Abiogeneis =spontaneous generation disproven by Pateur

[Chaos359]

The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

[adman]

"Chaos359" <***@.org> wrote in message news:3xEAj.635$***@trnddc03...
|
| The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
| it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
| previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then when
that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just keep
making up the story as they go along.


How dishonest!
--

[Andy W]

Post by adman
|
| The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
| it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
| previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| spontaneously from nonliving matter.
Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then when
that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just keep
making up the story as they go along.
How dishonest!
--

No, dishonest is you pretending you actually think scientific laws are
just "made up". Dishonest is JW creationist Jabbers using yet another
sock puppet to post scraps of Watchtower bullshit. Dishonest is pretty
much everything to do with creationism.

What is it with you and the constant trolling anyway?

Andy

[Ips-Switch]

Post by Andy W

Post by adman
|
| The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
| it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
| previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| spontaneously from nonliving matter.
Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then when
that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just keep
making up the story as they go along.
How dishonest!
--

No, dishonest is you pretending you actually think scientific laws are
just "made up". Dishonest is JW creationist Jabbers using yet another
sock puppet to post scraps of Watchtower bullshit. Dishonest is pretty
much everything to do with creationism.
What is it with you and the constant trolling anyway?

He's bored, lonely and obviously disabled and housebound. He's online
16//7/365.

Post by Andy W
Andy

[adman]

"Ips-Switch" <***@this.org> wrote in message news:47d33db8$0$1340$***@reader.greatnowhere.com...
|
| "Andy W" <***@mailinator.com> wrote in message
| news:5d54b383-2556-4b1f-936e-***@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
| > On 8 Mar, 22:47, "adman" <***@hottmail.et> wrote:
| >> "Chaos359" <***@.org> wrote in message
| >>
| >> news:3xEAj.635$***@trnddc03...
| >> |
| >> | The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly
dealt
| >> | it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only
from
| >> | previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| >> | assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| >> | spontaneously from nonliving matter.
| >>
| >> Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then
| >> when
| >> that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just
| >> keep
| >> making up the story as they go along.
| >>
| >> How dishonest!
| >> --
| >
| > No, dishonest is you pretending you actually think scientific laws are
| > just "made up". Dishonest is JW creationist Jabbers using yet another
| > sock puppet to post scraps of Watchtower bullshit. Dishonest is pretty
| > much everything to do with creationism.
| >
| > What is it with you and the constant trolling anyway?
|
| He's bored, lonely and obviously disabled and housebound. He's online
| 16//7/365.

Bwaaaahahahahaha!!

You people are so easily fooled.

[adman]

"Andy W" <***@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:5d54b383-2556-4b1f-936e-***@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
| On 8 Mar, 22:47, "adman" <***@hottmail.et> wrote:
| > "Chaos359" <***@.org> wrote in message
| >
| > news:3xEAj.635$***@trnddc03...
| > |
| > | The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly
dealt
| > | it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
| > | previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| > | assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| > | spontaneously from nonliving matter.
| >
| > Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then
when
| > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just
keep
| > making up the story as they go along.
| >
| > How dishonest!
| > --
|
| No, dishonest is you pretending you actually think scientific laws are
| just "made up". Dishonest is JW creationist Jabbers using yet another
| sock puppet to post scraps of Watchtower bullshit. Dishonest is pretty
| much everything to do with creationism.

You kooks would not know a JW if they crawled up your leg and smiled at the
crack of your butt.

| What is it with you and the constant trolling anyway?

Since when is having an opinion trolling idiot?

|
| Andy

[Andy W]

Post by adman
| >
| > |
| > | The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly
dealt
| > | it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
| > | previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| > | assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| > | spontaneously from nonliving matter.
| >
| > Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then
when
| > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just
keep
| > making up the story as they go along.
| >
| > How dishonest!
| > --
|
| No, dishonest is you pretending you actually think scientific laws are
| just "made up". Dishonest is JW creationist Jabbers using yet another
| sock puppet to post scraps of Watchtower bullshit. Dishonest is pretty
| much everything to do with creationism.
You kooks would not know a JW if they crawled up your leg and smiled at the
crack of your butt.

I see... as usual, you have nothing by way of a response beyond a
feeble attempt at being insulting. You should change your name to
adhom. And you're wrong by the way, but you should be used to that by
now.

Post by adman
| What is it with you and the constant trolling anyway?
Since when is having an opinion trolling idiot?

When you repeatedly post "your" opinions in a deliberately
inflammatory manner, into a newsgroup whose members you know hold
opposing views, in the hope of provoking angry responses, you are
trolling. I shouldn't need to explain that to you. And I guess I
shouldn't be surprised that you couldn't even answer that question
either.

Andy

[adman]

"Andy W" <***@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:7614c495-0487-4717-a461-***@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
| On 9 Mar, 11:36, "adman" <***@hottmail.et> wrote:
| > "Andy W" <***@mailinator.com> wrote in message
| >
| > news:5d54b383-2556-4b1f-936e-***@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
| > | On 8 Mar, 22:47, "adman" <***@hottmail.et> wrote:
| > | > "Chaos359" <***@.org> wrote in message
| > | >
| > | >news:3xEAj.635$***@trnddc03...
| > | > |
| > | > | The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly
| > dealt
| > | > | it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only
from
| > | > | previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| > | > | assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| > | > | spontaneously from nonliving matter.
| > | >
| > | > Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law,
then
| > when
| > | > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they
just
| > keep
| > | > making up the story as they go along.
| > | >
| > | > How dishonest!
| > | > --
| > |
| > | No, dishonest is you pretending you actually think scientific laws are
| > | just "made up". Dishonest is JW creationist Jabbers using yet another
| > | sock puppet to post scraps of Watchtower bullshit. Dishonest is pretty
| > | much everything to do with creationism.
| >
| > You kooks would not know a JW if they crawled up your leg and smiled at
the
| > crack of your butt.
|
| I see... as usual, you have nothing by way of a response beyond a
| feeble attempt at being insulting. You should change your name to
| adhom. And you're wrong by the way, but you should be used to that by
| now.
|
| >
| > | What is it with you and the constant trolling anyway?
| >
| > Since when is having an opinion trolling idiot?
|
| When you repeatedly post "your" opinions in a deliberately
| inflammatory manner, into a newsgroup whose members you know hold
| opposing views, in the hope of provoking angry responses, you are
| trolling. I shouldn't need to explain that to you. And I guess I
| shouldn't be surprised that you couldn't even answer that question
| either.

No kook. These are PUBLIC NG's and opposing views are what people come here
for and WANT to discuss. If everyone agreed with your dumb ass what good
would that do?

CLUE:
You can respond or IGNORE the posts you do not agree with.

It is really THAT SIMPLE.

HTH

AND, If anyone is a troll, it is YOU for not adding to the conversation but
trying to CENSOR the conversation.

See how simple that is?

Class dismissed asshole.

[Syd M.]

Post by adman
| >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly
| > dealt
| > | > | it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only
from
| > | > | previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| > | > | assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| > | > | spontaneously from nonliving matter.
| > | >
| > | > Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law,
then
| > when
| > | > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they
just
| > keep
| > | > making up the story as they go along.
| > | >
| > | > How dishonest!
| > | > --
| > |
| > | No, dishonest is you pretending you actually think scientific laws are
| > | just "made up". Dishonest is JW creationist Jabbers using yet another
| > | sock puppet to post scraps of Watchtower bullshit. Dishonest is pretty
| > | much everything to do with creationism.
| >
| > You kooks would not know a JW if they crawled up your leg and smiled at
the
| > crack of your butt.
|
| I see... as usual, you have nothing by way of a response beyond a
| feeble attempt at being insulting. You should change your name to
| adhom. And you're wrong by the way, but you should be used to that by
| now.
|
| >
| > | What is it with you and the constant trolling anyway?
| >
| > Since when is having an opinion trolling idiot?
|
| When you repeatedly post "your" opinions in a deliberately
| inflammatory manner, into a newsgroup whose members you know hold
| opposing views, in the hope of provoking angry responses, you are
| trolling. I shouldn't need to explain that to you. And I guess I
| shouldn't be surprised that you couldn't even answer that question
| either.
No kook. These are PUBLIC NG's and opposing views are what people come here
for and WANT to discuss. If everyone agreed with your dumb ass what good
would that do?
You can respond or IGNORE the posts you do not agree with.
It is really THAT SIMPLE.
HTH
AND, If anyone is a troll, it is YOU for not adding to the conversation but
trying to CENSOR the conversation.
See how simple that is?
Class dismissed asshole.

You don't get to decide that, asshole.

PDW

[Andy W]

On 10 Mar, 02:29, "adman" <***@hottmail.et> wrote:
<snip. One of us has to>

Post by adman
| > | What is it with you and the constant trolling anyway?
| >
| > Since when is having an opinion trolling idiot?
|
| When you repeatedly post "your" opinions in a deliberately
| inflammatory manner, into a newsgroup whose members you know hold
| opposing views, in the hope of provoking angry responses, you are
| trolling. I shouldn't need to explain that to you. And I guess I
| shouldn't be surprised that you couldn't even answer that question
| either.
No kook. These are PUBLIC NG's  and opposing views are what people come here
for and WANT to discuss. If everyone agreed with your dumb ass what good
would that do?

Except that most of the time you don't discuss, you insult, or post
obvious nonsense, just to get responses, and that's why you're
trolling. It's the style and intent more than the content, although
many of your posts have no content at all.

Post by adman
You can respond or IGNORE the posts you do not agree with.
It is really THAT SIMPLE.
HTH
AND, If anyone is a troll, it is YOU for not adding to the conversation but
trying to CENSOR the conversation.

First, that would be a netcop not a troll, and second, I wasn't trying
to censor anything, I actually was interested in knowing why on Earth
you would want to do it. You post messages that can have no purpose
other than to get people to insult you, ridicule you and prove you
wrong, over and over again, over a hundred times a day on average.
What possible reward do you get out of that?

Post by adman
See how simple that is?
Class dismissed asshole.

Ha ha ha... you go on about censoring the conversation and then try to
cut me off! That's almost as ironic as posting anti-science rants on
the internet.

And BTW the pupil does not get to dismiss the class.

Andy

[Ips-Switch]

Post by adman
|
| The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
| it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
| previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| spontaneously from nonliving matter.
Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then when
that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just keep
making up the story as they go along.

Yeah! We should get rid of all the sciences and go back to living in the
Bronze Age, right? No more TV, no more PCs, no more modern medicine or
grocery stores or books. I don't know why you're still online when you're
so against science and technology.

Post by adman
How dishonest!
--

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Ips-Switch

Post by adman
|
| The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
| it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
| previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| spontaneously from nonliving matter.
Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then when
that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just keep
making up the story as they go along.

Yeah! We should get rid of all the sciences and go back to living in the
Bronze Age, right? No more TV, no more PCs, no more modern medicine or
grocery stores or books. I don't know why you're still online when you're
so against science and technology.

this is pretty obvious fallacy

at least i hope its obvious

the ability to exploit a technology is
independent of the explanation of that technology
the explanation can be wrong

there are numerous examples of scientific and non-scientific explanations
being dead wrong but people keep on using the technology all the same

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Lisbeth Andersson]

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Ips-Switch

Post by adman
|
| The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had
| seemingly dealt it a deathblow, having proved by experiments
| that life comes only from previous life. Nevertheless, out
| of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago
| microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from
| nonliving matter.
Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then when
that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just keep
making up the story as they go along.

Yeah! We should get rid of all the sciences and go back to
living in the Bronze Age, right? No more TV, no more PCs, no
more modern medicine or grocery stores or books. I don't know
why you're still online when you're so against science and
technology.

this is pretty obvious fallacy
at least i hope its obvious
the ability to exploit a technology is
independent of the explanation of that technology
the explanation can be wrong
there are numerous examples of scientific and non-scientific
explanations being dead wrong but people keep on using the
technology all the same

Could you give a few examples?


Lisbeth.

----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.

*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Lisbeth Andersson

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Ips-Switch

Post by adman
|
| The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had
| seemingly dealt it a deathblow, having proved by experiments
| that life comes only from previous life. Nevertheless, out
| of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago
| microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from
| nonliving matter.
Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then when
that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just keep
making up the story as they go along.

Yeah! We should get rid of all the sciences and go back to
living in the Bronze Age, right? No more TV, no more PCs, no
more modern medicine or grocery stores or books. I don't know
why you're still online when you're so against science and
technology.

this is pretty obvious fallacy
at least i hope its obvious
the ability to exploit a technology is
independent of the explanation of that technology
the explanation can be wrong
there are numerous examples of scientific and non-scientific
explanations being dead wrong but people keep on using the
technology all the same

Could you give a few examples?

medicine was producing effective cures in prehistory
bronze and steel predate atomic theory
compasses have been around for hundreds of years

more recently theories of electricity and magnetism lagged inventions
medicine still often leads biology
aerodynamics is advanced by explaining technology of aircraft

you can also point where science leads technology
but they are not as strongly coupled as most people think

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[adman]

"Ips-Switch" <***@this.org> wrote in message news:47d33d26$0$1340$***@reader.greatnowhere.com...
|
| "adman" <***@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| news:UHEAj.701$***@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| >
| > "Chaos359" <***@.org> wrote in message
| > news:3xEAj.635$***@trnddc03...
| > |
| > | The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly
dealt
| > | it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
| > | previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| > | assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| > | spontaneously from nonliving matter.
| >
| > Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then
| > when
| > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just
| > keep
| > making up the story as they go along.
| >
|
| Yeah! We should get rid of all the sciences and go back to living in the
| Bronze Age, right? No more TV, no more PCs, no more modern medicine or
| grocery stores or books. I don't know why you're still online when you're
| so against science and technology.
|

I have nothing against "ethical" science.

[Smiler]

Post by adman
|
| >
| > |
| > | The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly
dealt
| > | it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
| > | previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| > | assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| > | spontaneously from nonliving matter.
| >
| > Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then
| > when
| > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just
| > keep
| > making up the story as they go along.
| >
|
| Yeah! We should get rid of all the sciences and go back to living in the
| Bronze Age, right? No more TV, no more PCs, no more modern medicine or
| grocery stores or books. I don't know why you're still online when you're
| so against science and technology.
|
I have nothing against "ethical" science.

Who the fuck are you to decide what is ethical and what is not?

Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Smiler

Post by adman
|
| >
| > |
| > | The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly
dealt
| > | it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
| > | previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| > | assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| > | spontaneously from nonliving matter.
| >
| > Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then
| > when
| > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just
| > keep
| > making up the story as they go along.
| >
|
| Yeah! We should get rid of all the sciences and go back to living in the
| Bronze Age, right? No more TV, no more PCs, no more modern medicine or
| grocery stores or books. I don't know why you're still online when you're
| so against science and technology.
|
I have nothing against "ethical" science.

Who the fuck are you to decide what is ethical and what is not?

who are you to decide

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Ralph]

Post by adman
|
| >
| > |
| > | The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly
dealt
| > | it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
| > | previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| > | assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| > | spontaneously from nonliving matter.
| >
| > Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then
| > when
| > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just
| > keep
| > making up the story as they go along.
| >
|
| Yeah! We should get rid of all the sciences and go back to living in the
| Bronze Age, right? No more TV, no more PCs, no more modern medicine or
| grocery stores or books. I don't know why you're still online when you're
| so against science and technology.
|
I have nothing against "ethical" science.

Who really gives a shit about you, your opinions or anything else that you
touch, asshole,

[adman]

"Ralph" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:34jBj.14010$***@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
|
| "adman" <***@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| news:T_PAj.4992$***@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
| >
| > "Ips-Switch" <***@this.org> wrote in message
| > news:47d33d26$0$1340$***@reader.greatnowhere.com...
| > |
| > | "adman" <***@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| > | news:UHEAj.701$***@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| > | >
| > | > "Chaos359" <***@.org> wrote in message
| > | > news:3xEAj.635$***@trnddc03...
| > | > |
| > | > | The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly
| > dealt
| > | > | it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only
| > from
| > | > | previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| > | > | assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| > | > | spontaneously from nonliving matter.
| > | >
| > | > Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law,
| > then
| > | > when
| > | > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they
just
| > | > keep
| > | > making up the story as they go along.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Yeah! We should get rid of all the sciences and go back to living in
| > the
| > | Bronze Age, right? No more TV, no more PCs, no more modern medicine or
| > | grocery stores or books. I don't know why you're still online when
| > you're
| > | so against science and technology.
| > |
| >
| > I have nothing against "ethical" science.
|
| Who really gives a shit about you, your opinions or anything else that you
| touch, asshole,

God.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:26:16 -0600, in alt.atheism

Post by adman
|
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly
| > dealt
| > | > | it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only
| > from
| > | > | previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| > | > | assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| > | > | spontaneously from nonliving matter.
| > | >
| > | > Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law,
| > then
| > | > when
| > | > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they
just
| > | > keep
| > | > making up the story as they go along.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Yeah! We should get rid of all the sciences and go back to living in
| > the
| > | Bronze Age, right? No more TV, no more PCs, no more modern medicine or
| > | grocery stores or books. I don't know why you're still online when
| > you're
| > | so against science and technology.
| > |
| >
| > I have nothing against "ethical" science.
|
| Who really gives a shit about you, your opinions or anything else that you
| touch, asshole,
God.

So you claim. Of course you have repeatedly failed to take us up on the
opportunity to provide evidence to back up your claims.

[MarkA]

Post by adman
|
| The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
| it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
| previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
| assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
| spontaneously from nonliving matter.
Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then when
that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just keep
making up the story as they go along.
How dishonest!

A lot like religions do. The main difference is that religions don't feel
any obligation to reconcile with reality, the way science does.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by MarkA
A lot like religions do. The main difference is that religions don't feel
any obligation to reconcile with reality, the way science does.

prove to me the science is reconciled with reality

you can start by proving reality is what you think it is

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Paul Hands]

Post by adman
Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then when
that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just keep
making up the story as they go along.
How dishonest!
--

Adman, you keep trying this tactic, and you keep getting your ass
handed to you on a plate.
The revisions are called the scientific method : new facts and
evidence are used to change or replace existing ideas. That's the
whole point : science is willing to change in the fact of demonstrable
evidence. It's up to you wankers to SIMPLY PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. The
problem is that you can't, because you don't understand the science.
This renders your "arguments" invalid every time you try.

The dishonesty is all yours : you adopt a position which is
unsupported by any evidence and then claim that all the actual
evidence must be wrong. Thats' both moral and intellectual
dishonesty, but it's OK because your sky fairy gives you special
dispensation to lie.

[adman]

"Paul Hands" <***@eircom.net> wrote in message news:e054d3a1-4843-436f-a4ff-***@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
|> Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then
when
| > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just
keep
| > making up the story as they go along.
| >
| > How dishonest!
| > --
|
| Adman, you keep trying this tactic, and you keep getting your ass
| handed to you on a plate.
| The revisions are called the scientific method : new facts and
| evidence are used to change or replace existing ideas. That's the
| whole point : science is willing to change in the fact of demonstrable
| evidence. It's up to you wankers to SIMPLY PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. The
| problem is that you can't, because you don't understand the science.
| This renders your "arguments" invalid every time you try.
|
| The dishonesty is all yours : you adopt a position which is
| unsupported by any evidence and then claim that all the actual
| evidence must be wrong. Thats' both moral and intellectual
| dishonesty, but it's OK because your sky fairy gives you special
| dispensation to lie.

face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
face of the earth.

[Douglas Berry]

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 08:41:24 -0600 "adman" <***@hottmail.et> carved
the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism

Post by adman
face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
face of the earth.

No, that would be heart disease. Which medical science can treat,
y'know.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779147.html

Science is simply a method of investigation.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

[Kali]

In <xGSAj.1080$***@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, adman 72545
@hottmail.et said:
:
: "Paul Hands" <***@eircom.net> wrote in message
: news:e054d3a1-4843-436f-a4ff-***@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: |> Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then
: when
: | > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just
: keep
: | > making up the story as they go along.
: | >
: | > How dishonest!
: | > --
: |
: | Adman, you keep trying this tactic, and you keep getting your ass
: | handed to you on a plate.
: | The revisions are called the scientific method : new facts and
: | evidence are used to change or replace existing ideas. That's the
: | whole point : science is willing to change in the fact of demonstrable
: | evidence. It's up to you wankers to SIMPLY PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. The
: | problem is that you can't, because you don't understand the science.
: | This renders your "arguments" invalid every time you try.
: |
: | The dishonesty is all yours : you adopt a position which is
: | unsupported by any evidence and then claim that all the actual
: | evidence must be wrong. Thats' both moral and intellectual
: | dishonesty, but it's OK because your sky fairy gives you special
: | dispensation to lie.
:
: face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
: face of the earth.

Evidence?

Didn't think so.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by adman
|> Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then
when
| > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just
keep
| > making up the story as they go along.
| >
| > How dishonest!
| > --
|
| Adman, you keep trying this tactic, and you keep getting your ass
| handed to you on a plate.
| The revisions are called the scientific method : new facts and
| evidence are used to change or replace existing ideas. That's the
| whole point : science is willing to change in the fact of demonstrable
| evidence. It's up to you wankers to SIMPLY PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. The
| problem is that you can't, because you don't understand the science.
| This renders your "arguments" invalid every time you try.
|
| The dishonesty is all yours : you adopt a position which is
| unsupported by any evidence and then claim that all the actual
| evidence must be wrong. Thats' both moral and intellectual
| dishonesty, but it's OK because your sky fairy gives you special
| dispensation to lie.
face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
face of the earth.

science doesnt kill people
people kill people using technology

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Paul Hands]

Post by adman
face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
face of the earth.

You try facts : science uncovers them. People, and they've been
overwhelmingly the religious, use them to kill other people : usually
those who don't agree with their particular version of the sky fairy
myth.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Paul Hands

Post by adman
face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
face of the earth.

You try facts : science uncovers them. People, and they've been
overwhelmingly the religious, use them to kill other people : usually

germany killed jews gypsys slavs etc based on their interpretation of darwin
ussr prc etc killed based on their interpretation of economics

if you want to hold one belief system responsible for what is done in its name
then its hypocritical not to hold all belief systems responsible

its not that hard to find horrors americans were willing to inflict on americans
in the eugenics movement of 1900s or so
or what psychologists were promoting in the 1950s


humans treat humans poorly
as long as they refuse to see their enemies as humans

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[DanielSan]

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Paul Hands

Post by adman
face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
face of the earth.

You try facts : science uncovers them. People, and they've been
overwhelmingly the religious, use them to kill other people : usually

germany killed jews gypsys slavs etc based on their interpretation of darwin
ussr prc etc killed based on their interpretation of economics

You mean "people" killed Jews, etc, right?

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
if you want to hold one belief system responsible for what is done in its name
then its hypocritical not to hold all belief systems responsible

We are not the ones that started with "belief systems" being
responsible, ass.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
its not that hard to find horrors americans were willing to inflict on americans
in the eugenics movement of 1900s or so
or what psychologists were promoting in the 1950s
humans treat humans poorly
as long as they refuse to see their enemies as humans

Right. It's not belief systems, science, or anything. It's
psychopathic humans.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by DanielSan

In article

Post by Paul Hands

Post by adman
face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
face of the earth.

You try facts : science uncovers them. People, and they've been
overwhelmingly the religious, use them to kill other people : usually

germany killed jews gypsys slavs etc based on their interpretation of darwin
ussr prc etc killed based on their interpretation of economics

You mean "people" killed Jews, etc, right?

if you want to hold one belief system responsible for what is done in its name
then its hypocritical not to hold all belief systems responsible

We are not the ones that started with "belief systems" being
responsible, ass.

typical hypocritical alt-atheist bullshit

if a person murders in the name of science then its not science
if a person murders in the name of atheism then its not atheism
if a person murders in the name of a religion
then it completely that religions fault and it should be abolished

im sure you play well for the yokels in alt-atheism
but do you wonder why the larger world laughs in your general direction

Post by DanielSan
Right. It's not belief systems, science, or anything. It's
psychopathic humans.

not really psychopathic
ordinary people do the job just fine

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[DanielSan]

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by DanielSan

In article

Post by Paul Hands

Post by adman
face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
face of the earth.

You try facts : science uncovers them. People, and they've been
overwhelmingly the religious, use them to kill other people : usually

germany killed jews gypsys slavs etc based on their interpretation of darwin
ussr prc etc killed based on their interpretation of economics

You mean "people" killed Jews, etc, right?

if you want to hold one belief system responsible for what is done in its name
then its hypocritical not to hold all belief systems responsible

We are not the ones that started with "belief systems" being
responsible, ass.

typical hypocritical alt-atheist bullshit
if a person murders in the name of science then its not science

Who has killed anyone in the name of science? And how is science
responsible?

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
if a person murders in the name of atheism then its not atheism

Who has killed anyone in the name of atheism? And how is atheism
responsible?

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
if a person murders in the name of a religion
then it completely that religions fault and it should be abolished

No, see that's where your argument falls apart. You conflate the
antitheist with the atheist. One can be the other, but not necessarily.
I do not blame religion for anything. It's the psychopaths that kill
that I blame.

Remember, however, that the religious claim to be the moral high ground
so pointing out whenever a religious person does something like kill
someone, we are, indeed, quick to point out the hypocrisy thereof.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
im sure you play well for the yokels in alt-atheism

And yet, all you can do is spread misinformation about atheism to
atheists. The yokel here, sir, is you.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
but do you wonder why the larger world laughs in your general direction

Are you sure they're not laughing at you? Remember, your are in the
minority here.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by DanielSan
Right. It's not belief systems, science, or anything. It's
psychopathic humans.

not really psychopathic
ordinary people do the job just fine

No, it's the psychopathic (those that feel other humans are not human)
that kill.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by DanielSan

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
if a person murders in the name of a religion
then it completely that religions fault and it should be abolished

No, see that's where your argument falls apart. You conflate the
antitheist with the atheist. One can be the other, but not necessarily.

yes of course
different rules for different folks

Post by DanielSan

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
but do you wonder why the larger world laughs in your general direction

Are you sure they're not laughing at you? Remember, your are in the
minority here.

i am always alone
thats is my burden

Post by DanielSan

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by DanielSan
Right. It's not belief systems, science, or anything. It's
psychopathic humans.

not really psychopathic
ordinary people do the job just fine

No, it's the psychopathic (those that feel other humans are not human)
that kill.

must be a lot of psychopaths in the world

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[DanielSan]

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by DanielSan

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
if a person murders in the name of a religion
then it completely that religions fault and it should be abolished

No, see that's where your argument falls apart. You conflate the
antitheist with the atheist. One can be the other, but not necessarily.

yes of course
different rules for different folks

Actually, same rules for different folks.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by DanielSan

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
but do you wonder why the larger world laughs in your general direction

Are you sure they're not laughing at you? Remember, your are in the
minority here.

i am always alone
thats is my burden

So, it was a lie when you said "the larger world laughs in your general
direction"?

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by DanielSan

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by DanielSan
Right. It's not belief systems, science, or anything. It's
psychopathic humans.

not really psychopathic
ordinary people do the job just fine

No, it's the psychopathic (those that feel other humans are not human)
that kill.

must be a lot of psychopaths in the world

Not as many as you make it out to be. Again, you're in the minority.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:45:22 -0800, in alt.atheism

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Paul Hands

Post by adman
face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
face of the earth.

You try facts : science uncovers them. People, and they've been
overwhelmingly the religious, use them to kill other people : usually

germany killed jews gypsys slavs etc based on their interpretation of darwin

That is a false claim on your part. Nazi ideology had nothing to do with
Darwin.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
ussr prc etc killed based on their interpretation of economics
if you want to hold one belief system responsible for what is done in its name
then its hypocritical not to hold all belief systems responsible
its not that hard to find horrors americans were willing to inflict on americans
in the eugenics movement of 1900s or so
or what psychologists were promoting in the 1950s
humans treat humans poorly
as long as they refuse to see their enemies as humans
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Free Lunch
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:45:22 -0800, in alt.atheism

In article

Post by Paul Hands

Post by adman
face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
face of the earth.

You try facts : science uncovers them. People, and they've been
overwhelmingly the religious, use them to kill other people : usually

germany killed jews gypsys slavs etc based on their interpretation of darwin

That is a false claim on your part. Nazi ideology had nothing to do with
Darwin.

and you keep batting zero

you really need to do some research sunshine
their ideology had everything to do with their interpretation of darwin
the whole racial hygiene and duty to the state thing

this is better obvious and well known stuff


you could argue it was bad interpretation of darwin
and that just because someone claims to be acting in the name of xyzzy
xyzzy is not actual causation or responsible

but thats a different argument

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:45:53 -0800, in alt.atheism

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Free Lunch
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:45:22 -0800, in alt.atheism

In article

Post by Paul Hands

Post by adman
face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
face of the earth.

You try facts : science uncovers them. People, and they've been
overwhelmingly the religious, use them to kill other people : usually

germany killed jews gypsys slavs etc based on their interpretation of darwin

That is a false claim on your part. Nazi ideology had nothing to do with
Darwin.

and you keep batting zero
you really need to do some research sunshine
their ideology had everything to do with their interpretation of darwin
the whole racial hygiene and duty to the state thing

Excuse me if I don't bow down to your claim. If you want me to believe
your claims, then provide proper references. I'm quite confident that
you are _not_ Hitler or one of the inner circle, so I see no reason to
trust your claims.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
this is better obvious and well known stuff

No.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
you could argue it was bad interpretation of darwin

It was _not_ an interpretation of Darwin at all.

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
and that just because someone claims to be acting in the name of xyzzy
xyzzy is not actual causation or responsible
but thats a different argument
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Ye Old One]

Post by adman
|> Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then
when
| > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just
keep
| > making up the story as they go along.
| >
| > How dishonest!
| > --
|
| Adman, you keep trying this tactic, and you keep getting your ass
| handed to you on a plate.
| The revisions are called the scientific method : new facts and
| evidence are used to change or replace existing ideas. That's the
| whole point : science is willing to change in the fact of demonstrable
| evidence. It's up to you wankers to SIMPLY PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. The
| problem is that you can't, because you don't understand the science.
| This renders your "arguments" invalid every time you try.
|
| The dishonesty is all yours : you adopt a position which is
| unsupported by any evidence and then claim that all the actual
| evidence must be wrong. Thats' both moral and intellectual
| dishonesty, but it's OK because your sky fairy gives you special
| dispensation to lie.
face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
face of the earth.

Nope. Religion does that by promoting ignorance - you being a prime
example.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Ye Old One
Nope. Religion does that by promoting ignorance - you being a prime
example.

thats an ignorant remark
so whats your religion

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Syd M.]

Post by adman
|> Funny that when science needs to explain itself it makes up a law, then
when
| > that law no longer works science will make up a new law. And they just
keep
| > making up the story as they go along.
| >
| > How dishonest!
| > --
|
| Adman, you keep trying this tactic, and you keep getting your ass
| handed to you on a plate.
| The revisions are called the scientific method : new facts and
| evidence are used to change or replace existing ideas. That's the
| whole point : science is willing to change in the fact of demonstrable
| evidence. It's up to you wankers to SIMPLY PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. The
| problem is that you can't, because you don't understand the science.
| This renders your "arguments" invalid every time you try.
|
| The dishonesty is all yours : you adopt a position which is
| unsupported by any evidence and then claim that all the actual
| evidence must be wrong. Thats' both moral and intellectual
| dishonesty, but it's OK because your sky fairy gives you special
| dispensation to lie.
face facts. science, from its start, kills more people then anything on the
face of the earth.

You misspelled 'religion', asshole.

PDW

[Kali]

In <UHEAj.701$***@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, adman 72545
@hottmail.et said:
:
: "Chaos359" <***@.org> wrote in message
: news:3xEAj.635$***@trnddc03...
: |
: | The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
: | it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
: | previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
: | assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
: | spontaneously from nonliving matter.
:
: Funny that when science needs to explain itself

Science attempts to explain the world. Religion seeks to explain
itself.

: it makes up a law, then when
: that law no longer works science will make up a new law.

Like the law of gravity?

I think you have theory and law confused.

: And they just keep
: making up the story as they go along.

Making up the story? Sounds like religion to me.

Change in science is called progress. Theories are evidence
based and testable. When new evidence is presented, the theory
is tested. Sometimes it is revised or even thrown out. It takes
a long time and a lot of evidence testing for a theory to become
a law.

: How dishonest!

Your ignorance of science makes you think so. Science orients
itself to falsifying theories. Religion demands faith, and
rejects change, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

evolution only applies to the modification of life
not to the original creation of life

pasteur showed complex life doesnt arise under particular circumstances

whether simpler organisms could arise under different circumstances
no one yet has evidence to say yea or nay

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Chaos359]

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

evolution only applies to the modification of life
not to the original creation of life

Read the subject line. Does it say "evolution in" it?

[Andre Lieven]

Post by Chaos359

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

evolution only applies to the modification of life
not to the original creation of life

Read the subject line. Does it say "evolution in" it?

Your post DID. Duh.

Andre

[Ips-Switch]

Post by Chaos359

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

evolution only applies to the modification of life
not to the original creation of life

Read the subject line. Does it say "evolution in" it?

Your post DID. Duh.

It's a Jabber's sock posting more Witchpower Sicksiety Babble and Trickem
bullshit. Anything cross-posted to AA and ARJ-W is another Jabber's sock.
He also posts through Google or Verizon.


Andre

[adman]

Post by Chaos359

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

evolution only applies to the modification of life
not to the original creation of life

Read the subject line. Does it say "evolution in" it?

k00k



The subject line did not.DUH



Andre

[Chaos359]

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by Chaos359

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

evolution only applies to the modification of life
not to the original creation of life

Read the subject line. Does it say "evolution in" it?

Your post DID. Duh.
Andre

Reading is a problem with you. No abiogenesis no Evolution. The subject
is abiogenesis.

[unknown]

Post by Chaos359

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by Chaos359

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

evolution only applies to the modification of life
not to the original creation of life

Read the subject line. Does it say "evolution in" it?

Your post DID. Duh.
Andre

Reading is a problem with you. No abiogenesis no Evolution. The subject
is abiogenesis.

Stop chase the pussy and come home Antonio. I want you service me
before I find lover in Kingsdom Hall.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Chaos359

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

evolution only applies to the modification of life
not to the original creation of life

Read the subject line. Does it say "evolution in" it?

Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Dubh Ghall]

Post by Chaos359

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

evolution only applies to the modification of life
not to the original creation of life

Read the subject line. Does it say "evolution in" it?

What Pasteur disproved a myth.

What Pasteur proved, was that mice do not spontaneously generate in
bundles of old rags, or maggot, on dead flesh.

None of Parteur's work was even remotely related to the first
appearance of life on this, or any other world.

Why are xtians so dishonest?

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Dubh Ghall

Post by Chaos359

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

evolution only applies to the modification of life
not to the original creation of life

Read the subject line. Does it say "evolution in" it?

What Pasteur disproved a myth.
What Pasteur proved, was that mice do not spontaneously generate in
bundles of old rags, or maggot, on dead flesh.
None of Parteur's work was even remotely related to the first
appearance of life on this, or any other world.
Why are xtians so dishonest?

im sure you have facile explanations that pasteur wasnt really a catholic
but it leaves me wondering
was pasteur honest because you will say he wasnt a christian
or you will say he wasnt a christian because he was honest


btw for a skilled typists its harder to type x than chris
so is this because you arent a skilled typists
or you have so much hatred for people not like you

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Chaos359]

Post by Dubh Ghall

Post by Chaos359

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

evolution only applies to the modification of life
not to the original creation of life

Read the subject line. Does it say "evolution in" it?

What Pasteur disproved a myth.
What Pasteur proved, was that mice do not spontaneously generate in
bundles of old rags, or maggot, on dead flesh.
None of Parteur's work was even remotely related to the first
appearance of life on this, or any other world.

Do you know of any scientists who has duplicated abiogenesis?

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Chaos359
Do you know of any scientists who has duplicated abiogenesis?

nor has anyone proved it impossible
it is an open question

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[unknown]

Post by Chaos359

Post by Dubh Ghall

Post by Chaos359

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

evolution only applies to the modification of life
not to the original creation of life

Read the subject line. Does it say "evolution in" it?

What Pasteur disproved a myth.
What Pasteur proved, was that mice do not spontaneously generate in
bundles of old rags, or maggot, on dead flesh.
None of Parteur's work was even remotely related to the first
appearance of life on this, or any other world.

Do you know of any scientists who has duplicated abiogenesis?

Why doyou care Antonio when I sit alone herein cold apartmant play
with self?

[M.M. Martinson]

NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.213.205/Verizon.net
X-Trace: trnddc03 1205016091 151.204.213.205 (Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:41:31 EST)

The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt it
a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes
that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from
nonliving matter.

[Douglas Berry]

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:35:43 GMT Chaos359 <***@.org> carved the
following into the hard stone of alt.atheism

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Except of course Pasteur didn't do that. He proved the insects were
not spontaniously generated from rotting meat.

He did not address the origin of life on Earth at all.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

[Ye Old One]

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Life is here on Earth to prove that.

[Chaos359]

Post by Ye Old One

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Life is here on Earth to prove that.

LIfe here on earth demonstartes many things abiogenesis it does not.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Ye Old One

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Life is here on Earth to prove that.

to prove what?

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Chaos359]

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Ye Old One

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Life is here on Earth to prove that.

to prove what?

I think he means abiogenesis. Proof is math concept. He can't
demonstrate Evolution is the origin of man, without first defining the
origin of life.

[Ips-Switch]

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Ye Old One

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Life is here on Earth to prove that.

to prove what?

I think he means abiogenesis. Proof is math concept. He can't demonstrate
Evolution is the origin of man, without first defining the origin of life.

And you can't prove your Watchtower sky daddy created life either
Jabbers...................

[unknown]

Post by Chaos359

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Ye Old One

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Life is here on Earth to prove that.

to prove what?

I think he means abiogenesis. Proof is math concept. He can't
demonstrate Evolution is the origin of man, without first defining the
origin of life.

who t he fuck care Antonio? Com eback and take care of your family.
You do us great harmz.

[willow]

Post by Ye Old One

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Life is here on Earth to prove that.

No, the only thing we have evidence of is
that life comes from life. There is no
evidence to the contrary.

Post by Ye Old One
--
Bob.

[BRAINIAC]

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.

Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

[Kadaitcha Man]

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

HE SAID ILK!!!1!

[Art Deco]

Post by Kadaitcha Man

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

HE SAID ILK!!!1!

HE WHINED ILK!!!2!

[Kali]

In <090320080911150308%***@caballista.org>, Art Deco
***@caballista.org said:
: Kadaitcha Man <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: >"BRAINIAC" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
: >news:7502b432-8fe0-4cce-abc8-***@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: >> On 8 Mar, 22:35, Chaos359 <***@.org> wrote:
: >>> The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
: >>> it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
: >>> previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
: >>> assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
: >>> spontaneously from nonliving matter.
: >>
: >> What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
: >> spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
: >> completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
: >> from non-living matter.
: >>
: >> Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.
: >
: >HE SAID ILK!!!1!
: HE WHINED ILK!!!2!
Got ILK?!!3

[Kadaitcha Man]

Post by Kali
: >>> The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
: >>> it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
: >>> previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
: >>> assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
: >>> spontaneously from nonliving matter.
: >>
: >> What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
: >> spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
: >> completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
: >> from non-living matter.
: >>
: >> Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.
: >
: >HE SAID ILK!!!1!
: HE WHINED ILK!!!2!
Got ILK?!!3

ILK!!4! and two ugars.

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 23:16:03 +1100, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by Kadaitcha Man

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

HE SAID ILK!!!1!

We used to hunt ILK in San Francisco.


--

A Number 1, Grade A, Prime USDA 'Ratz
Accept No Substitute

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Aratzio
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 23:16:03 +1100, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by Kadaitcha Man

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

HE SAID ILK!!!1!

We used to hunt ILK in San Francisco.

theyve all migrated to los angeles
and san luis obispo

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:26:52 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Aratzio
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 23:16:03 +1100, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by Kadaitcha Man

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

HE SAID ILK!!!1!

We used to hunt ILK in San Francisco.

theyve all migrated to los angeles
and san luis obispo

It is sad, no more stalking the wild ILK through the south of market.
No more building hides in the haight to film their clanish nature.

I have heard there was a film of the ILK mating habits being shown at
a nature theater in North Beach.



--

A Number 1, Grade A, Prime USDA 'Ratz
Accept No Substitute

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Aratzio
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:26:52 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal

Post by Aratzio
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 23:16:03 +1100, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by Kadaitcha Man

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

HE SAID ILK!!!1!

We used to hunt ILK in San Francisco.

theyve all migrated to los angeles
and san luis obispo

It is sad, no more stalking the wild ILK through the south of market.
No more building hides in the haight to film their clanish nature.

i used to work in soma before it was the soma all shiny and new
i cant say im truly sorry to see the ilk gone

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[willow]

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

Perhaps you have empirical evidence that
proto-cells from non-living matter is a
proven fact. Please demonstrate same.

[BRAINIAC]

Post by willow

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

Perhaps you have empirical evidence that
proto-cells from non-living matter is a
proven fact.  Please demonstrate same.

Did I declare it a proven fact?

No I did not.

Perhaps you really ought to be directing your question to the
instigator of this thread regarding their so-called proven facts.

[Chaos359]

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by willow

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

Perhaps you have empirical evidence that
proto-cells from non-living matter is a
proven fact. Please demonstrate same.

Did I declare it a proven fact?
No I did not.

so it is now an unproven fact?

[Chaos359]

Post by willow

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

Perhaps you have empirical evidence that
proto-cells from non-living matter is a
proven fact. Please demonstrate same.

The "copout excuse will be: It take millions and millions and millions
of years,

[unknown]

Post by Chaos359

Post by willow

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

Perhaps you have empirical evidence that
proto-cells from non-living matter is a
proven fact. Please demonstrate same.

The "copout excuse will be: It take millions and millions and millions
of years,

Youare destroy the whole famly with yoyur dumb posts and pussy chasing
on the computer.

[willow]

Post by Chaos359

Post by willow

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

Perhaps you have empirical evidence that
proto-cells from non-living matter is a
proven fact.  Please demonstrate same.

The "copout excuse will be: It take millions and millions and millions
of years,- Hide quoted text -

Yes, they hide behind time and chance.

Post by Chaos359
- Show quoted text -

[Douglas Berry]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:37:56 GMT Chaos359 <***@.org> carved the
following into the hard stone of alt.atheism

Post by Chaos359

Post by willow

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

Perhaps you have empirical evidence that
proto-cells from non-living matter is a
proven fact. Please demonstrate same.

The "copout excuse will be: It take millions and millions and millions
of years,

Actually, the Miller-Urey experiments showed that in a very small
container with the conditions found on the young Earth you get amino
acids in a matter of days. 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins
in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids,
and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.

That was in one fairly small container over one week.

This experiment has been repeated dozens of time, always with the same
results. In addition, we see the same thing happening at deep-sea
ocean vents. Raw amino acids, protein precursors... Abiogenesis may be
an ongoing event!
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

[Tyger White]

Post by Douglas Berry
following into the hard stone of alt.atheism

Post by Chaos359

Post by willow

Post by BRAINIAC

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

What Louis Pasteur proved was that micro-organisms cannot
spontaneously generate in decaying organic matter which is a
completely different notion to the emergence of the first proto-cells
from non-living matter.
Perhaps you and your ilk cannot see the difference.

Perhaps you have empirical evidence that
proto-cells from non-living matter is a
proven fact. Please demonstrate same.

The "copout excuse will be: It take millions and millions and millions
of years,

Actually, the Miller-Urey experiments showed that in a very small
container with the conditions found on the young Earth you get amino
acids in a matter of days. 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins
in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids,
and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.
That was in one fairly small container over one week.
This experiment has been repeated dozens of time, always with the same
results. In addition, we see the same thing happening at deep-sea
ocean vents. Raw amino acids, protein precursors... Abiogenesis may be
an ongoing event!
--

I see aminoacids is life. Yup.

[Paul Hands]

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

You get today's Wolfgang Pauli award for being so stupid, you're not
even wrong.

[SkyEyes]

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

First off, evolutionary theor assumes no such thing. Evolution does
not address how life began, only how it developed into different
forms. What you're thinking of is abiogenesis.

Second, that Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation has no bearing
on the beginnings of life. We don't *yet* know how life began, but
we've got some pretty good insights, and we're fast closing in on the
answer.

"Life." by the way, is not an either-or proposition. There are many
forms of matter that fall somewhere on the sliding scale that leads
from non-living to living. Fire is one of them; crystals another, and
viruses yet another.

Now please keep this crap out of alt.atheism, willya? Sheesh.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net

[Cary Kittrell]

Post by SkyEyes

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

First off, evolutionary theor assumes no such thing. Evolution does
not address how life began, only how it developed into different
forms. What you're thinking of is abiogenesis.
Second, that Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation has no bearing
on the beginnings of life. We don't *yet* know how life began, but
we've got some pretty good insights, and we're fast closing in on the
answer.

Second-and-a-half: what Pasteur demonstrated was that life
will not spontaneously arise in a flask of sterile broth
in a couple of months. Not too relevant to might happen
given thousands of different environments and a few
hundred million years to goof around in. Chemically
speaking.

I never am certain, when a creationist starts going on
about this experiment having established a scientific
"Law" that life cannon arise from non-life, I never
am sure whether they're being ignorant or they're
being dishonest.


-- cary

Post by SkyEyes
"Life." by the way, is not an either-or proposition. There are many
forms of matter that fall somewhere on the sliding scale that leads
from non-living to living. Fire is one of them; crystals another, and
viruses yet another.
Now please keep this crap out of alt.atheism, willya? Sheesh.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net

[willow]

Post by Cary Kittrell

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

First off, evolutionary theor assumes no such thing.  Evolution does
not address how life began, only how it developed into different
forms.  What you're thinking of is abiogenesis.
Second, that Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation has no bearing
on the beginnings of life.  We don't *yet* know how life began, but
we've got some pretty good insights, and we're fast closing in on the
answer.

Second-and-a-half: what Pasteur demonstrated was that life
will not spontaneously arise in a flask of sterile broth
in a couple of months.  Not too relevant to might happen
given thousands of different environments and a few
hundred million years to goof around in.  Chemically
speaking.
I never am certain, when a creationist starts going on
about this experiment having established a scientific
"Law" that life cannon arise from non-life, I never
am sure whether they're being ignorant or they're
being dishonest.
-- cary

Maybe it's because the only thing that has
clearly been established is that life comes
from life. All else is speculation. Time
and chance are non-entities therefore they
can't influence the creation of life.

Post by Cary Kittrell

"Life." by the way, is not an either-or proposition.  There are many
forms of matter that fall somewhere on the sliding scale that leads
from non-living to living.  Fire is one of them; crystals another, and
viruses yet another.
Now please keep this crap out of alt.atheism, willya?  Sheesh.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Cary Kittrell]

Post by willow

Post by Cary Kittrell

The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly deal=

t

Post by Cary Kittrell

it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from=
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

First off, evolutionary theor assumes no such thing. =A0Evolution does
not address how life began, only how it developed into different
forms. =A0What you're thinking of is abiogenesis.
Second, that Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation has no bearing
on the beginnings of life. =A0We don't *yet* know how life began, but
we've got some pretty good insights, and we're fast closing in on the
answer.

Second-and-a-half: what Pasteur demonstrated was that life
will not spontaneously arise in a flask of sterile broth
in a couple of months. =A0Not too relevant to might happen
given thousands of different environments and a few
hundred million years to goof around in. =A0Chemically
speaking.
I never am certain, when a creationist starts going on
about this experiment having established a scientific
"Law" that life cannon arise from non-life, I never
am sure whether they're being ignorant or they're
being dishonest.
-- cary

Maybe it's because the only thing that has
clearly been established is that life comes
from life.

Who has established this, and how?

Post by willow
All else is speculation. Time
and chance are non-entities therefore they
can't influence the creation of life.

I find myself compelled to respond to this last with -- and
I mean this in all sincerity -- "huh?"


-- cary

Post by willow

Post by Cary Kittrell

"Life." by the way, is not an either-or proposition. =A0There are many
forms of matter that fall somewhere on the sliding scale that leads
from non-living to living. =A0Fire is one of them; crystals another, and=
viruses yet another.
Now please keep this crap out of alt.atheism, willya? =A0Sheesh.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Cary Kittrell

Post by willow
Maybe it's because the only thing that has
clearly been established is that life comes
from life.

Who has established this, and how?

who hasnt? do you know of any publications documenting
the creation of new life from nonliving substances?

Post by Cary Kittrell

Post by willow
All else is speculation. Time
and chance are non-entities therefore they
can't influence the creation of life.

I find myself compelled to respond to this last with -- and
I mean this in all sincerity -- "huh?"

makes it perfect sense to me

its completely unsupported and possibly wrong
but thats a separate issue

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Aratzio]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:37:17 -0700, in alt.usenet.kooks, mariposas

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
who hasnt? do you know of any publications documenting
the creation of new life from nonliving substances?

Have you looked in my refrigerator?

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:37:17 -0700, in alt.usenet.kooks, mariposas

Post by mariposas rand mair fheal
who hasnt? do you know of any publications documenting
the creation of new life from nonliving substances?

Have you looked in my refrigerator?

the andromeda strain was just a movie - fiction
the andromeda strain was just a movie - fiction
the andromeda strain was just a movie - fiction
the andromeda strain was just a movie - fiction
the andromeda strain was just a movie - fiction
the andromeda strain was just a movie - fiction

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

[Chaos359]

Post by Cary Kittrell

Post by willow
Maybe it's because the only thing that has
clearly been established is that life comes
from life.

Who has established this, and how?

The scientific method.

[willow]

Post by Cary Kittrell

Post by willow

Post by Cary Kittrell

The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly deal=

t

Post by Cary Kittrell

it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from=
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

First off, evolutionary theor assumes no such thing. =A0Evolution does
not address how life began, only how it developed into different
forms. =A0What you're thinking of is abiogenesis.
Second, that Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation has no bearing
on the beginnings of life. =A0We don't *yet* know how life began, but
we've got some pretty good insights, and we're fast closing in on the
answer.

Second-and-a-half: what Pasteur demonstrated was that life
will not spontaneously arise in a flask of sterile broth
in a couple of months. =A0Not too relevant to might happen
given thousands of different environments and a few
hundred million years to goof around in. =A0Chemically
speaking.
I never am certain, when a creationist starts going on
about this experiment having established a scientific
"Law" that life cannon arise from non-life, I never
am sure whether they're being ignorant or they're
being dishonest.
-- cary

Maybe it's because the only thing that has
clearly been established is that life comes
from life.  

Who has established this, and how?

By not being able to produce life from
that which has no life. So, everyone who
has tried to find evidence of the above,
and failed, has helped established that
life comes from life.

Post by Cary Kittrell

Post by willow
All else is speculation.  Time
and chance are non-entities therefore they
can't influence the creation of life.

I find myself compelled to respond to this last with -- and
I mean this in all sincerity -- "huh?"

given thousands of different environments and a few
hundred million years to goof around in. =A0Chemically
speaking.

Post by Cary Kittrell
-- cary

Post by willow

Post by Cary Kittrell

"Life." by the way, is not an either-or proposition. =A0There are many
forms of matter that fall somewhere on the sliding scale that leads
from non-living to living. =A0Fire is one of them; crystals another, and=
viruses yet another.
Now please keep this crap out of alt.atheism, willya? =A0Sheesh.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Santolina chamaecyparissus]

Post by willow
Maybe it's because the only thing that has
clearly been established is that life comes
from life.

Let's assume this for argument. Let's also assume a Creator for
argument.

God created all.
Life only comes from life.
Therefore, God is alive in the conventional sense.

I wonder if He's an organ donor?

[Chaos359]

Post by Santolina chamaecyparissus

Post by willow
Maybe it's because the only thing that has
clearly been established is that life comes
from life.

Let's assume this for argument. Let's also assume a Creator for
argument.
God created all.
Life only comes from life.
Therefore, God is alive in the conventional sense.
I wonder if He's an organ donor?

Adam was, he gave a rib.

[Santolina chamaecyparissus]

Post by Chaos359

Post by willow
Maybe it's because the only thing that has
clearly been established is that life comes
from life.

Let's assume this for argument.  Let's also assume a Creator for
argument.
God created all.
Life only comes from life.
Therefore, God is alive in the conventional sense.
I wonder if He's an organ donor?

Adam was, he gave a rib.

Yes, very amusing. So, is (or was) God alive in the conventional
sense?

[Mike Johannson]

Post by Chaos359

Post by Santolina chamaecyparissus

Post by willow
Maybe it's because the only thing that has
clearly been established is that life comes
from life.

Let's assume this for argument. Let's also assume a Creator for
argument.
God created all.
Life only comes from life.
Therefore, God is alive in the conventional sense.
I wonder if He's an organ donor?

Adam was, he gave a rib.

An man of god yet you spit your rheumy phlegm in God's face every day here
Antonio. You spit in the face of Jesus you hypocrite.

[Douglas Berry]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:28:47 -0700 (PDT) willow
<***@comcast.net> carved the following into the hard stone of
alt.atheism

Post by willow
Maybe it's because the only thing that has
clearly been established is that life comes
from life. All else is speculation. Time
and chance are non-entities therefore they
can't influence the creation of life.

Really?

Make a chicken salad sandwich.

Leave it in the sun for one week.

Eat it.

After all, time couldn't be an influence, right?

After that, go look up Schrödinger's Cat.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

[SkyEyes]

Post by Cary Kittrell

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

First off, evolutionary theor assumes no such thing.  Evolution does
not address how life began, only how it developed into different
forms.  What you're thinking of is abiogenesis.
Second, that Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation has no bearing
on the beginnings of life.  We don't *yet* know how life began, but
we've got some pretty good insights, and we're fast closing in on the
answer.

Second-and-a-half: what Pasteur demonstrated was that life
will not spontaneously arise in a flask of sterile broth
in a couple of months.  Not too relevant to might happen
given thousands of different environments and a few
hundred million years to goof around in.  Chemically
speaking.
I never am certain, when a creationist starts going on
about this experiment having established a scientific
"Law" that life cannon arise from non-life, I never
am sure whether they're being ignorant or they're
being dishonest.

Both, usually. They generally start out as ignorant, but even when
shown the facts chapter-and-verse (as it were), they *still* stick to
the same ol' line of bullcrap, making them liars as well as
ignoramuses.

Brenda

[harry k]

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Nice lie by distortion there! They did not prove that "life ... from
nonliving matter". They proved that complex life formes, i.e., flys
won't arise from rotting meat. Had they had a decent microscope they
would have discoverd lots of life in the food source.

Harry K

[Chaos359]

Post by harry k

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Nice lie by distortion there! They did not prove that "life ... from
nonliving matter". They proved that complex life formes, i.e., flys
won't arise from rotting meat. Had they had a decent microscope they
would have discoverd lots of life in the food source.
Harry K

So please describe simple lifeforms then.

[unknown]

Post by Chaos359

Post by harry k

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Nice lie by distortion there! They did not prove that "life ... from
nonliving matter". They proved that complex life formes, i.e., flys
won't arise from rotting meat. Had they had a decent microscope they
would have discoverd lots of life in the food source.
Harry K

So please describe simple lifeforms then.

I ned you get offline and service me Antonio, stoip the games now.

[Watchtower Aspostate]

Post by Chaos359

Post by harry k

Post by Chaos359
The 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt
it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from
previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory
assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen
spontaneously from nonliving matter.

Nice lie by distortion there! They did not prove that "life ... from
nonliving matter". They proved that complex life formes, i.e., flys
won't arise from rotting meat. Had they had a decent microscope they
would have discoverd lots of life in the food source.
Harry K

So please describe simple lifeforms then.

You ask the same questions every few months Jabbers and reject every shred
of evidence presented to you. Noting anyone produces satisfies you.