
result of some
coincidence, remains a fanciful speculation and as I have said, a
grand Hoax.
If anyone tries to convince you that at one moment there was
nothing
but inanimate matter, and at the next <POOF!> there was a fully
functioning
cell with membranes, RNA, DNA, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum,
and all the rest, then you will be right: this person will be
trying
to hoax you.
I know of no biologist who believes anything remotely like this.
That's why they need to add multi-billions of years to the equation.
-- cary
Andrew
the idea of an ancient earth was put forward by bible-believing
christian geologists long before any theory of evolution existed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Feb 2005 11:43:57 AM |
|
|
In article <36onruF5670miU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"johac" wrote in message news:jhachm-52CE21.22193406022005@news.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
You need to reread Pasteur's work. What his experiment demonstrated was
the existence of airborne microoganisms. I had nothing to do with how
life began on primordial Earth.
He disproved the falsehood of spontaneous generation. He established a
basic principle, a law of science which has never been disproved. Life is
extremely complex. Even a single cell has the complexity of a city with its
operating sytems, communication, transportation and upper management.
So, if living bilogical organisms come only from other living biological
organisms, and you regard this as some kind of immutable law, then you've
just proved that neither arose from chemicals, nor was it created.
Either scenario would violate what you tell us is an inviolable law.
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet. (Emphasis on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a few amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a computer code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher intelligence who made it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of genetic
mechanism whatsoever.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Feb 2005 12:37:59 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu89ct$oqv$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
You need to reread Pasteur's work. What his experiment demonstrated was
the existence of airborne microoganisms. I had nothing to do with how
life began on primordial Earth.
He disproved the falsehood of spontaneous generation. He established a
basic principle, a law of science which has never been disproved. Life is
extremely complex. Even a single cell has the complexity of a city with its
operating sytems, communication, transportation and upper management.
So, if living bilogical organisms come only from other living biological
organisms, and you regard this as some kind of immutable law, then you've
just proved that neither arose from chemicals, nor was it created.
Copies of a computer program come -only- from preexisting copies.
The original program required a computer programmer who wrote it.
Where the programmer came from is a different issue which is beyond
the capabilities of the program itself to fathom and understand.
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet. (Emphasis on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a few amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a computer code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher intelligence who made it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of genetic
mechanism whatsoever.
We cannot even synthesize an organelle of a cell. How do you propose that this
'early life' you refer to could possibly metabolize and grow, ~and~ develop into
all the living things we see today?
-- cary
Andrew
FROG BECOMES PRINCE = FAIRY TALE BELIEVED BY A GULLIBLE CHILD
FROG BECOMES MAN THROUGH EVOLUTION = HOAX BELIEVED BY THE GULLIBLE MASSES
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Feb 2005 10:07:00 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:36pqs8F536vfqU1@individual.net...
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
news:cu89ct$oqv$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
You need to reread Pasteur's work. What his experiment demonstrated
was
the existence of airborne microoganisms. I had nothing to do with how
life began on primordial Earth.
He disproved the falsehood of spontaneous generation. He established a
basic principle, a law of science which has never been disproved. Life
is
extremely complex. Even a single cell has the complexity of a city with
its
operating sytems, communication, transportation and upper management.
So, if living bilogical organisms come only from other living biological
organisms, and you regard this as some kind of immutable law, then you've
just proved that neither arose from chemicals, nor was it created.
Copies of a computer program come -only- from preexisting copies.
Nope.
The original program required a computer programmer who wrote it.
Nope.
Where the programmer came from is a different issue which is beyond
the capabilities of the program itself to fathom and understand.
Why do you say that? Such information could be programmed or discovered by a
sufficiently complex program.
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet. (Emphasis on
the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a few amino
acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized
functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a computer code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher intelligence who made
it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of genetic
mechanism whatsoever.
We cannot even synthesize an organelle of a cell.
Some we can. Some we can't, yet. What is your point?
How do you propose that this
'early life' you refer to could possibly metabolize and grow, ~and~
develop into
all the living things we see today?
Well, an entire field of scientific research has developed to answer just
that question. And the answers are coming. When we have them, what will your
objection be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
08 Feb 2005 10:35:24 AM |
|
|
In article <BvmdnWj8cfY8pJXfRVn-pA@giganews.com>"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> writes:
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:36pqs8F536vfqU1@individual.net...
{...}
Copies of a computer program come -only- from preexisting copies.
Nope.
The original program required a computer programmer who wrote it.
Nope.
Where the programmer came from is a different issue which is beyond
the capabilities of the program itself to fathom and understand.
Why do you say that? Such information could be programmed or discovered by a
sufficiently complex program.
Even more relevant to the current topic: new and useful programs
may be evolved by randomly mutating and combining existing programs,
if this is followed by some (arbitrary) selection process. This
field is called "genetic algorithms", and the name does not mean
that these are algorithms about genetics, it means that it refers
to a process in which novel and viable computer programs areevolved
using the same mechanisms by which biological life evolves.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
09 Feb 2005 07:11:02 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cuapoc$kth$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Even more relevant to the current topic: new and useful programs
may be evolved by randomly mutating and combining existing programs,
if this is followed by some (arbitrary) selection process. This
field is called "genetic algorithms", and the name does not mean
that these are algorithms about genetics, it means that it refers
to a process in which novel and viable computer programs areevolved
using the same mechanisms by which biological life evolves.
-- cary
But the whole thing (if it ever gets going as you portray) was originally
started by - an intelligence that is much higher than the program itself.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 10:56:18 AM |
|
|
In article <36vql5F574rleU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cuapoc$kth$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Even more relevant to the current topic: new and useful programs
may be evolved by randomly mutating and combining existing programs,
if this is followed by some (arbitrary) selection process. This
field is called "genetic algorithms", and the name does not mean
that these are algorithms about genetics, it means that it refers
to a process in which novel and viable computer programs areevolved
using the same mechanisms by which biological life evolves.
-- cary
But the whole thing (if it ever gets going as you portray) was originally
started by - an intelligence that is much higher than the program itself.
Well, now, that's an entirely different claim, isn't it? Not
that lifeforms cannot evolve, but that there was some Intelligence
which set up the whole game, including the physical laws via
which evolution would take place?
Many a Christian biologist believes this, I expect.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 10:03:56 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug3ni$7sc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
Even more relevant to the current topic: new and useful programs
may be evolved by randomly mutating and combining existing programs,
if this is followed by some (arbitrary) selection process. This
field is called "genetic algorithms", and the name does not mean
that these are algorithms about genetics, it means that it refers
to a process in which novel and viable computer programs areevolved
using the same mechanisms by which biological life evolves.
-- cary
But the whole thing (if it ever gets going as you portray) was originally
started by - an intelligence that is much higher than the program itself.
Well, now, that's an entirely different claim, isn't it? Not
that lifeforms cannot evolve, but that there was some Intelligence
which set up the whole game, including the physical laws via
which evolution would take place?
Many a Christian biologist believes this, I expect.
-- cary
Does this mean that you are starting to forsake atheism? Praise God!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 11:23:45 AM |
|
|
In article <372p5bF56h55qU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug3ni$7sc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
Even more relevant to the current topic: new and useful programs
may be evolved by randomly mutating and combining existing programs,
if this is followed by some (arbitrary) selection process. This
field is called "genetic algorithms", and the name does not mean
that these are algorithms about genetics, it means that it refers
to a process in which novel and viable computer programs areevolved
using the same mechanisms by which biological life evolves.
-- cary
But the whole thing (if it ever gets going as you portray) was originally
started by - an intelligence that is much higher than the program itself.
Well, now, that's an entirely different claim, isn't it? Not
that lifeforms cannot evolve, but that there was some Intelligence
which set up the whole game, including the physical laws via
which evolution would take place?
Many a Christian biologist believes this, I expect.
-- cary
Does this mean that you are starting to forsake atheism? Praise God!
Yes, I've been looking into Haida, and I now realize that man could
never have emerged unless Raven had coaxed him out from that clam
shell (and woman from the those chiton shells).
No, I mean that you can obviously recognize that validity of
evolution and still be a Christian. Since around 45%
of American biologists describe themsevels as Christian,
and since virtually all biologists find evolution to
be unremarkably true, I am saying that you can have both.
In fact I've always found it puzzling how a devout believer
could be so arrogant as to tell God how He is allowed and
how He is not allowed to have brought about life.
Most of the early evolutionary biologists after Darwin
were believers, and thought that by exploring the wonderous
ways in which God brought about life, they were furthering
His glory.
Only some scientifically ingorant could think that <POOF!> as
a theory of creation is more magnificent than the evolutionary one.
--cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 10:00:32 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <372p5bF56h55qU1@individual.net> "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
news:cug3ni$7sc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
Even more relevant to the current topic: new and useful
programs
may be evolved by randomly mutating and combining existing
programs,
if this is followed by some (arbitrary) selection process.
This
field is called "genetic algorithms", and the name does not
mean
that these are algorithms about genetics, it means that it
refers
to a process in which novel and viable computer programs
areevolved
using the same mechanisms by which biologi cal life evolves.
-- cary
But the whole thing (if it ever gets going as you portray) was
originally
started by - an intelligence that is much higher than the
program itself.
Well, now, that's an enti rely different claim, isn't it? Not
that lifeforms cannot evolve, but that there was some
Intelligence
which set up the whole game, including the physical laws via
which evolution would take place?
Many a Christian biologist believes this, I expect.
-- cary
Does this mean that you are starting to forsake atheism? Praise
God!
Yes, I've been looking into Haida, and I now realize that man could
never have emerged unless Raven had coaxed him out from that clam
shell (and woman from the those chiton shells).
Remember Mork and Mindy? He came from an egg, I
believe. Eggs are sorta clam-like. Almost. Coincidence?
Ha!
No, I mean that you can obviously recognize that validity of
evolution and still be a Christian. Since around 45%
of American biologists describe themsevels as Christian,
and since virtually all biologists find evolution to
be unremarkably true, I am saying that you can have both.
In fact I've always found it puzzling how a devout believer
could be so arrogant as to tell God how He is allowed and
how He is not allowed to have brought about life.
If "God" himself came down and told them that evolution
was true, how many of them do you think would tell "God"
he was wrong?
Most of the early evolutionary biologists after Darwin
were believers, and thought that by exploring the wonderous
ways in which God brought about life, they were furthering
His glory.
Only some scientifically ingorant could think that <POOF!> as
a theory of creation is more magnificent than the evolutionary one.
--cary
l
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 11:40:28 PM |
|
|
In article <372p5bF56h55qU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug3ni$7sc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
Even more relevant to the current topic: new and useful programs
may be evolved by randomly mutating and combining existing programs,
if this is followed by some (arbitrary) selection process. This
field is called "genetic algorithms", and the name does not mean
that these are algorithms about genetics, it means that it refers
to a process in which novel and viable computer programs areevolved
using the same mechanisms by which biological life evolves.
-- cary
But the whole thing (if it ever gets going as you portray) was originally
started by - an intelligence that is much higher than the program itself.
Well, now, that's an entirely different claim, isn't it? Not
that lifeforms cannot evolve, but that there was some Intelligence
which set up the whole game, including the physical laws via
which evolution would take place?
Many a Christian biologist believes this, I expect.
-- cary
Does this mean that you are starting to forsake atheism? Praise God!
Praise whom? Yahweh or Allah or Brahma or ...?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 12:22:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:11:02 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cuapoc$kth$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Even more relevant to the current topic: new and useful programs
may be evolved by randomly mutating and combining existing programs,
if this is followed by some (arbitrary) selection process. This
field is called "genetic algorithms", and the name does not mean
that these are algorithms about genetics, it means that it refers
to a process in which novel and viable computer programs areevolved
using the same mechanisms by which biological life evolves.
But the whole thing (if it ever gets going as you portray) was originally
started by - an intelligence that is much higher than the program itself.
Because computers aren't self-replicating - life is, otherwise we
wouldn't call it life.
--
Zymurgist # 2
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Feb 2005 12:54:50 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
news:cu89ct$oqv$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
You need to reread Pasteur's work. What his experiment
demonstrated was
the existence of airborne microoganisms. I had nothing to do
with how
life began on primordial Earth.
He disproved the falsehood of spontaneous generation. He
established a
basic principle, a law of science which has never been disproved.
Life is
extremely complex. Even a single cell has the complexity of a
city with its
operating sytems, communication, transportation and upper
management.
So, if living bilogical organisms come only from other living
biological
organisms, and you regard this as some kind of immutable law, then
you've
just proved that neither arose from chemicals, nor was it created.
Copies of a computer program come -only- from preexisting copies.
computer programs do not reproduce on their own. biological organisms
do.
The original program required a computer programmer who wrote it.
Where the programmer came from is a different issue which is beyond
the capabilities of the program itself to fathom and understand.
no it isnt. you are special pleading. if your "law" applies, it must
apply in ALL cases.
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet. (Emphasis
on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a few
amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized
functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a computer
code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher intelligence who
made it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of genetic
mechanism whatsoever.
We cannot even synthesize an organelle of a cell. How do you propose
that this
'early life' you refer to could possibly metabolize and grow, ~and~
develop into
all the living things we see today?
i already told you to go read www.pubmed.org. have you read every
single article there yet?
-- cary
Andrew
FROG BECOMES PRINCE = FAIRY TALE BELIEVED BY A GULLIBLE CHILD
FROG BECOMES MAN THROUGH EVOLUTION = HOAX BELIEVED BY THE GULLIBLE
MASSES
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Feb 2005 05:28:21 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:37:59 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu89ct$oqv$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
You need to reread Pasteur's work. What his experiment demonstrated was
the existence of airborne microoganisms. I had nothing to do with how
life began on primordial Earth.
He disproved the falsehood of spontaneous generation. He established a
basic principle, a law of science which has never been disproved. Life is
extremely complex. Even a single cell has the complexity of a city with its
operating sytems, communication, transportation and upper management.
So, if living bilogical organisms come only from other living biological
organisms, and you regard this as some kind of immutable law, then you've
just proved that neither arose from chemicals, nor was it created.
Copies of a computer program come -only- from preexisting copies.
The original program required a computer programmer who wrote it.
Life comes from life, right?
Where did god come from?
God appears out of nothing = FAIRY TALE/HOAX.
God always was = FAIRY TALE/HOAX
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Feb 2005 12:56:09 PM |
|
|
In article <36pqs8F536vfqU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu89ct$oqv$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet. (Emphasis on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a few amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a computer code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher intelligence who made it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of genetic
mechanism whatsoever.
We cannot even synthesize an organelle of a cell. How do you propose that this
'early life' you refer to could possibly metabolize and grow, ~and~ develop into
all the living things we see today?
Why do you think organelles were required at first, or even discrete
membranes?
One of the most intriguing of the proposed mechanisms to date is
the "pyrite-pulled metabolist". Probably wrong, but still
intriguing. It involves no membrane, no organelles.
Other proposed early mechanisms involve interlocking cycles of
self-catalyzing reactions. First you get metabolism, later
you get genetics. You're still insisting that the entire
thing arise at once. No one thinks this.
-- cary
Andrew
FROG BECOMES PRINCE = FAIRY TALE BELIEVED BY A GULLIBLE CHILD
FROG BECOMES MAN THROUGH EVOLUTION = HOAX BELIEVED BY THE GULLIBLE MASSES
Well, then, creationists should be ashamed of themselves for propagating
the frog-to-man hoax. No evolutionary biologist has ever thought such a thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Feb 2005 01:18:49 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu8dk9$7n0$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet. (Emphasis on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a few amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a computer code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher intelligence who made it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of genetic
mechanism whatsoever.
We cannot even synthesize an organelle of a cell. How do you propose that this
'early life' you refer to could possibly metabolize and grow, ~and~ develop into
all the living things we see today?
Why do you think organelles were required at first, or even discrete
membranes?
One of the most intriguing of the proposed mechanisms to date is
the "pyrite-pulled metabolist". Probably wrong, but still
intriguing. It involves no membrane, no organelles.
Other proposed early mechanisms involve interlocking cycles of
self-catalyzing reactions. First you get metabolism, later
you get genetics. You're still insisting that the entire
thing arise at once. No one thinks this.
That's because it cannot function (it will not work) without all of its parts.
^^
-- cary
Andrew
FROG BECOMES PRINCE = FAIRY TALE BELIEVED BY A GULLIBLE CHILD
FROG BECOMES MAN THROUGH EVOLUTION = HOAX BELIEVED BY THE GULLIBLE MASSES
Well, then, creationists should be ashamed of themselves for propagating
the frog-to-man hoax. No evolutionary biologist has ever thought such a thing.
It is tantamount to the ~same~ thing. It is a hoax.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Feb 2005 01:47:56 PM |
|
|
In article <36pt8rF55jaq0U1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu8dk9$7n0$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet. (Emphasis on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a few amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a computer code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher intelligence who made it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of genetic
mechanism whatsoever.
We cannot even synthesize an organelle of a cell. How do you propose that this
'early life' you refer to could possibly metabolize and grow, ~and~ develop into
all the living things we see today?
Why do you think organelles were required at first, or even discrete
membranes?
One of the most intriguing of the proposed mechanisms to date is
the "pyrite-pulled metabolist". Probably wrong, but still
intriguing. It involves no membrane, no organelles.
Other proposed early mechanisms involve interlocking cycles of
self-catalyzing reactions. First you get metabolism, later
you get genetics. You're still insisting that the entire
thing arise at once. No one thinks this.
That's because it cannot function (it will not work) without all of its parts.
Absolutely correct.
This is why no biologist thinks life arose as cells, let alone cells
with "all their parts".
Why do you think the first life forms had to be cellular in nature?
Some think from "fossil evidence" that automobiles arose in the latter
half of the 19th century. Obviously however, this must be a hoax, since
automobiles require gasoline engines, hydraulic brakes, variable-speed
transmissions, safety glass, controlling computers, and rubber tires.
Since not one of these items was around when these first automobiles
are claimed to have arisen, obviously this must be a hoax.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Feb 2005 02:26:04 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu8glc$fue$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet. (Emphasis on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a few amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a computer code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher intelligence who made it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of genetic
mechanism whatsoever.
We cannot even synthesize an organelle of a cell. How do you propose that this
'early life' you refer to could possibly metabolize and grow, ~and~ develop into
all the living things we see today?
Why do you think organelles were required at first, or even discrete
membranes?
One of the most intriguing of the proposed mechanisms to date is
the "pyrite-pulled metabolist". Probably wrong, but still
intriguing. It involves no membrane, no organelles.
Other proposed early mechanisms involve interlocking cycles of
self-catalyzing reactions. First you get metabolism, later
you get genetics. You're still insisting that the entire
thing arise at once. No one thinks this.
That's because it cannot function (it will not work) without all of its parts.
Absolutely correct.
This is why no biologist thinks life arose as cells, let alone cells
with "all their parts".
An organelle of a cell has no purpose or function or life apart from the cell itself.
Why do you think the first life forms had to be cellular in nature?
OK, here comes a new theory! Which is fine if you don't bend the laws of
science to make it 'fit'..for then you would be promulgating the hoax which
has deceived the general populace.
Some think from "fossil evidence" that automobiles arose in the latter
half of the 19th century. Obviously however, this must be a hoax, since
automobiles require gasoline engines, hydraulic brakes, variable-speed
transmissions, safety glass, controlling computers, and rubber tires.
Since not one of these items was around when these first automobiles
are claimed to have arisen, obviously this must be a hoax.
There are "basic parts" required for a simple automobile to function as
there are for any cell to function; but a cell is for more complex that any
automobile. Both require an intelligent designer and manufacturer.
-- cary
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
07 Feb 2005 10:09:27 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:36q16uF52cmruU1@individual.net...
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
news:cu8glc$fue$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet.
(Emphasis on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a
few amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized
functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a
computer code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher intelligence
who made it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that
matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of genetic
mechanism whatsoever.
We cannot even synthesize an organelle of a cell. How do you
propose that this
'early life' you refer to could possibly metabolize and grow, ~and~
develop into
all the living things we see today?
Why do you think organelles were required at first, or even discrete
membranes?
One of the most intriguing of the proposed mechanisms to date is
the "pyrite-pulled metabolist". Probably wrong, but still
intriguing. It involves no membrane, no organelles.
Other proposed early mechanisms involve interlocking cycles of
self-catalyzing reactions. First you get metabolism, later
you get genetics. You're still insisting that the entire
thing arise at once. No one thinks this.
That's because it cannot function (it will not work) without all of its
parts.
Absolutely correct.
This is why no biologist thinks life arose as cells, let alone cells
with "all their parts".
An organelle of a cell has no purpose or function or life apart from the
cell itself.
Not true. It is thought that mitochondria, for example, were once
free-living.
Before you go spouting off, you should try educating yourself on the topic.
That way, you look slightly less stupid. As it is, you're providing us with
some entertainment but not much more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
08 Feb 2005 02:46:09 AM |
|
|
"Mark Stahl" wrote in message news:roSdna9CpLWpp5XfRVn-og@giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet. (Emphasis on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a few amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a computer code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher intelligence who made it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of genetic mechanism whatsoever.
We cannot even synthesize an organelle of a cell. How do you propose that this
'early life' you refer to could possibly metabolize and grow, ~and~ develop into
all the living things we see today?
Why do you think organelles were required at first, or even discrete
membranes?
One of the most intriguing of the proposed mechanisms to date is
the "pyrite-pulled metabolist". Probably wrong, but still
intriguing. It involves no membrane, no organelles.
Other proposed early mechanisms involve interlocking cycles of
self-catalyzing reactions. First you get metabolism, later
you get genetics. You're still insisting that the entire
thing arise at once. No one thinks this.
That's because it cannot function (it will not work) without all of its parts.
Absolutely correct.
This is why no biologist thinks life arose as cells, let alone cells
with "all their parts".
An organelle of a cell has no purpose or function or life apart from the
cell itself.
Not true. It is thought that mitochondria, for example, were once
free-living.
"It is thought"...of course "It is thought"...for it is part of the structure of the
grand Hoax.
The reason my statement is declared to be "not true" is because.."It is thought."
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
08 Feb 2005 07:18:50 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:36rcihF55ol48U1@individual.net...
"Mark Stahl" wrote in message news:roSdna9CpLWpp5XfRVn-og@giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet.
(Emphasis on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a
few amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their
specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a
computer code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher
intelligence who made it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that
matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of genetic
mechanism whatsoever.
We cannot even synthesize an organelle of a cell. How do you
propose that this
'early life' you refer to could possibly metabolize and grow,
~and~ develop into
all the living things we see today?
Why do you think organelles were required at first, or even
discrete
membranes?
One of the most intriguing of the proposed mechanisms to date is
the "pyrite-pulled metabolist". Probably wrong, but still
intriguing. It involves no membrane, no organelles.
Other proposed early mechanisms involve interlocking cycles of
self-catalyzing reactions. First you get metabolism, later
you get genetics. You're still insisting that the entire
thing arise at once. No one thinks this.
That's because it cannot function (it will not work) without all of
its parts.
Absolutely correct.
This is why no biologist thinks life arose as cells, let alone cells
with "all their parts".
An organelle of a cell has no purpose or function or life apart from
the
cell itself.
Not true. It is thought that mitochondria, for example, were once
free-living.
"It is thought"...of course "It is thought"...for it is part of the
structure of the
grand Hoax.
The reason my statement is declared to be "not true" is because.."It is
thought."
Exactly. Of course, "it is thought" by biologists who have extremely good
evidence on which to base their conclusion. What have you got?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 04:23:17 AM |
|
|
"Mark Stahl" wrote in message news:lI2dnQ68mfgm_pTfRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mark Stahl" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet.
(Emphasis on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more than a
few amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their
specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a
computer code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher
intelligence who made it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that
matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of genetic
mechanism whatsoever.
We cannot even synthesize an organelle of a cell. How do you
propose that this
'early life' you refer to could possibly metabolize and grow,
~and~ develop into
all the living things we see today?
Why do you think organelles were required at first, or even
discrete
membranes?
One of the most intriguing of the proposed mechanisms to date is
the "pyrite-pulled metabolist". Probably wrong, but still
intriguing. It involves no membrane, no organelles.
Other proposed early mechanisms involve interlocking cycles of
self-catalyzing reactions. First you get metabolism, later
you get genetics. You're still insisting that the entire
thing arise at once. No one thinks this.
That's because it cannot function (it will not work) without all of
its parts.
Absolutely correct.
This is why no biologist thinks life arose as cells, let alone cells
with "all their parts".
An organelle of a cell has no purpose or function or life apart from
the
cell itself.
Not true. It is thought that mitochondria, for example, were once
free-living.
"It is thought"...of course "It is thought"...for it is part of the
structure of the
grand Hoax.
The reason my statement is declared to be "not true" is because.."It is
thought."
Exactly. Of course, "it is thought" by biologists who have extremely good
evidence on which to base their conclusion. What have you got?
If there was "extremely good evidence" there would be no problem. If these
biologists that you refer to have "extremely good evidence" as you say, then
why don't they share this "evidence" with the rest of us?
You are accepting hypothetical theories and speculations as if they were fact.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
10 Feb 2005 11:36:48 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:370r0lF56b17aU1@individual.net...
"Mark Stahl" wrote in message news:lI2dnQ68mfgm_pTfRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mark Stahl" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote:
"Andrew" writes:
"johac" wrote:
{...}
Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet.
(Emphasis on the yet.)
If you want to synthesize a living cell you need more
than a
few amino acids.
You also need the organelles of the cell with their
specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA. What is the DNA? It's like a
computer code.
You cannot have a computer code without a higher
intelligence who made it.
No one thinks that early life had to involve DNA. For that
matter,
the earliest systems may not have involved any kind of
genetic
mechanism whatsoever.
We cannot even synthesize an organelle of a cell. How do you
propose that this
'early life' you refer to could possibly metabolize and grow,
~and~ develop into
all the living things we see today?
Why do you think organelles were required at first, or even
discrete
membranes?
One of the most intriguing of the proposed mechanisms to date
is
the "pyrite-pulled metabolist". Probably wrong, but still
intriguing. It involves no membrane, no organelles.
Other proposed early mechanisms involve interlocking cycles of
self-catalyzing reactions. First you get metabolism, later
you get genetics. You're still insisting that the entire
thing arise at once. No one thinks this.
That's because it cannot function (it will not work) without all
of
its parts.
Absolutely correct.
This is why no biologist thinks life arose as cells, let alone
cells
with "all their parts".
An organelle of a cell has no purpose or function or life apart from
the
cell itself.
Not true. It is thought that mitochondria, for example, were once
free-living.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
