Re: Evolutionist can't answer the most important question of all

[Woden]

wrote in news:IRU94K5E38533.9600578704
@reece.net.au:

>
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
> life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
> existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
> problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
> decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
> mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
> Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
> life.
>
> So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
> the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
> sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
> about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
> explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
> the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
> Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
> on the earth were far different”!
>
> Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
> between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
> Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a
> living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
> as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
> it is possible to conceive.” The idea that nonliving material could
> come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
> impossible. The Bible’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in
> that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
> facts.
>

Did you go to a special school to become so stupid and ignorant or does
it come naturally to you?


--
Woden

"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 30 Jun 2005 15:02:29 -0000, wrote:

>
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
>is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
>life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
>existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
>problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
>decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
>mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
>Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
>life.

Are you really this stupid, or just being dishonest?

1. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist".
2. Evolution has nothing to say on the origins of life.
3. Abiogenesis research has discovered more than you realise.
4. You are equivocating between the emergence of life where there was
none, and complex multi-cellular life appearing instantaneously.

[rest of this in-your-face stupidity and outright falsehood deleted]

[Thore \Tocis\ Schmechtig]

What's up jabberhole, received too few insults lately? Need to use yet
another alias to get what you deserve?

wrote:

> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is: What was the origin of life?

Of course, evolution only deals with how _existing_ lifeforms change over
time, but fundie boy can't tell _that_ to his zombies, can he? After all,
they might realize that he babbles roasted bull****...

> more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
> Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
> life.

Too bad that Pasteur actually disproved BIOgenesis, which is more a form of
cretinism than a scientific theory. ABIOgenesis is a remarkably plausible
theory, though (as far as I know) not as well-supported as evolution.
But again, fundie boy can't tell that to his cultists. After all, the
strawman he burnt above is the only "weapon" (HA!) he has against
abiogenesis...

> Between a
> living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
> as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
> it is possible to conceive.”

Fortunately, there's much more intermediate steps between current cells and
non-living matter than fundie boy thinks. But yet again, if he told that to
his cult zombies, they'd realize that he has nothing but lies...

> The idea that nonliving material could
> come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
> impossible.

Oh, and did I mention already that chemical reactions are NOT random?

> The Bible’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in
> that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
> facts.

Who cares? A nice-sounding lie is still a lie. And the original poster is,
of course, the standard moronical babblical cretinist. 'nuff said.

--
Regards

Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig

[JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort]

wrote:
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
> life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
> existence?

Don't know. And neither do you.

[DanielSan]

wrote:
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is: What was the origin of life?

Define "life."

> How did the first simple form of
> life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
> existence?

Depends. How do you define "life?"

> Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
> problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
> decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
> mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
> Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
> life.

Dependant upon the person's definition of "life."

>
> So how do evolutionists explain the source of life?

First, we must examine what "life" is. What is "life" to you, windsong?

> According to
> the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
> sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago.

And?

> What
> about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
> explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
> the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.

Louis Pasteur died in 1895. The "Big Bang" was theorized, by a Belgian
Jesuit preist name Georges Lemaltre in 1927, more than 30 years after
Pasteur's death. Since Pasteur and Lemaltre, we've expanded upon their
knowledge to include things like gene sequences, amino acid creation,
and string theory.

To use Pasteur as a source of "Intelligent Design" is as disingenous as
saying that Galileo proved that the Earth was located near the center of
the Universe.

> Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
> on the earth were far different”!
>
> Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
> between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing.

What do you define as "the simplest living thing?"

> Michael
> Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a
> living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
> as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
> it is possible to conceive.”

....such as? By the way, Michael Denton isn't the best source to use for
your assault against evolution.

See:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/denton.html
http://www.2think.org/eatic.shtml

Followed later by his next book "Nature's Destiny," (written 12 years
after "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis") Denton accepts evolution as fact.

Saith Denton, 12 years after "Evolution..."

"t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument
presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic
assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which
can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in
which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man,
are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an
assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special
creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms
are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws
of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in
essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts,
involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist
position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on
the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that
is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all
living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of
the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or
galaxies."
[i]
> The idea that nonliving material could
> come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
> impossible.

To you, maybe...

> The Bible’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in
> that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
> facts.

Argument from ignorance. What "facts" do you speak of? Cites?

[El Bleacho]

wrote:
> So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
> the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
> sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
> about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
> explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
> the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
> Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
> on the earth were far different"!

Well, the Miller Experiement was worthless. When it can be proven that
aboigenesis can be reproduced in a laboratory experiment, or that Big Bang
could have had a beginning without a Beginner; I am done with Intelligent
Design. Untill then, the athiest approach of "it was all a random
fluke" just does not seem scientific enough.


> Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
> between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
> Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a
> living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
> as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
> it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could
> come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
> impossible. The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in
> that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
> facts.

Interesting that no new life forms have been created since the appearance of
Man. And why aren't new life forms appearing all the time out of
inorganic material today? We have plenty of inorganic material left on this
planet. Maybe some athiests should stare at the concrete foundation of my
house for a few months with camera in hand, waiting for life to evolve from
that too.


--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[kathryn]

> Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
> between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
> Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a
> living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
> as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
> it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could
> come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
> impossible. The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in
> that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
> facts.
>

So where did god come from?

[kathryn]

Re: Evolutionist can't answer the most important question of all

Why are some people so goddamned stupid?

[DanielSan]

El Bleacho wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
>>the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
>>sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
>>about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
>>explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
>>the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
>>Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
>>on the earth were far different"!
>
>
> Well, the Miller Experiement was worthless. When it can be proven that
> aboigenesis can be reproduced in a laboratory experiment, or that Big Bang
> could have had a beginning without a Beginner; I am done with Intelligent
> Design. Untill then, the athiest approach of "it was all a random
> fluke" just does not seem scientific enough.

Atheists do not say "it was all a random fluke."

>
>
>
>>Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
>>between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
>>Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a
>>living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
>>as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
>>it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could
>>come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
>>impossible. The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in
>>that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
>>facts.
>
>
> Interesting that no new life forms have been created since the appearance of
> Man.

Are you sure?

> And why aren't new life forms appearing all the time out of
> inorganic material today?

They may very well are. We just don't know how to test for it yet.

> We have plenty of inorganic material left on this
> planet. Maybe some athiests should stare at the concrete foundation of my
> house for a few months with camera in hand, waiting for life to evolve from
> that too.

Define "life" please.

[James]

wrote:
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is: What was the origin of life?
<snip, read it many times>

Not that I imagine you're interested in learning about anything on this
fine Thursday afternoon, but your questions can be answered quite
readily. May I recommend the following resources:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

There are several articles on abiogenesis here. This won't interest you
though, I'd imagine, because it would require you to admit the
distinction between evolution and abiogenesis that creationist
propaganda ignores. As you have no doubt been told many times,
evolution is the science that studies the effects of natural selection
and other stressors on the advancement of life. It is in no way
concerned with where life came from.

An especially useful resource can be found at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

The most painful thing to accept is that no matter how good you think
your question is, it's been asked a bazillion fricking times.

--
James B
aa #944

"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

[JohnN]

wrote:
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is:

Do you always have imaginary conversations on Usenet?

JohnN

[Elf M. Sternberg]

"El Bleacho" > writes:

> Interesting that no new life forms have been created since the
> appearance of Man. And why aren't new life forms appearing all the
> time out of inorganic material today? We have plenty of inorganic
> material left on this planet.

The fundamental reason that abiogenesis only happens once is
pretty simple: there exist plenty of life-forms on this planet that
regard the building blocks of life as a meal, ready-to-eat.

Elf

[[email protected]]

kathryn wrote:
> > Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
> > between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
> > Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a
> > living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
> > as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
> > it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could
> > come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
> > impossible. The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in
> > that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
> > facts.
> >
>
> So where did god come from?

>From the same place that Energy and Matter does :-)

[Niels van der Linden]

> The most painful thing to accept is that no matter how good you think your
> question is, it's been asked a bazillion fricking times.

And more poetically put by Moloko:

'It was decided before you I why'

!!

[raven1]

On 30 Jun 2005 15:02:29 -0000, wrote:

>Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
>is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
>life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
>existence?

As it doesn't claim to, it's difficult to see your point.


---

"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III

[Hellbound Alleee]

"Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is:
What was the origin of life? "

Neo-Darwinism is not about the origin of life. What you're looking for
is the field of abiogenesis. But of course, being a Creationist idiot
(what a redundancy), you won't look this up at all.


Hellbound Alleee
.................................................. ...............
Listen to the Hellbound Alleee Show at http://www.hellboundalleee.com
.................................................. ...............

[David Canzi -- non-mailable]

In article >,
> wrote:
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
>is: What was the origin of life?

The planets moved before anybody could explain how or why they moved.
Unanswered questions are merely unanswered questions, not evidence
for some Twilight Zone hypothesis of yours.

--
David Canzi "Upon blind faith they place reliance.
What we need more of is science!" -- MC Hawking

[Clayton Doesn't Believe In Sex Before Rigor-Mortis]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is: What was the origin of life?

A magical super-duper being zapped it into existence, then hid all evidence
of his existence so that 10 billion years later, ape descendants would
worship him BECAUSE there is no evidence! Just one questions.....what's
the origin of your god thingy? Who created him? How did he come into
existence? If you are claiming evolution can't exist because we don't know
the origin of life (which by the way has nothing what so ever to do with
evolution...but you're too ignorant to grasp that) I guess if you can't
explain the origin of your Gawd then it mustn't exist either!

[Clayton Doesn't Believe In Sex Before Rigor-Mortis]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On 30 Jun 2005 15:02:29 -0000, wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> > >is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
> > >life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
> > >existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
> > >problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
> > >decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
> > >mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
> > >Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
> > >life.
> >
> > Are you really this stupid, or just being dishonest?
> >
> > 1. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist".
>
> There is no mafia neither ;-)
>
>
> > 2. Evolution has nothing to say on the origins of life.
>
> Without an Origin of life, evolution can not be discussed.
>
> > 3. Abiogenesis research has discovered more than you realise.
>
>
> And it still can't be done in a test tube.
>

What....is there a fourth grade outing on the Usenet today? You don't seem
to have the most fundamental understanding of either science or logic....so
you're pretty much making a fool of yourself!

[[email protected]]

Cry us a river...

Cracklin' wrote:
> "Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What's up jabberhole, received too few insults lately? Need to use yet
> > another alias to get what you deserve?
> >
> > wrote:
> =========================================
> He's illegally using the legitimate e-mail addresses of other people. The
> Jehovah's Witnesses call this "theocratic warfare strategy."
> --
> CR.....
> How did we get here?
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> =================================
> "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as
> erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
> [Cardinal Bellarmine 1615, during the trial of Galileo]
> ================================

[Peacenik]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
> life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
> existence?

Evolutionists don't have to answer that question, because it's not a
question about evolution.

However, abiogenesis does intrigue biologists, who have come up with various
hypotheses. We know the early Earth was rich with organic chemicals. We know
these chemicals react in a myriad complex ways. All that's needed for life
to form is for self-replicating molecules to arise. Prions and DNA are
examples of such molecules.

However, the exact process remains unkown, so the most honest answer a
scientist can give is "We don't know...yet". This does not imply "Goddidit".

> Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
> problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
> decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
> mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
> Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
> life.

This idea applies to modern organisms, and not to the primitive pre-life
organic processes that existed on Earth.

> So how do evolutionists explain the source of life?

They don't have to - it's outside of their field.

> According to
> the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
> sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
> about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
> explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
> the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
> Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
> on the earth were far different”!

Indeed.

> Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
> between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing.

And that gap is closing. Your god of the gaps is running out of places to
hide.

> Michael
> Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAAAHAHAHAH!

> says: “Between a
> living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
> as a crystal or a snowflake,

What about organic chemicals? Amino acids? Nucleic acids? Proteins? Prions?
Viruses? They exist in the "gap" between crystals and the simplest cells.

> there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
> it is possible to conceive.”

Michael Denton is a creationist. He needs a gap to hide his god in.

> The idea that nonliving material could
> come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
> impossible.

Argument from ignorance.

> The Bible

is a crock of ****...

> ’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in
> that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
> facts.

Is god living? If not, then Pasteur's theory (which YOU hold to be absolute
and applicable to all life) does not hold. If god is living, where did he
come from? Because as you say, "life must come from life".

[Douglas Berry]

On 30 Jun 2005 15:02:29 -0000, drained his
beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed
the following

> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
>is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
>life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
>existence?

I direct your attention to an experiment conducted over fifty years
ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

This showed that under the right conditions, the building blocks of
life form almost over night. This was in a very small chamber.
Imagine what you'd get on an entire planet.

Then we have recent research involving black smokers.

http://science.uniserve.edu.au/school/quests/hydroventwq.html

From what we can tell, biogenisis is going on constantly at deep sea
thermal vents.

You need to catch up on your reading.
--

Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

[bob young]

wrote:

> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
> life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
> existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
> problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
> decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
> mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
> Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
> life.
>
> So how do evolutionists explain the source of life?

.......as you say, years ago we understood very little or we got it
wrong.

Given time man may well discover the origin of life, until then we must
use all the indicators we have to show a general direction; and all of
these indicators point in the same direction, they point to evolution.

Only recently a British/Japanese team working in the Pacific Ocean send
a vehicle 1.5 miles to the bottom of the sea. Here next to the hot
spouts [there are many apparently] an entire different life form was
found living off the oxyen and hot bubbly water exiting from below the
ocean bottom. This amply illustrates how life evolves and certaily puts
to rest the silly notion that a god created everything. Including
mosquitos that kill millions of babies evry year.

> According to
> the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
> sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
> about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
> explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
> the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
> Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
> on the earth were far different”!
>
> Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
> between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
> Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a
> living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
> as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
> it is possible to conceive.”

aaaah yes these gaps may not be conceivable to the human mind, but time
means nothing in the universe. how many stars are there estimated now?
i think it runs now into billions.

> The idea that nonliving material could
> come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
> impossible.

See above. nothing is impossible, given time and our concept of time is
limited

> The Bible’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in
> that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
> facts.

ROFL 'FACTS'! ROFL: again

[Chris Devol]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
> life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
> existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
> problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
> decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
> mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
> Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
> life.

Darwinism thinks that "life" means a collection of chemicals. It neither
inquires into nor desires to have any knowledge of the soul, which is
actually alive.

Modern so-called "science" in general is afflicted with the same ignorance.
Therefore, with half their brains tied behind their backs, modern so-called
"scientists" are busy inventing more and more gadgets for us to to play with
and divert our attention while we plunge headlong toward the repeated birth,
death, disease, and old age that "science" is utterly helpless to
counteract.

In a few hundred more years, there'll be nothing to eat but silicon chips,
aluminum scraps, used oil, and scientists, with a sprinkling of lawyers and
politicians on the side.

[Robibnikoff]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> bob young wrote:
>> wrote:
>
>> > So how do evolutionists explain the source of life?
>>
>> ......as you say, years ago we understood very little or we got it
>> wrong.
>
> The first Damm honest reply I have seen ever. You should recieve and
> award for your remark.
>
> What shall we call it:
>
> Honest Evolutionist Award or Honest Atheist Award?

I don't think "we'll" call it anything. Are you an atheist?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist

[Masked Avenger]

Clayton Doesn't Believe In Sex Before Rigor-Mortis wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>
>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>>On 30 Jun 2005 15:02:29 -0000, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
>>>>is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
>>>>life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
>>>>existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
>>>>problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
>>>>decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
>>>>mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
>>>>Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
>>>>life.
>>>
>>>Are you really this stupid, or just being dishonest?
>>>
>>>1. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist".
>>
>>There is no mafia neither ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>>2. Evolution has nothing to say on the origins of life.
>>
>>Without an Origin of life, evolution can not be discussed.
>>
>>
>>>3. Abiogenesis research has discovered more than you realise.
>>
>>
>>And it still can't be done in a test tube.
>>
>
>
> What....is there a fourth grade outing on the Usenet today? You don't seem
> to have the most fundamental understanding of either science or logic....so
> you're pretty much making a fool of yourself!
>

School Holidays start here this weekend ...Friday ( today ) all the
teachers in NSW were on strike ...... kind of explains a lot .....

--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels

Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?

[El Bleacho]

kathryn wrote:
> So where did god come from?

Get back to everyone when you get an understanding of space-time. You seem
to not comprehend that. You are caught up in the simplistic idea that a
Creator (or anything else for that matter) that is outside of space-time
still has a beginning and therefore conforms to "cause and effect".

--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[El Bleacho]

DanielSan wrote:
> Atheists do not say "it was all a random fluke."

Interesting. Do you contend that athiests do not believe in random
materialism?


>> Interesting that no new life forms have been created since the
>> appearance of Man.
>
> Are you sure?

Show me some.

>> And why aren't new life forms appearing all the time out of
>> inorganic material today?
>
> They may very well are. We just don't know how to test for it yet.

We know how to identity something being a living organism. Or do you
contend that humans cannot do that?

> Define "life" please.

You don't even know what a living organism is?!?!?!?

--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[El Bleacho]

Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> "El Bleacho" > writes:
>
>> Interesting that no new life forms have been created since the
>> appearance of Man. And why aren't new life forms appearing all the
>> time out of inorganic material today? We have plenty of inorganic
>> material left on this planet.
>
> The fundamental reason that abiogenesis only happens once is
> pretty simple: there exist plenty of life-forms on this planet that
> regard the building blocks of life as a meal, ready-to-eat.

Actually, I have read many scientific journals that suggest that life
started dozens of times, only to be killed off by different occurrances.


--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[UTBill]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:35:07 GMT, wrote:

>kathryn wrote:
>> So where did god come from?
>
>Get back to everyone when you get an understanding of space-time. You seem
>to not comprehend that. You are caught up in the simplistic idea that a
>Creator (or anything else for that matter) that is outside of space-time
>still has a beginning and therefore conforms to "cause and effect".


Still drinking animal boy?



< This space for rent >

[kathryn]

"El Bleacho" > wrote in message
m...
> kathryn wrote:
>> So where did god come from?
>
> Get back to everyone when you get an understanding of space-time. You
> seem to not comprehend that. You are caught up in the simplistic idea
> that a Creator (or anything else for that matter) that is outside of
> space-time still has a beginning and therefore conforms to "cause and
> effect".
>
> --
> _____________________


So it's "he just does!" then?

[El Bleacho]

Chris Devol wrote:
> Darwinism thinks that "life" means a collection of chemicals. It
> neither inquires into nor desires to have any knowledge of the soul,
> which is actually alive.

That is called "dualism" and is actually a different and even more complex
topic!


> In a few hundred more years, there'll be nothing to eat but silicon
> chips, aluminum scraps, used oil, and scientists, with a sprinkling
> of lawyers and politicians on the side.

What about eating pussy? Is that going away?


--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[El Bleacho]

kathryn wrote:
> So it's "he just does!" then?

Do you have a way to observe anything outside of the Universe / space-time;
and do you have a way to observe anything prior to the Big Bang Creation
Event? In order to prove or disprove Creation; you will have to observe
things prior to Big Bang and outside of this Universe.

--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[Dave Oldridge]

wrote in news:IRU94K5E38533.9600578704
@reece.net.au:

>
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of

The godless gravitationalists have failed to answer the question "What is
the origin of gravity?"

> life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
> existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
> problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
> decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
> mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
> Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
> life.

No he didn't. He demonstrated that maggots come from eggs laid by flies
in rotting meat and are not created de novo in the meat. You are
indulging in a popular misrepresentation of his findings (popular amongst
creationist heretics, that is).

> So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to

They don't. They explain that biochemists are studying the matter and
that there are a whole lot of different hypotheses under study.

> the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
> sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What

Billions of years ago, actually (about 3.5 billion of them to be more
precise).

> about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia

What about it?

> explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
> the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.

No he didn't. He proved that it was not arising spontaneously in rotting
meat.

> Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
> on the earth were far different”!

True. For one thing, there weren't any living organisms around looking
for food.

>
> Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
> between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael

Is there now? Where is this gap located? Is it somewhere between the
simplest self-reproducing molecules and prions? Is it somewhere between
prions and bacteriophages and viruses? Is it somewhere between viruses
and prokaryotes? Please tell us where to find the gap.

> Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a
> living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
> as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
> it is possible to conceive.” The idea that nonliving material could

As you can see above, there are a lot of things between a crystal or
snowflake and a cell. Where in that lot of things is the line between
life and non-life and where is the gap that divides it from what's on the
other side?

> come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
> impossible. The Bible’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in
> that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
> facts.

No actual finite chance is so remote as to be impossible. Moreover, once
evolution actually starts, it changes the probabilities vastly (as anyone
who has played draw poker well knows). It has been shown experimentally
that self-replicating molecules of no more than 200 atoms can evolve by
mutation and natural selection.

Not that any of this means that there is no God. It just means that He
what He creates is what WE call "nature."

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.

[Chris Devol]

"El Bleacho" > wrote in message
m...
> Chris Devol wrote:
>> Darwinism thinks that "life" means a collection of chemicals. It
>> neither inquires into nor desires to have any knowledge of the soul,
>> which is actually alive.
>
> That is called "dualism" and is actually a different and even more complex
> topic!

There are varieties of dualism.

>> In a few hundred more years, there'll be nothing to eat but silicon
>> chips, aluminum scraps, used oil, and scientists, with a sprinkling
>> of lawyers and politicians on the side.
>
> What about eating pussy? Is that going away?

I believe the old adage "you are what you eat" comes into play here, ha ha.

As Kali-yuga progresses, men will become more effeminate and cowardly. Women
will become more brutish and brazen. The lifespan will decrease, and
physical stature will shrink. People's occupations will be murder, stealing
and lying.

If we were to encounter an average human being who lived 100000 years ago,
we would think we were in the presence of an alien or a god. If we were to
encounter an average human who lives 100000 years from now, we would think
we had discovered a surviving australopithecus, or some kind of small
primitive apelike creature.

Better to make preparations for getting out of this world, permanently.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
> life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
> existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
> problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
> decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
> mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
> Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
> life.
>
> So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
> the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
> sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
> about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
> explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
> the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
> Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
> on the earth were far different"!
>
> Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
> between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
> Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a
> living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
> as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
> it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could
> come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
> impossible. The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in
> that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
> facts.

[El Bleacho]

Chris Devol wrote:
> As Kali-yuga progresses, men will become more effeminate and
> cowardly. Women will become more brutish and brazen. The lifespan
> will decrease, and physical stature will shrink. People's occupations
> will be murder, stealing and lying.
>
> If we were to encounter an average human being who lived 100000 years
> ago, we would think we were in the presence of an alien or a god. If
> we were to encounter an average human who lives 100000 years from
> now, we would think we had discovered a surviving australopithecus,
> or some kind of small primitive apelike creature.
>
> Better to make preparations for getting out of this world,
> permanently.

Packing now, Chris! :-)


--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[VoiceOfReason]

wrote:
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is: What was the origin of life?

That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Common mistake.

> How did the first simple form of
> life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
> existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
> problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
> decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
> mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
> Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
> life.

No, he showed that maggots do not grow spontaneously from rotting meat.

> So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
> the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
> sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
> about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
> explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
> the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
> Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
> on the earth were far different"!

Hopefully you have a more recent source of information than Pasteur?
He died in 1895. Much has happened since then.

> Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
> between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
> Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a
> living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
> as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
> it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could
> come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
> impossible.

Once again, someone mathmatically challenged seems to think that
statistics somehow hurts the concept of abiogenesis.

> The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in
> that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
> facts.

The Bible is not a science book. Most Christians understand that, just
as most understand there is no conflict between Christianity and
evolution.

[Chris Devol]

"El Bleacho" > wrote in message
. com...
> Chris Devol wrote:
>> As Kali-yuga progresses, men will become more effeminate and
>> cowardly. Women will become more brutish and brazen. The lifespan
>> will decrease, and physical stature will shrink. People's occupations
>> will be murder, stealing and lying.
>>
>> If we were to encounter an average human being who lived 100000 years
>> ago, we would think we were in the presence of an alien or a god. If
>> we were to encounter an average human who lives 100000 years from
>> now, we would think we had discovered a surviving australopithecus,
>> or some kind of small primitive apelike creature.
>>
>> Better to make preparations for getting out of this world,
>> permanently.
>
> Packing now, Chris! :-)

Do you really think you should try to take your baggage with you?

[Ben Kaufman]

On 30 Jun 2005 15:02:29 -0000, wrote:

>
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
>is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
>life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into
<SNIP>

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2

[ReelMcKoi]

El Bleacho wrote:.
>
> Actually, I have read many scientific journals that suggest that life
> started dozens of times, only to be killed off by different occurrances.
>
>

I read many comics books that said the same thing.

[dave bowman]

wrote:

"... The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some
haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible..."

The Denton book that you refer to is years out of date (1986). There
has been substantial progress in understanding the theoretical origin
of cells since then:

What Came Before DNA?
DISCOVER , JUNE 2004
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_Before_DNA.html

[El Bleacho]

Chris Devol wrote:
> "El Bleacho" > wrote in message
>> Chris Devol wrote:
>>> As Kali-yuga progresses, men will become more effeminate and
>>> cowardly. Women will become more brutish and brazen. The lifespan
>>> will decrease, and physical stature will shrink. People's
>>> occupations will be murder, stealing and lying.
>>>
>>> If we were to encounter an average human being who lived 100000
>>> years ago, we would think we were in the presence of an alien or a
>>> god. If we were to encounter an average human who lives 100000
>>> years from now, we would think we had discovered a surviving
>>> australopithecus, or some kind of small primitive apelike creature.
>>>
>>> Better to make preparations for getting out of this world,
>>> permanently.
>>
>> Packing now, Chris! :-)
>
> Do you really think you should try to take your baggage with you?

Ford Prefect took a towel. I want to take my notebook and some porn DVD's.
Well, and some NY pizza.


--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[El Bleacho]

Ben Kaufman wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2005 15:02:29 -0000, wrote:
>
>>
>> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
>> is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
>> life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
>> <SNIP>
>
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2


Having been a subscriber to Scientific American for many years; I can tell
you that John Rennie has some sort of axe to grind. That is not to say his
views are immediately untruth's because of his agenda. So let's look at his
assertion. Rennie says that paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular
biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond
reasonable doubt. I totally agree - there has been evolution processes at
work for 3.5 billion years on this planet. That does not explain
abiogenisis; or the random creation of a Universe. Additionally, I would
point to some of the greatest scientists of our generation in the fields of
genetics, zoology, molecular biology, and astrophysics that are theists,
agnostics, or supporters of the possibility of Intelligent Design.
Rennie is therefore refuted.

--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[Chris Devol]

"El Bleacho" > wrote in message
m...
> Chris Devol wrote:
>> "El Bleacho" > wrote in message
>>> Chris Devol wrote:
>>>> As Kali-yuga progresses, men will become more effeminate and
>>>> cowardly. Women will become more brutish and brazen. The lifespan
>>>> will decrease, and physical stature will shrink. People's
>>>> occupations will be murder, stealing and lying.
>>>>
>>>> If we were to encounter an average human being who lived 100000
>>>> years ago, we would think we were in the presence of an alien or a
>>>> god. If we were to encounter an average human who lives 100000
>>>> years from now, we would think we had discovered a surviving
>>>> australopithecus, or some kind of small primitive apelike creature.
>>>>
>>>> Better to make preparations for getting out of this world,
>>>> permanently.
>>>
>>> Packing now, Chris! :-)
>>
>> Do you really think you should try to take your baggage with you?
>
> Ford Prefect took a towel. I want to take my notebook and some porn
> DVD's. Well, and some NY pizza.

You'll have to stay here, then.

[El Bleacho]

Chris Devol wrote:
>>>> Packing now, Chris! :-)
>>>
>>> Do you really think you should try to take your baggage with you?
>>
>> Ford Prefect took a towel. I want to take my notebook and some porn
>> DVD's. Well, and some NY pizza.
>
> You'll have to stay here, then.

You don't know that. I can hide the porn DVD's in Disney cases.


--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[Chris Devol]

"El Bleacho" > wrote in message
m...
> Chris Devol wrote:
>>>>> Packing now, Chris! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think you should try to take your baggage with you?
>>>
>>> Ford Prefect took a towel. I want to take my notebook and some porn
>>> DVD's. Well, and some NY pizza.
>>
>> You'll have to stay here, then.
>
> You don't know that. I can hide the porn DVD's in Disney cases.

All the baggage stays here. Sorry, it's company policy.

[El Bleacho]

Chris Devol wrote:
> "El Bleacho" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Chris Devol wrote:
>>>>>> Packing now, Chris! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you really think you should try to take your baggage with you?
>>>>
>>>> Ford Prefect took a towel. I want to take my notebook and some
>>>> porn DVD's. Well, and some NY pizza.
>>>
>>> You'll have to stay here, then.
>>
>> You don't know that. I can hide the porn DVD's in Disney cases.
>
> All the baggage stays here. Sorry, it's company policy.

But I own stock!!!!

--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[Chris Devol]

"El Bleacho" > wrote in message
m...
> Chris Devol wrote:
>> "El Bleacho" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Chris Devol wrote:
>>>>>>> Packing now, Chris! :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you really think you should try to take your baggage with you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ford Prefect took a towel. I want to take my notebook and some
>>>>> porn DVD's. Well, and some NY pizza.
>>>>
>>>> You'll have to stay here, then.
>>>
>>> You don't know that. I can hide the porn DVD's in Disney cases.
>>
>> All the baggage stays here. Sorry, it's company policy.
>
> But I own stock!!!!

Whoever sold it to you was a fraud, it's a sole proprietorship.

[El Bleacho]

Chris Devol wrote:
> "El Bleacho" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Chris Devol wrote:
>>> "El Bleacho" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>> Chris Devol wrote:
>>>>>>>> Packing now, Chris! :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you really think you should try to take your baggage with
>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ford Prefect took a towel. I want to take my notebook and some
>>>>>> porn DVD's. Well, and some NY pizza.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll have to stay here, then.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know that. I can hide the porn DVD's in Disney cases.
>>>
>>> All the baggage stays here. Sorry, it's company policy.
>>
>> But I own stock!!!!
>
> Whoever sold it to you was a fraud, it's a sole proprietorship.

Can I write this off as an unpaid debt?


--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[Chris Devol]

"El Bleacho" > wrote in message
. com...
> Chris Devol wrote:
>> "El Bleacho" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Chris Devol wrote:
>>>> "El Bleacho" > wrote in message
>>>> m...
>>>>> Chris Devol wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Packing now, Chris! :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you really think you should try to take your baggage with
>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ford Prefect took a towel. I want to take my notebook and some
>>>>>>> porn DVD's. Well, and some NY pizza.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll have to stay here, then.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know that. I can hide the porn DVD's in Disney cases.
>>>>
>>>> All the baggage stays here. Sorry, it's company policy.
>>>
>>> But I own stock!!!!
>>
>> Whoever sold it to you was a fraud, it's a sole proprietorship.
>
> Can I write this off as an unpaid debt?

Good idea. The golden rule is always the best course. We're all in a heap o'
trouble anyway.

[bob young]

Chris Devol wrote:

> "El Bleacho" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Chris Devol wrote:
> >> "El Bleacho" > wrote in message
> >>> Chris Devol wrote:
> >>>> As Kali-yuga progresses, men will become more effeminate and
> >>>> cowardly. Women will become more brutish and brazen. The lifespan
> >>>> will decrease, and physical stature will shrink. People's
> >>>> occupations will be murder, stealing and lying.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we were to encounter an average human being who lived 100000
> >>>> years ago, we would think we were in the presence of an alien or a
> >>>> god. If we were to encounter an average human who lives 100000
> >>>> years from now, we would think we had discovered a surviving
> >>>> australopithecus, or some kind of small primitive apelike creature.
> >>>>
> >>>> Better to make preparations for getting out of this world,
> >>>> permanently.
> >>>
> >>> Packing now, Chris! :-)
> >>
> >> Do you really think you should try to take your baggage with you?
> >
> > Ford Prefect took a towel. I want to take my notebook and some porn
> > DVD's. Well, and some NY pizza.
>
> You'll have to stay here, then.

'Ford Prefect' That's boin back a bit innit?

[El Bleacho]

bob young wrote:
>>>>> Packing now, Chris! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think you should try to take your baggage with you?
>>>
>>> Ford Prefect took a towel. I want to take my notebook and some porn
>>> DVD's. Well, and some NY pizza.
>>
>> You'll have to stay here, then.
>
> 'Ford Prefect' That's goin back a bit innit?

A few generations. Roughly as long as athiests say it takes to make life
forms out of tarry soup.


--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[bob young]

El Bleacho wrote:

> bob young wrote:
> >>>>> Packing now, Chris! :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you really think you should try to take your baggage with you?
> >>>
> >>> Ford Prefect took a towel. I want to take my notebook and some porn
> >>> DVD's. Well, and some NY pizza.
> >>
> >> You'll have to stay here, then.
> >
> > 'Ford Prefect' That's goin back a bit innit?
>
> A few generations. Roughly as long as athiests say it takes to make life
> forms out of tarry soup.

Long before we humans have time to work out how it all began the
evolutionary
process will make us extinct. then there will be nothing living with enough

brains to question anything.

Just imagine, a universe quietly going about it's business with nothing to
challenge it.

One thing is for sure, there will be no more gods after we have all gone.

What did someone say? 'If we take the life of this planet then man arrived
on it at one second to midnight'. And we will probably disappear three
minutes past midnight. Mind you, in this sort time we will have made such a
mess it will need another 'evolutionary five minutes' before man's presence
completely disappears.

Of course in a couple of million years the Chimps might learn to talk to one
another......Oh horror of horrors, more Intelligent life with imagined gods
!

"I believe in the Almighty Lord Chimp,
Ruler of Heaven and Earth
Forgiver of Chimp sins......

...... OH NO!

Cheers

Bob
Humanist Brit.
Hong kong



>
>
> --
> _____________________
> I am hung like Einstein;
> and as smart as a horse!

[El Bleacho]

bob young wrote:
> "I believe in the Almighty Lord Chimp,
> Ruler of Heaven and Earth
> Forgiver of Chimp sins......

Bob. You are worrying me.

--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!

[Niels van der Linden]

> Long before we humans have time to work out how it all began the
> evolutionary
> process will make us extinct. then there will be nothing living with
> enough
>
> brains to question anything.
>
> Just imagine, a universe quietly going about it's business with nothing to
> challenge it.
>
> One thing is for sure, there will be no more gods after we have all gone.
>
> What did someone say? 'If we take the life of this planet then man arrived
> on it at one second to midnight'. And we will probably disappear three
> minutes past midnight. Mind you, in this sort time we will have made such
> a
> mess it will need another 'evolutionary five minutes' before man's
> presence
> completely disappears.
>
> Of course in a couple of million years the Chimps might learn to talk to
> one
> another......Oh horror of horrors, more Intelligent life with imagined
> gods
> !
>
> "I believe in the Almighty Lord Chimp,
> Ruler of Heaven and Earth
> Forgiver of Chimp sins......
>
> ..... OH NO!

Dead on.

It was Attenborough by the way.

[bob young]

El Bleacho wrote:

> bob young wrote:
> > "I believe in the Almighty Lord Chimp,
> > Ruler of Heaven and Earth
> > Forgiver of Chimp sins......
>
> Bob. You are worrying me.....

....I know, I get these terrible headaches !!!

>
>
> --
> _____________________
> I am hung like Einstein;
> and as smart as a horse!

[bob young]

Niels van der Linden wrote:

> > Long before we humans have time to work out how it all began the
> > evolutionary
> > process will make us extinct. then there will be nothing living with
> > enough
> >
> > brains to question anything.
> >
> > Just imagine, a universe quietly going about it's business with nothing to
> > challenge it.
> >
> > One thing is for sure, there will be no more gods after we have all gone.
> >
> > What did someone say? 'If we take the life of this planet then man arrived
> > on it at one second to midnight'. And we will probably disappear three
> > minutes past midnight. Mind you, in this sort time we will have made such
> > a
> > mess it will need another 'evolutionary five minutes' before man's
> > presence
> > completely disappears.
> >
> > Of course in a couple of million years the Chimps might learn to talk to
> > one
> > another......Oh horror of horrors, more Intelligent life with imagined
> > gods
> > !
> >
> > "I believe in the Almighty Lord Chimp,
> > Ruler of Heaven and Earth
> > Forgiver of Chimp sins......
> >
> > ..... OH NO!
>
> Dead on.
>
> It was Attenborough by the way.

Thanks. You know I can almost remember that program!

[goozlefotz]

The worst mistake creationists make is to equate complaints about the
theory of evolution with support for creationism. It seems that their
view is to discredit any scientific hypotheses and TADA! what is left
is creation. A crummy way at best to support a theory!

wrote:
> Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
> life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
> existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
> problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
> decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
> mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
> Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
> life.
>
> So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
> the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
> sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
> about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
> explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
> the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
> Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
> on the earth were far different"!
>
> Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
> between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
> Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a
> living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
> as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
> it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could
> come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
> impossible. The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in
> that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
> facts.

[[email protected]]

Yes it can.

Penguins.

[Masked Avenger]

42

--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels

Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?

[John Baker]

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:28:35 +1000, "Clayton Doesn't Believe In Sex Before
Rigor-Mortis" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>>
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> > On 30 Jun 2005 15:02:29 -0000, wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
>> > >is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
>> > >life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
>> > >existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
>> > >problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
>> > >decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
>> > >mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
>> > >Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
>> > >life.
>> >
>> > Are you really this stupid, or just being dishonest?
>> >
>> > 1. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist".
>>
>> There is no mafia neither ;-)
>>
>>
>> > 2. Evolution has nothing to say on the origins of life.
>>
>> Without an Origin of life, evolution can not be discussed.
>>
>> > 3. Abiogenesis research has discovered more than you realise.
>>
>>
>> And it still can't be done in a test tube.
>>
>
>What....is there a fourth grade outing on the Usenet today? You don't seem
>to have the most fundamental understanding of either science or logic....so
>you're pretty much making a fool of yourself!

But isn't making fools of themselves what creationists do best?


>
>

[bob young]

goozlefotz wrote:

> The worst mistake creationists make is to equate complaints about the
> theory of evolution with support for creationism. It seems that their
> view is to discredit any scientific hypotheses and TADA! what is left
> is creation. A crummy way at best to support a theory!

It's all they've got. Grin.

>
>
> wrote:
> > Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
> > is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
> > life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
> > existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
> > problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
> > decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
> > mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
> > Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
> > life.
> >
> > So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
> > the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
> > sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
> > about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
> > explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
> > the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
> > Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
> > on the earth were far different"!
> >
> > Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
> > between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
> > Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a
> > living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
> > as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
> > it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could
> > come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
> > impossible. The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in
> > that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
> > facts.

[Iain]

El Bleacho wrote:
> wrote:
> > So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
> > the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
> > sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
> > about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
> > explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
> > the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
> > Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
> > on the earth were far different"!
>
> Well, the Miller Experiement was worthless. When it can be proven that
> aboigenesis can be reproduced in a laboratory experiment, or that Big Bang
> could have had a beginning without a Beginner;

How is this biology?


> I am done with Intelligent
> Design. Untill then, the athiest approach of "it was all a random
> fluke" just does not seem scientific enough.

Not a fluke -- natural selection. Very un-flukey.

~Iain

[Seppo Pietikainen]

goozlefotz wrote:
> The worst mistake creationists make is to equate complaints about the
> theory of evolution with support for creationism. It seems that their
> view is to discredit any scientific hypotheses and TADA! what is left
> is creation. A crummy way at best to support a theory!
>
> wrote:
>
>>Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
>>is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
>>life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
>>existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
>>problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
>>decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
>>mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
>>Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
>>life.
>>
>> So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
>>the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
>>sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
>>about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
>>explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
>>the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
>>Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
>>on the earth were far different"!
>>
>> Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
>>between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
>>Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a
>>living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
>>as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
>>it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could
>>come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
>>impossible. The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in
>>that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
>>facts.
>
>

That's the problem with the creatoids. They've got to play with what
they've got.

Seppo P.