Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2003 6:23 pm Post subject: from: Zachriel (angel@zachriel.com)Subject: Re: Abiogenesis: |
 |
|
From: Zachriel (angel@zachriel.com)
Subject: Re: Abiogenesis: Why do evolutionist don>t want to touch this
subject\ Robert Jastrow
View: Complete Thread (7 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups:
Date: 2003-08-17 06:47:25 PST
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3f66fa$0$8939$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
[quote]Many evolutionist do not like to talk about Abiogenesis, there many reasons
for example let consider what Robert Jastrow has to say about it. Regarding
the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: "To
their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have
never succeeded in reproducing nature>s experiments on the creation of life
out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened." He
added: "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of
creation."
[/quote]
That is correct. However, the "God did it" hypothesis has not been very
scientifically productive in the past. The abiogenesis hypothesis has been a
fertile field for research. Nevertheless, we still can>t completely rule-out
Special Creation. If you wish to assert Special Creation of life on Earth
billions of years ago, followed by biological diversification through the
process of evolution, then you would at least be consistent with current
evidence. I doubt that is what you really mean, though.
[Jabriol replies in brackets: Please define special creation]
-------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body
organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their
complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem
for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work
together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would
have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the
question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to
be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the
right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To suppose
that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest degree."
[/quote]
This is a misrepresentation of Darwin, as the statement was rhetorical.
Please read the context and post a retraction. You can find the information
here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html
Or you can read the original Origin of Species here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
[Is it a mispresentation, because you disagree?, As for the T.O faqs, none of them are peered reviewed, and frankly they are full of contradictions]
--------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]More than a century has passed since
then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwin>s time
what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than
he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: "The eye appears to have been
designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better."
[/quote]
You are also misrepresenting Jastrow. Please retract.
[not at all, this is what he said, there is no claim on my part that Jastrow is an anti-evolutionist]
---------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]If this is so of the eye, what, then, of the human brain? Since even a
simple machine does not evolve by chance, how can it be a fact that the
infinitely more complex brain did? Jastrow concluded: "It is hard to accept
the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to
accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random
disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors."
[/quote]
Did Jastrow "conclude" with that quote? Or are you misrepresenting the man>s
views? Or are you just quoting a bunch of hooey you copied from an Internet
website?
[No he doesn>t.. why is it "hooey"? Did he write this or not?]
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! |
|
Zachriel
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 2:08 am Post subject: Re: Zachriel (angel@zachriel.com)Subject: Re: Abiogenesis: W |
|
|
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030905.062407.24234.84922@webmail17.nyc.untd.com...
[quote]
From: Zachriel (angel@zachriel.com)
Subject: Re: Abiogenesis: Why do evolutionist don>t want to touch
this
subject\ Robert Jastrow
View: Complete Thread (7 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups:
Date: 2003-08-17 06:47:25 PST
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3f66fa$0$8939$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Many evolutionist do not like to talk about Abiogenesis, there many
reasons
for example let consider what Robert Jastrow has to say about it.
Regarding
the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: "To
their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists
have
never succeeded in reproducing nature>s experiments on the creation of
life
out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened." He
added: "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act
of
creation."
That is correct. However, the "God did it" hypothesis has not been very
scientifically productive in the past. The abiogenesis hypothesis has been
a
fertile field for research. Nevertheless, we still can>t completely
rule-out
Special Creation. If you wish to assert Special Creation of life on Earth
billions of years ago, followed by biological diversification through the
process of evolution, then you would at least be consistent with current
evidence. I doubt that is what you really mean, though.
[Jabriol replies in brackets: Please define special creation]
[/quote]
I didn>t offer any information about Special Creation, but merely invited
you to make the assertion. However, Special Creation usually refers to an
instantaneous, or near instantaneous, creation of life or matter by God.
If you wish to make a specific, scientific assertion, this would be a good
time.
[quote]-------------------------------------------------------------
But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such
body
organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their
complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A
problem
for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to
work
together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would
have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the
question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought
to
be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at
the
right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To
suppose
that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I
freely
confess, absurd in the highest degree."
This is a misrepresentation of Darwin, as the statement was rhetorical.
Please read the context and post a retraction. You can find the
information
here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html
Or you can read the original Origin of Species here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
[Is it a mispresentation, because you disagree?, As for the T.O faqs, none
of them are peered reviewed, and frankly they are full of contradictions][/quote]
You can>t disagree with a rhetorical statement. It isn>t meant to be taken
on its face. The second reference, which you apparently didn>t bother to
look at, was to a convenient on-line copy of Darwin>s Origin of Species.
[quote]--------------------------------------------------------------
More than a century has passed since
then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwin>s
time
what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex
than
he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: "The eye appears to have been
designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better."
You are also misrepresenting Jastrow. Please retract.
[not at all, this is what he said, there is no claim on my part that
Jastrow is an anti-evolutionist][/quote]
Again, he made a rhetorical comment. If you take it out of context, you are
misrepresenting his views.
[quote]---------------------------------------------------------------
If this is so of the eye, what, then, of the human brain? Since even a
simple machine does not evolve by chance, how can it be a fact that the
infinitely more complex brain did? Jastrow concluded: "It is hard to
accept
the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder
to
accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random
disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors."
Did Jastrow "conclude" with that quote? Or are you misrepresenting the
man>s
views? Or are you just quoting a bunch of hooey you copied from an
Internet
website?
[No he doesn>t.. why is it "hooey"? Did he write this or not?]
[/quote]
He made a rhetorical comment. If you take it out of context, you are
misrepresenting his views. That is a fact. |
|
