| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jabriol" |
| Date: |
23 Sep 2003 04:40:23 PM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Abiogenesis |
Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants and White
Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states: "Sometime in the first billion years, life
appeared on the earth's surface. Slowly, the fossil record indicates, living
organisms climbed the ladder from simple to more advanced forms." From this
description, one would expect that the fossil record has verified a slow
evolution from the first "simple" life forms to complex ones. Yet, the same
book says: "The critical first billion years, during which life began, are
blank pages in the earth's history."
Also, can those first types of life truly be described as "simple"? "Going
back in time to the age of the oldest rocks," says Evolution From Space,
"fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal
a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and
fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the
information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical
complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks
of the Earth were formed."
From this beginning, can any evidence at all be found to verify that
one-celled organisms evolved into many-celled ones? "The fossil record
contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of
many-celled organisms," says Jastrow. Instead, he states: "The record of the
rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until,
about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible
progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures
appeared on earth."
Thus, at the start of what is called the Cambrian period, the fossil record
takes an unexplained dramatic turn. A great variety of fully developed,
complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells, appear so suddenly that
this time is often called an "explosion" of living things. A View of Life
describes it: "Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending
for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized
invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in
diversity ever recorded on our planet." Snails, sponges, starfish,
lobsterlike animals called trilobites, and many other complex sea creatures
appeared. Interestingly, the same book observes: "Some extinct trilobites,
in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living arthropod
possesses."
Are there fossil links between this outburst of life and what went before
it? In Darwin's time such links did not exist. He admitted: "To the question
why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed
earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory
answer." Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer
noted Darwin's statement about "the abrupt manner in which whole groups of
species suddenly appear" and wrote: "Below this [Cambrian period], there are
vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms
would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost
barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said
to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of
Cambrian times. 'To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous
deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
system,' said Darwin, 'I can give no satisfactory answer.' Nor can we
today," said Romer.
Some argue that Precambrian rocks were too altered by heat and pressure to
retain fossil links, or that no rocks were deposited in shallow seas for
fossils to be retained. "Neither of these arguments has held up," say
evolutionists Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. They add:
"Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they
contain no fossils of complex organisms."
These facts prompted biochemist D. B. Gower to comment, as related in
England's Kentish Times: "The creation account in Genesis and the theory of
evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong.
The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest
rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from
the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest
rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was
a complete absence of intermediate fossils."
Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: "If progressive evolution from simple to
complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in
the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists
admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of
the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the
theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were
established fits best."
.
|
|
| User: "Linda" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
24 Sep 2003 07:56:49 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:b53cb.4874242$cI2.691844@news.easynews.com...
Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants and
White
Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states:
"Sometime in the first billion years, life
appeared on the earth's surface.
What!? I thought space was a sterile environment!?
Slowly, the fossil record indicates, living
organisms climbed the ladder from simple to more advanced forms." From
this
description, one would expect that the fossil record has verified a slow
evolution from the first "simple" life forms to complex ones. Yet, the
same
book says: "The critical first billion years, during which life began, are
blank pages in the earth's history."
Lets see if I get this right...............Space is
sterile.............matter comes and frictionalises together to get a big
bang.............then somehow our earth forms, has a molten hot surface
quickly cooled by a mass of water..(Where did it all come
from?)............then somewhere after from two sterile environments (space
and a molten hot planet) we get life in vegitational form and
organisms......................What am I missing here to fix this puzzle?
Also, can those first types of life truly be described as "simple"? "Going
back in time to the age of the oldest rocks," says Evolution From Space,
"fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not
reveal
a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and
fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse,
the
information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical
complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface
rocks
of the Earth were formed."
From this beginning, can any evidence at all be found to verify that
one-celled organisms evolved into many-celled ones? "The fossil record
contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of
many-celled organisms," says Jastrow. Instead, he states: "The record of
the
rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants
until,
about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible
progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures
appeared on earth."
I thought the earths environment was too hostile for fragile organisms long
before the dinosours even......?
Thus, at the start of what is called the Cambrian period, the fossil
record
takes an unexplained dramatic turn. A great variety of fully developed,
complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells, appear so suddenly
that
this time is often called an "explosion" of living things. A View of Life
describes it: "Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending
for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized
invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in
diversity ever recorded on our planet." Snails, sponges, starfish,
lobsterlike animals called trilobites, and many other complex sea
creatures
appeared. Interestingly, the same book observes: "Some extinct trilobites,
in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living
arthropod
possesses."
Are there fossil links between this outburst of life and what went before
it? In Darwin's time such links did not exist. He admitted: "To the
question
why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed
earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory
answer." Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer
noted Darwin's statement about "the abrupt manner in which whole groups of
species suddenly appear" and wrote: "Below this [Cambrian period], there
are
vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian
forms
would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost
barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be
said
to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of
Cambrian times. 'To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous
deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
system,' said Darwin, 'I can give no satisfactory answer.' Nor can we
today," said Romer.
Some argue that Precambrian rocks were too altered by heat and pressure to
retain fossil links, or that no rocks were deposited in shallow seas for
fossils to be retained. "Neither of these arguments has held up," say
evolutionists Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. They
add:
"Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they
contain no fossils of complex organisms."
These facts prompted biochemist D. B. Gower to comment, as related in
England's Kentish Times: "The creation account in Genesis and the theory
of
evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong.
The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest
rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes
from
the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest
rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there
was
a complete absence of intermediate fossils."
Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: "If progressive evolution from simple
to
complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in
the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists
admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of
the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the
theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were
established fits best."
I'd still like to know how a molten hot planet can be covered by water??
Thanks for filling me in , in advance..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
24 Sep 2003 11:48:19 AM |
|
|
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064408149.496442@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:b53cb.4874242$cI2.691844@news.easynews.com...
Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants and
White
Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states:
"Sometime in the first billion years, life
appeared on the earth's surface.
What!? I thought space was a sterile environment!?
Linda,
If by space you mean the relative vacuum of 'outer space', then yes.
However, it is possible that some organisms might be able to survive (though
not thrive, I'd not think) there.
If you mean to suggest that the early earth's surface was a sterile
environment because it was in space, you are missing the fact that the earth
has had an atmosphere (albeit anoxic until 'polluted' with O2 by earliest
organisms) from very early on. If you are thinking of an environment such
as the moon, which has no appreciable atmosphere, then of course you might
be excused for this misunderstanding.
Slowly, the fossil record indicates, living
organisms climbed the ladder from simple to more advanced forms." From
this
description, one would expect that the fossil record has verified a slow
evolution from the first "simple" life forms to complex ones. Yet, the
same
book says: "The critical first billion years, during which life began,
are
blank pages in the earth's history."
Lets see if I get this right...............Space is
sterile............
See above...
matter comes and frictionalises together to get a big
bang.............
Ah. Now I think we begin to see your problem. You have an inadequate
understanding of the current theories about the Big Bang, as well as of
cosmology, and especially stellar and planetary formation.
We don't know what, if anything, 'c[ame] together...to get a big bang'.
Lots of interesting work going on about this, though.
If by 'big bang' you mean stars going nova or supernova, which makes
elements heavier than iron (elements up to iron form in the interior of
stars as a result of fusion), which then are available for second-generation
star and planet formation, then 'frictionalis[ation] is arguably part of the
process.
then somehow our earth forms, has a molten hot surface
quickly cooled by a mass of water..
'Quickly'? How long do you think it took for the earth's surface to
cool sufficiently to allow water to stay as liquid on the surface? You seem
to have it backwards; the heat of formation radiated away from the earth,
and _then_ liquid water could exit on its surface.
(Where did it all come
from?)............
Water appears to have come largely from comets striking the earth in the
early solar system. I suspect that there were other mechanisms at work at
well, but this isn't something I'm well read in.
then somewhere after from two sterile environments (space
and a molten hot planet) we get life in vegitational form and
organisms......................
As noted above:
1. The sterility of space is irrelevant to conditions on the surface of
a planet with an atmosphere.
2. The earth is not said to have had life until after its surface had
cooled.
3. Everyone I know thinks life arose from non-living matter. (I don't
claim that no one thinks that; unlike some creationists, I don't pretend to
be omniscient in these matters.)
What am I missing here to fix this puzzle?
Lots, apparently. A large amount of the missing puzzle seems to lie in
science that you haven't learned, or have mis-learned. I'd suggest learning
some basic physics, chemistry, cosmology, and biology. Don't be intimidated
by this; the basics I'm discussing can be learned from very basic resources,
even to include good encyclopedias and the internet.
Also, can those first types of life truly be described as "simple"?
"Going
back in time to the age of the oldest rocks," says Evolution From Space,
"fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not
reveal
a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and
fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse,
the
information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical
complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface
rocks
of the Earth were formed."
From this beginning, can any evidence at all be found to verify that
one-celled organisms evolved into many-celled ones? "The fossil record
contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of
many-celled organisms," says Jastrow. Instead, he states: "The record of
the
rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants
until,
about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible
progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures
appeared on earth."
I thought the earths environment was too hostile for fragile organisms
long
before the dinosours even......?
Early life on earth was anoxic; but it became so prevalent that oxygen,
which is a waste product given off by those early organisms, polluted the
sea (and eventually the atmosphere) to the point that organisms that can use
oxygen for life processes evolved. Now those early anoxic organisms (or
rather their decendants) find themselves fragile in the hostile O2
atmosphere. They are now found in anoxic environments, or in places where
they can be protected from the destructive effects of O2.
It appears that life has been around for perhaps 4 billion years, or
about a half-billion years after the planet formed. (Do you think
~500,000,000 years long enough to allow the 'molten' earth to cool?) So
life had over 4 billion years of time when the planet was amenable to life,
and life has adapted to some pretty major changes over that time. Not least
of which adaptations was to not only survive O2 pollution, but to thrive in
it.
And, since the dinosaurs are only thought to have been around from
perhaps 250,000,000 years ago, there was quite a bit of time for the
environment to accomodate to life, and vice versa.
Thus, at the start of what is called the Cambrian period, the fossil
record
takes an unexplained dramatic turn. A great variety of fully developed,
complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells, appear so suddenly
that
this time is often called an "explosion" of living things. A View of
Life
describes it: "Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and
extending
for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized
invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise
in
diversity ever recorded on our planet." Snails, sponges, starfish,
lobsterlike animals called trilobites, and many other complex sea
creatures
appeared. Interestingly, the same book observes: "Some extinct
trilobites,
in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living
arthropod
possesses."
Are there fossil links between this outburst of life and what went
before
it? In Darwin's time such links did not exist. He admitted: "To the
question
why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these
assumed
earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no
satisfactory
answer." Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S.
Romer
noted Darwin's statement about "the abrupt manner in which whole groups
of
species suddenly appear" and wrote: "Below this [Cambrian period], there
are
vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian
forms
would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost
barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be
said
to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of
Cambrian times. 'To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous
deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the
Cambrian
system,' said Darwin, 'I can give no satisfactory answer.' Nor can we
today," said Romer.
Some argue that Precambrian rocks were too altered by heat and pressure
to
retain fossil links, or that no rocks were deposited in shallow seas for
fossils to be retained. "Neither of these arguments has held up," say
evolutionists Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. They
add:
"Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and
they
contain no fossils of complex organisms."
These facts prompted biochemist D. B. Gower to comment, as related in
England's Kentish Times: "The creation account in Genesis and the theory
of
evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other
wrong.
The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the
oldest
rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes
from
the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the
oldest
rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there
was
a complete absence of intermediate fossils."
Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: "If progressive evolution from simple
to
complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures
in
the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and
scientists
admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis
of
the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth,
the
theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were
established fits best."
I'd still like to know how a molten hot planet can be covered by water??
Thanks for filling me in , in advance..
It couldn't. Earth wasn't. You need to read more science.
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
24 Sep 2003 06:29:30 PM |
|
|
"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@nohormelwwt.net> wrote in message news:<1Wjcb.3038$zu1.40357@reggie.win.bright.net>...
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064408149.496442@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:b53cb.4874242$cI2.691844@news.easynews.com...
Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants and
White
Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states:
"Sometime in the first billion years, life
appeared on the earth's surface.
What!? I thought space was a sterile environment!?
Linda,
If by space you mean the relative vacuum of 'outer space', then yes.
However, it is possible that some organisms might be able to survive (though
not thrive, I'd not think) there.
If you mean to suggest that the early earth's surface was a sterile
environment because it was in space, you are missing the fact that the earth
has had an atmosphere (albeit anoxic until 'polluted' with O2 by earliest
organisms) from very early on. If you are thinking of an environment such
as the moon, which has no appreciable atmosphere, then of course you might
be excused for this misunderstanding.
TO AVOID extremes of temperature, the earth must orbit at the correct
distance from the sun. In other solar systems, planets have been
detected that orbit sunlike stars and are considered to be in the
'habitable zone'-that is, they are capable of sustaining liquid water.
But even these so-called habitable planets may still not be suitable
for human life. They must also rotate at the right speed and be the
right size.
If the earth were slightly smaller and lighter than it is, the force
of gravity would be weaker and much of the earth's precious atmosphere
would have escaped into space. This can be seen in the case of the
moon and the two planets Mercury and Mars. Being smaller and weighing
less than the earth, they have little or no atmosphere. But what if
the earth were slightly bigger and heavier than it is?
Then the earth's gravitation would be stronger, and light gases, such
as hydrogen and helium, would take longer to escape from the
atmosphere. "More importantly," explains the science textbook
Environment of Life, "the delicate balance between the gases of the
atmosphere would be upset."
Or consider just oxygen, which fuels combustion. If its level were to
increase by 1 percent, forest fires would break out more frequently.
On the other hand, if the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide kept
increasing, we would suffer the consequences of an overheated earth.
Another ideal feature is the shape of earth's orbit. If the orbit were
more elliptic, we would suffer unbearable extremes of temperature.
Instead, the earth has a nearly circular orbit. Of course, the
situation would change if a giant planet like Jupiter were to pass
nearby. In recent years scientists have uncovered evidence that some
stars have large Jupiterlike planets orbiting very close to them. Many
of these Jupiterlike planets have eccentric orbits. Any earthlike
planets in such systems would be in trouble.
Astronomer Geoffrey Marcy compared these external planet systems with
the four planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, which make up our
inner solar system. In an interview, Marcy exclaimed: "Look at how
perfect this [arrangement] is. It's like a jewel. You've got circular
orbits. They're all in the same plane. They're all going around in the
same direction. . . . It's almost uncanny." Can this really be
explained by chance?
Our solar system has another marvelous feature. The giant planets
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune orbit the sun at a safe distance
from us. Instead of being a threat, these planets fill a vital role.
Astronomers have likened them to 'celestial vacuum cleaners' because
their gravity sucks in large meteors, which might otherwise endanger
life on earth. Indeed, the earth has been very well "founded." (Job
38:4) Both its size and its position in our solar system are just
right. But that is not all. The earth has other unique features that
are essential for human life.
Oxygen atoms make up 63 percent of the weight of living organisms on
earth. Furthermore, oxygen in the upper atmosphere protects
terrestrial plants and animals from the sun's ultraviolet rays. But
oxygen is quick to react with other elements, such as when it reacts
with iron and causes rust. How, then, does the atmosphere keep its
21-percent level of this highly reactive element?
The answer is photosynthesis-a marvelous process whereby earth's
vegetation uses sunlight to make food. A by-product of photosynthesis
is oxygen-more than a billion tons of which are released into the
atmosphere each day. "Without photosynthesis," explains The New
Encyclopędia Britannica, "not only would replenishment of the
fundamental food supply halt but the Earth would eventually become
devoid of oxygen."
Science textbooks use several pages to explain the step-by-step
process called photosynthesis. Some steps are not yet fully
understood. Evolutionists cannot explain how each step evolved from
something simpler. Indeed, each step appears to be irreducibly
complex. "There is no generally accepted view of the origin of the
photosynthetic process," admits The New Encyclopędia Britannica. One
evolutionist glossed over the problem by stating that photosynthesis
was "invented" by "a few pioneering cells."
That statement, though unscientific, reveals something else that is
also amazing: Photosynthesis needs cell walls within which the process
can safely take place, and the continuation of the process requires
cell reproduction. Did all that just happen by chance in a few
"pioneering cells"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Linda" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
25 Sep 2003 08:01:22 PM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309241529.63db9cf2@posting.google.com...
"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@nohormelwwt.net> wrote in message
news:<1Wjcb.3038$zu1.40357@reggie.win.bright.net>...
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064408149.496442@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:b53cb.4874242$cI2.691844@news.easynews.com...
Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants
and
White
Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states:
"Sometime in the first billion years, life
appeared on the earth's surface.
What!? I thought space was a sterile environment!?
Linda,
If by space you mean the relative vacuum of 'outer space', then yes.
However, it is possible that some organisms might be able to survive
(though
not thrive, I'd not think) there.
Hold it there...............................Space is said to be an average
temperature of 3 degrees........KELVIN!!!
Thats 270o below celcius! Tell me something can grow in this type of
environment.......no no.......survive in this type of environment. See what
I'm getting at.
Also, if the earth formed and was volcanic hot in the beginning then I ask
the original questions.
Where did all the water come from? How did life get here in two sterile
environments?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sally" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
26 Sep 2003 03:47:28 AM |
|
|
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064538376.721254@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
Where did all the water come from? How did life get here in two sterile
environments?
Please permit a Astronomy ng user to comment....
The challenging tone of your question suggests that if conventional science
does not have an answer then there must be another explanation...perhaps
divine intervention or extraterrestrial intelligence?
In fact, there are many questions that conventional science cannot answer
yet...this does not mean that we have to resort to the supernatural or
religion or other fairy tales. It means just that...we don't know yet. If
science already had the answers to every question then a lot of scientists
would be out of a job.
Sally
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
26 Sep 2003 04:31:27 PM |
|
|
"Sally" <sallyx.parkinsx@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bl0ufc$6rgjc$1@ID-40408.news.uni-berlin.de...
religion or other fairy tales. It means just that...we don't know yet. If
science already had the answers to every question then a lot of scientists
would be out of a job.
Not to mention it would be a much more boring place.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
25 Sep 2003 08:15:20 PM |
|
|
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064538376.721254@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309241529.63db9cf2@posting.google.com...
"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@nohormelwwt.net> wrote in message
news:<1Wjcb.3038$zu1.40357@reggie.win.bright.net>...
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064408149.496442@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:b53cb.4874242$cI2.691844@news.easynews.com...
Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants
and
White
Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states:
"Sometime in the first billion years, life
appeared on the earth's surface.
What!? I thought space was a sterile environment!?
Linda,
If by space you mean the relative vacuum of 'outer space', then
yes.
However, it is possible that some organisms might be able to survive
(though
not thrive, I'd not think) there.
Hold it there...............................Space is said to be an average
temperature of 3 degrees........KELVIN!!!
Thats 270o below celcius! Tell me something can grow in this type of
environment.......no no.......survive in this type of environment. See
what
I'm getting at.
Also, if the earth formed and was volcanic hot in the beginning then I ask
the original questions.
Where did all the water come from? How did life get here in two sterile
environments?
Linda,
I replied in some detail. Please reply to _that_ reply, as I answered
your questions there.
If, that is, you are sincere in asking.
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "Linda" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
27 Sep 2003 11:43:16 PM |
|
|
"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@nohormelwwt.net> wrote in message
news:jrMcb.3077$zu1.40596@reggie.win.bright.net...
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064538376.721254@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309241529.63db9cf2@posting.google.com...
"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@nohormelwwt.net> wrote in message
news:<1Wjcb.3038$zu1.40357@reggie.win.bright.net>...
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064408149.496442@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:b53cb.4874242$cI2.691844@news.easynews.com...
Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red
Giants
and
White
Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states:
"Sometime in the first billion years, life
appeared on the earth's surface.
What!? I thought space was a sterile environment!?
Linda,
If by space you mean the relative vacuum of 'outer space', then
yes.
However, it is possible that some organisms might be able to survive
(though
not thrive, I'd not think) there.
Hold it there...............................Space is said to be an
average
temperature of 3 degrees........KELVIN!!!
Thats 270o below celcius! Tell me something can grow in this type of
environment.......no no.......survive in this type of environment. See
what
I'm getting at.
Also, if the earth formed and was volcanic hot in the beginning then I
ask
the original questions.
Where did all the water come from? How did life get here in two sterile
environments?
Linda,
I replied in some detail. Please reply to _that_ reply, as I answered
your questions there.
If, that is, you are sincere in asking.
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
Nope, can't find it........could you re-post it here please. Thanks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
28 Sep 2003 12:14:58 AM |
|
|
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064724083.101846@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@nohormelwwt.net> wrote in message
news:jrMcb.3077$zu1.40596@reggie.win.bright.net...
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064538376.721254@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309241529.63db9cf2@posting.google.com...
"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@nohormelwwt.net> wrote in message
news:<1Wjcb.3038$zu1.40357@reggie.win.bright.net>...
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064408149.496442@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:b53cb.4874242$cI2.691844@news.easynews.com...
Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red
Giants
and
White
Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states:
"Sometime in the first billion years, life
appeared on the earth's surface.
What!? I thought space was a sterile environment!?
Linda,
If by space you mean the relative vacuum of 'outer space',
then
yes.
However, it is possible that some organisms might be able to
survive
(though
not thrive, I'd not think) there.
Hold it there...............................Space is said to be an
average
temperature of 3 degrees........KELVIN!!!
Thats 270o below celcius! Tell me something can grow in this type of
environment.......no no.......survive in this type of environment. See
what
I'm getting at.
Also, if the earth formed and was volcanic hot in the beginning then I
ask
the original questions.
Where did all the water come from? How did life get here in two
sterile
environments?
Linda,
I replied in some detail. Please reply to _that_ reply, as I
answered
your questions there.
If, that is, you are sincere in asking.
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
Nope, can't find it........could you re-post it here please. Thanks.
Linda,
It's still on my server; perhaps your expires articles faster than mine.
Well, you asked for it:
==================================================
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064408149.496442@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:b53cb.4874242$cI2.691844@news.easynews.com...
Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants and
White
Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states:
"Sometime in the first billion years, life
appeared on the earth's surface.
What!? I thought space was a sterile environment!?
Linda,
If by space you mean the relative vacuum of 'outer space', then yes.
However, it is possible that some organisms might be able to survive (though
not thrive, I'd not think) there.
If you mean to suggest that the early earth's surface was a sterile
environment because it was in space, you are missing the fact that the earth
has had an atmosphere (albeit anoxic until 'polluted' with O2 by earliest
organisms) from very early on. If you are thinking of an environment such
as the moon, which has no appreciable atmosphere, then of course you might
be excused for this misunderstanding.
Slowly, the fossil record indicates, living
organisms climbed the ladder from simple to more advanced forms." From
this
description, one would expect that the fossil record has verified a slow
evolution from the first "simple" life forms to complex ones. Yet, the
same
book says: "The critical first billion years, during which life began,
are
blank pages in the earth's history."
Lets see if I get this right...............Space is
sterile............
See above...
matter comes and frictionalises together to get a big
bang.............
Ah. Now I think we begin to see your problem. You have an inadequate
understanding of the current theories about the Big Bang, as well as of
cosmology, and especially stellar and planetary formation.
We don't know what, if anything, 'c[ame] together...to get a big bang'.
Lots of interesting work going on about this, though.
If by 'big bang' you mean stars going nova or supernova, which makes
elements heavier than iron (elements up to iron form in the interior of
stars as a result of fusion), which then are available for second-generation
star and planet formation, then 'frictionalis[ation] is arguably part of the
process.
then somehow our earth forms, has a molten hot surface
quickly cooled by a mass of water..
'Quickly'? How long do you think it took for the earth's surface to
cool sufficiently to allow water to stay as liquid on the surface? You seem
to have it backwards; the heat of formation radiated away from the earth,
and _then_ liquid water could exit on its surface.
(Where did it all come
from?)............
Water appears to have come largely from comets striking the earth in the
early solar system. I suspect that there were other mechanisms at work at
well, but this isn't something I'm well read in.
then somewhere after from two sterile environments (space
and a molten hot planet) we get life in vegitational form and
organisms......................
As noted above:
1. The sterility of space is irrelevant to conditions on the surface of
a planet with an atmosphere.
2. The earth is not said to have had life until after its surface had
cooled.
3. Everyone I know thinks life arose from non-living matter. (I don't
claim that no one thinks that; unlike some creationists, I don't pretend to
be omniscient in these matters.)
What am I missing here to fix this puzzle?
Lots, apparently. A large amount of the missing puzzle seems to lie in
science that you haven't learned, or have mis-learned. I'd suggest learning
some basic physics, chemistry, cosmology, and biology. Don't be intimidated
by this; the basics I'm discussing can be learned from very basic resources,
even to include good encyclopedias and the internet.
Also, can those first types of life truly be described as "simple"?
"Going
back in time to the age of the oldest rocks," says Evolution From Space,
"fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not
reveal
a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and
fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse,
the
information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical
complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface
rocks
of the Earth were formed."
From this beginning, can any evidence at all be found to verify that
one-celled organisms evolved into many-celled ones? "The fossil record
contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of
many-celled organisms," says Jastrow. Instead, he states: "The record of
the
rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants
until,
about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible
progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures
appeared on earth."
I thought the earths environment was too hostile for fragile organisms
long
before the dinosours even......?
Early life on earth was anoxic; but it became so prevalent that oxygen,
which is a waste product given off by those early organisms, polluted the
sea (and eventually the atmosphere) to the point that organisms that can use
oxygen for life processes evolved. Now those early anoxic organisms (or
rather their decendants) find themselves fragile in the hostile O2
atmosphere. They are now found in anoxic environments, or in places where
they can be protected from the destructive effects of O2.
It appears that life has been around for perhaps 4 billion years, or
about a half-billion years after the planet formed. (Do you think
~500,000,000 years long enough to allow the 'molten' earth to cool?) So
life had over 4 billion years of time when the planet was amenable to life,
and life has adapted to some pretty major changes over that time. Not least
of which adaptations was to not only survive O2 pollution, but to thrive in
it.
And, since the dinosaurs are only thought to have been around from
perhaps 250,000,000 years ago, there was quite a bit of time for the
environment to accomodate to life, and vice versa.
Thus, at the start of what is called the Cambrian period, the fossil
record
takes an unexplained dramatic turn. A great variety of fully developed,
complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells, appear so suddenly
that
this time is often called an "explosion" of living things. A View of
Life
describes it: "Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and
extending
for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized
invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise
in
diversity ever recorded on our planet." Snails, sponges, starfish,
lobsterlike animals called trilobites, and many other complex sea
creatures
appeared. Interestingly, the same book observes: "Some extinct
trilobites,
in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living
arthropod
possesses."
Are there fossil links between this outburst of life and what went
before
it? In Darwin's time such links did not exist. He admitted: "To the
question
why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these
assumed
earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no
satisfactory
answer." Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S.
Romer
noted Darwin's statement about "the abrupt manner in which whole groups
of
species suddenly appear" and wrote: "Below this [Cambrian period], there
are
vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian
forms
would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost
barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be
said
to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of
Cambrian times. 'To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous
deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the
Cambrian
system,' said Darwin, 'I can give no satisfactory answer.' Nor can we
today," said Romer.
Some argue that Precambrian rocks were too altered by heat and pressure
to
retain fossil links, or that no rocks were deposited in shallow seas for
fossils to be retained. "Neither of these arguments has held up," say
evolutionists Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. They
add:
"Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and
they
contain no fossils of complex organisms."
These facts prompted biochemist D. B. Gower to comment, as related in
England's Kentish Times: "The creation account in Genesis and the theory
of
evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other
wrong.
The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the
oldest
rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes
from
the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the
oldest
rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there
was
a complete absence of intermediate fossils."
Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: "If progressive evolution from simple
to
complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures
in
the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and
scientists
admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis
of
the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth,
the
theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were
established fits best."
I'd still like to know how a molten hot planet can be covered by water??
Thanks for filling me in , in advance..
It couldn't. Earth wasn't. You need to read more science.
=================================================
HTH
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Linda" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
27 Sep 2003 11:32:38 PM |
|
|
"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@nohormelwwt.net> wrote in message
news:jrMcb.3077$zu1.40596@reggie.win.bright.net...
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064538376.721254@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309241529.63db9cf2@posting.google.com...
"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@nohormelwwt.net> wrote in message
news:<1Wjcb.3038$zu1.40357@reggie.win.bright.net>...
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064408149.496442@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:b53cb.4874242$cI2.691844@news.easynews.com...
Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red
Giants
and
White
Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states:
"Sometime in the first billion years, life
appeared on the earth's surface.
What!? I thought space was a sterile environment!?
Linda,
If by space you mean the relative vacuum of 'outer space', then
yes.
However, it is possible that some organisms might be able to survive
(though
not thrive, I'd not think) there.
Hold it there...............................Space is said to be an
average
temperature of 3 degrees........KELVIN!!!
Thats 270o below celcius! Tell me something can grow in this type of
environment.......no no.......survive in this type of environment. See
what
I'm getting at.
Also, if the earth formed and was volcanic hot in the beginning then I
ask
the original questions.
Where did all the water come from? How did life get here in two sterile
environments?
Linda,
I replied in some detail. Please reply to _that_ reply, as I answered
your questions there.
If, that is, you are sincere in asking.
--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply
Shall go back and look for it, thanks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Odysseus" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
25 Sep 2003 11:04:48 PM |
|
|
Linda wrote:
Thats 270o below celcius! Tell me something can grow in this type of
environment.......no no.......survive in this type of environment. See what
I'm getting at.
Bacterial spores can survive extreme conditions, in a dormant state.
IIRC someone even put them through the temperatures and pressures of
a simulated meteor impact, and was able grow cultures from samples of
the debris.
--
Odysseus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Halstead" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
26 Sep 2003 12:12:31 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:31:22 +0930, "Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com>
wrote:
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309241529.63db9cf2@posting.google.com...
"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@nohormelwwt.net> wrote in message
news:<1Wjcb.3038$zu1.40357@reggie.win.bright.net>...
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064408149.496442@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:b53cb.4874242$cI2.691844@news.easynews.com...
Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants
and
White
Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states:
"Sometime in the first billion years, life
appeared on the earth's surface.
What!? I thought space was a sterile environment!?
Linda,
If by space you mean the relative vacuum of 'outer space', then yes.
However, it is possible that some organisms might be able to survive
(though
not thrive, I'd not think) there.
Hold it there...............................Space is said to be an average
temperature of 3 degrees........KELVIN!!!
Thats 270o below celcius! Tell me something can grow in this type of
environment.......no no.......survive in this type of environment. See what
I'm getting at.
There are huge clouds of organic molecules drifting in space.
Hydrogen is very common. It is possible for some very basic life
forms to be frozen and revived. As far as that goes I was taught in
college there are some forms of bacteria that can live in boiling
sulphuric acid.
Also, if the earth formed and was volcanic hot in the beginning then I ask
the original questions.
The molecules of carbon, hydrogen and Oxygen were there, but as
hydrocarbons. The early atmosphere was very low in Oxygen.
Every thing was there to produce water and complex molecules.
Where did all the water come from? How did life get here in two sterile
environments?
Hydrogen and Oxygen were here. There was just little free Oxygen.
Space is not a sterile environment. Hostile as all get out, but not
sterile. As I said there are hugh clouds of complex molecules
including the building blocks necessary for organic compounds.
Others can explain this in far more depth than I and with a far better
foundation.
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
26 Sep 2003 04:42:25 AM |
|
|
"Roger Halstead" <newsgroup@rogerhalstead.com> wrote in message
news:v7i7nv8pm7v1asljatl3i2vaeito7eq2i2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:31:22 +0930, "Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com>
wrote:
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309241529.63db9cf2@posting.google.com...
"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@nohormelwwt.net> wrote in message
news:<1Wjcb.3038$zu1.40357@reggie.win.bright.net>...
"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1064408149.496442@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:b53cb.4874242$cI2.691844@news.easynews.com...
Let us take a closer look at the evidence. In his book Red Giants
and
White
Dwarfs Robert Jastrow states:
"Sometime in the first billion years, life
appeared on the earth's surface.
What!? I thought space was a sterile environment!?
Linda,
If by space you mean the relative vacuum of 'outer space', then
yes.
However, it is possible that some organisms might be able to survive
(though
not thrive, I'd not think) there.
Hold it there...............................Space is said to be an
average
temperature of 3 degrees........KELVIN!!!
Thats 270o below celcius! Tell me something can grow in this type of
environment.......no no.......survive in this type of environment. See
what
I'm getting at.
There are huge clouds of organic molecules drifting in space.
Hydrogen is very common.
really, and when was this verified to be correct?
space probe?
Also, if the earth formed and was volcanic hot in the beginning then I
ask
the original questions.
The molecules of carbon, hydrogen and Oxygen were there, but as
hydrocarbons. The early atmosphere was very low in Oxygen.
Every thing was there to produce water and complex molecules.
ever heard of stanly miller?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
26 Sep 2003 06:48:39 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:5STcb.5013685$cI2.710563@news.easynews.com...
"Roger Halstead" <newsgroup@rogerhalstead.com> wrote in message
news:v7i7nv8pm7v1asljatl3i2vaeito7eq2i2@4ax.com...
<snipped>
There are huge clouds of organic molecules drifting in space.
Hydrogen is very common.
really, and when was this verified to be correct?
space probe?
Spectroscopy. In case you forgot your basic astrophysics, all elements and
molecules have a distinct signature in light.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
26 Sep 2003 05:07:36 PM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:NIVcb.5024$XR5.1316271235@twister1.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:5STcb.5013685$cI2.710563@news.easynews.com...
"Roger Halstead" <newsgroup@rogerhalstead.com> wrote in message
news:v7i7nv8pm7v1asljatl3i2vaeito7eq2i2@4ax.com...
<snipped>
There are huge clouds of organic molecules drifting in space.
Hydrogen is very common.
really, and when was this verified to be correct?
space probe?
Spectroscopy. In case you forgot your basic astrophysics, all elements and
molecules have a distinct signature in light.
so life has been found floating around these hydrogen clouds... I see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
26 Sep 2003 05:35:39 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:HM2db.5039620$mA4.713595@news.easynews.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:NIVcb.5024$XR5.1316271235@twister1.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:5STcb.5013685$cI2.710563@news.easynews.com...
"Roger Halstead" <newsgroup@rogerhalstead.com> wrote in message
news:v7i7nv8pm7v1asljatl3i2vaeito7eq2i2@4ax.com...
<snipped>
There are huge clouds of organic molecules drifting in space.
Hydrogen is very common.
really, and when was this verified to be correct?
space probe?
Spectroscopy. In case you forgot your basic astrophysics, all elements
and
molecules have a distinct signature in light.
so life has been found floating around these hydrogen clouds... I see.
That is not what Roger Halstead posted. As you can see above, he said that
"There are huge clouds of organic molecules drifting in space". This is a
correct scientific statement. It is a fact, an observation.
A spectral survey of the Orion Nebula from 455-507 GHz
http://tinyurl.com/otji
C H CN
begin 666 img2.gif
M1TE&.#EA"0`9`.,``````)F9F7=W=^[N[LS,S!$1$8B(B/___T1$1-W=W2(B
M(KN[NP```````````````"'Y! $```<`+ `````)`!D`0 0A\,A)I2E U,W[
:3LL1>F0Y!9JIKJRJ' FP$>DT8 #2[FL$`#L`
`
end
begin 666 img4.gif
M1TE&.#EA"0`9`.,``````)F9F>[N[C,S,\S,S!$1$8B(B&9F9O___T1$1-W=
MW2(B(KN[NP```````````"'Y! $```@`+ `````)`!D`0 0C$,E))2A)U,U[
<9894>&0I)<,2F&SK5JM"5$ Y3D("'//KLQ$`.P``
`
end
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
26 Sep 2003 04:30:11 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:5STcb.5013685$cI2.710563@news.easynews.com...
There are huge clouds of organic molecules drifting in space.
Hydrogen is very common.
really, and when was this verified to be correct?
space probe?
Spectral analysis of absorption lines.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
26 Sep 2003 06:30:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:30:11 GMT, "Dennis Taylor" <noemail@nospam.org>
wrote:
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:5STcb.5013685$cI2.710563@news.easynews.com...
There are huge clouds of organic molecules drifting in space.
Hydrogen is very common.
really, and when was this verified to be correct?
space probe?
Spectral analysis of absorption lines.
In fact that's where Hoyle got his panspermia idea from.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
03 Oct 2003 08:17:42 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<5STcb.5013685$cI2.710563@news.easynews.com>.
There are huge clouds of organic molecules drifting in space.
Hydrogen is very common.
really, and when was this verified to be correct?
space probe?
Hydrogen gas remnant of "Big Bang":
http://astron.berkeley.edu/~robishaw/publications/sfexaminer.html
Organic molecules in space:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/734780.stm
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=298
These are not t.o. so you can shut your mouth before you even open it
about peer-review. These are not peer-reviewed articles, but since
you have never posted one yourself, and your entire armament comes
form news headlines and ancient argument form incredulity for whihc
you do not even psot adequate references, your pathetic demands for
peer-reviewed articles when you realize you have no answer to repeated
challenges and questions put before you, is nothing more than
desperate hypocrisy.
Now, once again, I have provided answers to your questions, but I am
*still waiting** five or six weeks later for you to provide for me a
**LIST** of these "colossal holes" you claim are in the Theory of
Evolution.
I am *still waiting** for you to admit that your original reference to
the similarities between humans and bananas said "up to 30%" and not a
definitive 75% as you lied, not even 60%, not even 50% as you have
subsequently claimed without support.
I am *still waiting** for you to admit that regardless of what it is
classed as, and regardless of whether it was or was not in the line to
birds, the archaeopteryx had pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of
reptile/dino-bird features and therefore represented an example of a
potential intermediate stage.
I am *still waiting** for you to admit that the okapi is pretty much
what a transitional giraffe would have looked like.
I am *still waiting** for you to explain why something akin to a
mouse, could not change 300 genes over 60 million years to become
either human or a modern mouse
I am *still waiting** for you to acknowledge that no evolutionist has
ever claimed that modern birds evolved from modern reptiles and that
argument from incredulity addressing this non-issue, no matter how
ancient it is, does not constitute a colossal hole in the Theory of
Evolution.
I am *still waiting** for you to acknowledge that when _New Scientist_
publishes, as a courtesy, a letter from a creationist, it is at best
dishonest of you to quote it as though _New Scientist_ supported its
content or as though it were a peer-reviewed paper published in a
professional science magazine.
Now I have answered your questions, can you answer mine, or are you
going to evolve into a chicken and snip them again? Because you can
evade, avoid, straw-man, stonewall and snip all you want, but as long
as you keep posting lies and trash on the Internet, this list of
unanswered questions and challenges is going to grow and I guarantee
you that it will follow you to your grave. Get it now?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
04 Oct 2003 02:17:44 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0310031717.5a1df3df@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<5STcb.5013685$cI2.710563@news.easynews.com>.
There are huge clouds of organic molecules drifting in space.
Hydrogen is very common.
really, and when was this verified to be correct?
space probe?
Hydrogen gas remnant of "Big Bang":
http://astron.berkeley.edu/~robishaw/publications/sfexaminer.html
Organic molecules in space:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/734780.stm
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=298
These are not t.o. so you can shut your mouth before you even open it
about peer-review.
very good, I shall read them...
as for the rest of your useless rant... yup you figure it out....
SSSSSSSSSnippppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
05 Oct 2003 06:20:26 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<s1Ffb.5487355$mA4.781797@news.easynews.com>...
as for the rest of your useless rant... yup you figure it out....
SSSSSSSSSnippppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
Once again, Jabriol admits to the world that he cannot support any of
the material he has recently quoted against evolution, cannot offer
any evidence for his claims, and cannot even answer simple challenges
and questions. Once again he has admitted that when it comes down to
the wire, all he can do is run crying from the dozens of unmet
challenges and questions sitting waiting for him all over Usenet.
Nothing new here. You Lose. Deal with it Loser.
Still waiting on you actually offering a simple, unnumbered,
unsupported unevidenced **LIST** of these "colossal holes" you
plagiarized from Booker's unsupported twenty-year old newspaper
article back in mid-August. Any response to this that does not
include such a **LIST** will be a complete, unconditional and open
admission by you that there are no such holes. Get it?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
05 Oct 2003 08:34:33 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0310051520.2cea62ec@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<s1Ffb.5487355$mA4.781797@news.easynews.com>...
as for the rest of your useless rant... yup you figure it out....
SSSSSSSSSnippppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
Once again, Jabriol
SsSssSSSSSsssSSSsssnnnNNNNNnnnnnnnnNNNnNnNIIIiiiiIIIIiiiiPPPPppP
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarcRW" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
05 Oct 2003 09:39:26 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:IE3gb.680320$Ji7.7449307@news.easynews.com...
Never seen this moron say anything useful, or even useless. Just stupid.
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
07 Oct 2003 09:42:04 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<IE3gb.680320$Ji7.7449307@news.easynews.com>...
SsSssSSSSSsssSSSsssnnnNNNNNnnnnnnnnNNNnNnNIIIiiiiIIIIiiiiPPPPppP
Once again Jabriol, the Dr. Jekyll of the Internet, becomes Mr Hyde,
running and hiding behind snips because he cannot answer simple
questions any kid with half a science education could answer.
What a worthless piece of Internet sewage he is. He cannot answer
questions, so he snips. He cannot respond to challenges, so he snips.
He cannot even make a simple **LIST** of these supposed "colossal
holes" in the Theory of Evolution, so he snips.
He claims to be a man of God, but Jabriol once again tells God to go
screw himself by his very behavior - for example, lying that that
humans are 75% banana in their DNA!
We had to, as usual, ask for a reference. Amazingly, Jabriol gave
one, and it immediately became clear why he rarely gives decent
references - because when he does give one it proves him to be a liar!
The reference he gave clearly stated that "up to 30% of banana genes
may be similar to those in humans". There was never any 75%
mentioned. There never was any certainty. Jabriol made the whole
thing up. Either that or he is so overwhelmingly stupid that he
couldn't figure out the numbers.
Jabriol asked for transitionals. I gave him a list that referenced
peer-reviewed articles. He immediately ran away from that thread.
Jabriol asked for evidence of evolution. I gave him a list that
referenced peer-reviewed articles. He immediately ran away from that
thread.
I have answered every question that Jabriol has asked of me, but what
does he do in return? Answer one of mine I have been asking since
August? Nope. He runs away like a scared dog.
I currently have about a dozen threads open waiting for Jabriol to
answer specific questions, or meet specific challenges or offer
specific items, such as a **LIST** of these supposed "colossal holes"
in the Theory of Evolution. He has run away from all of those threads
like a snivelling little whelp of a kid.
He spouts idiotic blather about going to Heaven, but I very much doubt
that any God worth his salt would want a cowardly little liar like
Jabriol. Nope - Jabriol is going the other direction for sure: to
Hell in a hand basket.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
08 Oct 2003 11:32:17 AM |
|
|
(Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0310071842.ab8d31c@posting.google.com>...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<IE3gb.680320$Ji7.7449307@news.easynews.com>...
SsSssSSSSSsssSSSsssnnnNNNNNnnnnnnnnNNNnNnNIIIiiiiIIIIiiiiPPPPppP
Once again
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
09 Oct 2003 02:19:06 AM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0310080832.67ff6e5c@posting.google.com>...
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPP
The hypocrite snips again - then goes on to complain about censorship
in talk.origins! What a clueless asswipe!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
09 Oct 2003 04:54:32 AM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0310082319.4224633@posting.google.com...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message
news:<d222de3e.0310080832.67ff6e5c@posting.google.com>...
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPP
The hypocrite snips again - then goes on to complain about censorship
in talk.origins!
I am not a moderator
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keenan Clay Wilkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
13 Oct 2003 04:14:32 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> writes:
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0310120922.711041b2@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<sfahb.161402$pZ5.1787806@news.easynews.com>...
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0310082319.4224633@posting.google.com...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message
news:<d222de3e.0310080832.67ff6e5c@posting.google.com>...
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPP
The hypocrite snips again - then goes on to complain about censorship
in talk.origins!
I am not a moderator
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNIP
No - you're a .......Snip-------------------------------------------------
Looks like jabriol is still nothing but a liar and a troll.
<*PLONK!*>
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
Who said that SPEWS was dead? http://spews.org/
Back To The Future DVD Warning: http://tinyurl.com/6007
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis |
12 Oct 2003 12:22:44 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<sfahb.161402$pZ5.1787806@news.easynews.com>...
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0310082319.4224633@posting.google.com...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message
news:<d222de3e.0310080832.67ff6e5c@posting.google.com>...
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPP
The hypocrite snips again - then goes on to complain about censorship
in talk.origins!
I am not a moderator
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNIP
No - you're a cowardly piece of trash who cannot even remotely support
a thing that he says and while hypocritically demanding that others
prove every little thing with peer-reviewed references. In short,
you're a full-time ***** and a clueless coward. BTW, we're all
still waiting on that **LIST** of these "colossal holes" you claimed
exist in the Theory of Evolution back in August.
Budikka
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
