Re: Is Anyone Here an ADVENTIST?!

Religions > Atheism > Re: Is Anyone Here an ADVENTIST?!

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 9 of 58

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: "Dubh Ghall"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	08 Feb 2005 09:48:44 AM

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 21:18:22 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:

It has never been demonstrated that life can arise spontaneously from non living
chemicals.

....And it has never been claimed that it does, that is just another dishonest,
xtian, straw man.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan

January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.

User: "snex"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	04 Feb 2005 09:44:43 PM

Andrew wrote:

"Don Kresch" wrote in message

news:6vu7015q8iijt04jionq75sl03c0n5t68g@4ax.com...

"Andrew" let us all know that:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life

came from nonliving

chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came

from nothing.

Tell me, Andrew, if life can only come from life, and god is
alive, where did god come from? No, god can't always have

been--that

would be contrary to the notion that life can only come from

life, and

you would be a hypocrite for positing it.
Don
---

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and

God...the fact

remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an

established

law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis

There is no such law.

Find me any high school or college biology textbook that lists
it, please.

Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity
Moore and Slusher

"Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has

been so

well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is

called

the Law of Biogenesis."

footnote: "Some philosophers call this a principle instead of a law,

but this

is a matter of definition, and definitions are arbitrary. Some

scientists call

this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology,

biogenesis

has the highest rank in these levels of generalization" (1974, p.

74)
care to read the text surrounding that?
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	04 Feb 2005 11:06:42 PM

In alt.atheism on Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:38:50 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:

"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:6vu7015q8iijt04jionq75sl03c0n5t68g@4ax.com...

"Andrew" let us all know that:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life came from nonliving
chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came from nothing.

Tell me, Andrew, if life can only come from life, and god is
alive, where did god come from? No, god can't always have been--that
would be contrary to the notion that life can only come from life, and
you would be a hypocrite for positing it.
Don
---

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and God...the fact
remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an established
law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis

There is no such law.

Find me any high school or college biology textbook that lists
it, please.

Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity
Moore and Slusher

Funny how that's the ONLY book it ever appears in.
I asked for a textbook. Give me one.
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: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	04 Feb 2005 11:10:23 PM

In alt.atheism on Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:38:50 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:

"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:6vu7015q8iijt04jionq75sl03c0n5t68g@4ax.com...

"Andrew" let us all know that:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life came from nonliving
chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came from nothing.

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and God...the fact
remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an established
law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis

There is no such law.

Find me any high school or college biology textbook that lists
it, please.

Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity
Moore and Slusher

Here's something else you may want to read:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5423_59_sonleitner_what39s_wr_11_24_2004.asp
"In general, creationists recognize the weakness of their
arguments and prefer to avoid dealing with Darwin's most compelling
evidence. The Origins Two Models book (Bliss, 1976) never mentions it.
The creationist biology textbook (Moore and Slusher, 1974) doesn't
describe any of the embryonic similiaries in the chapter on embryology
although they are cursorily mentioned in the chapters criticizing
evolution (see pp. 432-436). This latter book (p. 435) also makes the
inane claim that evolutionists must assume that vestigial nipples in
men must have been functional in ancestral males. An organism's
developmental system must produce both males and females. A vertebrate
embryo goes through an early stage that has a complete set of
primordia for both sexes. Once sex hormones take over, one set of
structures remains vestigial while the other develops. How do
creationists explain this, considering that Adam was made first and
Eve was only an afterthought, made from Adam's rib? The question has
long been asked: did Adam have a navel? What about nipples? or for
that matter, the vestigial remains of oviducts (appendix testis) and
vagina (prostatic utricle or vagina masculina)? Similarly women have
vestiges of the male ducts. Like the hind limbs of whales, the degree
of development of these vestiges varies a great deal from individual
to individual (Arey, 1946, p. 297 fol.)."
A biased source does not objective evidence make. Nor is it a
valid textbook. It was written by cretinists, for cretinists. Moore
and Slusher's book is known as "junk".
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 11:50:19 AM

In article <36iptnF4t9ntrU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:6vu7015q8iijt04jionq75sl03c0n5t68g@4ax.com...

"Andrew" let us all know that:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life came from nonliving
chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came from nothing.

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and God...the fact
remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an established
law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis

There is no such law.

Find me any high school or college biology textbook that lists
it, please.

Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity
Moore and Slusher

"Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so
well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called
the Law of Biogenesis."

footnote: "Some philosophers call this a principle instead of a law, but this
is a matter of definition, and definitions are arbitrary. Some scientists call
this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis
has the highest rank in these levels of generalization" (1974, p. 74)

Therefore:
1) Biological life could not have arisen spontaneously from inanimate matter.

2) Biological life could not have been created from inanimate matter.

Whence it follows immediately:

Biological life is eternal, has always existed, and had no
beginning.

-- cary
.

User: "Andrew"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	07 Feb 2005 01:05:59 PM

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message news:cu89or$q5s$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <36iptnF4t9ntrU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:6vu7015q8iijt04jionq75sl03c0n5t68g@4ax.com...

"Andrew" let us all know that:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life came from nonliving
chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came from nothing.

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and God...the fact
remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an established
law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis

There is no such law.

Find me any high school or college biology textbook that lists
it, please.

Therefore:

1) Biological life could not have arisen spontaneously from inanimate matter.

2) Biological life could not have been created from inanimate matter.

Whence it follows immediately:

Biological life is eternal, has always existed, and had no
beginning.

Using same logic:
1.) Computer programs could not have arisen spontaneously from inanimate matter.
2.) Computer programs could not have been created from inanimate matter.
Whence it follows immediately:
Computer programs are eternal, have always existed, and had no beginning.

-- cary

Andrew
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	07 Feb 2005 01:16:15 PM

In article <36psgoF54oufiU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message news:cu89or$q5s$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <36iptnF4t9ntrU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:6vu7015q8iijt04jionq75sl03c0n5t68g@4ax.com...

"Andrew" let us all know that:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life came from nonliving
chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came from nothing.

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and God...the fact
remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an established
law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis

There is no such law.

Find me any high school or college biology textbook that lists
it, please.

Therefore:

1) Biological life could not have arisen spontaneously from inanimate matter.

2) Biological life could not have been created from inanimate matter.

Whence it follows immediately:

Biological life is eternal, has always existed, and had no
beginning.

Using same logic:

1.) Computer programs could not have arisen spontaneously from inanimate matter.

2.) Computer programs could not have been created from inanimate matter.

Whence it follows immediately:

Computer programs are eternal, have always existed, and had no beginning.

Not at all:
1) life arises from inanimate matter

2) lifeforms evolve which create complex systems, including
honeycombs, novel birdsongs, bee dances, and compter programs.

-- cary
.

User: "Andrew"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	07 Feb 2005 01:48:10 PM

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu8epv$b5l$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

"Andrew" writes:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life came from nonliving
chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came from nothing.

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and God...the fact
remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an established
law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis

There is no such law.

Find me any high school or college biology textbook that lists
it, please.

Therefore:

1) Biological life could not have arisen spontaneously from inanimate matter.

2) Biological life could not have been created from inanimate matter.

Whence it follows immediately:

Biological life is eternal, has always existed, and had no
beginning.

Using same logic:

1.) Computer programs could not have arisen spontaneously from inanimate matter.

2.) Computer programs could not have been created from inanimate matter.

Whence it follows immediately:

Computer programs are eternal, have always existed, and had no beginning.

Not at all:

1) life arises from inanimate matter

2) lifeforms evolve which create complex systems, including
honeycombs, novel birdsongs, bee dances, and compter programs.

This is what you've been taught. But can't you begin to see it's a hoax!!
You state the above as though it were established proven fact - which it
is not. Although your colleagues may agree with you, that doesn't mean
it's true. It is never good to accept falsehood as truth.

-- cary

Andrew
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	07 Feb 2005 02:10:24 PM

In article <36puvsF54ictaU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu8epv$b5l$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

"Andrew" writes:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life came from nonliving
chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came from nothing.

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and God...the fact
remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an established
law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis

There is no such law.

Find me any high school or college biology textbook that lists
it, please.

Therefore:

1) Biological life could not have arisen spontaneously from inanimate matter.

2) Biological life could not have been created from inanimate matter.

Whence it follows immediately:

Biological life is eternal, has always existed, and had no
beginning.

Using same logic:

1.) Computer programs could not have arisen spontaneously from inanimate matter.

2.) Computer programs could not have been created from inanimate matter.

Whence it follows immediately:

Computer programs are eternal, have always existed, and had no beginning.

Not at all:

1) life arises from inanimate matter

2) lifeforms evolve which create complex systems, including
honeycombs, novel birdsongs, bee dances, and compter programs.

This is what you've been taught.

Actually, I was never officially taught this.
I learned about it in the course of reading dozens of books on the
topic, spread over a couple of decades. Most of these discussed
the evidence for evolution.

But can't you begin to see it's a hoax!!

Based on what you've shown me so far, no, I am afraid I cannot. You've
offered that:
1) life must arise from other life. I think we both now agree
that this rules out both creation and abiogenesis, and you
seemed to have ditched this argument.

2) that complex things (i.e: computer programs) cannot arise
randomly from simpler, less-organized parts. I've shown
you that this is untrue for computer programs. If you wish,
I can also bring in other examples of self-organizing complexity
from physical systems, chemical systems, and meteorology.

3) that all parts of a cell must be present for a cell to function.
This is (more or less) true, but since no one thinks what we
all mean today by "a cell" is what life started out as, I can't
see why this proves the idea to be dishonest.

You state the above as though it were established proven fact -

Abiogenesis? No, I do not think it is an established proven fact.
Given the history of biology, I do think it's the way to bet. But
nope, no one claims that we have shown how it did happen, or even
how it could happen. Someone claiming that would be misleading
you. But I know of no one who does claim this.
But I find the physical evidence for a creation like that
understood from a literal reading of Genesis to be much
weaker, nearly non-existant.

which it
is not. Although your colleagues may agree with you,

Most of my actual colleagues make no claims of this type at all,
as I am not in biology.
-- cary
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	10 Feb 2005 12:54:39 AM

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:48:10 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:

This is what you've been taught. But can't you begin to see it's a hoax!!

You NEED it to be a hoax because, if it's not, your entire system of
religious belief crumbles, and you have no reason to go on living.
That's pretty thin proof, Andrew. Mighty thin. It's good reason for
you to keep clinging to your belief - self-preservation is the second
strongest instinct - but it's pretty thin proof.

It is never good to accept falsehood as truth.

Yet you accept all the falsehoods in your bible as truth. Is your
belief so important to you that you don't mind being a hypocrite?
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "Dubh Ghall"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	05 Feb 2005 02:14:56 AM

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:38:50 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:

"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:6vu7015q8iijt04jionq75sl03c0n5t68g@4ax.com...

"Andrew" let us all know that:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life came from nonliving
chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came from nothing.

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and God...the fact
remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an established
law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis

There is no such law.

Find me any high school or college biology textbook that lists
it, please.

Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity
Moore and Slusher

American colleges use that as a text book?
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan

January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	06 Feb 2005 08:59:50 PM

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 08:14:56 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
said in alt.atheism:

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:38:50 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:

Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity
Moore and Slusher

American colleges use that as a text book?

American bible colleges may.
American colleges use biology texts.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	04 Feb 2005 03:43:57 PM

In article <36i7h2F52o2voU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu0ekr$dpl$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life came from nonliving
chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came from nothing.

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and God...the fact
remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an established
law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis...discoverd by Louis Pasteur. It IS a law of science.

If there were, why do you think that an increasing number of biologists are beginning
to dabble in the problem of the origin of life on this planet?

That's because it is untenable for them to accept the concept of a Creator.

The first law of having a scientific career is: pick problems that
are capable of a solution. If biologists are starting to consider
research into abiogenesis, it's because they feel that we may
be beginning to learn enough to take a whack at the problem; they're
not throwing away their career in order to strike some noble
philosophical pose.

There WERE a fairly famous series of experiments aimed at ending
the debate, current at one time, over whether complex life was
constantly arising all around this -- mice from dirty underwear,
bacteria in sealed flasks of broth, maggots spontaneously arising
in rotting meat, things like that. The proponents of the
idea that this sort of thing does not happen won the debate.
That's a far cry from establishing some law that life always comes
from pre-existing life -- and always has.

OK, but it has never been demonstrated to be OR could be otherwise.

That's quite correct. It's an open problem. Which is quite different
from violating an "established law of science" -- a putative
scientific law which these scientists are apparently unaware of.

FROG BECOMES PRINCE = FAIRY TALE

FROG BECOMES MAN THROUGH EVOLUTION = HOAX

No, not a hoax: ignorance. No biologist claims that
humans descended from frogs.

OK, *primordial soup*. It is STILL A HOAX.

We're talking about two different things now. The theory
of evolution has nothing to do with the emergence of life
from non-life; evolution only talks about the forces
which shape life once it gets going.
-- cary
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	04 Feb 2005 03:56:30 PM

In article <cu0qat$1cc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>

(Cary Kittrell) writes:

In article <36i7h2F52o2voU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu0ekr$dpl$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life came from nonliving
chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came from nothing.

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and God...the fact
remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an established
law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis...discoverd by Louis Pasteur. It IS a law of science.

A couple of points I overlooked, sorry...
The first is that I just gave you a spiel on the history of the "Law
of Biogenesis", and what was being contended: the debate was whether
life arose from non-life on a daily basis, as many people thought
at the time. What Pasteur and Spillinzani and a few others I'm
too lazy to look up were trying to prove that life is not being
created every day in spoiling food and rotting corpses. Many
people at the time believed otherwise, they were proven wrong.
This has nothing to do with the question "Did the life we now see
once originate from non-living matter".
Or do you think that the scientists who publically speculate on this, and even
devote research time on it, are regarded by the rest of the biological
community as some kind of kooks, trying to do something on the
order of the perpetual motion machine? Hint: they are not -- which
they would be, if they were thought to be in violation of some
sacred principle of biology. The "Law of Biogenesis" is a debate
tactic used by creationists; it is not something that actual
biologists regard as forbidding abiogenesis.

If there were, why do you think that an increasing number of biologists are beginning
to dabble in the problem of the origin of life on this planet?

That's because it is untenable for them to accept the concept of a Creator.

And my other neglected point is: approximately 40% of practicing biologists
are Christians. These scientists seem to have no problem in believeing
both in a Creator and in evolution as His chosen technique for creation.
-- cary
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	07 Feb 2005 12:19:34 AM

In article <36i7h2F52o2voU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cu0ekr$dpl$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life came from
nonliving
chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came from
nothing.

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and God...the fact
remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an
established
law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis...discoverd by Louis Pasteur. It IS a law of
science.

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.

If there were, why do you think that an increasing number of biologists are
beginning
to dabble in the problem of the origin of life on this planet?

That's because it is untenable for them to accept the concept of a Creator.

Perhaps they would like to discover how life really arose.

OK, but it has never been demonstrated to be OR could be otherwise.

Let's say it hasn't been demonstrated in the lab yet. (Emphasis on the
yet.)
If you believe that some supernatural power was involved, let's see some
evidence.

FROG BECOMES PRINCE = FAIRY TALE

FROG BECOMES MAN THROUGH EVOLUTION = HOAX

No, not a hoax: ignorance. No biologist claims that
humans descended from frogs.

OK, *primordial soup*. It is STILL A HOAX.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'primordial soup'. There are several
good scientific hypotheses on how life began. Perhaps you should do more
reading.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.

User: "Andrew"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	07 Feb 2005 02:40:28 AM

"johac" wrote in message news:jhachm-52CE21.22193406022005@news.giganews.com...

"Andrew" wrote:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life came from
nonliving
chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came from
nothing.

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and God...the fact
remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an
established
law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis...discoverd by Louis Pasteur. It IS a law of
science.

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.

If there were, why do you think that an increasing number of biologists are
beginning
to dabble in the problem of the origin of life on this planet?

That's because it is untenable for them to accept the concept of a Creator.

Perhaps they would like to discover how life really arose.

OK, but it has never been demonstrated to be OR could be otherwise.

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.
Andrew
.

User: "Mark Stahl"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	07 Feb 2005 10:03:40 PM

"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:36onruF5670miU1@individual.net...

"johac" wrote in message
news:jhachm-52CE21.22193406022005@news.giganews.com...

"Andrew" wrote:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Andrew" writes:

"Don Kresch" wrote:

"Andrew" let us all know that:

Tell me Al....where is the *objective evidence* that life came
from
nonliving
chemicals which came from a primeval explosion which came from
nothing.

Tell me, Andrew, if life can only come from life, and god is
alive, where did god come from? No, god can't always have
been--that
would be contrary to the notion that life can only come from
life, and
you would be a hypocrite for positing it.
Don
---

Although humans are unable to comprehend eternity and God...the
fact
remains that life comes only from preexisting life. That is an
established
law of science.

There is no such "established law of science".

It is The Law of Biogenesis...discoverd by Louis Pasteur. It IS a law
of
science.

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.

....of complex organisms, yes.

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.

But life did not start that way. Why would you think it did?

If there were, why do you think that an increasing number of
biologists are
beginning
to dabble in the problem of the origin of life on this planet?

That's because it is untenable for them to accept the concept of a
Creator.

Perhaps they would like to discover how life really arose.

OK, but it has never been demonstrated to be OR could be otherwise.

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.

True. But of course a cell can also be gradually built up from simpler
materials-- self-replicating RNA molecules in a lipid bilayer, for example.

You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized functions,
the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA.

No, you do not necessarily need those things from the very beginning if you
are eventually going to have cells develop. Why would you assume so?

What is the DNA? It's like a computer code.

It's "like" a computer code in some ways, but it is fundamentally different.
It's just a chemical, like any other, that can be synthesized under the
proper conditions. Nothing more.

You cannot have a computer code without a higher intelligence who made it.

That's because computers and their codes are made by people. DNA wasn't. And
chemistry goes on all the time in the absence of a guiding intelligence,
unless you're arguing for little angels making your muffler rust out.

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.

*That*'s your reasoning behind your refusal to accept fundamental tenents of
biological science? Rather weak, wouldn't you say? Did you by any chance
drop out of school prior to the 6th grade?
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	08 Feb 2005 10:30:14 AM

In article <B6GdnSKd86ZEpZXfRVn-vA@giganews.com> "Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> writes:

"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:36onruF5670miU1@individual.net...

You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized functions,
the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA.

No, you do not necessarily need those things from the very beginning if you
are eventually going to have cells develop. Why would you assume so?

He assumes so because it's critical to his argument. Which is
the same reason that he never answers when you, and I, and others,
ask him this question.
-- cary
.

User: "Andrew"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	09 Feb 2005 07:10:42 PM

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cuapem$ke4$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

"Mark Stahl" writes:

"Andrew"wrote:

You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA.

No, you do not necessarily need those things from the very beginning if you
are eventually going to have cells develop. Why would you assume so?

He assumes so because it's critical to his argument.

You don't have to assume....... it cannot function without ALL of its parts.
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	10 Feb 2005 10:48:38 AM

In article <36vqkgF531snnU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cuapem$ke4$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

"Mark Stahl" writes:

"Andrew"wrote:

You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA.

No, you do not necessarily need those things from the very beginning if you
are eventually going to have cells develop. Why would you assume so?

He assumes so because it's critical to his argument.

You don't have to assume....... it cannot function without ALL of its parts.

There could not have been cells which did not have mitochondria?
There could not have been cells which were not able to utilize
the Krebs cycle?
There could not have been cells which did not have a nuclear
membrane?
Think very carefully before you answer these.
And then tell me why.
-- cary
.

User: "Andrew"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	10 Feb 2005 11:04:00 AM

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug396$6io$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

"Andrew" writes:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Mark Stahl" writes:

"Andrew"wrote:

You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA.

No, you do not necessarily need those things from the very beginning if you
are eventually going to have cells develop. Why would you assume so?

He assumes so because it's critical to his argument.

You don't have to assume....... it cannot function without ALL of its parts.

There could not have been cells which did not have mitochondria?

This is what I said:
Some cells have no mitochondria, but they fill their place in the systems and
the body of a complex organism. You will find no complex organism with
out eukaryotic cells metabolizing with mitochondria.
Andrew
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	10 Feb 2005 11:53:57 AM

In article <371ifuF565iomU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug396$6io$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

"Andrew" writes:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote:

"Mark Stahl" writes:

"Andrew"wrote:

You also need the organelles of the cell with their specialized functions, the
mitochondria, RNA and DNA.

No, you do not necessarily need those things from the very beginning if you
are eventually going to have cells develop. Why would you assume so?

He assumes so because it's critical to his argument.

You don't have to assume....... it cannot function without ALL of its parts.

There could not have been cells which did not have mitochondria?

This is what I said:

Some cells have no mitochondria, but they fill their place in the systems and
the body of a complex organism. You will find no complex organism with
out eukaryotic cells metabolizing with mitochondria.

I believe that we've been discussing the possibility of life arising
from dead chemicals, and my contention that the earliest forms of
life need not have contained all the latest gadgets that current
eukaroytic cells have.
What do "complex organisms" and "bodies of complex organisms" have to
do with the earliest and most primative bits of life, and your
contention that all cells must always have had all the most modern features,
or else they could not have existed?
-- cary
.

User: "Andrew"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	10 Feb 2005 09:27:03 PM

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug73l$ga9$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

OK, if it didn't have the complexity of the eukaryotic cell, what did it have?
Even the prokaryotic cells have a plasma membrane, a nucleoid region with
DNA, and cytoplasm filled with ribosomes, all of which are necessary for it
to live. If they are all necessary for it to function and to live, then how was it
assembled?
Did you think the supposed early cell could live without DNA or any of the
above? ...no, it is all or nothing.
Now, suppose per whatever reason...you got the first cell. Then what?? Do
we then begin the tree of life?? No, because it would soon die in the early
conditions it found itself.
Even if it didn't die right away..there is no mechanism for a primitive cell to
become gradually more complex and become birds, animals, fish and man.
However, this is what is now being presented as part of a grand Hoax which
has deceived vast multitudes.
Andrew
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	11 Feb 2005 11:15:06 AM

In article <372n05F57nibvU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug73l$ga9$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

OK, if it didn't have the complexity of the eukaryotic cell, what did it have?

You're the one who claims that it's all way too complex to have arisen
by chance, so what do you think is the minimum?
And you're right, about that, of course: it IS all to complex to
have arisen by chance -- all at once. But if a piece at a time
evolves, and is so successful that its lineage takes over, the
everything did not have to arise at once.
There are cells which lack mitochondria. There are organisms
which even lack cell membranes. Many viruses have their
genetic information coded as RNA, not as DNA (and in fact RNA is
widely viewed as a precursor to the later, more stable, DNA
method). There are organisms -- most organisms in fact, as you
mention below -- which have no nucleus. Which means that they
have no messenger RNA, which means that transfer RNA
is immediately transcribed into protein -- which means that
these organisms entirely lack the more subtle and flexible
level or RNA-mediated feedback control which may well
be why we have all that "junk" DNA and prokaryotes do not.
There are a lot of things the latest-and-best cells have
which the majority of microbes organisms in the world
get along without just fine. And have for over three
billion years.

Even the prokaryotic cells have a plasma membrane, a nucleoid region with
DNA, and cytoplasm filled with ribosomes, all of which are necessary for it
to live. If they are all necessary for it to function and to live, then how was it
assembled?

Did you think the supposed early cell could live without DNA or any of the
above? ...no, it is all or nothing.

As mentioned above, genetic content may be stored as RNA, and not as
DNA. And protein synthesis can take place in eukaryotic celluar extracts
from which all ribosomes have been removed, so while they are very efficient,
they are not indispensible (and sythesis of lipids and steroids and suchlike
involve no ribosomes whatsoeer ) And as also mentioned, some organsims lack
even a celluar membrane, so none of the things you say are
"all or nothing" are prima facie necessary to early life.

Now, suppose per whatever reason...you got the first cell. Then what?? Do
we then begin the tree of life?? No, because it would soon die in the early
conditions it found itself.

Again, why do you think that even cells themselves were necessary?
We're talking about complex interlocking systems of auto-catalyzing
chemical reactions, not about paramecia. I'm saying "primitive
life" .. and you jump immediately to "cells".

Even if it didn't die right away..there is no mechanism for a primitive cell to
become gradually more complex and become birds, animals, fish and man.

There are a number of well studied mechanisms. There are mathematical
models. There are tens of thousands of papers on all of this.
I think you're better off sticking to something we know very
little about: abiogenesis.
-- cary
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	10 Feb 2005 11:33:39 PM

In article <372n05F57nibvU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cug73l$ga9$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

Why does the first life have to be cellular? If prokaryotic cells can
evolve into eukaryotic cells, why not start with something simpler and
work up. If the link between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells is not in
evidence, there is no reason to suppose that any earlier simpler link
it the chain need be in evidence either.

Now, suppose per whatever reason...you got the first cell. Then what?? Do
we then begin the tree of life?? No, because it would soon die in the early
conditions it found itself.

Are there no one celled species that cannot survive without other
species in attendance? I always though that a single cell in a suitable
environment could exist and multiply quite nicely alone, like yeast in
sugar water.

Even if it didn't die right away..there is no mechanism for a primitive cell
to
become gradually more complex and become birds, animals, fish and man.

Unless you have the plan for that original primitive cell conveniently
to hand, how can you know what mechanisms it has?

However, this is what is now being presented as part of a grand Hoax which
has deceived vast multitudes.

But you seem to have deceived yourself. You present difficulties, not
impossibilities, and conclude what you want to conclude. Impossibility
is very difficult to prove, and you have not even come close.
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Objective Evidence	11 Feb 2005 11:45:55 PM