| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Dr Tam" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2005 10:02:18 PM |
| Object: |
Creation |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4408187.stm
A European team claims to have obtained the first direct image of a planet
beyond our own Solar System.
The "extrasolar planet" is said to orbit a star called GQ Lup - thought to
be like a young version of our Sun.
Similar claims have been made in the past, but sceptical scientists believe
the pictures merely show objects that share the same view in the sky.
The GQ Lup object is far more certain claims Ralph Neuhaeuser's team in the
journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.
GQ Lup and its companion are located in a star-forming region about 400
light-years away.
Dr Tam
.
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer: Scientists createavirusthat reproduces |
13 Apr 2005 02:34:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:17:33 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:42:35 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:08:03 +0100, Alan Smaill <smaill@inf.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> writes:
...
Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life.
Crystals are pretty good at reproducing themselves.
von Neumann's book on self-reproducing automata is another place to
look for non-biological reproduction.
How long does life last for if it
cannot reproduce itself?
A bit of the necessary/sufficient distinction is in order here.
We'll get there Alan. Don't you worry.
Care to clarify your own comments, then, you know, just
so all concerned see what you're getting at .... ?
what did you mean when you said:
"Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life." ?
*If* something can reproduce without assistance (apart from the
assistance of the sexual partner in the case of heterosexual
reproduction), then it is alive.
Thanks for the clarification.
I repeat my comment above:
Crystals can do this --
I am not happy in concluding that they are alive,
but maybe you are.
Of course there's more to it. How about you answer my question about
Noah then?
Did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save the unique flora and
fauna there or didn't he?
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Smaill" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer: Scientistscreateavirusthat reproduces |
13 Apr 2005 08:55:38 PM |
|
|
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> writes:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:17:33 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:42:35 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:08:03 +0100, Alan Smaill <smaill@inf.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> writes:
...
Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life.
as he said.
Crystals are pretty good at reproducing themselves.
von Neumann's book on self-reproducing automata is another place to
look for non-biological reproduction.
How long does life last for if it
cannot reproduce itself?
A bit of the necessary/sufficient distinction is in order here.
We'll get there Alan. Don't you worry.
Care to clarify your own comments, then, you know, just
so all concerned see what you're getting at .... ?
what did you mean when you said:
"Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life." ?
*If* something can reproduce without assistance (apart from the
assistance of the sexual partner in the case of heterosexual
reproduction), then it is alive.
as he said.
Thanks for the clarification.
I repeat my comment above:
Crystals can do this --
I am not happy in concluding that they are alive,
but maybe you are.
Of course there's more to it. How about you answer my question about
Noah then?
No, since you didn't address that question to me, now did you?
But I did address the question to you, this is the third time,
maybe you can address my question, rather than someone else's.
Let me remind you:
I repeat my comment above:
Crystals can do this --
I am not happy in concluding that they are alive,
but maybe you are.
So, let us know:
you said
"Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life."
--
Alan Smaill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer: Scientistscreateavirusthat reproduces |
14 Apr 2005 07:03:52 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:55:38 +0100, Alan Smaill <smaill@inf.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> writes:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:17:33 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:42:35 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:08:03 +0100, Alan Smaill <smaill@inf.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> writes:
...
Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life.
as he said.
Crystals are pretty good at reproducing themselves.
von Neumann's book on self-reproducing automata is another place to
look for non-biological reproduction.
How long does life last for if it
cannot reproduce itself?
A bit of the necessary/sufficient distinction is in order here.
We'll get there Alan. Don't you worry.
Care to clarify your own comments, then, you know, just
so all concerned see what you're getting at .... ?
what did you mean when you said:
"Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life." ?
*If* something can reproduce without assistance (apart from the
assistance of the sexual partner in the case of heterosexual
reproduction), then it is alive.
as he said.
Thanks for the clarification.
I repeat my comment above:
Crystals can do this --
I am not happy in concluding that they are alive,
but maybe you are.
Of course there's more to it. How about you answer my question about
Noah then?
No, since you didn't address that question to me, now did you?
But I did address the question to you, this is the third time,
maybe you can address my question, rather than someone else's.
Let me remind you:
I repeat my comment above:
Crystals can do this --
I am not happy in concluding that they are alive,
but maybe you are.
So, let us know:
you said
"Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life."
You and I both know there's more to it than that. I'll get back to you
with a more exhaustive and accurate comment. In the meantime, can you
asnwer the question I have about Noah?
Did Noah discover the antipodes in order to save all the flora and
fauna unique to the antipodes?
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Smaill" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer:Scientistscreateavirusthat reproduces |
15 Apr 2005 08:38:38 AM |
|
|
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> writes:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:55:38 +0100, Alan Smaill <smaill@inf.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> writes:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:17:33 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:42:35 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
....
Care to clarify your own comments, then, you know, just
so all concerned see what you're getting at .... ?
what did you mean when you said:
"Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life." ?
*If* something can reproduce without assistance (apart from the
assistance of the sexual partner in the case of heterosexual
reproduction), then it is alive.
as he said.
Thanks for the clarification.
I repeat my comment above:
Crystals can do this --
I am not happy in concluding that they are alive,
but maybe you are.
Of course there's more to it. How about you answer my question about
Noah then?
No, since you didn't address that question to me, now did you?
But I did address the question to you, this is the third time,
maybe you can address my question, rather than someone else's.
Let me remind you:
I repeat my comment above:
Crystals can do this --
I am not happy in concluding that they are alive,
but maybe you are.
So, let us know:
you said
"Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life."
You and I both know there's more to it than that.
So why not make an accurate answer?
After all, I had already pointed out the case of crystals
earlier.
It's not so hard, is it??
I'll get back to you
with a more exhaustive and accurate comment. In the meantime, can you
asnwer the question I have about Noah?
Did Noah discover the antipodes in order to save all the flora and
fauna unique to the antipodes?
As far as I'm concerned, I do not know if Noah was a historical
character or not, and therefore I do not know if the question makes
sense. Furthermore, even if he did exist, I do not know why he
made a voyage, or where he went.
A question in return:
did God create the world?
Ned
--
Alan Smaill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Post Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer: Scientistscreateavirusthat reproduces |
08 Aug 2005 06:37:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:38:38 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> writes:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:55:38 +0100, Alan Smaill <smaill@inf.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> writes:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:17:33 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:42:35 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
...
Care to clarify your own comments, then, you know, just
so all concerned see what you're getting at .... ?
what did you mean when you said:
"Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life." ?
*If* something can reproduce without assistance (apart from the
assistance of the sexual partner in the case of heterosexual
reproduction), then it is alive.
as he said.
Thanks for the clarification.
I repeat my comment above:
Crystals can do this --
I am not happy in concluding that they are alive,
but maybe you are.
Of course there's more to it. How about you answer my question about
Noah then?
No, since you didn't address that question to me, now did you?
But I did address the question to you, this is the third time,
maybe you can address my question, rather than someone else's.
Let me remind you:
I repeat my comment above:
Crystals can do this --
I am not happy in concluding that they are alive,
but maybe you are.
So, let us know:
you said
"Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life."
You and I both know there's more to it than that.
So why not make an accurate answer?
Like includes all of the following:
Reproduction
Excretion
Respiration
Motion
Stimulus Response
Consumption
Growth
After all, I had already pointed out the case of crystals
earlier.
Quite right...and fire fits it as well...
It's not so hard, is it??
No its not but I was wanting clarity from someone else...not you by
the way but since you've asked.
I'll get back to you
with a more exhaustive and accurate comment. In the meantime, can you
asnwer the question I have about Noah?
Did Noah discover the antipodes in order to save all the flora and
fauna unique to the antipodes?
As far as I'm concerned, I do not know if Noah was a historical
character or not, and therefore I do not know if the question makes
sense. Furthermore, even if he did exist, I do not know why he
made a voyage, or where he went.
A question in return:
did God create the world?
Quite honestly I can't say either way...I'm not dodging...I'm really
not certain.
PPCB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Smaill" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer:Scientistscreateavirusthat reproduces |
09 Aug 2005 06:38:54 AM |
|
|
Post Post Colonial Boy <republican@email.com> writes:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:38:38 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
O'Kiwi wrote:
*If* something can reproduce without assistance (apart from the
assistance of the sexual partner in the case of heterosexual
reproduction), then it is alive.
as he said.
Thanks for the clarification.
I repeat my comment above:
Crystals can do this --
I am not happy in concluding that they are alive,
but maybe you are.
Of course there's more to it. How about you answer my question about
Noah then?
No, since you didn't address that question to me, now did you?
But I did address the question to you, this is the third time,
maybe you can address my question, rather than someone else's.
Let me remind you:
I repeat my comment above:
Crystals can do this --
I am not happy in concluding that they are alive,
but maybe you are.
So, let us know:
you said
"Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life."
You and I both know there's more to it than that.
So why not make an accurate answer?
Like includes all of the following:
(Is this "life" includes ? ...)
You gave the statement:
" *If* something can reproduce without assistance (apart from the
assistance of the sexual partner in the case of heterosexual
reproduction), then it is alive. "
How should I understand the following, then?
Reproduction
Excretion
Respiration
Motion
Stimulus Response
Consumption
Growth
Are these collectively sufficient criteria, collectively
necessary, something else?
After all, I had already pointed out the case of crystals
earlier.
Quite right...and fire fits it as well...
It's not so hard, is it??
No its not but I was wanting clarity from someone else...not you by
the way but since you've asked.
I'm still not clear what your own position is.
I'll get back to you
with a more exhaustive and accurate comment. In the meantime, can you
asnwer the question I have about Noah?
Did Noah discover the antipodes in order to save all the flora and
fauna unique to the antipodes?
As far as I'm concerned, I do not know if Noah was a historical
character or not, and therefore I do not know if the question makes
sense. Furthermore, even if he did exist, I do not know why he
made a voyage, or where he went.
A question in return:
did God create the world?
Quite honestly I can't say either way...I'm not dodging...I'm really
not certain.
Oh ye of little faith ....
PPCB
--
Alan Smaill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Post Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer: Scientistscreateavirusthat reproduces |
11 Aug 2005 02:23:27 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:38:54 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Post Post Colonial Boy <republican@email.com> writes:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:38:38 +0100, Alan Smaill
<smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
O'Kiwi wrote:
*If* something can reproduce without assistance (apart from the
assistance of the sexual partner in the case of heterosexual
reproduction), then it is alive.
as he said.
Thanks for the clarification.
I repeat my comment above:
Crystals can do this --
I am not happy in concluding that they are alive,
but maybe you are.
Of course there's more to it. How about you answer my question about
Noah then?
No, since you didn't address that question to me, now did you?
But I did address the question to you, this is the third time,
maybe you can address my question, rather than someone else's.
Let me remind you:
I repeat my comment above:
Crystals can do this --
I am not happy in concluding that they are alive,
but maybe you are.
So, let us know:
you said
"Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life."
You and I both know there's more to it than that.
So why not make an accurate answer?
Like includes all of the following:
(Is this "life" includes ? ...)
You gave the statement:
" *If* something can reproduce without assistance (apart from the
assistance of the sexual partner in the case of heterosexual
reproduction), then it is alive. "
How should I understand the following, then?
Reproduction
Excretion
Respiration
Motion
Stimulus Response
Consumption
Growth
Are these collectively sufficient criteria, collectively
necessary, something else?
Collectively necessary.
After all, I had already pointed out the case of crystals
earlier.
Quite right...and fire fits it as well...
It's not so hard, is it??
No its not but I was wanting clarity from someone else...not you by
the way but since you've asked.
I'm still not clear what your own position is.
I'll get back to you
with a more exhaustive and accurate comment. In the meantime, can you
asnwer the question I have about Noah?
Did Noah discover the antipodes in order to save all the flora and
fauna unique to the antipodes?
As far as I'm concerned, I do not know if Noah was a historical
character or not, and therefore I do not know if the question makes
sense. Furthermore, even if he did exist, I do not know why he
made a voyage, or where he went.
I'm speaking to Biblical literalists...
A question in return:
did God create the world?
Quite honestly I can't say either way...I'm not dodging...I'm really
not certain.
Oh ye of little faith ....
I have faith...its that its tinged with logical and empirical
considerations as well...
PPCB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer: Scientists create a virus that reproduces |
12 Apr 2005 01:49:11 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:08:03 +0100, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Alan Smaill
<smaill@inf.ed.ac.uk> spake thusly:
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> writes:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:28:59 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:15:40 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
From:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
Scientists create a virus that reproduces
Reproduction does not mean life. You claim to have a
degree in science and work in science and yet, don't
know that?
Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life.
Crystals are pretty good at reproducing themselves.
Don't you know? He has a degree in science. So you
must be wrong. :)
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer: Scientists create a virus that reproduces |
12 Apr 2005 04:45:54 PM |
|
|
In article <pu5o515nj2sf3io86rnevth735ja1ku4q3@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:08:03 +0100, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Alan Smaill
<smaill@inf.ed.ac.uk> spake thusly:
Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz> writes:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:28:59 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:15:40 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
From:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
Scientists create a virus that reproduces
Reproduction does not mean life. You claim to have a
degree in science and work in science and yet, don't
know that?
Certainly the ability to reproduce is one of the key factors
indicating the presence of life.
Crystals are pretty good at reproducing themselves.
Don't you know? He has a degree in science. So you
must be wrong. :)
As I understand it, in the right circumstances, crystals grow, but do
not really 'reproduce'.
But Idiot Dave has never made clear just what his definition of LIFE is,
if reproducing is not enough.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Post Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer: Scientists create a virus that reproduces |
08 Aug 2005 06:41:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:15:40 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
From:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
Scientists create a virus that reproduces
Reproduction does not mean life.
It is one of the necessary conditions for life...
You claim to have a degree in science
I do.
and work in science
I do.
and yet, don't know that?
I am well aware that
That's why it's called, "ARTIFICIAL".
Just because it is the product of "artifice" i.e. man made does not
make it "not life".
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
Have you gone and done it then? Committed suicide?
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
<insert>or my followers</insert>
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
Where to?
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
Have a nice day
PPCB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer: Scientists create a virus that reproduces |
11 Apr 2005 06:45:50 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:bful519l5o5sd1e3jvit0vdbps11ugdptp@4ax.com:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:15:40 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
From:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
Scientists create a virus that reproduces
Reproduction does not mean life. You claim to have a
degree in science and work in science and yet, don't
know that? That's why it's called, "ARTIFICIAL".
Well that's cleared up at least.
Abortions all round then - turns out reproduction of cells is not "life"
(something every sane person realises).
gater.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer: Scientists create a virus that reproduces |
12 Apr 2005 01:16:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:45:50 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, "navi-gater"
<gater@the-gate.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:bful519l5o5sd1e3jvit0vdbps11ugdptp@4ax.com:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:15:40 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
From:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
Scientists create a virus that reproduces
Reproduction does not mean life. You claim to have a
degree in science and work in science and yet, don't
know that? That's why it's called, "ARTIFICIAL".
Well that's cleared up at least.
Abortions all round then - turns out reproduction of cells is not "life"
(something every sane person realises).
You are an idiot.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer: Scientists create a virus that reproduces |
12 Apr 2005 04:41:22 PM |
|
|
In article <m14o51pmi45s0ek9n9jm54u1pos2ilf6at@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:45:50 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, "navi-gater"
<gater@the-gate.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:bful519l5o5sd1e3jvit0vdbps11ugdptp@4ax.com:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:15:40 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
From:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
Scientists create a virus that reproduces
Reproduction does not mean life. You claim to have a
degree in science and work in science and yet, don't
know that? That's why it's called, "ARTIFICIAL".
Well that's cleared up at least.
Abortions all round then - turns out reproduction of cells is not "life"
(something every sane person realises).
You are an idiot.
I have heard that it takes one to know one.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer: Scientists create a virus that reproduces |
12 Apr 2005 09:29:50 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:m14o51pmi45s0ek9n9jm54u1pos2ilf6at@4ax.com:
Well that's cleared up at least.
Abortions all round then - turns out reproduction of cells is not "life"
(something every sane person realises).
You are an idiot.
And yet still cleverer than you.
Have an abortion on me chief - it's just cells reproducing right?
gater.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: For Pastor Dave to peruse and answer: Scientists create a virusthat reproduces |
13 Apr 2005 12:41:24 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:45:50 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, "navi-gater"
<gater@the-gate.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:bful519l5o5sd1e3jvit0vdbps11ugdptp@4ax.com:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:15:40 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
From:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
Scientists create a virus that reproduces
Reproduction does not mean life. You claim to have a
degree in science and work in science and yet, don't
know that? That's why it's called, "ARTIFICIAL".
Well that's cleared up at least.
Abortions all round then - turns out reproduction of cells is not "life"
(something every sane person realises).
You are an idiot.
Didn't see it coming, did ya?
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jochen Lueg" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 11:25:20 AM |
|
|
In article <m9idnQOkKZG20sTfRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote:
What is your example?
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
How is that life from non life? My life rose from the lives of two
others. Pastor Dave is contending that life may not arise from an
inanimate object. The real question that evolutionists must answer is,
that of the origin of consciousness. That's where creationists point to
God and the immortal soul, and evolutionists go back to their drawing
boards...
Does a virus have consciousness? If so, who is the clever person that
found that out?
And where did god's consciousness come from?
Jochen
--
------------------------------------
Try:
http://www.binevenagh.com
for some local history, photographs and laughs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 07:08:50 PM |
|
|
Scríobh Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net>:
Féachadóir wrote:
This is incorrect. There is evidence life can arise.
What is your example?
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
How is that life from non life? My life rose from the lives of two
others.
There are two* possibilities. Either abiogenesis occurred
spontaneously, or some deity said 'let there be life'. Either way,
life arose from non-life. The existence of your good self, and every
other living thing on the planet, is evidence of that.
Pastor Dave is contending that life may not arise from an
inanimate object. The real question that evolutionists must answer is,
that of the origin of consciousness. That's where creationists point to
God and the immortal soul, and evolutionists go back to their drawing
boards...
What about consciousness is not naturally explainable? How are you
defining consciousness? For that matter, how are you defining life?
Which step in the path from non-life (lets say, hydrogen atoms) and
life do you consider beyond a natural explanation.
[*Of course, there are in one sense thousands of explanations. There's
what science says is its current best bet, there's the Genesis myth,
and there's every other myth ever set out by any other religion. For
simplicity sake though, we can restrict ourselves to the supernatural
explanation involving YHWH]
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turlough" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 10:01:49 PM |
|
|
Féachadóir wrote:
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
How is that life from non life? My life rose from the lives of two
others.
There are two* possibilities. Either abiogenesis occurred
spontaneously, or some deity said 'let there be life'. Either way,
life arose from non-life. The existence of your good self, and every
other living thing on the planet, is evidence of that.
Biogenesis did occur. That was life *from* life. Spontaneous, in this
illustration, would allude to an absence of design. As a RC, I would
have to reject that possibility.
What about consciousness is not naturally explainable? How are you
defining consciousness? For that matter, how are you defining life?
Which step in the path from non-life (lets say, hydrogen atoms) and
life do you consider beyond a natural explanation.
Self awareness is a reasonable enough synonym for consciousness.
Scientific explanation of neurons and electrical charges do not fully
map out the phenomenon, nor its origin. IMO, consciousness is beyond
natural explanation, and is fully in the realm of the supernatural. Life
cannot spring from an inanimate object.*
[*Of course, there are in one sense thousands of explanations. There's
what science says is its current best bet, there's the Genesis myth,
and there's every other myth ever set out by any other religion. For
simplicity sake though, we can restrict ourselves to the supernatural
explanation involving YHWH]
Science cannot find any macro evolutionary bridge. You may reject the
story of Genesis and Adam & Eve, but from past posts, you also reject
poly genesis. Yet, science claims that all people today descend from 6
or 7 sisters. That would appear to indicate a possibility of one male
and one female in the beginning. Does that mean that the human
evolutionary chain began from *one* random occurrence? That is certainly
a long shot.
* God created the world from *nothing.* Note that the RC Church does not
repudiate evolution, as long as it is seen as part of the design.
Turlough
.
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 04:28:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:01:49 -0400, Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net>
wrote:
Féachadóir wrote:
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
How is that life from non life? My life rose from the lives of two
others.
There are two* possibilities. Either abiogenesis occurred
spontaneously, or some deity said 'let there be life'. Either way,
life arose from non-life. The existence of your good self, and every
other living thing on the planet, is evidence of that.
Biogenesis did occur. That was life *from* life. Spontaneous, in this
illustration, would allude to an absence of design. As a RC, I would
have to reject that possibility.
No you wouldn't. I recall, for a start, about 15 years ago JPII
stating words to the effect that he accepted Darwin's Theory of
Evolution as being the best available explanation of the origins of
humanity as a species but that God created the human soul.
Thats a bit humanocentric for me but there you have it. You're not in
contravention of RC dogma...not these days anyway.
What about consciousness is not naturally explainable? How are you
defining consciousness? For that matter, how are you defining life?
Which step in the path from non-life (lets say, hydrogen atoms) and
life do you consider beyond a natural explanation.
Self awareness is a reasonable enough synonym for consciousness.
Scientific explanation of neurons and electrical charges do not fully
map out the phenomenon, nor its origin. IMO, consciousness is beyond
natural explanation, and is fully in the realm of the supernatural. Life
cannot spring from an inanimate object.*
[*Of course, there are in one sense thousands of explanations. There's
what science says is its current best bet, there's the Genesis myth,
and there's every other myth ever set out by any other religion. For
simplicity sake though, we can restrict ourselves to the supernatural
explanation involving YHWH]
Science cannot find any macro evolutionary bridge. You may reject the
story of Genesis and Adam & Eve, but from past posts, you also reject
poly genesis. Yet, science claims that all people today descend from 6
or 7 sisters. That would appear to indicate a possibility of one male
and one female in the beginning. Does that mean that the human
evolutionary chain began from *one* random occurrence? That is certainly
a long shot.
* God created the world from *nothing.* Note that the RC Church does not
repudiate evolution, as long as it is seen as part of the design.
Indeed.
PCB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 10:06:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:01:49 -0400, while wishing I
would go away, Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net> said:
Féachadóir wrote:
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
How is that life from non life? My life rose from the lives of two
others.
There are two* possibilities. Either abiogenesis occurred
spontaneously, or some deity said 'let there be life'. Either way,
life arose from non-life. The existence of your good self, and every
other living thing on the planet, is evidence of that.
Biogenesis did occur. That was life *from* life. Spontaneous, in this
illustration, would allude to an absence of design. As a RC, I would
have to reject that possibility.
Abiogenesis excludes everything except natural
occurrence and does exclude design.
[*Of course, there are in one sense thousands of explanations. There's
what science says is its current best bet, there's the Genesis myth,
and there's every other myth ever set out by any other religion. For
simplicity sake though, we can restrict ourselves to the supernatural
explanation involving YHWH]
Science cannot find any macro evolutionary bridge. You may reject the
story of Genesis and Adam & Eve, but from past posts, you also reject
poly genesis. Yet, science claims that all people today descend from 6
or 7 sisters. That would appear to indicate a possibility of one male
and one female in the beginning. Does that mean that the human
evolutionary chain began from *one* random occurrence? That is certainly
a long shot.
Actually, it traces back to one woman. This means that
they are forced to believe that every other line,
except for one woman, couldn't get pregnant or
something and died off. Ridiculous. :)
* God created the world from *nothing.* Note that the RC Church does not
repudiate evolution, as long as it is seen as part of the design.
God created man and woman as man and woman. We did not
evolve from apes. Of course, the evolutionist will
tell you that they don't claim that man came from ape,
but they do indeed. When you corner them and prove
that to them, they claim that type of ape doesn't exist
anymore. Gee, it's always just so easy for them and of
course, they always back up their claims. <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 12:15:26 AM |
|
|
In article <37qj5153gnscvfsg9h9708f849ap2hk4bg@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:01:49 -0400, while wishing I
would go away, Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net> said:
Féachadóir wrote:
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
How is that life from non life? My life rose from the lives of two
others.
There are two* possibilities. Either abiogenesis occurred
spontaneously, or some deity said 'let there be life'. Either way,
life arose from non-life. The existence of your good self, and every
other living thing on the planet, is evidence of that.
Biogenesis did occur. That was life *from* life. Spontaneous, in this
illustration, would allude to an absence of design. As a RC, I would
have to reject that possibility.
Abiogenesis excludes everything except natural
occurrence and does exclude design.
[*Of course, there are in one sense thousands of explanations. There's
what science says is its current best bet, there's the Genesis myth,
and there's every other myth ever set out by any other religion. For
simplicity sake though, we can restrict ourselves to the supernatural
explanation involving YHWH]
Science cannot find any macro evolutionary bridge. You may reject the
story of Genesis and Adam & Eve, but from past posts, you also reject
poly genesis. Yet, science claims that all people today descend from 6
or 7 sisters. That would appear to indicate a possibility of one male
and one female in the beginning. Does that mean that the human
evolutionary chain began from *one* random occurrence? That is certainly
a long shot.
Actually, it traces back to one woman. This means that
they are forced to believe that every other line,
except for one woman, couldn't get pregnant or
something and died off. Ridiculous. :)
Actually all it means is that there is one woman who is in everybodies
line. Doesn't the Bible say something like that?
* God created the world from *nothing.* Note that the RC Church does not
repudiate evolution, as long as it is seen as part of the design.
God created man and woman as man and woman. We did not
evolve from apes.
Are you putting restraints on how God "created" man and woman?
Of course, the evolutionist will
tell you that they don't claim that man came from ape,
Not from modern apes, but from creatures more apelike than modern man.
But that is only the tag end of the line of descent.
When you corner them and prove that to them, they claim that type of
ape doesn't exist anymore.
Dinosaurs do not exist any more either. Do Xtians deny that they ever
existed?
Gee, it's always just so easy for them and of
course, they always back up their claims. <chuckle>
And it's so easy for the cretinists, they never do. <Guffaw>
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 06:19:40 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-67F360.23152610042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
....
When you corner them and prove that to them, they claim that type of
ape doesn't exist anymore.
Dinosaurs do not exist any more either. Do Xtians deny that they ever
existed?
Interestingly, old-style creationism used to regard extinction as being as
unacceptable as evolution. Creationist paleontologists would surmise that
the creatures that they were digging up still existed in some unexplored
corner of the Earth.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turlough" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 05:34:23 PM |
|
|
westprog wrote:
Interestingly, old-style creationism used to regard extinction as being as
unacceptable as evolution. Creationist paleontologists would surmise that
the creatures that they were digging up still existed in some unexplored
corner of the Earth.
Ask Ger about Muckross...
Turlough
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Turlough" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 10:37:05 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
God created man and woman as man and woman. We did not
evolve from apes. Of course, the evolutionist will
tell you that they don't claim that man came from ape,
but they do indeed. When you corner them and prove
that to them, they claim that type of ape doesn't exist
anymore. Gee, it's always just so easy for them and of
course, they always back up their claims. <chuckle>
George Carlin had it right when he said if we all evolved from monkeys,
why are there still monkeys around? :>)
Turlough
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duck" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
16 Apr 2005 07:03:43 AM |
|
|
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
George Carlin had it right when he said if we all evolved from
monkeys, why are there still monkeys around? :>)
*Not all monkeys stay in the same place, they change their
environment. Some monkeys environments may have changed.
Duck
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
22 Apr 2005 06:28:02 PM |
|
|
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
George Carlin had it right when he said if we all evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys around? :>)
Duck wrote:
*Not all monkeys stay in the same place, they change their environment. Some
monkeys environments may have changed.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Do you think this is why so many people seem to relate to "Sex in the City"?
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
22 Apr 2005 06:46:41 PM |
|
|
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BE8F00C1.5E256%chenault@mindspring.com...
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
George Carlin had it right when he said if we all evolved from monkeys,
why
are there still monkeys around? :>)
Duck wrote:
*Not all monkeys stay in the same place, they change their environment.
Some
monkeys environments may have changed.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Do you think this is why so many people seem to relate to "Sex in the
City"?
WTF?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Bride of Satan
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 12:28:32 AM |
|
|
In article <HZSdnd-g8bx0bcTfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
God created man and woman as man and woman. We did not
evolve from apes. Of course, the evolutionist will
tell you that they don't claim that man came from ape,
but they do indeed. When you corner them and prove
that to them, they claim that type of ape doesn't exist
anymore. Gee, it's always just so easy for them and of
course, they always back up their claims. <chuckle>
George Carlin had it right when he said if we all evolved from monkeys,
why are there still monkeys around? :>)
Turlough
Christians backsliding?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 11:35:50 PM |
|
|
Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in
news:HZSdnd-g8bx0bcTfRVn-qw@comcast.com:
Pastor Dave wrote:
God created man and woman as man and woman. We did not
evolve from apes. Of course, the evolutionist will
tell you that they don't claim that man came from ape,
but they do indeed. When you corner them and prove
that to them, they claim that type of ape doesn't exist
anymore. Gee, it's always just so easy for them and of
course, they always back up their claims. <chuckle>
George Carlin had it right when he said if we all evolved from
monkeys, why are there still monkeys around? :>)
Why are your cousins still around since you were born?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 06:21:15 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1113194150.3b251db46ab4dfc8fc44e3dcf873b5ae@teranews...
Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in
news:HZSdnd-g8bx0bcTfRVn-qw@comcast.com:
Pastor Dave wrote:
God created man and woman as man and woman. We did not
evolve from apes. Of course, the evolutionist will
tell you that they don't claim that man came from ape,
but they do indeed. When you corner them and prove
that to them, they claim that type of ape doesn't exist
anymore. Gee, it's always just so easy for them and of
course, they always back up their claims. <chuckle>
George Carlin had it right when he said if we all evolved from
monkeys, why are there still monkeys around? :>)
Why are your cousins still around since you were born?
There's a theory that modern apes descend from hominids of some kind - IOW,
Apes descended from man. Nothing to disprove it. All we really know is that
apes and man have a common ancestor.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
