Originally posted by humyThe Law of Biogenesis states that in nature, life comes only from life and that of its own kind. Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis.Evolutionists do not want anything presented in science classes in school that cast doubt on their fairy tale theory of evolution,
Firstly, this is changing the subject completely for I said nothing about science classes and this is just a way to avoid answering my questions which you have still yet to answer.
Secondly, there is nothin i/Spontaneous_generation [/quote]
petty you didn't both read it and comprehend it.
The atheist says that life created itself, a belief known as biopoiesis. The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines “biopoiesis,” also called spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, and autogenesis, as “a process by which living organisms are thought to develop from nonliving matter, and the basis of a theory on the origin of life on Earth.
A science journalist writes, "DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones."
John Horgan, Scientific American, 1991, 264:119
What does he mean by "difficult" when he should know it has not been done?
Richard Dawkins stated in an interview with Ben Stein regarding the origin of life, “Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life. It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.” Stein asked, “Right. And how did that happen?” Dawkins replied, “I’ve told you. We don’t know.” Stein then said, “So, you have no idea how it started?” Dawkins replied, “No. Nor has anybody” (Stein and Miller, 2008).
Evolution in organisms occurs through changes in heritable traits – particular characteristics of an organism. Heritable traits are passed from one generation to the next via DNA, a molecule that encodes genetic information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
This is not exactly correct and I really believe the word "variations" should be used above instead of evolution. However, I will use evolution to humor you atheists.
The DNA molecule only stores the encoded information, it does not actually encode the information. The original information has to come from an intelligent source that encodes that information in the original DNA molecule. Then copies are made by the decoding actions of the originally created molecular machines within the cell. So the first cell in existence must already have all the parts necessary to perform its functions, including the encoded blueprint information stored in the DNA molecule before any decoding actions can be performed. This is what is now known as irreducible complexity.
Therefore, evolution is not the creator of the intelligent source that encodes the original information in the DNA molecule. Evolution requires that the encoded information already be in the DNA molecule before any act called evolution can happen. Repeating what John Horgan said, "DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins."
Now I am finished humoring you atheists. The discovery of the information code placed in the DNA molecule and the irreducible complexity of the cell to perform its particular function seals the coffin of evilution, since proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. Evilution is essentially dead and ready to be buried, but you stupid atheist will not accept it and hang on to the corpse.
The Instructor
31 Jul 13
7 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]The Law of Biogenesis states that in nature, life comes only from life and that of its own kind. Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis.
The atheist says that life created itself, a belief known as biopoiesis. The En , but you stupid atheist will not accept it and hang on to the corpse.
The Instructor[/b]
Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis.
Yes, for MODERN earth i.e. natural conditions on Earth that exists TODAY and NOT the natural conditions on Earth that existed on early-Earth at around the time of abiogenesis. Thus this law has been established for modern Earth but NOT early-Earth. Therefore, I have already clearly indicated, the law of abiogenesis doesn't apply to early-Earth.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines “biopoiesis,” also called spontaneous generation, abiogenesis,
what was and sometimes is still called “spontaneous generation” normally applies to the context of modern Earth. What we now call “ abiogenesis” doesn't because it normally applies only to to context of early-Earth.
So, with normal modern usage of the two terms, they are generally given two subtly different meanings that should not be confused with each other like you are trying to do here.
The fact that some dictionaries and encyclopaedias sometimes fail to make the distinction of this conmen usage and subtly different meanings doesn't change the fact that such subtle differences in meaning exist and therefore we should not use that to confuse the two via fallacy of equivocation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
the rest of your post is just your usual unintelligent dribble that I (and others who I believe are more intelligent than I ) have already debunked. Just repeating the same old debunked nonsense over and over again doesn't change that fact and will not ever magically convince any of us -it must be just amazing how much time you waste typing that vast amount of crap all out yet again and again and again, unless you just use copy and paste each time? I don't know why you bother.
31 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyIf that is the case, then scientist should not be able to use the present conditions on the Earth to guess when the Earth was created or made right for abiogenesis to occur, if it did. Was there anyone there to tell us the conditions of the early Earth or when it was created?Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis.
Yes, for MODERN earth i.e. natural conditions on Earth that exists TODAY and NOT the natural conditions on Earth that existed on early-Earth at around the time of abio ...[text shortened]... again and again, unless you just use copy and paste each time? I don't know why you bother.
The Instructor
31 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThat doesn't follow.
If that is the case, then scientist should not be able to use the present conditions on the Earth to guess when the Earth was created or made right for abiogenesis to occur, if it did. Was there anyone there to tell us the conditions of the early Earth or when it was created?
The Instructor
31 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyI haven't got time to teach you guys any more. I have to go get milk and bread before it gets too late. Bye.
No, one has to have an illogical mind to follow that logic. If you deny this, then please show the intermediate logical deductions to show how one follows from the other....
The Instructor
01 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, it doesn't follow. What humy said was:
One has to have a logical mind to follow it.
The Instructor
Yes [abiogenesis is not possible], for MODERN earth i.e. natural conditions on Earth that exists TODAY and NOT the natural conditions on Earth that existed on early-Earth at around the time of abiogenesis. Thus this law has been established for modern Earth but NOT early-Earth. Therefore, I have already clearly indicated, the law of abiogenesis doesn't apply to early-Earth.
Your response was
If that is the case, then scientist should not be able to use the present conditions on the Earth to guess when the Earth was created or made right for abiogenesis to occur, if it did. Was there anyone there to tell us the conditions of the early Earth or when it was created?
First it doesn't follow from what Humy said, you're statement depends on what you say at the end about it being impossible to deduce anything about the past without received wisdom.
Second there are theories which are testable and have consequences that predict the age of the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years; there are bands of iron which vanish indicating an ancient reducing atmosphere, which is part of the condition for abiogenesis. These physical records are part of the current conditions on earth, so it is possible to produce a date. In general, if you know the initial conditions and the dynamics then you can calculate the end point, similarly if you know the end point you can deduce the initial conditions. You might disagree that we know the dynamics, but even if we didn't it wouldn't mean that the enterprise isn't possible.
01 Aug 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtMan can come up with magic tricks to attempt to prove many things to gullible people. So your vanishing iron trick proves nothing to me.
No, it doesn't follow. What humy said was:
[quote]Yes [abiogenesis is not possible], for MODERN earth i.e. natural conditions on Earth that exists TODAY and NOT the natural conditions on Earth that existed on early-Earth at around the time of abiogenesis. Thus this law has been established for modern Earth but NOT early-Earth. Therefore, I have already ...[text shortened]... the dynamics, but even if we didn't it wouldn't mean that the enterprise isn't possible.
The Instructor
01 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsIf only more people would listen to the infinite wisdom of a group of genocidal barbarians from thousands of years ago rather than be fooled by the "magic tricks" of scientists who are all secretly plotting to indoctrinate people with atheism.
Man can come up with magic tricks to attempt to prove many things to gullible people. So your vanishing iron trick proves nothing to me.
The Instructor
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think we should also point out that, although most scientists, due to their high intelligence, are obviously going to be atheist or agnostic (and statistics support this ), there are still many of those scientists that accept the fact of evolution and gather data that just happens to support evolution but are firmly theists and see no contradiction between theism and evolution.
If only more people would listen to the infinite wisdom of a group of genocidal barbarians from thousands of years ago rather than be fooled by the "magic tricks" of scientists who are all secretly plotting to indoctrinate people with atheism.
But I suppose in the fantasy world of RJHinds, there cannot be any such scientists because science is just one vast big conspiracy against religion in general but his particular religion in particular -as if we scientists have any interest in his religion while we make our observations and collect our data 😛 In his delusional mind, we are constantly trying to disprove his religion and THAT is why we do science 😛 I suppose, in his fantasy world, our thirst for knowledge and our desires to improve technology or cure disease and make the world a better place cannot possibly have anything to do with it and is just all just a cover for our secret agenda to specifically disprove RJHinds's religion -even amongst those of us that haven,t ever heard of his particular religion.
01 Aug 13
Originally posted by humyYou are wrong again. I believe most scientist are trying to do real science and many of them do real science without prejudice.
I think we should also point out that, although most scientists, due to their high intelligence, are obviously going to be atheist or agnostic (and statistics support this ), there are still many of those scientists that accept the fact of evolution and gather data that just happens to support evolution but are firmly theists and see no contradiction bet ...[text shortened]... JHinds's religion -even amongst those of us that haven,t ever heard of his particular religion.
However, many scientist of today have been indoctrinated to believe lies put out by the evilutionists. Therefore, those that really believe this indoctrination do their science in a way that must support and not contradict this indoctrination. If they get a result that does contradict this worldview indoctrination of evilution and long ages, then they immediately think they did something wrong and discard the result, if they are not able to interpret the data to conform to the evilutionist's worldview. They see no reason to submit such results for peer review. since they know it will be rejected anyway.
The Instructor
01 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI feel I see a pot calling a kettle black here. Science happens in the context of a technical language and a collection of paradigm theories. The paradigm theories are almost unconditionally believed and are things like quantum theory and relativity. The leader of the group that announced "faster than light" neutrinos at L.H.C., breaking Lorentz invariance (which is a bit of a holy cow) had to resign when it turned out to be faulty soldering. Typically when announcing results that potentially challenge a paradigm theory one attempts to explain the results in terms of the paradigm theory. Not until the evidence becomes overwhelming does the paradigm fall. This has happened in physics twice, once for the prescientific quasi-religious theories (earth at centre of universe, etc.) when they were overturned by Galileo, Kepler, Newton and others, and then with the quantum and relativity revolutions at the start of the twentieth century. This means that scientists tend to be cautious about announcing paradigm breaking results, although in physics that is mitigated by one scientific paradigm having been replaced by another scientific paradigm - so there is less irrational fear of a paradigm shift. Also we are clearer about what scales the paradigm theories are expected to work on.
You are wrong again. I believe most scientist are trying to do real science and many of them do real science without prejudice.
However, many scientist of today have been indoctrinated to believe lies put out by the evilutionists. Therefore, those that really believe this indoctrination do their science in a way that must support and not contradict this ...[text shortened]... mit such results for peer review. since they know it will be rejected anyway.
The Instructor
For evolution this has only happened once, the paradigm now is evolution by natural selection - it replaced the older pre-scientific creationist paradigm, due to overwhelming weight of evidence. Creationists want a return to the older paradigm in the form of Intelligent Design which is just creationism expressed in more modern scientific language. Their bias is to what they believe the paradigm theory should be. But the scientific community will never be convinced as that overwhelming evidence has already been built up in the process of evolution displacing creation to prove it wrong. Creationism cannot be restored to it's old status as a paradigm theory by the normal scientific process.
01 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHinds
You are wrong again. I believe most scientist are trying to do real science and many of them do real science without prejudice.
However, many scientist of today have been indoctrinated to believe lies put out by the evilutionists. Therefore, those that really believe this indoctrination do their science in a way that must support and not contradict this ...[text shortened]... mit such results for peer review. since they know it will be rejected anyway.
The Instructor
I believe most scientist are trying to do real science and many of them do real science without prejudice.
-and about 99.9% of them accept, without prejudice, the proven fact of evolution.
You are wrong again. ….. …...
….and then the rest of the post appears to confirm what just I said.