John Smith wrote:
JB wrote:

...
Needs to be reminded that gravity doesn't work that way. Stand on
your head
and try it.


Better yet, grab a hand full of plastic, glass, metal, wood, etc. and
toss it into a mud-puddle, come back in a few million years and see what
you can "dig up", what has "evolved" into being ...

While I cannot absolutely rule out molecules, atoms and other assorted
particles, materials and wavelengths of energies arranging themselves
into complex organisms, at least one of which has self-awareness--it
flies in the face of all forms of logic/maths/sciences I have ever had
contact with ... but true, ya' never know, ya' just never know.

Self-arranging and self replication are actually easy enough to do that
the old definition of life that depends on that have been discarded for
much tighter definitions, Otherwise we would already be able to claim
that we created life.

As an example, lipids, or phospholipids, are a common substance (read
oils) that have the tendency to form into small bilayer spheres that
isolate the interior from the exterior world. Then what is needed is for
the right compounds to get trapped inside that sphere, and maybe
something interesting will happen.


http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...npu=1&mbid=yhp


A immune system analog:


http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2002/nanoarch.htm


Point is, these things are not some impossible to happen, "just so"
scheme. As time goes on, it looks more and more like on a planet capable
of sustaining life, life will happen.

Now if someone wanted to claim that some entity made that planet that
could support life, then these things happened - that is a different story.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Self-arranging and self replication are actually easy enough to do that
the old definition of life that depends on that have been discarded for
much tighter definitions, Otherwise we would already be able to claim
that we created life.

As an example, lipids, or phospholipids, are a common substance (read
oils) that have the tendency to form into small bilayer spheres that
isolate the interior from the exterior world. Then what is needed is for
the right compounds to get trapped inside that sphere, and maybe
something interesting will happen.


http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...npu=1&mbid=yhp



A immune system analog:


http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2002/nanoarch.htm


Point is, these things are not some impossible to happen, "just so"
scheme. As time goes on, it looks more and more like on a planet capable
of sustaining life, life will happen.

Now if someone wanted to claim that some entity made that planet that
could support life, then these things happened - that is a different story.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

I'd say that was the best argument for aliens I have ever seen ...

Since the universe is some ~13.7 billion years old, and the earth only
~6 billion ... it would be quite interesting to meet one of those races
who are ~1 billion years ahead of us ... I am waiting, indeed, have been
for some time now.

Regards,
JS

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Self-arranging and self replication are actually easy enough to do that
the old definition of life that depends on that have been discarded for
much tighter definitions, Otherwise we would already be able to claim
that we created life.

As an example, lipids, or phospholipids, are a common substance (read
oils) that have the tendency to form into small bilayer spheres that
isolate the interior from the exterior world. Then what is needed is for
the right compounds to get trapped inside that sphere, and maybe
something interesting will happen.


http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...npu=1&mbid=yhp



A immune system analog:


http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2002/nanoarch.htm


Point is, these things are not some impossible to happen, "just so"
scheme. As time goes on, it looks more and more like on a planet capable
of sustaining life, life will happen.

Now if someone wanted to claim that some entity made that planet that
could support life, then these things happened - that is a different story.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

You know, in your particular case, I have been too nice ...

Nothing yet, has been a human creation which even comes close to
mimicking a very lowly virus ...

You are an idiot, all your posts here have only described you sheer
idiot nature in exact detail ... you are loathsome, you are an absolute
idiot, you are something I pick off my shoe when walking my dog and not
paying adequate attention ...

Now, let those who find you different come to the aid of you ego ... I
wipe you off like the chit from my boot ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:


You know, in your particular case, I have been too nice ...

Nothing yet, has been a human creation which even comes close to
mimicking a very lowly virus ...

And yet, if you are so sure, why do you not have the courage of your
convictions to say, "Man cannot and never ever will create such a thing
as a lowly virus.

Your sentence leaves open the possibility that man might create such a
thing tomorrow, next week, some time.


You are an idiot, all your posts here have only described you sheer
idiot nature in exact detail ... you are loathsome, you are an absolute
idiot, you are something I pick off my shoe when walking my dog and not
paying adequate attention ...

And oddly enough, that doesn't bother me much, or at all. Everyone is an
idiot in someone's book.

I gave you references, I give you a reasoned post, even gave you a part
in agreement that there is a possibility that some being being created
it all.

Your response is that I am fecal matter on your shoe. I am the idiot.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Your response is that I am fecal matter on your shoe. I am the idiot.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

See, you even missed the disdain I hold for you and the ridiculous
nature I consider you posts to be composed of ... else you would have
been a LOT MORE upset ... read my last post again idiot, I consider you
and all your text worthless ... if there was ever a doubt, this clears
it, I hope ... and, have a nice day. :-)

Regards,
JS

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
JB wrote:

...
Needs to be reminded that gravity doesn't work that way. Stand on
your head
and try it.


Better yet, grab a hand full of plastic, glass, metal, wood, etc. and
toss it into a mud-puddle, come back in a few million years and see what
you can "dig up", what has "evolved" into being ...

While I cannot absolutely rule out molecules, atoms and other assorted
particles, materials and wavelengths of energies arranging themselves
into complex organisms, at least one of which has self-awareness--it
flies in the face of all forms of logic/maths/sciences I have ever had
contact with ... but true, ya' never know, ya' just never know.

Self-arranging and self replication are actually easy enough to do that
the old definition of life that depends on that have been discarded for
much tighter definitions, Otherwise we would already be able to claim
that we created life.

As an example, lipids, or phospholipids, are a common substance (read
oils) that have the tendency to form into small bilayer spheres that
isolate the interior from the exterior world. Then what is needed is for
the right compounds to get trapped inside that sphere, and maybe
something interesting will happen.



http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...npu=1&mbid=yhp


A immune system analog:


http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2002/nanoarch.htm


Point is, these things are not some impossible to happen, "just so"
scheme. As time goes on, it looks more and more like on a planet capable
of sustaining life, life will happen.

Now if someone wanted to claim that some entity made that planet that
could support life, then these things happened - that is a different
story.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

None of this disproves the idea that the universe is created along with the
laws of physics and the bio-chemical engines that conform to the will of
God. Let's face it, science doesn't disprove creation theory at all. It
simply tries to explain and make use of what we are provided with. Doesn't
mean we shouldn't give thanks.

The Bible explanation of creation isn't more specific than what was
appropriate for a developing intellect. Any one with any true intellect
will be in awe with the realization that all of the laws of Physics, the
extremely refined and complex Bio-Chemical engines that contribute to life
in all its forms, and the extreme odds against a planet with the narrow
margin of environmental conditions, all would fit the definition of the
greatest miracle known. To be known by the only species enabled to know it.

Whereas we struggle to understand where we are and what we are capable of in
the here and now (and fall miserably short) The Bible actually dares to and
does predict the future and stands as the most insightful understanding of
our past, our nature, and hope for the future.

I can certainly understand how people could have a beef with "religion".
After all, the Bible even warns us of superstitious people, God haters,
hypocrites. Jesus himself warns in his parables that many would be among
the righteous planted by the enemy to discourage, usurp and mislead. Who
doesn't know of those in a group that gossip and tear down others. It's
like a boat on the ocean and some are chopping up the main mast for firewood
because they just want to be comfortable, while some are chopping a hole in
the hull because they are curious of what is on the other side and have no
discipline or forethought. He never said it would be easy.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:42:09 GMT, "JB" wrote:

He never said it would be easy.

and he made it more difficult by not saying it in English (just
another example of information suppression by churches if we are to
keep even slightly on topic).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:42:09 GMT, "JB" wrote:

He never said it would be easy.

and he made it more difficult by not saying it in English (just
another example of information suppression by churches if we are to
keep even slightly on topic).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Are you always this whimsical? I would point you to Acts chapter 2 but you
obviously haven't read any of the Bible or have no reading comprehension.
If you were taught that someone's opinion is more important than your own
investigation, you are misled. Perhaps you haven't been in a book store
lately. If you are skeptical of the translation, bravo! You understand
that men can fail. Get a parallel Bible and see how closely the meaning
follows. You will find instances of references of what was to come, and
what has very nearly completed.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:01:27 GMT, "JB" wrote not in Aramaic:

I would point you to Acts chapter 2 but

So much for testifying, thanx for the Acts of omission.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
So much for testifying, thanx for the Acts of omission.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yanno, this past week, I was devoid of idiots ... I had to come her for
my "idiot ration", thanks ... :-)

Regards,
JS