Transition from chemistry to biology

Sort of makes my, point don't you thinkI dont remember that you make any point.Your fulsome reply suggest to me that you are a person of low moral fiber and incapable of good character.What evidence would you require of me to prove to you that your English isn't top notchAnd what type of evidence would you like me to show to you that you are both intellectually and morally dwarf?You keep swearing at me in Bulgarian and I'll report youIs this another lie?Show me a house with a metabolism and reproductive cycle and I see what I can do for youIs metabolism the only thing you know?How about anabolism and catabolism?Of course these are just some of the cell activities,yet it does not explain how the cell began from nothing.Why asked for a haus, the cell has metabolism and let us see if you can build a
caricature from it under plausible condition.HAHAHAHAHAHAHA......HAHAHAHA.

Ah! you misunderstand. I was going to trot out a few patients from Bedlam that share traste's language skillsI think you do a good job if you trot yourself first.Hahahahahaha.

For the umpteenth time, NO!
---------------------------------------
Due to the reasons well known to you.
---------------------------------------I say you're wrong because "spontaneous generation" has a meaning that you are ignoring for reasons known only to you, which introduces nothing but confusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course not.The real meaning meaning of spontaneous genaration is life came from non life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------I'd enjoy very much if you made a point
---------------------------------------------
I made a lot of point,but you din't enjoy it.
---------------------------------------------I live to gain new understanding
------------
Well,fine.
------------Matter of fact, if I ever make lots of money on some kind of block buster invention I'll leave the money to a foundation in my will that grants an annual prize to the best scientific discoveries in half a dozen disciplines. But they'll have to do better then a PRATTFirst,of all I dont see any idiot invented things,secondly invention requires large dollop of complex intelligence,your idiotness in mathemathics show that the things you dreamed of is impossible.

Ah! you misunderstand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.The thing that cave diver found inconslstency of your grammar is a good hint that your own is not exemplary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------I was going to trot out a few patients from Bedlam that share traste's language skills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As,I pointed out you do a good job if you a good job if you trot out
yourself first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by traste, : wrong spelling.

Can you give a clear precis of exactly what Pasteur's experiments were and what it was that they showed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of,course I can,Pasteur showed that even minute bacteria did not assemble in sterelized water protected from contamination.The message of Pasteur's experiment is so loud and clear that you and your co supporters keep on getting around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you further make a clear argument showing how those experiments disproved the possibility of abiogenesis as the origin of life on Earth through chemical evolution?Abiogenesis and spontaneous genaration implies the same thing.You and your co supporters keep on running around around due to the reason well known to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------At the moment you seem to be taking a set of experiments with very specific goals and applying their results to something almost completely unrelated except by semantics.----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think should I do that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What the on-line lecture I referred you to upthread shows is that genetic systems can come about naturally, no deities needed.
Do you have any
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they are program to do that,like the computer it was program to do something.If,say you that those organanization just happened,that means you are losing your head.hahahahaha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Do you have any specific arguments against that, or are you just going to continue preaching?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I,ve already give alot of arguments taht you and your co supporters keep ,on ignoring for reasons.In,fact I can provide some 400 references that debunked evolution,ironically some of those reference are come from proponents of evolution.If you asked me why I did not share there conclusion,it's because I dont like to share there logical inconsistency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not everyone is a uninformed as you are. You offer no insite here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The right thing to say is not everybody as informed as me.I did not mean insite,but I mean insight,you are good in twisting things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------Your list has been so often repeated and refuted the acronym PRATTS (Points Refuted A Thousand TimeS)has been applied to them
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In your dreams.I don't see any experiment refute that thing.Also your arguments bear the acronym PRABTS(POINT REFUTED A BILLION TIMES)
---------------------------------------------------------------------Yeah! And a mechanic in a shop and a tornado in a junk yard have the same odds of putting together an engine by your math---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah,you make a point here.An engine formed by blind force is ridicoulousssss!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------As I've already told you Pasteur's experiment was all about the controversy over whether (modern) microorganisms caused decay or were the product of decay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds that you dont really know his experiment,so stop pretending.Pasteur showed that even minute bacteria did not assemble in sterilized water protected from contamination.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His statement asserted that his experiment conclusively proved that the former was true and that the latter was false
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His statement was proven experimentally.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the nature of the experiment there is simply no way that it could rule out modern ideas of abiogenesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does ruled out abiogenesis and that was the experiment showed.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So all you are doing is insulting Pasteur's memory by painting him as a fool who completely failed to understand the limits of his own experiment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll agree to some degree,but his experiment clearly points out that both abiogenesis and spontaneous genaration are fraud science.HAVE FAITH THEN.

Coyote writes:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Science Forum. But you recommend that we have "HAVE FAITH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My reply: Yeah,I know faith in evolution because as time goes on evidences continue to increase in opposotion to the theory.Has science produced molecular machines by measns of natural selection?No!Has science produced intermidiate forms of organism?Again,we have to say no.Coyote writes:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith in what? Remember, one of the primary definitions of "faith" is:Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof
So do you have faith in the scientific method or some supernatural entity?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My reply: I do have faith in the scientific method,but since evolution does not followed the scientific method,I cannot accep it as scientific.You write "Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof".This definition of faith rightly suit to the proponents of evolution since they themselves have serious doubt of it.For example many scientists signed a document questioning the creative power of natural selection,yet when evolution is under assault in public they same scientists come to protect it. Does it not sound to you very funny.hahahhahahhahaha!!!!!!!!Coyote writes:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you can answer this question, you will have chosen whether you are pro-science or anti-science.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My reply: Given that proponents of evolution have not provide tangible evidence to support their claimed,they placed themselves as anti science.Evolution is based on preconceived philosophical ideas("faith based on what the world is like")rather on emperical evidence(facts aquired on experiment and observation).This issue is easy to settle if and only if proponents of evolution have to be honest to theirselves.Has science produced experimental confirmation that in the presence of energy from the sun and perhaps by lightning or exploding volcanoes some mindless matter moved organized theirselves and eventually became life as we know it?Coyote writes:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Because there is empirical evidence to support the scientific method and its findings. .)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My reply: Does evolution followed the scientific method? Observation is one of the materials of the scientific method,when Darwin said that organism evolved was he present? In fact if the rule of science are to observed what happened and to test what can be reproduced,then evolution cannot be considered a genuine scientific theory at all.Coyote writes:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------There is no empirical evidence for supernatural beings. (That's where faith comes in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My reply: Can you see the wind?Can you see gravity?Can you see radiation?These are just some of the things that cannot see but still we believe.The existence of supernatural beings are supported by evidence too.Coyote writes:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you believe in things without any empirical evidence, while rejecting opposing things for which there is a huge amount of empirical evidence, you can only be described as anti-science
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My reply: To tell you frankly the evidence for evolution exist only in the world of illusion.When proponents of evolution present evidence they are very selective,for example they always present the antibiotic resistant of some bacteria,as a proof for evolution and simple minded peson readily accepted the idea.But it does not prove that organism evolve given that evolution claimed intermediate forms,yet we do not found intermidiate forms of those bacteria.Edited by traste, : misplaced sentencedEdited by traste, : misplaced sentenceEdited by traste, : misplaced sentenceEdited by traste, : misplaced sentenceEdited by traste, : Improving texts

My memory is that Pasteur used soup, not distilled water. And of course if he HAD used distilled water the results would have been completely unsurprising - even at the time. Nobody would remember it as important
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore your memory is so bad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None mention a relevant experiment using distilled water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reference you give did not mention,yet Pasteur mention.Therefore who are liars?It is clear that you and the site you offer as reference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------So now we know who was really "pretending?----------------------------------------------------------------------You and the so called honest scientist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And your point is ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've already give my point have you not remember?Ohhhhh,I see your memory is so bad.hahahhaha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it only ruled out abiogenesis under conditions and timescales sufficiently similar to those in the experiment. That is a limit of the experimental method
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasteur experiment based on conditions that organisms supposedly evolved,if you rearranged history you can justify your claimed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------By which you mean that you think that you can use Pasteur's experiment as an excuse to slander honest scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------Im not a slanderer of science,in fact given that proponents of evolution pay closed attention to science fiction they became the slanderer of science.Many of them including you sacrifice scientific integrity in order to defend what they like to believe.

Ive,already try those suggestions but it doesnt worked.

Frankly Im not performing any experiment.hahahahahaha.You missed. Then according,to abiogenesis where did life come from?. There are many new forms spontaneous genaration in the past and many new forms in the future are yet coming,in other words abiogenesis is just a mask of spontaneous genaration.In fact texbooks discussed that organism react spontaneously,theres no utterance of abiogenesis reaction there. There is no semantic overlaping in my post,the real issue here Wounded king is you and your co supporters of evolution are making bold efforts to separate abiogenesis from spontaneous genaration,due to the reason well known to them and to you.In general what does abiogenesis holds? And in general what does spontaneous genaration holds? Are they not holding that life is came from non life? Therefore,what is the difference.?The technical terms being used,I think. You write (u are simply making a bald assertion with absolutely no supporting evidenceyo) in fairness has science produced intermidiate forms of organism through Darwinian process? As in my part I often present scientific experiment that has been proven but you and your co supporters keep on rejecting due the reason well known to you.Edited by traste, : wrong spellingEdited by traste, : lacking wordEdited by traste, : lacking wordEdited by Adminnemooseus, : "Hid" message as originally formatted and replaced said with including [qs] type quote boxes. Use "peek" to see the "before" form and to see the coding method.

Chiroptera wrote:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------but the intermediate stages may be hard to classify as either "living" or "non-living
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My reply: Therefore the so called intermidiate forms between fish and amphibians are hard to classify as living things?.hahahahaEdited by traste, : improving textsEdited by traste, : improving texts

1.Is there anything else he or she was saying?. Or it was all.

It's really boring today I need something laughable,like the reasoning of proponents of evolution.