Evolutionist can't answer the most important question of all

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."

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]

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

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.

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/mode...ic/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..."

"[i]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."

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?

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!

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?

Evolutionist can't answer the most important question of all

Why are some people so goddamned stupid?

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.

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