Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Abiogenesis - again!??

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    In response to some of that weird stuff David Willis posted (excerpts following my name below), I went and checked again and found this ... Now, I figure that
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In response to some of that weird stuff David Willis posted (excerpts
      following my name below), I went and checked again and found this
      definition of "abiogenesis" in Webster on-line:

      > the supposed spontaneous origination
      > of living organisms directly from lifeless
      > matter

      Now, I figure that atheists and theists alike are into that. It sounds
      like a workable scientific principle that atheists and theists can all
      agree upon; maybe with some word studies to avoid confusing the issues.

      Here is a link to one of my previous efforts to clear the air a bit on
      that matter:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/2562

      David Willis wrote:

      > Abiogenesis means life comes from
      > NONLIFE!

      If I understand the matter, abiogenesis simply means physica/materiall
      life came from physical/material non-living stuff.

      So, it seems to me David is inappropriately mixing his theology and
      science, causing some confusiong. David wants us to believe that he
      both affirms and denies abiogenesis. Is that it?

      Maybe he just needs to make clear when he is using the term in a
      scientific sense and when he is using it in a theological sense. It
      does seem to make a difference.

      Who would debate the theological point he is trying to make? Not me!

      As well, he seems to agree with me that, scientifically, abiogenesis is
      what happened. So, just where is the rub? Maybe it is the case that
      David, not me, is the one that is out to prove he's the one that is
      "NUTS", not me!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      ######################
      ######################

      From: DBWILLIS@...
      Date: Sat, Jan 3, 2004, 7:47pm

      Subject: Re: abiogenesis

      > As I recall, David had some problem
      > in accepting "abiogenesis". It looks
      > like we've made some progress on that.

      Don't lie about me Robert.

      I said "IF"!

      That does not mean I think it is true.

      If you can't see that you have indeed lost your mind...but actually I
      think it is your moral conscience that you long ago lost.

      You KNOW I don't believe in "ATHEISTIC abiogenesis", but you want to try
      to trick those foolish enough to listen to you to believe I do.

      Indeed, one could leave off the term "atheistic" since (NEWS FLASH HERE,
      ROBERT) GOD IS NOT DEAD!!!

      By definition if someone believes in "abiogenesis" he cannot believe
      that God caused life.

      Abiogenesis means life comes from NONLIFE! Life coming from God is
      NOT...get it...NOT "abiogenesis."

      Are you determined that each and every day you must prove again to
      everyone how NUTS you are, Robert???

      DW
    • Todd S. Greene
      ... [snip] Hi, Robert. I just want to reiterate that, regardless of what is in the Webster dictionary, that particular definition does *not* represent the
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 8, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #3040):
        > In response to some of that weird stuff David Willis posted
        > (excerpts following my name below), I went and checked again and
        > found this definition of "abiogenesis" in Webster on-line:
        >
        >> the supposed spontaneous origination
        >> of living organisms directly from lifeless
        >> matter
        >
        > Now, I figure that atheists and theists alike are into that.
        > It sounds like a workable scientific principle that atheists and
        > theists can all agree upon; maybe with some word studies to avoid
        > confusing the issues.
        >
        > Here is a link to one of my previous efforts to clear the air a
        > bit on that matter:
        >
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/2562
        [snip]

        Hi, Robert.

        I just want to reiterate that, regardless of what is in the Webster
        dictionary, that particular definition does *not* represent the
        modern scientific concept of abiogenesis. I carefully pointed this
        out previously in these two posts:

        Re: Evolution - Just One Thing! (10/3/03)
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/2546

        Re: Evolution - Just One Thing! (10/3/03)
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/2548

        Re: The law of biogenesis! (10/16/03)
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/2602

        In post #2546 I provided the following online reference on the
        subject:

        On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary
        transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic
        prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells
        by William Martin and Michael J. Russell
        http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_files/
        Martin_&_Russell.pdf
        (note line-wrapping of link; 2.1 MB PDF file)

        Regards,
        Todd Greene
        http://www.creationism.cc/
      • Todd S. Greene
        Hi, everyone. In post #3045 I wrote, I carefully pointed this out previously in these two posts, and then proceeded to reference three posts! Let me go get
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 8, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi, everyone.

          In post #3045 I wrote, "I carefully pointed this out previously in
          these two posts," and then proceeded to reference three posts! Let me
          go get my coffee, please! Yet again, I quickly acknowledge a mistake!

          Chuckling,
          Todd
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.