Transition from chemistry to biology

[qs] see no conflict between these definitions - they all proceed from non-living chemicals to living biological systems sufficiently developed to be subject to evolution.How many more posts are you going to waste on not understanding this really simple concept? This is what the term means, you do not get to revise it, you do not get to redefine it, you do not get to argue about it, you do not get to vote on it, you get to live with it.(Thanks for the suggestion but, I like to do things in my own style.There's a lot of dishonesty among you guys.And they fall in my trick.First those people said that spontaneous genaration should be distinguished from abiogenesis for the reason that abiogenesis implies replication and spontaneous genaration implies living things started to develop from non living things.But here we are you are now talking that abiogenesis genaration means living things started to develop from non living things.In general spontaneous genaration is just the same as abiogenesis since both implies that living things is came from non living things.See the logic?And by the way I dont believe that you guys are honest for the reason that you are hiding evidence that are in conflict with evolution.The New Scientist reported that"an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argue that darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."Yet when one question evolutionary theory some of those scientist come to defend of the theory that they themselves have serious doubts.For me these kind of attitude is unthinkable.There must be a psychological reason behind these things.

We can still counter them even we are just few.Keep up the good work watch out for there fraud.-traste (supporter of intelligent design movement.)

[If Pasteur had created pre-biotic earth conditions and let it go for 1 billion years, they might be able to compare the two. However, he If Pasteur had created pre-biotic earth conditions and let it go for 1 billion years, they might be able to compare the two. However, he did nothing close to that. Instead he found the source of food spoilage, which was good in its own right.](You dont sound reasoning,so do you mean all the current theories should be subjected for billions of years for there comfirmation?---TRASTE-----evolution buster.))))

[[The evidence IS life. There is a point where there is NO life, then a point where there IS life, something happened, right? ]
-- (Correct there is a point that thre is no life in earth,but the problem is life did not develop from non living things.)So what is the area of study that there is life?----traste (evolution buster).

1.And then go ahead give a mathemathical proof for evolution 2. It sounds you dont have any understanding in evolution.Im not learning mathemathics but I am a veteran in mathemathics.

In general, what I imply are order and random.Dawkins said accident,while cave diver said order.Are they the same?

I have something for you,so that you may gain some insight.Please read.1."The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is at present,still an article of faith."-Mathematician J.W.N.Sullivan.2."The probability of life origanating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unbridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."--Biologist Edwin Conklin.3."An honest man armed with all the knowledge available to us now,could only state that in some sense,the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."--Biologist Francis Crick.4"If one is not prejudiced either by social belief or scientific traning into the conviction that life originated on the earth this simple calculation [the mathemathical difficulties that evolutionary confronts]wipes the idea entirely out of court"--Astronomers Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe.You imply that I dont understand,that notion is not new to me when Galileo present his theory he was even called a fool(I think Im fortunate than him,since so far nobody called me a fool.)When Neils Henrik Abel present his mathemathical theory the great mathemathician Gauss called him a "crank".I think calling somebody a fool or branded them ignorant because they dont share the majorities believe is due to psychological reason.

Would you please give some clear cut explanation?Let me ask you,what Pasteur did or what did he mean when he said "never will the doctrine of spontaneous genaration recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment"Nakasabot ka ana nga experiment or wala(need an interpreter?)Does it not sound death to the idea that a living thing is come from a non living thing? You are correct english is not my first language.But it does not mean that I dont understand english .Some of my grammar is wrong because of carelessness and pressure.Magsige man kag lipat lipat doi sakpan naka oi angkon na lang gyod.

I dont know what you are talking about.Uninformed?Maybe, but you are only good in assertions.So go ahead show me a house that builds to a process that tears down.

Spontaneous genaration is the idea that a living thing is come from a non living thing isnt it?Would you say that I am wrong because english is not my first language?Even if I have a point you will easily refute that point by saying english is not your first language that is why you dont understand.Thats it?

Spit?You dont even understand what kind of language it is.

Then prove that I swear you.

I say you're wrong because "spontaneous generation" has a meaning that you are ignoring for reasons known only to you, which introduces nothing but confusion. (You have a lot of digareement with your sentence,you said before that I dont understand simply because english is not my first language and now you are giving me a different reason?And you even post some words to test my understanding in english.what a great liar you are?)

You are correct Iam young,but Im not young to understand.The problem with all(supporters of evolution)is that they just easily dissmissed any problems that evolutionary theory confronts,calling every people who presented that problem as,idiot,ignorance of the topic,just liked what you did.And I accept I did not come to terms with the mathemathics you talk about,but just for the sake of this argument I will try and study those in my own.By the way you,have a very different view you said order not random.

[qs]You are not to young to understand what?[q/s]What do you think? [qs] The issue here is that people don't get to tell scientist what is right or wrong about their specific fields of expertise. Only someone in the field can give a proper conclusion of the evidence ob
served. These people are called scientist [q/s]. You are correct.Some scientist found evolution in error.Actually evolution is a science powered by ambitious people whose main interest is fame and publication of their works.