---

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now,
could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at
the moment to be almost a miracle. So many are the conditions which
would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this
should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe
that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable
sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is
that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on
the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities
too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow
us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have
happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental
evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick,
Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

---

On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 21:04:38 -0800 (PST), Jahnu <jahnudvip@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now,
>could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at
>the moment to be almost a miracle. So many are the conditions which
>would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this
>should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe
>that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable
>sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is
>that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on
>the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities
>too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow
>us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have
>happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental
>evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick,
>Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Du har tydeligvis misforstået noget i det ovenstående indlæg. Hvis dine
engelskkundskaber er lige så mangelfuld som din viden om simpel fysik, er du
lovligt undskyldt.

"'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science
classroom."

   Francis Crick

---

J. Nielsen skrev i
news:clf3h41lskgm2cmbobs3ff3916fbu5nnm4@4ax.com,:

[ ... ]
> "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science
> classroom."
>
> Francis Crick

Hvis der hentydes til organisationen 'Creation-science' har han nok ret. Men
hentydes der til naturvidenskabelig kreationisme er det helt forkert.

--
Med venlig hilsen Andreas Falck
http://bibeltro.dk/ + *DebatForum*
http://skabelsen.info/ + *DebatForum*
http://SDAsyd.dk/ *SDA i Synnejylland*

---

Andreas Falck wrote:
> J. Nielsen skrev i
> news:clf3h41lskgm2cmbobs3ff3916fbu5nnm4@4ax.com,:
>
> [ ... ]
>> "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science
>> classroom."
>>
>> Francis Crick
>
> Hvis der hentydes til organisationen 'Creation-science' har han nok ret.
> Men hentydes der til naturvidenskabelig kreationisme er det helt forkert.
>

Der hentydes til dit sidstnævnte oxymoron.
Men jeg kan forstå på dig at du så mener at Francis Crick pludselig ikke
er pålidelig. Kan du ikke tage den med Jahnu - så kan I komme tilbage,
når I er enige.

---

"Andreas Falck" <dewnull@dewnull.dewnull> writes:

> Hvis der hentydes til organisationen 'Creation-science' har han nok
> ret. Men hentydes der til naturvidenskabelig kreationisme er det
> helt forkert.

Er det den forening der har en samarbejdsaftale med ateistisk
kristendom?

--
/Wegge

---

On 5 Nov., 21:00, J. Nielsen <mp274...@paul.get2net.dk> wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 21:04:38 -0800 (PST), Jahnu <jahnud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now,
> >could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at
> >the moment to be almost a miracle.  So many are the conditions which
> >would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.  But this
> >should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe
> >that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable
> >sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.  The plain fact is
> >that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on
> >the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities
> >too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow
> >us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have
> >happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental
> >evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick,
> >Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)
>
>  Du har tydeligvis misforstået noget i det ovenstående indlæg. Hvis dine
> engelskkundskaber er lige så mangelfuld som din viden om simpel fysik, er du
> lovligt undskyldt.

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We
fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to
preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view
our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we
profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow
features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most
species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.
They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they
disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise
gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears
all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's
Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

---

On 2008-11-05, Jahnu <jahnudvip@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now,
> could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at
> the moment to be almost a miracle. So many are the conditions which
> would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this
> should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe
> that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable
> sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is
> that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on
> the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities
> too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow
> us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have
> happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental
> evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick,
> Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Det citat er rent faktisk til *fordel* for evolution.