El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:57:19 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> > wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >On Nov 21, 1:09 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: > >> In article > >> <054845b0-65d9-4937-acc4-fe01ac1f7...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Nov 20, 7:47 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> ...
> >> > > There is life on earth. At one point life could not have survived on > >> > > earth. You knew that.
> >> > Yes I did. But we don't know if life started on earth. And that you > >> > knew.
> >> We certainly do not appear to have any solid evidence of life even > >> existing anywhere else, much less beginning anywhere else.
> >Exactly. What Listerman what me to do is acknowledge abiogensis as a > >belief that is must have occurred. Scientist won't do this neith would > >I.
> Life began at some point, most likely independently on this planet and > any other planets that have life.
And you know because?... you were there? I've just saw on Nat-geo how easy it is to terraform Mars, with human intervention. I guess if you were a future martian you would find it impossible for such terraforming to take place eh?
>Scientists know with certainty that > life did not exist at the beginning of the universe. Faith is not > involved.
Sure they do... maybe you have a few names for us to research?
>On Nov 21, 10:17 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:57:19 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >On Nov 21, 1:09 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: >> >> In article >> >> <054845b0-65d9-4937-acc4-fe01ac1f7...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Nov 20, 7:47 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> ...
>> >> > > There is life on earth. At one point life could not have survived on >> >> > > earth. You knew that.
>> >> > Yes I did. But we don't know if life started on earth. And that you >> >> > knew.
>> >> We certainly do not appear to have any solid evidence of life even >> >> existing anywhere else, much less beginning anywhere else.
>> >Exactly. What Listerman what me to do is acknowledge abiogensis as a >> >belief that is must have occurred. Scientist won't do this neith would >> >I.
>> Life began at some point, most likely independently on this planet and >> any other planets that have life.
>And you know because?... you were there? I've just saw on Nat-geo how >easy it is to terraform Mars, with human intervention. I guess if you >were a future martian you would find it impossible for such >terraforming to take place eh?
You never passed a logic class.
>> Scientists know with certainty that >> life did not exist at the beginning of the universe. Faith is not >> involved.
>Sure they do... maybe you have a few names for us to research?
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:58:29 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> > wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >On Nov 21, 10:17 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:57:19 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> > >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >> >On Nov 21, 1:09 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: > >> >> In article > >> >> <054845b0-65d9-4937-acc4-fe01ac1f7...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Nov 20, 7:47 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> >> > > There is life on earth. At one point life could not have survived on > >> >> > > earth. You knew that.
> >> >> > Yes I did. But we don't know if life started on earth. And that you > >> >> > knew.
> >> >> We certainly do not appear to have any solid evidence of life even > >> >> existing anywhere else, much less beginning anywhere else.
> >> >Exactly. What Listerman what me to do is acknowledge abiogensis as a > >> >belief that is must have occurred. Scientist won't do this neith would > >> >I.
> >> Life began at some point, most likely independently on this planet and > >> any other planets that have life.
> >And you know because?... you were there? I've just saw on Nat-geo how > >easy it is to terraform Mars, with human intervention. I guess if you > >were a future martian you would find it impossible for such > >terraforming to take place eh?
> You never passed a logic class.
Answeing a question with ad-hominen attack? typical.
> >> Scientists know with certainty that > >> life did not exist at the beginning of the universe. Faith is not > >> involved.
> >Sure they do... maybe you have a few names for us to research?
> Do you understand anything about the Big Bang?
Better than you no doubt. I also know not every scientist agrees on the theory.
>On Nov 21, 12:20 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:58:29 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >On Nov 21, 10:17 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:57:19 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >> >On Nov 21, 1:09 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: >> >> >> In article >> >> >> <054845b0-65d9-4937-acc4-fe01ac1f7...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Nov 20, 7:47 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> >> > > There is life on earth. At one point life could not have survived on >> >> >> > > earth. You knew that.
>> >> >> > Yes I did. But we don't know if life started on earth. And that you >> >> >> > knew.
>> >> >> We certainly do not appear to have any solid evidence of life even >> >> >> existing anywhere else, much less beginning anywhere else.
>> >> >Exactly. What Listerman what me to do is acknowledge abiogensis as a >> >> >belief that is must have occurred. Scientist won't do this neith would >> >> >I.
>> >> Life began at some point, most likely independently on this planet and >> >> any other planets that have life.
>> >And you know because?... you were there? I've just saw on Nat-geo how >> >easy it is to terraform Mars, with human intervention. I guess if you >> >were a future martian you would find it impossible for such >> >terraforming to take place eh?
>> You never passed a logic class.
>Answeing a question with ad-hominen attack? typical.
You still cannot grasp the concept despite uncounted corrections of your misunderstanding.
Let me demonstrate (ad hominem fallacy): This argument must be wrong because Jabriol made it.
(insult) Jabriol posts foolishness that looks like he is at war with logic.
Can you see the difference? Just because you post something, that does not mean that you are wrong. You are generally wrong, but that is because your posts are logic-impaired, evidence-free, and often riddled with falsehoods. Those are all good reasons to note that you were wrong. Merely asserting without looking at what you wrote that you must be wrong because you were the writer is an ad hominem. I rarely if ever make that mistake.
>> >> Scientists know with certainty that >> >> life did not exist at the beginning of the universe. Faith is not >> >> involved.
>> >Sure they do... maybe you have a few names for us to research?
>> Do you understand anything about the Big Bang?
>Better than you no doubt. I also know not every scientist agrees on >the theory.
There are no strong alternatives available at the moment.
> >> >> >> > > There is life on earth. At one point life could not have survived on > >> >> >> > > earth. You knew that.
> >> >> >> > Yes I did. But we don't know if life started on earth. And that you > >> >> >> > knew.
> >> >> >> We certainly do not appear to have any solid evidence of life even > >> >> >> existing anywhere else, much less beginning anywhere else.
> >> >> >Exactly. What Listerman what me to do is acknowledge abiogensis as a > >> >> >belief that is must have occurred. Scientist won't do this neith would > >> >> >I.
> >> >> Life began at some point, most likely independently on this planet and > >> >> any other planets that have life.
> >> >And you know because?... you were there? I've just saw on Nat-geo how > >> >easy it is to terraform Mars, with human intervention. I guess if you > >> >were a future martian you would find it impossible for such > >> >terraforming to take place eh?
> >> You never passed a logic class.
> >Answeing a question with ad-hominen attack? typical.
> You still cannot grasp the concept despite uncounted corrections of your > misunderstanding.
> Let me demonstrate (ad hominem fallacy): This argument must be wrong > because Jabriol made it.
> (insult) Jabriol posts foolishness that looks like he is at war with > logic.
> Can you see the difference? Just because you post something, that does > not mean that you are wrong. You are generally wrong, but that is > because your posts are logic-impaired, evidence-free, and often riddled > with falsehoods.
Such as...? You and other being saying this for about a decade and yet you never said or indiated what falsehood I have posted.
> >> >> Scientists know with certainty that > >> >> life did not exist at the beginning of the universe. Faith is not > >> >> involved.
> >> >Sure they do... maybe you have a few names for us to research?
> >> Do you understand anything about the Big Bang?
> >Better than you no doubt. I also know not every scientist agrees on > >the theory.
> There are no strong alternatives available at the moment.
I've notice how you influence the thread by stating: "no strong alternative" I gather you meant to say "no popular alternative: but alternative exist not by religious fruit but by scientists, which was the basis of my points in the the thread. And unlike you I can post references
> In article > <bf7fad54-e0f4-41e9-bc9b-4154e0ea9...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 21, 3:45 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: > > > In article > > > <5db5541c-4c30-47ff-a9c3-117ff9920...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >Yes I did. But we don't know if life started on earth. And that you > > > > > >knew.
> > > > > It had to have started somewhere. Pushing it to another planet adds > > > > > extraordinary complexity while answering no useful question.
> > > > Does it? truth is we don't know enough of the universe or even life > > > > itself to make that assumption. (life need to have a starting point.)
> > > There is some evidence that at one time in the universe there was no > > > carbon, which allows one to presume that at such a time there was no > > > carbon based life anywhere.
> > nothing conclusive. does life always have to be carbon based?
> Do you know of any that isn't?
> > > Or do you hold the old 'continuous creation' theory of the universe?
> > bang to crunch to bang again? Not anymore.
> Another name for the 'continuous creation' theory is the 'steady state' > theory, which is nothing like your 'bang to crunch to bang again' > theory.
>On Nov 21, 6:20 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:54:06 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >On Nov 21, 12:20 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:58:29 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >> >On Nov 21, 10:17 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:57:19 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >> >> >> > > There is life on earth. At one point life could not have survived on >> >> >> >> > > earth. You knew that.
>> >> >> >> > Yes I did. But we don't know if life started on earth. And that you >> >> >> >> > knew.
>> >> >> >> We certainly do not appear to have any solid evidence of life even >> >> >> >> existing anywhere else, much less beginning anywhere else.
>> >> >> >Exactly. What Listerman what me to do is acknowledge abiogensis as a >> >> >> >belief that is must have occurred. Scientist won't do this neith would >> >> >> >I.
>> >> >> Life began at some point, most likely independently on this planet and >> >> >> any other planets that have life.
>> >> >And you know because?... you were there? I've just saw on Nat-geo how >> >> >easy it is to terraform Mars, with human intervention. I guess if you >> >> >were a future martian you would find it impossible for such >> >> >terraforming to take place eh?
>> >> You never passed a logic class.
>> >Answeing a question with ad-hominen attack? typical.
>> You still cannot grasp the concept despite uncounted corrections of your >> misunderstanding.
>> Let me demonstrate (ad hominem fallacy): This argument must be wrong >> because Jabriol made it.
>> (insult) Jabriol posts foolishness that looks like he is at war with >> logic.
>> Can you see the difference? Just because you post something, that does >> not mean that you are wrong. You are generally wrong, but that is >> because your posts are logic-impaired, evidence-free, and often riddled >> with falsehoods.
>Such as...? You and other being saying this for about a decade and yet >you never said or indiated what falsehood I have posted.
Are you telling me that you now agree that evolution happens, that the universe is about 15 billion years old, the earth is about 4.55 billion years old and the Bible does not offer any science lessons?
>> >> >> Scientists know with certainty that >> >> >> life did not exist at the beginning of the universe. Faith is not >> >> >> involved.
>> >> >Sure they do... maybe you have a few names for us to research?
>> >> Do you understand anything about the Big Bang?
>> >Better than you no doubt. I also know not every scientist agrees on >> >the theory.
>> There are no strong alternatives available at the moment.
>I've notice how you influence the thread by stating: "no strong >alternative" >I gather you meant to say "no popular alternative:
I said what I meant. You do not get to recast what I said.
>but alternative exist not by religious fruit but by scientists, which >was the basis of my points in the the thread. And unlike you I can >post references
Notice that the writer does not claim that there is an alternative that works better. As I said, there is no strong alternative. Just as Newtoniam mechanics were eventually replaced by a more refined quantum mechanics, eventually the Big Bang will be refined when enough information is available. It does not seem likely that it will be rejected outright.
Steady state is even less consistent with the observations about the universe than the Big Bang. That is why scientists rejected it when the Big Bang was developed.
> >> >> >> >> > > There is life on earth. At one point life could not have survived on > >> >> >> >> > > earth. You knew that.
> >> >> >> >> > Yes I did. But we don't know if life started on earth. And that you > >> >> >> >> > knew.
> >> >> >> >> We certainly do not appear to have any solid evidence of life even > >> >> >> >> existing anywhere else, much less beginning anywhere else.
> >> >> >> >Exactly. What Listerman what me to do is acknowledge abiogensis as a > >> >> >> >belief that is must have occurred. Scientist won't do this neith would > >> >> >> >I.
> >> >> >> Life began at some point, most likely independently on this planet and > >> >> >> any other planets that have life.
> >> >> >And you know because?... you were there? I've just saw on Nat-geo how > >> >> >easy it is to terraform Mars, with human intervention. I guess if you > >> >> >were a future martian you would find it impossible for such > >> >> >terraforming to take place eh?
> >> >> You never passed a logic class.
> >> >Answeing a question with ad-hominen attack? typical.
> >> You still cannot grasp the concept despite uncounted corrections of your > >> misunderstanding.
> >> Let me demonstrate (ad hominem fallacy): This argument must be wrong > >> because Jabriol made it.
> >> (insult) Jabriol posts foolishness that looks like he is at war with > >> logic.
> >> Can you see the difference? Just because you post something, that does > >> not mean that you are wrong. You are generally wrong, but that is > >> because your posts are logic-impaired, evidence-free, and often riddled > >> with falsehoods.
> >Such as...? You and other being saying this for about a decade and yet > >you never said or indiated what falsehood I have posted.
> Are you telling me that you now agree that evolution happens, that the > universe is about 15 billion years old, the earth is about 4.55 billion > years old and the Bible does not offer any science lessons?
I never said it did not. I 've stated many times over I am not a creationist. And I do not believe for a moment the world is 6,000 days old, nor have I claim the Bible to be a science manual. Many nitwits has attributed a lot of garbage to anything I write.
>On Nov 22, 10:15 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:57:41 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >On Nov 21, 6:20 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:54:06 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >> >On Nov 21, 12:20 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:58:29 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >> >> >On Nov 21, 10:17 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:57:19 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >> >> >> >> > > There is life on earth. At one point life could not have survived on >> >> >> >> >> > > earth. You knew that.
>> >> >> >> >> > Yes I did. But we don't know if life started on earth. And that you >> >> >> >> >> > knew.
>> >> >> >> >> We certainly do not appear to have any solid evidence of life even >> >> >> >> >> existing anywhere else, much less beginning anywhere else.
>> >> >> >> >Exactly. What Listerman what me to do is acknowledge abiogensis as a >> >> >> >> >belief that is must have occurred. Scientist won't do this neith would >> >> >> >> >I.
>> >> >> >> Life began at some point, most likely independently on this planet and >> >> >> >> any other planets that have life.
>> >> >> >And you know because?... you were there? I've just saw on Nat-geo how >> >> >> >easy it is to terraform Mars, with human intervention. I guess if you >> >> >> >were a future martian you would find it impossible for such >> >> >> >terraforming to take place eh?
>> >> >> You never passed a logic class.
>> >> >Answeing a question with ad-hominen attack? typical.
>> >> You still cannot grasp the concept despite uncounted corrections of your >> >> misunderstanding.
>> >> Let me demonstrate (ad hominem fallacy): This argument must be wrong >> >> because Jabriol made it.
>> >> (insult) Jabriol posts foolishness that looks like he is at war with >> >> logic.
>> >> Can you see the difference? Just because you post something, that does >> >> not mean that you are wrong. You are generally wrong, but that is >> >> because your posts are logic-impaired, evidence-free, and often riddled >> >> with falsehoods.
>> >Such as...? You and other being saying this for about a decade and yet >> >you never said or indiated what falsehood I have posted.
>> Are you telling me that you now agree that evolution happens, that the >> universe is about 15 billion years old, the earth is about 4.55 billion >> years old and the Bible does not offer any science lessons?
>I never said it did not. I 've stated many times over I am not a >creationist. And I do not believe for a moment the world is 6,000 days >old, nor have I claim the Bible to be a science manual. Many nitwits >has attributed a lot of garbage to anything I write.
Yet you keep claiming there was no abiogenesis while offering no alternatives. You appear to say whatever pops into your head.
On Nov 22, 2:09 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:05:43 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> > wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> Yet you keep claiming there was no abiogenesis while offering no > alternatives. You appear to say whatever pops into your head.
Then you have a reading comprehension problem. I wrote abiogenesis has not been observed and has not up to date been duplicated in a lab, and thus has not passed the Scientific Method.
On Nov 22, 9:18 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2:09 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:05:43 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> > > wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> > Yet you keep claiming there was no abiogenesis while offering no > > alternatives. You appear to say whatever pops into your head.
> Then you have a reading comprehension problem. I wrote abiogenesis has > not been observed and has not up to date been duplicated in a lab, and > thus has not passed the Scientific Method.
Of course it hasn't, idiot. It's still a theory. Theories are basically the best guess based on the available evidence. The best that they have done in a lab was to create the same conditions as the "primordial ooze", which did produce the basic combinations (amino acids, protiens, etc...), but no "life" as we identify it.
It's still a theory, ergo it hasn't yet passed the scientific method. Get it? Has your imaginary sky pixie passed the scientific method? Is your imaginary sky pixie a theory?
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:18:53 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Nov 22, 2:09 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:05:43 -0800 (PST), Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> Yet you keep claiming there was no abiogenesis while offering no >> alternatives. You appear to say whatever pops into your head.
>Then you have a reading comprehension problem. I wrote abiogenesis has >not been observed and has not up to date been duplicated in a lab, and >thus has not passed the Scientific Method.
No one claims that there is a theory of abiogenesis yet. You are attacking something that does not exist. We do know that abiogenesis happened. There is no way around that based on the history of the universe.
|
