A Logical account of creation

No, no that was not what your original post said or implied.This is what you originally said in Message 91
Your implication here is that Sagan was saying all mutations were lethal. You can try to claim otherwise but that is the clear implication of what you said. You would not have mentioned it if you did not want it to be taken that way.
Oh were you able to find the original source for him saying that. I do not see that you ever provided one. I am not saying you don't have one but I would love to see the context. How does the fact most mutations are lethal mean that they cannot be the raw materials for evolution? Please explain how this works. I mean more than just you assert it is so. I guess evidence is what I mean. Your habit of making personal attacks when you cannot make an argument is getting very wearying. Do you think maybe you can support your arguments instead of lashing out? You have been caught misrepresenting Carl Sagan and have yet provided no evidence to show your side. You might want to try to or acknowledge you argument was flawed. Or maybe you might want to just lash out with personal attacks again.

---

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

So you have no source. Typical.In this reply to Huntard and your reply to Dr. Adequate you provide no evidence or even a hint of an argument. You do know there is no scientific law called this don't you. If you have any evidence such a scientific law exists please present it.

---

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

Theodocric wrote: Forgive me, if I , forgot to wrote the word "most" Theodocric, I have an outmost respect for those people who argue properly, I mean those people who do not employ ad hominem attacks to depend there position,look at Lynx2no he was addicted to it. Because of that I have a very little respect for him and those people who follow the same way of reasoning. So dont put all the blame to me, when sometimes I employ ad hominem attack,as I said to Lynx2no I, only dance with them. In the mean time I am very busy with my mathimatical research,that is the real reason why I cannot reply immediately. Soon we can debate this issue cogently and equitably,it doesnt mean however that Iam incapable of debating this issue cogently and equitably, becuase I did really employ it.Let's debate this issue as real intellectual men, ad hominem attack is no help.

Why did you make no attempt to change this until you were called on it? And then even then claim you were correct. I am sorry, but you have misrepresented quotes and facts many times on this forum. Of course I am going to point out something you say is not true. I, and others I am sure, are still waiting for a reference to the original Sagan quote you claim. I am quite sure I know the original, but do you? Or is it just a flippant creationist line that you got somewhere. I have no clue what the end of this sentence means. I have never claimed to be an intellectual and I am very wary of those who feel the need to claim themselves as such.It is actually amusing when someone, that obviously does no know or understand a subject, tries to be condescending. You might try a little less of that, but then again it gives you an excuse to attack people instead of actually debating them.How about replying to the substance of posts. Might make people less irritated by you.

---

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

Thedocric wrote: As I said ,I forgot. But my implication is most mutations were lethal,not all. 0h, that's cute.Try to point one except the quote from Sagan. Not true for you maybe,but there explanation is conflicting,that is cute too. Yet,you get mad at those people who dont share your beliefs. I guess I point out that mutation is a process that break genes so easily, if it means nothing for you I cannot help you. Why not try to minimize Lynx2no's add hominem attack??Edited by traste, : improving text

Theodoric wrote: I'll already give my reason, why I will not. Actually it exist and it's not alone,the others are the cell theory,the law of biogenesis,and many others. But those things for you and other poponents evolution doesnt exist, because for you and for other proponents of evolution there is no other explanation of the origin of life other than unguided material process.

Do you actually know how science works? One person cannot suddenly claim there is a law.Please provide evidence that there is a scientific law called "law of recurrent variation".Since you have no sources for other assertions I do not expect much evidence for this claim either.

---

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

Thedoric wrote: What I know is scientific method. It begins with observation,gather data and formulate a hypthosis and test the hyphothesis againts those data over and over again, it the hyphthesis doesnt suit it should be abandoned. Since today we observed only that living things came only fron living things that only shows that the law of biogenesis is really a law.In addition since since we dont observed that an organism change into as what Darwin claimed,that also shows that law of reccurent variation is really a law. Next month I will give you an information about it. Can you wait for next month? Right now Iam still looking for a job,Iam a little bit busy.

Since we know that at one time there were no living things, and since we know that there are living things now, we know that the "law of biogenesis" is not really a law.

Dr Adequate wrote: Your implication here is that life just emerged,well that is Abio genesis genesis the new mask of spontaneous generation, abiogenesis is not yet a theory they are just competing ideas so far no one has succeded since abiogenesis is not observable today nor it is observable yesterday this only shows that you are an arrogant because you believe in an unobservable things ,what I mean is things with out related evidence . I agree that "at one time" there is no life in this planet I also believe that at one time there is no car, but I cannot believe that car just emerged, nor I believe that organization, elegance simplicity we observe in living things just emerged, why I don't believe is not a matter of personal incredulity,but its a matter of lacked of evidence. Edited by traste, : wron spellingEdited by traste, : add wordsEdited by traste, : correcting words

Let me point you here: http://www.physorg.com/news176721370.htmlfrom the article: Now, while it may not be concrete, it is evidence that simple elements can be formed into the necessary building blocks for life: steps necessary for Abigenesis.

quote:: So you are referring to the RNA world theory. The RNA world theory states that RNAis the first self replicating molecule, but this theory as one scientist puts it" is fatally flawed because it failed to explained where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecule." In addition RNA cannot function independently without the help from the 2 macromolecules the protein and DNA the three must work together in order to produce life as one article in the new scientist puts it " just take any one of the three and life will grind to a halt" I hope I educate you.Edited by traste, : add words

qoute: Actually the widely accepted idea of how life began here on earth is the idea of Stanley Miller, his experiment was widely cited by many biology books as an ultimate explanation of how life began through Darwinian mechanism. In 1953 Miller prepared necessary ingredients which he though can produce life, sealed it in a flask and passed and electric spark. A week after he found a "reddish goo" which he found to be rich in amino acids "an essence of protein". Origin of life of scientist felt optimistic of this result because they believe it reflects the first part of Alexander Oparin's molecular drama but almost40 years later those optimism die. Why? The journal scientific american reported that " over the past decades or so doubts have grown about Urey and millers assumption regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiment and computerized reconstruction of the atmosphere suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun which is today is blocked by atmospheric zone would have destroy hydrogen based molecules in the atmosphere, such an atmosphere would not have been conducive to the synthesize of amino acids and others precursors of life.If you really believe that evolution is correct I want you pay to closed attention to the following report"The journal new scientist in reported that " an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argued that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials"I really wonder why those people keep on pronouncing that evolution is correct, which in fact they themselves have serious doubts.Edited by traste, : add words

thats what people believed about rotting meatmeat is fresh, it begins to rot then suddenly life appears (bugs n maggots and flies)therefore rotting meat produces lifeI thought they had worked that one out???

Yeah, of course it did Traste - I cannot believe the endless stream of crap you produce. Do you have a reference to this at all???