Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 5:35 PM
401 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,391 Year: 9,997/21,208 Month: 3,084/2,674 Week: 500/961 Day: 113/117 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
articulett
Member (Idle past 753 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 61 of 140 (568609)
07-07-2010 6:27 AM


What Huntard said.

Abiogenesis is life from non-life... the kind of thing various gods are said to do with dirt or mud and such.

Unless of course you believe that god "magicked" life into existence when he "magicked" matter into existence.

Science doesn't invoke magical explanations. Consequently science has made great strides at understanding how the first life may have come about without the aide of any holy books and they can test their hypothesis against reality. The facts are available to anyone with an education too-- no revelation is required. Look at this recent discovery: http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/06/100630171711.htm

I think creationists confuse evolution with abiogenesis and the big bang because they get all their knowledge from creotards... er creationist sites. If you want to understand science, you ought to go to scientific sources not people who claim expertise on realms and beings that have not been demonstrated to exist. Many religionists who do so, have no problem with evolution... nor do they confuse evolution with abiogenesis. (See Ken Miller and Francis Collins).

Many creationists have a vested interest in being incurious and maintaining their ignorance-- they imagine they are "saved" for for not accepting evolution, and that they may be punished for doubting the Genesis tale. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them that evolution is not abiogenesis, the big bang, nor atheism-- their indoctrinators seem to have convinced them otherwise, and even religious evolutionists have trouble giving them a clue.


  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1571 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 62 of 140 (568613)
07-07-2010 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by dall22
07-07-2010 4:56 AM


Re: evolution & abio
Your evidence is an assumption, you cannot produce any scientific support. It equally follows that God created, otherwise we wouldn't be here, and I have evidence for that, knowing God's love and healings.

How about showing the evidence you have that god created.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by dall22, posted 07-07-2010 4:56 AM dall22 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 63 of 140 (568614)
07-07-2010 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by dall22
07-07-2010 4:56 AM


Re: evolution & abio
Hi dall22, welcome to the fray,

jar writes:

Of course abiogenesis is still significant. It happened. There is no doubt that abiogenesis happened. That is settled and a fact.

reply:
Your evidence is an assumption, you cannot produce any scientific support. It equally follows that God created, otherwise we wouldn't be here, and I have evidence for that, knowing God's love and healings.

Before 4.5 billion years ago there was no life on earth, now there is ...

... ergo life began

... ergo abiogenesis

It's that simple.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by dall22, posted 07-07-2010 4:56 AM dall22 has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 28667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 64 of 140 (568624)
07-07-2010 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by dall22
07-07-2010 4:56 AM


Re: evolution & abio
dall22 writes:

jar writes:

Of course abiogenesis is still significant. It happened. There is no doubt that abiogenesis happened. That is settled and a fact.

reply:
Your evidence is an assumption, you cannot produce any scientific support. It equally follows that God created, otherwise we wouldn't be here, and I have evidence for that, knowing God's love and healings.

First, welcome home.

Second, no, it is not an assumption. At one time there was no life on earth and now there is, therefore (conclusion) abiogenesis happened. The facts are there. Once there was no life, now there is life.

I think that the problem is that you do not understand what abiogenesis means. All it means is life from non-life. Now it could have happened by some god blowing magic breath on a mud figure as described in Genesis 2 or like what is described in Genesis 1, simply by an act of will of some other god, or it could have happened as a normal chemical and physical reaction.

Then there are the Theories of Abiogenesis. If we look at the three models proposed above, there is no evidence whatsoever of a process using magic breath. Nor is there any evidence of being able to create something by simply an act of will. However there is evidence of chemical and physical reactions happening.

So once again (no assumptions, just conclusions) of the three models suggested above, only the third model is supported by any evidence.

Does that make sense? Do you understand now why all I have said so far is not assumption but rather conclusion?

Edited by jar, : left out 'of'

Edited by jar, : put the 'of' in the wrong place, moved it to where it made sense.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by dall22, posted 07-07-2010 4:56 AM dall22 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 838
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 65 of 140 (568762)
07-14-2010 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
07-05-2010 6:51 AM


Re: intuitive linking
Peg writes:

ok im going to stop right here because obviously you've missed the whole object of this thread.

Hi Peg - a good thread, and I believe he and everyone else understood it perfectly.

Evolution and abiogenesis were originally one subject – they both were (and still are) about naturalistic change over long periods of time, with no supernatural action involved. Atheists have made great progress through the late 1800’s right up to today in putting together their godless evolutionary package that begins with a common single celled organism. But naturalistic, godless ORIGINS of that very first organism has continued to elude them. Recent scientific study of the past few decades that shows the complexity of the simplest forms of life, put into plain language largely by Michael Behe, has shown completely naturalistic, unguided abiogenesis to be nothing more than an atheist faith. This has been a tremendous source of frustration for the atheistic scientific community, this thread clearly displays it. Since it’s an atheist faith, it’s actually no more science than is Intelligent Design, yet they need to teach it in public schools, to support evolution. Their very recent attempt to alleviate their embarrassment, and allow themselves to teach abiogenesis in schools, has been to attempt to change the meaning of the word “abiogenesis” – to transform it to mean ANY beginning of life, including supernatural creation. Again, you can see the evidence of that throughout this thread. It seems to be working for them somewhat, they can easily switch the word back and forth – in and out of naturalism. Notice message 57, when the poster said, “you need the chemicals necessary for abiogenesis before you can have abiogenesis”! He was referring to it in a completely naturalistic way, and no one else in the thread 'corrected' him on it – explained the brand new definition to him. An atheist school teacher can now declare to his students “abiogenesis is a fact”, and if a concerned parent questions him about any separation of atheism and state, he can quickly say “Abiogenesis can be ANY beginning of life, including creation as described in Genesis. Then when the parent swallows that, he can go back to teaching the children about chemical reactions and random processes of naturalistic, atheistic abiogenesis.

The claim that abiogenesis can include supernatural creation is only a very recent phenomenon, a highly dishonest one. The main reason creationists “cannot separate abiogenesis from evolution” is because they are not separate! They are both about naturalistic processes happening over long periods of time, and they are both fervently studied and worshiped by atheists. The only difference in them is that the atheists have been somewhat successful at one, and completely failed at the other. That’s the reason todays scientific community tries to separate them. The claim that abiogenesis now suddenly can include a supernatural action lays the dishonesty of the atheistic scientific community completely bare. Unless of course, an evolutionist here can prove to me that the word "abiogenesis" was being used to refer to the supernatural anytime in the first half of the 20th century.

The question is, is all of common-descent-evolution (Darwinism) riddled with the same kind of dishonesty?

I hope you don't mind my recap of your point, now all the sputtering with rage can be directed at me rather than you. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 07-05-2010 6:51 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 07-14-2010 10:02 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2010 8:34 PM marc9000 has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 28667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 66 of 140 (568764)
07-14-2010 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by marc9000
07-14-2010 9:52 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Speaking as a Christian...HUH?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by marc9000, posted 07-14-2010 9:52 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 9:05 AM jar has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 140 (568768)
07-14-2010 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by dall22
07-07-2010 4:56 AM


Re: evolution & abio
dall22 writes:

You both need to read up on the Venter research on creating DNA. See http://evolution.htmlplanet.com/venter.html for an outline of the complexity

Hi Dall. Welcome to EvC. Thanks for the DNA link. I wonder what some of our evolutionist friends might have in response to the following exerpts from your link. ABE: If so much is required to produce a living cell, how much more unlikely for abiogenesis to happen and survive, progressing into evolution?

These enzymes would have to be formed by a living cell, since the specifications must be read from the DNA, they can never evolve in the natural wild environment, so not only must DNA have been formed correctly, but the reading mechanism, copying system, folding system, ATP Synthase motor to produce energy for reading and all processes, the feeding nutrient system, to fuel the motor, the ability to correctly produce only left-handed and only right-handed chemistry as required, since they must not be mixed, (all uncontrolled chemistry produces a mixture, which is fatal or damaging to life) and many other things, before DNA can be formed by a living organism, so it could never happen in the wild, never by accidental chemical processes, and most importantly scientists are now realising what has been obvious all along, there must be complex specified information in the DNA, and information can only come from an intelligent source. ..........

What Venter has proved is that to assemble the first simple DNA for the first cell, you need a team of highly skilled scientists, or just one who knows it all!

Edited by Buzsaw, : Add comment


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by dall22, posted 07-07-2010 4:56 AM dall22 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 07-14-2010 11:21 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 69 by jar, posted 07-17-2010 5:05 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 07-17-2010 6:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2010 7:59 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 140 (568769)
07-14-2010 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
07-14-2010 11:02 PM


Re: evolution & abio
DNA/protein-based biochemistry evolved from RNA-based, because RNA can serve both as the molecule of information storage and as catalytic enzymes.

Enzymes don't need to "evolve" the ability to produce only right or left-handed chemistry; the way an enzyme operates means that it will only produce chiralities of a specific handedness.

The activity of ATP synthase is simply what happens when you drive an ATP-powered H+ transmembrane pump - that a cell might have to regulate its own pH - in reverse.

All of this can be found in any undergraduate biochemistry text. I'm a fan of Lehninger's Principles of Biochemistry, now in its 5th edition I think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 07-14-2010 11:02 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 28667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 69 of 140 (568773)
07-17-2010 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
07-14-2010 11:02 PM


Re: evolution & abio
Buz writes:

I wonder what some of our evolutionist friends might have in response to the following exerpts from your link.

I would think that the author is either not very bright or assumes that the audience is not very bright.

When he says "What Venter has proved is that to assemble the first simple DNA for the first cell, you need a team of highly skilled scientists, or just one who knows it all!" he is just making a silly comment.

What Venter did show was that just plain old chemistry and physics is all that was needed, no intelligence needed.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 07-14-2010 11:02 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 12915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 70 of 140 (568781)
07-17-2010 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
07-14-2010 11:02 PM


Re: evolution & abio
What Venter has proved is that to assemble the first simple DNA for the first cell, you need a team of highly skilled scientists, or just one who knows it all!

You have it backwards. Complex chemical reactions happen every day, all by themselves, without any intervention by scientists. It takes a team of highly skilled scientists to figure out how they work.

By analogy, it took man decades to figure out how birds fly but birds have been doing it for millenia, not caring whether we understood or not.


I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I\'m back where I started.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 07-14-2010 11:02 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15769
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 71 of 140 (568788)
07-17-2010 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
07-14-2010 11:02 PM


Re: evolution & abio
I wonder what some of our evolutionist friends might have in response to the following exerpts from your link.

Derisive laughter.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 07-14-2010 11:02 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15769
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 72 of 140 (568792)
07-17-2010 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by marc9000
07-14-2010 9:52 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Evolution and abiogenesis were originally one subject – they both were (and still are) about naturalistic change over long periods of time, with no supernatural action involved.

Apples and oranges were originally one subject --- they are both fruit.

Wow, with logic like that, no wonder you're a creationist.

Incidentally, how did you find out how long abiogenesis took?

Recent scientific study of the past few decades that shows the complexity of the simplest forms of life, put into plain language largely by Michael Behe, has shown completely naturalistic, unguided abiogenesis to be nothing more than an atheist faith.

Now, if only you could convince biologists of this nonsense, rather than ignorant kids in Sunday school classes. Then you'd be getting somewhere.

This has been a tremendous source of frustration for the atheistic scientific community, this thread clearly displays it. Since it’s an atheist faith, it’s actually no more science than is Intelligent Design, yet they need to teach it in public schools, to support evolution. Their very recent attempt to alleviate their embarrassment, and allow themselves to teach abiogenesis in schools, has been to attempt to change the meaning of the word “abiogenesis” – to transform it to mean ANY beginning of life, including supernatural creation. Again, you can see the evidence of that throughout this thread. It seems to be working for them somewhat, they can easily switch the word back and forth – in and out of naturalism. Notice message 57, when the poster said, “you need the chemicals necessary for abiogenesis before you can have abiogenesis”! He was referring to it in a completely naturalistic way, and no one else in the thread 'corrected' him on it – explained the brand new definition to him. An atheist school teacher can now declare to his students “abiogenesis is a fact”, and if a concerned parent questions him about any separation of atheism and state, he can quickly say “Abiogenesis can be ANY beginning of life, including creation as described in Genesis. Then when the parent swallows that, he can go back to teaching the children about chemical reactions and random processes of naturalistic, atheistic abiogenesis.

Could I point out to you that in this very paragraph you yourself used the phrase "completely naturalistic, unguided abiogenesis"? Why the adjectives, eh?

Your paranoid fantasies as to why people use the same word for the same thing regardless of whether the supernatural was involved are ludicrous. Could I point out that this is a universal practice? We do not have one word for a rock (for example) which formed by natural processes and another for one which was poofed into existence by God.

The question is, is all of common-descent-evolution (Darwinism) riddled with the same kind of dishonesty?

I'm sure you can find imaginary dishonesty anywhere that suits you.

I hope you don't mind my recap of your point, now all the sputtering with rage can be directed at me rather than you. :)

Ah, you're one of those people.

Mockery is not a sign that you have made other people angry, but that you have made yourself ridiculous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by marc9000, posted 07-14-2010 9:52 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 9:16 AM Dr Adequate has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 838
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 73 of 140 (568839)
07-18-2010 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
07-14-2010 10:02 PM


Re: intuitive linking
jar writes:

Speaking as a Christian...HUH?

Why of course – where would these types of discussion forums be without a few Christians to get things going, or ask the anger inspiring questions?

Let’s address God’s “magic breath” briefly at this time – it’s been referred to a few times in this thread. Science is restricted to the realm of rearrangement, our lives are completely restricted to it – humans cannot create nor destroy, and can’t comprehend actual creation or destruction. That’s why science is all about change over time, big bangs, growth, deterioration – it’s always about existing material changing properties in some way – it’s never about brand new material, or of any material completely ceasing to exist. When evolutionists do their glances at the book of Genesis, it’s understandable that they read Genesis 2:7 to refer to a scientific rearrangement, when it says “And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life…” When taken in the entire context of Genesis 1 and 2, it means something different. All throughout Genesis 1, God creates – he speaks the earth, the sun, the stars, living creatures, into existence. He creates, from nothing. Atheists/Evolutionists find this laughable – since it’s beyond rearrangement and they can’t understand it, they don’t believe it. But the simple truth is that if we go back far enough, rearrangement doesn’t answer all the questions about the existence of matter. Atheists can theorize about how all matter was compressed into an area the size of a head of a pin 13 billion years ago, but reducing its size and specifying billions of years of time still doesn’t explain how it originated to a more believable extent than Christian claims of a creator.

Genesis 2:7 was not referring to a chemical rearrangement in any way – it was referring to God’s special care and attention to human life. It was his creation that was most important to him, closest to him, or capable of being close to him, that’s the only reason for the “breath” reference. Abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with God’s method of creating, because actual creation, whether a person believes in it or not, has nothing to do with rearrangement/ change over long periods of time. It is life from nothing, it is not life from non-life. Even if atheists don't believe in it, they should recognize the belief for what it is.

Abiogenesis is much more related to evolution than it is to supernatural creation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 07-14-2010 10:02 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 07-18-2010 9:24 AM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 838
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 74 of 140 (568842)
07-18-2010 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
07-17-2010 8:34 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Apples and oranges were originally one subject --- they are both fruit.

And they still are - nothing has changed about them. Just like nothing has actually changed in the relationship evolution had with abiogenesis, in 1870 when the term was coined by an evolutionist, to today.

Incidentally, how did you find out how long abiogenesis took?

If you'll show me where I specified how long abiogenesis took, we'll discuss it.

Now, if only you could convince biologists of this nonsense, rather than ignorant kids in Sunday school classes. Then you'd be getting somewhere.

If militant atheist biologists refuse to acknowledge the complexity of the simplest forms of life, and the utter failure of the scientific community to ever be able to address it using naturalism, I can't convince them, sorry.

Could I point out to you that in this very paragraph you yourself used the phrase "completely naturalistic, unguided abiogenesis"? Why the adjectives, eh?

Because as we're seeing throughout this thread, evolutionists have only recently began to blend naturalistic abiogenesis with supernatual creation, as if one word (abiogenesis) describes them both. Adjectives are necessary when evolutionists are playing word games.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2010 8:34 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2010 10:23 AM marc9000 has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 28667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 75 of 140 (568843)
07-18-2010 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by marc9000
07-18-2010 9:05 AM


Re: intuitive linking
Why of course – where would these types of discussion forums be without a few Christians to get things going, or ask the anger inspiring questions?

I am a Christian and was asking you how you could post such nonsense as you did in message 65.

Except of course that Genesis 1 & 2 are totally unrelated, written by different authors of different cultures in different eras.

Science is restricted to the realm of rearrangement, our lives are completely restricted to it – humans cannot create nor destroy, and can’t comprehend actual creation or destruction.

Utter nonsense. I have created things. I help fund projects that create things. I have destroyed things.

Atheists can theorize about how all matter was compressed into an area the size of a head of a pin 13 billion years ago, but reducing its size and specifying billions of years of time still doesn’t explain how it originated to a more believable extent than Christian claims of a creator.

Yet more nonsense. Claiming a creator tells us nothing, explains nothing. The current research is at least looking for some answers, not simply claiming 'magic'.

Abiogenesis does mean life from non-life and if God did it, we still need to determine 'how god did it'. Saying "She willed it into existence" is just an empty assertion with little information or relevance.

Genesis 2:7 was not referring to a chemical rearrangement in any way – it was referring to God’s special care and attention to human life.

Genesis 2 and 3 are a "Just so story". Humans wrote the story and the god they created for the story places humans in a special place. But that same god the author created also placed women as subject to man which should give you a hint that GOD had nothing to do with the story but a guy did.

No one I know of except Biblical Creationists think that Genesis 2 refers to anything scientific. It is a fable, a folk tale, a Just So story.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 9:05 AM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 5:05 PM jar has responded

Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017