CodeMason

If you could get through the incoherence of that, he basically contradicts the rest of his article by saying that evolution is true (!?), but it didn't have to happen the way scientists "say it happened". He thinks that scientists just made up things like the dinosaur-bird transition, and we must believe it on faith! He doesn't even understand science itself! They actually make these conclusions based on the VAST array of available evidence.
Again contradicting himself. But the point is he doesn't understand yet another facet of evolution. He seems to think it's some kind of a skill or ability! LOL!

Finally, some sanity!
I think I'll just leave this one to the jury.
Visit csicop.com and look up each of your moronic "proofs". They're so childish and easily dispelled, it's hard to believe you even brought them up. In fact, why DID you bring them up? This is supposed to be about abiogenesis, remember!
Easily, either he simply says he had a vision about the event after it happened, or the writers themselves simply made it up. You have proven nothing. The day you come in here, claiming to have a vision of the future from "GOD", and some time later the event you describe actually happens, I'll believe. Until then all you have is a glorified fairy tale.
Go to <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com" target="_blank">www.skepticsannotatedbible.com</a> and the truth shall set you free!
Golly gee, thanks. But how is that a fourth point at all? In fact, this was supposed to be "proof" that God CREATED LIFE, but it was nothing of the sort!
If you change that "proof" to a "proove", then I agree with that statement wholeheartedly.
Science has nothing to do with faith. I refer you to your local library, although all those words might hurt your brain (you seem not to understand a lot of things).
Scientists find evidence, evaluate it, and make conclusions.
It sure is a lie that the Earth isn't the center of the universe and that it goes around the sun and not vice versa! Relativity is the biggest lie I have ever known. So is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which you so readily misuse in your critiques of evolution.
You can't type on a computer, because you rely on a machine to do it!
Not much more to say really. But his whole train of "thought" here is just a big parade of failure.
Please do! But good luck finding a publisher...
You're right, machines aren't trustworthy for anything! Say that next time you use a pocket calculator, or see a computer controlled space mission. If there are so many examples of radiometric dating being wrong, why don't you give us some examples?

Until next time, folks. (BTW, sorry for spreading this out over three posts, the forum can't seem to take a large amount of data at once.)

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: CodeMason ]</p>

Queen of Swords

Is English your first language, Night Spawn?

Jesse

Codemason:
Flat out lie. Abiogenesis is the scientific principle that life will arise on its own given the right conditions and the fact of evolution (it's not merely an evidentiary fact either, Darwinism is a logical axiom, just as true as 1+1=2).

Codemason, what are you talking about? Abiogenesis is not a "scientific principle," it's still very speculative and poorly understood, although a fair amount of progress has been made in understanding how simple self-replicators might arise from prebiotic components. And what do you mean that "Darwinism is a logical axiom?" I don't believe in Darwinism because I treat it as an axiom, but because I think the evidence supports it. Don't most Darwinists feel the same?

CodeMason

Even the creationists admit that given only a large enough primordial soup and a long enough amount of time, life will eventually arise. Thus I guess you can call it a scientific principle, although the mechanisms that generated life on earth are elusive (still, it won't be long before we have an excellent scenario nailed).
Natural selection on random mutation is an axiom. That is, it a priori exists in an environment that will allow it (such as life on earth, or the any number of brilliant computer simulations).

RufusAtticus

I think he's a homeschooled teenager.

-RvFvS

Daggah

One note. Night Spawn, I don't know if you wrote this yourself, or if this came from an article that someone else wrote, but this:

is wrong. Abiogenesis is NOT spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis itself is the theory of life coming from non-life at one point, and even you believe that that happened - unless, of course, life on earth is eternal? Could one classify a god as "alive?" Anyway...the current theory of abiogenesis is not "spontaneous generation." The current theory is just that, due to the chemical properties of various compounds, in the right environment, certain chemicals vital to the formation of life will form, and eventually, all of these substances came together to form the first cell. If this is all true, then it would be feasible to expect to see simple forms of "life" (as precursors to the first cell). When I say "life," here, I do so to keep it simple, as I simply mean self-replicating entities. And we do - we have prions, which are self-replicating proteins, and viruses, which are, at their most simple, DNA or RNA enclosed in a protein shell.

ps418

Nightspawn:

Tel me how the flood story is proven incorrect? Until then, that's just an assumption.

I know you didnt come here to debate the flood . . .

But if you're interested, I'd be happy to explain how numerous independent lines of evidence show that a) there was no recent global flood, and that b) flood geology [the flood as a major geologic agent] is totally inconsistent with the geologic evidence.

Let me know if you're game.

Patrick

Dr Rick

English isn't the only area in which Night Spawn demonstrates deficient knowledge; gems such as these show a profound ignorance of science, logic, and civility:

<strong>"It's a scientific law......not a theory. If it was wrong, then it wouldn't be a law.

...You say there is</strong> [sic] <strong>facts for evolution, but if that was tru</strong> [sic] <strong>then it wouldn't be a theory.

...I know about scientists</strong> [sic] <strong>methods and crap...

...Evolution has too many flaws to be called a "law of science".....if that wasn't true, then it wouldn't still be a theory after all</strong> [sic] <strong>this time.

...I don't care anything</strong> [sic] <strong>about a probable truth. It can't be proven, so I consider it false. If you have a problem with that....too bad.

...Geez....evolutionists are all the same."</strong>

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Valentine Pontifex

The creationist said, "It's a scientific law......not a theory. If it was wrong, then it wouldn't be a law."

Ignoring that no one said the the second law was wrong and that somethings labeled "law" are wrong.... Here is a quote by Linus Pauling from his General Chemistry:
But quoting even the greatest of chemists (and he was arguably the greatest of the 20th century) does not prove it is a theory. Lets look at what a theory is.
Pauling also wrote on what a theory is:
Now Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary gives a definition of theory:
Latter on the dictionary notes:
[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: LordValentine ]</p>

NiGhT SpAwN

Hmmmm....let me see here. This thread is about the e-mail debate between some guy and me....is it about my site? Also, all I see is a bunch of opinions on my site. You guys' try to prove people wrong by numbers, as I can tell, but all I see is a bunch of assumptions about my articles.

see, the funny thing is, that my site will always be up and my articles about TRUTH will grow to more and more....and there isn't anything you guys can do about it <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Also, I'd like to point out to the repeated posts about me contradicting myself.....how idiotic is that?lol
I have even told other people whom have been e-mailing me in here, that I do believe that we have evolved to a certain degree. I do not believe that everything has evolved from one single "thing"....that's just too hilarious.

To the guy that posted about spontaneous generation. My definition is right, man, because you gave the same definition just different wording.

Also, thanks for the facts that I asked for....very mature these evolutionists are.

A princess kisses a frog which turns into a prince because of that is considered a fairy tale, but when a frog turns into a man over 40 million years it's considered evolution

Also, due to immature people bombing my e-mail (grow up) and people not answering my original question and swaying off subject from facts to my site (duh), I'll be staying at my original forum that I go to.
You're welcome to go there if you'd like.....it sure would save me "checking links" time.
<a href="http://bbs.payableondeath.com/cgi-shell/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=2" target="_blank">payable on death forum</a>

I came here to be open-minded and ask a simple question and not only did you guys not answer the question, you dodged it completely and started a new thread about my e-mail debate with someone. Then you changed this original subject to my site.
Hmmm.....PEACE OUT*