Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.

Alternatively, perhaps you weren't paying any attention in science class. That would explain a lot.

Your lies and hysteria apart, what word would you like to use? Because it suggested that you agreed that we are distinguishing between two alternate versions of abiogenesis. Too broad. Try again.Creation means a lot of things. If we want to talk about the origin of life in particular, what we want is either:(a) One word which means: the-process-by-or-event-in-which-life-originated-whether-or-not-it-happened-by-magic.(b) Two words, one of which means a-process-by-or-event-in-which-life-originated-by-magic and one of which means the-process-by-or-event-in-which-life-originated-without-magic-being-involved.You object to the word "abiogenesis" being used for term (a). You would like it to only mean the second term in (b). But then we need two other words: one for the first term in (b), and one for the concept described in (a).Any suggestions? Well, if life was poofed out of nothingness, then I would point out that nothingness is not alive, and counts as non-life.However, I would also point out that the Bible, like lots of other creation myths, has people being formed out of clay, which was then brought to life by magic, rather than people just being poofed out of nothing. Well, I can point out that this is impossible. But then you tell us that you have an imaginary friend who can do impossible things, and who did this impossible thing. And you don't provide a shred of evidence for this. Which leaves me appealing to the laws of nature, which can be demonstrated, and creationists appealing to the unevidenced magic tricks of an unevidenced invisible magic man. Which leaves me in a rather stronger position.

Any number of gases, both visible and invisible, can exist without having any weight, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist - that they’re not real material.I can burn up a piece of paper. I haven’t done any weight experiments with it, but it’s reasonable to guess that the ashes will weigh far less than the original piece of paper. But I only rearranged it into ashes and smoke, and other invisible gases. Just because I can’t weigh the smoke and gases doesn’t mean I destroyed anything. The smoke and gases don’t disappear. They change into gases that change into other gases that end up being taken in by vegetation etc. It’s never destroyed. Humans can witness and comprehend some very profound rearrangements, but they’re never anything more than rearrangements. They’re not creation or destruction. Junior high hahahahahahaha. I can still see that statement in my science textbook, because it was so profound to me, it was something I’d never thought of before. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. [by humans] If today’s scientific community tells me that abiogenesis is a fact, I’m not ready to instantly believe them when they tell me they can actually create and/or destroy matter. When it comes to human behavior, there are studies/thought processes that fall between empiricism and imagination. The words philosophy and motivation come to mind. Good examples of details of those two words are contained in the US Constitution, and other US founding documents, such as the Federalist Papers. How about evolutionists who imagine that the basic form of life, the cell, with its signal processing behaviors that rival or surpass that of modern computers, just fell into place by blind, unguided, purposeless, happenstance processes? Huxley, (the originator of the term abiogenesis) dreamed that the simplest forms of life were little more than lumps of protoplasm. He had dreams — why do todays scientists, with todays knowledge of the cell, DNA, etc, have exactly the same dreams, with no updates? The answer is, of course, that they're supporting their worldview of atheism. Objective study comes in second. Those aren't strictly empirical subjects. If they were, there would be no political division in the US, would there? As a conservative, I believe that the best way to know which ideas in those subjects work the best is by looking at the history of previous applications of them. Which ideas have stood the test of time. Money management principles in the book of Proverbs have been time-proven to work well.

Well thats just not true.

---

It\'s not enough to bash in heads, you\'ve got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it\'s Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I\'ll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Just an idea.

---

Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

It didn’t necessarily have to be rearranged from something else. Non-living material had to come into existence instantly, there’s no scientific reason to not believe that living material couldn’t have possibly originated instantly. There may be an atheistic reason, but not a scientific reason. There is a difference between material that was non-living, and ‘nothing’. Creation ex-nihilo can have nothing to do with chemicals. Different people have different definitions of what ‘evidence’ is. I find the Bible to be perfect in the way it describes human nature, judging it by history and experience. I find Darwin lacking in his knowledge of the simplest forms of life, judging by recent scientific discoveries of the simplest forms of life. Nope — the Bible warns about false teachers, or anyone who tries to add to it beyond the book of Revelation. Many thousands of people have written books - extensions and explanations of Christianity, and many of them are very good. The way to judge their soundness is to see if they clash with the ultimate truth, the Bible. The Bible's warnings about false teachings, it's descriptions of the Nature of God and Christ, make it fairly easy.

A quick google search shows me nothing about your organization. Is there any info about it on the net? You haven't - I'm fairly new here and don't remember having a discussion with you before, but atheists on another forum brought it to my attention. It's a quote mine that is nothing more than an attempt by the Catholic church to mollify an atheist community who has been a threat to bankrupt them with legal action and member intimidation for decades now. In the late 60’s, there was an over-population frenzy largely brought on by the scientific community, predicting massive starvation in the 1970’s etc. In December of 1968, 2600 scientists published a petition in the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, and ‘Commonweal’ (a catholic magazine) urging Catholics to withhold contributions from collection plates, because of the Pope’s stance on birth control. Catholicism often caves to the scientific community. The Clergy Letter Project was a financial/political thing, nothing more. A few of its statements clash with what the Bible says. I don't agree with it, I'm not Catholic.

I'll respond in that thread to what you said here in the coming evenings. Time is of the essence tonight - I need to finish up what substance there is left in this thread tonight.

What organization, Club Christian?Club Christian is any and all of the recognized Christian Sects that exist. My Chapter happens to be the Episcopal Church of the Anglican Communion within the overall Club Christian. I'm sorry but beyond being simply wrong and more of your misrepresentation, that is a really silly statement. I also note that yet once again you try to palm the pea, to change the subject.The Clergy project as has been pointed out to you (I did give you the link this time at least) is NOT something created by the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, it was first written by Michael Zimmerman, a Professor of Biology at Butler University.In addition, this topic as has been pointed out to you several times, is about science. It also doesn't matter what you agree with.The facts are that the Clergy Project shows that the issue is NOT atheistic. It shows that Evolution as a fact and the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation of the diversity we see about us is accepted and recognized by Theists and in particular, Christians.It is only the Christian Cult of Ignorance that continues to support Special Creation and to "deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."Your assertion that Abiogenesis and Evolution are atheistic has been soundly refuted.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message of mine should go into enough detail to clarify it. It didn’t have to be a chemical origin, it could have been an instant origin, instant chemicals, with no rearrangement involved. An instant origin could have nothing to do with gradual chemical changes. No, God’s method of creation (described in the Bible) doesn’t involve gradual chemical changes. It’s in a realm that humans can’t possibly understand. Science can’t prove that there is no such thing as a realm of reality that humans can’t understand. Why is there something rather than nothing — how can space be endless there are many other questions that imply that there exists some reality that humans can’t possibly understand. It’s no more stupid than there can’t be a god, or if there is, humans can perfectly understand him therefore, abiogenesis is a fact. Or there can’t be a god, so the signal processing behaviors found in the simplest forms of life that can rival or surpass modern computers had to have fallen into place by blind, unguided processes. I’m not sure at this point just what you asked, but I’ll now clarify the reason for my entering this thread in the first place.Once there was no life on earth, and now there is, therefore abiogenesis is a fact. That’s a tricky statement, and it’s a delight to the scientific community. It doesn’t directly address religion, it certainly doesn’t attack it, it simply marches right by it, pretending like religion doesn’t exist. Atheists, agnostics, Confucianists, Deists, Wiccans, Club Christians, — they can excitedly launch into discussions and projections about abiogenesis based on that statement, and as long as no pesky Christians are there to ask questions, they can make it as scientific as they want, even though there is nothing close to a complete scientific package about it. The only way to get rid of the pesky Christians is to include supernatural creation under the (now vague and largely useless) term of abiogenesis. Then public school teachers can proclaim abiogenesis is a fact. Teenagers will not automatically recognize the word as vague and useless, they’ll relate it only to naturalism, and that’s a slippery way to indoctrinate them into atheism. It is NOT HONEST. No more than atheists have observed the big bang, or Tiikalak Rosae crawing out of the ocean millions of years ago and eventually sprouting into a human, or any number of things asserted by the scientific community. Naturalists accept them just as quickly as Christians accept what the Bible tells them. But there is evidence that it has been going on ever since 1859. Darwin didn’t board planes and do book tours, he didn’t get on television and do interviews with CNN, he didn’t get colorful pages on amazon with raving promotions and reviews by scientists. Book promotion was very slow - little more than word-of-mouth in the mid 19th century. But his book still SOLD OUT ON THE VERY FIRST DAY. We’re supposed to believe that’s because of a sudden interest in science by general public. Common sense tells me that it was a long hunger for intellectually fulfilled atheism that caused the book to sell out, for Darwin to be hero to atheists, in 1859, and today.

Yes, or whatever Christian organization endorses what you've said in this thread about Christianity. You've said that; Atheists agree. Atheists sometimes mock God by referring to him as a "she". Atheists agree. Atheist agree. Atheists love you. Atheists agree. Much of? Do Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, honest Catholics, Pentecostals, agree with the statements you made above? This webpage shows the Anglican/Episcopal's "Sacred or Distinguishing Text" to be "The Bible, The Books of Common Prayer."When Christians refer to different Christian denominations, they actually call them "denominations", not "sects" like you and atheists do.Your next post is going to have to be really profound for me to waste anymore of my time with you.

Again you show an amazing ability to not only be wrong but to misrepresent also.\.
The first edition was less than 1200 copies. Whoopee, there is an atheist revolution for you. As for selling out on the first day. Read away.

quote:

---

Darwin received a copy early in November; Peckham says that Murray sent it on Wednesday 2nd. The overseas presentation copies were sent out before Friday 11th, and the home ones must have gone out at about the same time because he received a letter of thanks from Sir John Lubbock on Tuesday 15th, or earlier. Twenty-three author's presentation copies are recorded, but there were probably more; the twelve which I have seen are all inscribed by one of Murray's clerks and I know of no record of one inscribed by Darwin himself. It was offered to the trade at Murray's autumn sale a week later, on 22nd; most sources say that 1,500 were taken up, others 1,493. Only 1,250 had however been printed of which 1,192 were available for sale, the rest being twelve for the author, forty-one for review and five for Stationers' Hall copyright. As Darwin took at least another twenty for presentation, the final number available for the trade was about 1,170. These facts are at variance with the often-printed statement that all the 1,250 copies were sold to the public on publication day, Thursday 24th; indeed once copies had reached the bookshops, up and down the country, how could anyone know whether they were sold or not. The origin of this mistake is in Darwin's diary '1250 copies printed. The first edition was published on November 24th, and all copies sold first day.' And in a letter to Huxley on November 24th "I have heard from Murray today that he sold the whole edition of my book the first day."

---

Source

---

Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Do you even understand any of what you quoted or can you only try to change the subject? This thread is not about my beliefs about Christianity but rather the topic of Abiogenesis and Evolution.I will be happy to educate you about what those statements mean but they are off topic for this thread and once again I will try to get you headed back towards the topic.By the way it is the Book of Common Prayer. Yet another example of you taking things out of context and misrepresentation.The "they" in that quote refers to the fact of Abiogenesis and Evolution and the fact that the Theory of Evolution is not only the best explanation for the diversity we see around us, it is the ONLY model. There simply is no Creation Science model.And yes, Lutherans and Baptists and Presbyterians and Roman Catholics and Episcopalians and Jews and Unitarians and Methodists agree that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the best and only explanation and model presented so far. Had you read the list of signatures to teh Clergy Project Letter you would have seen that. Except I am a Christian and used those terms, so your assertion has been refuted.Now, if you would like to challenge or discuss some of my statements about Christianity, please propose a new topic and I will be glad to try to educate you.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That's a bizarre statement. You have trouble accepting the gradual rearrangement of chemical elements - which we see every day - and you propose as an alternate mechanism an instant magic poof from nothing? That's like saying you don't believe cars are made in Detroit but you do believe the Easter Bunny leaves them in your driveway. How do you expect anybody to take you seriously after that?

---

I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I\'m back where I started.

The following information suggests that you are wrong: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.