XPost: alt.paranormal, sci.skeptic, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.religion.christianity   
   From: andrew.321.remov@usa.net   
      
   "Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:ts487k9qqfb59amiuov7723j   
   kfnevpm4m@4ax.com...   
   >  "Andrew" wrote:   
   >>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:   
   >>> "Andrew" wrote:   
   >>>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:   
   >>>>> "Andrew" wrote:   
   >>>>>>"Dawn Flood" wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Andrew wrote:   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>>>>> Hard science is settled by repeated testing, experiment   
   >>>>>>>> and observation.Spontaneous generation used to be a mainstream   
   >>>>>>>> scientific teaching for a long time until it   
   >>>>>>>> was proven wrong by the hard science experiments of   
   >>>>>>>> Louis Pasteur and Francesco Redi.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> We now know for SURE that biologic life comes only   
   >>>>>>>> from previously existing biologic life. There is no more debate,   
   Except   
   >>>>>>>> today there are fools who like to argue a   
   >>>>>>>> gainst what science has already determined.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Folks, if you want the truth, go with the science and   
   >>>>>>>> avoid the fools..   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> This is now a law of science.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>  ~~The "Law of Biogenesis"~~   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Life comes only from previously existing life, and that of its own   
   kind.   
   >>>>>>>> It is a law of science.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Then you should complain!  Write to your congressperson, the NIH, the   
   >>>>>>> NAS, the NSF, and even, the Trump administration, and tell them to STOP   
   >>>>>>> using YOUR tax dollars to FUND this research!!   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>What this research has basically consisted of has been   
   >>>>>>a number of scenarios on how life could have started.   
   >>>>>>All of which were built upon a foundation of fantasy.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Nothing to do with real world *science*.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So why don't you contact any of the organizations she mentioned?   
   >>>>> *They* obviously think it's real world *science*.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>If that were true,   
   >>>   
   >>> It is. For example,  from   
   >>>   
   >>> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8867283/   
   >>>   
   >>> "RNA, proteins and the genetic code that binds them each look like   
   >>> products of natural selection. This raises the question of what   
   >>> step(s) preceded these particular components? Answers here will   
   >>> clarify whether any discrete point in time or biochemical evolution   
   >>> will objectively merit the label of life's origin, or whether life   
   >>> unfolds seamlessly from the non-living universe."   
   >>   
   >>You cite a "fantasized scenario" on how life could have started.   
   >>But there is a difference between a fantasized scenario and real   
   >>world *science*.   
   >   
   > No,   
      
   The link you posted was a "fantasized scenario". Anyone may see that.   
      
   > fantasy is not "looks like the products of natural selection."   
   > Going by what something looks like is, "to first order" what you   
   > should accept as a starting point in one's intellectual endeavors.   
      
   If one wants the truth, they would not resort to fantasy. Especially   
   when *science* has -already- spoken. If they do, then they are not   
   interested in the truth.   
      
   >>And if you knew more about the science of the subject involved,   
   >>you would not have so easily been deceived. But I suspect you   
   >>are strongly influenced by 'philosophical prejudice' that skews   
   >>your perception.   
   >   
   > Why would such a "philosophical prejudice" develop, in your view?   
      
   Because some place a greater value on their biases than on the truth.   
      
   >>>> it would identify them to be fools   
   >>>>for ignoring what empirical, real world science has   
   >>>>>> *ALREADY* << established to be true!!   
   >>>   
   >>> Science has shown that mice don't spontaneously emerge   
   >>> from bales of hay.   
   >>   
   >>We now know that biologic life comes -->only<-- from previously   
   >>existing biologic life. There is no more debate; except today there   
   >>are some fools who like to argue against what science has already   
   >>determined.   
   >   
   > I take it that to make your rule of thumb work you have to assume   
   > that your god is alive.   
      
   That was not the issue in this thread, but it hints as to the origin of   
   your biases.   
      
   > So if he is, tell us whether or not this matches   
   > up to what you claim to know about him:   
   >   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life   
   >   
   > "Life, also known as biota, refers to matter that has biological   
   > processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes. It is   
   > defined descriptively by the capacity for homeostasis, organisation,   
   > metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.   
      
   ALL the above must be present for life to be. So where did   
   it originate? When considering that question, this is the key   
   point to remember.   
      
         "The key point to remember in abiogenesis research is:   
           There is no way in hell that proteins could have formed   
           by non-biological chemical processes...in terms of their   
           process of origin, they are churned out only by machines   
           in living cells that use the genetic code as part of their   
           production apparatus."   
                                                   ~Vincent Maycock   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)