Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 124 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2017 2:42 AM
368 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,418 Year: 19,024/21,208 Month: 1,783/3,111 Week: 4/574 Day: 4/38 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
151617Next
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
marc9000
Member
Posts: 885
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 196 of 251 (655235)
03-08-2012 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Taq
03-06-2012 11:56 AM


Re: Analogies
Taq writes:

Would you accept the papers I have linked as evidence for abiogenesis or not? It is a simple yes or no.

No.

Then you are separating the theory of evolution from abiogenesis.

More accurately, I was beginning to doubt that your link had a thing to do with abiogenesis, or with this thread. It’s looking more and more like I was right about that. I see another evolutionist is trying to dance for you however.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 11:56 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2012 8:49 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 885
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 197 of 251 (655236)
03-08-2012 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Taq
03-06-2012 12:02 PM


Re: Analogies
Do you accept a single theory in science? Atomic theory? Germ theory? If you do, please tell us which theory this is and then explain how it is less atheistic than the theory of evolution.

I accept every theory in science that we can directly observe, and practically apply in our daily lives. None of it is used as a philosophical weapon against religion, so that makes it less atheistic than evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 12:02 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2012 8:47 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 204 by subbie, posted 03-08-2012 9:44 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 03-08-2012 10:48 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 208 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2012 2:16 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 11:41 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 885
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 198 of 251 (655237)
03-08-2012 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Taq
03-06-2012 12:05 PM


Re: Analogies
The Discovery Institute has a multi-million dollar budget. They have plenty of money to fund ID research. Do they? Nope.

Then what’s their budget for? So you missed my earlier link that showed the research they’ve submitted? They might have millions, but it dwarfs in comparison to the ongoing public establishment of abiogenesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 12:05 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 885
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 199 of 251 (655239)
03-08-2012 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Taq
03-06-2012 7:46 PM


Re: Analogies
It is only confusing because it results in a conclusion you don't like. If, as you claim, evolution and abiogenesis are one in the same then all I need to do to evidence abiogenesis is to show that evolution occurs.

No, because evolution starts with life, nothing can evolve unless it’s already living. Abiogenesis starts with non life, what makes it similar to evolution is that it occurs (to its faithful) over long periods of time, increasing in complexity, by undirected, naturalistic processes.

That is what those papers demonstrated, the evolution of new traits through random mutation which, according to your logic, is abiogenesis.

Not my logic, it’s your straw man. Abiogenesis starts with non life. Those papers didn’t demonstrate anything about that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 7:46 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 03-08-2012 10:34 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 211 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 11:34 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 200 of 251 (655243)
03-08-2012 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:04 PM


Re: Analogies
I glanced over it, mainly the summary. But I was going by what Taq said about it.

Right, but that was obviously an allusion to your position that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing, which has the necessary logical consequence that any and all papers that support any form of evolution must, in your view, be held to be evidence for abiogenesis. Sorry, but that's the consequence of your position. You can't have it both ways.

In taking a few guesses about what some terms mean, you seem to be right about that. TAQ WAS THE ONE WHO DECLARED IT TO BE ABOUT ABIOGENESIS.

By your definition of "abiogenesis" ("evolution"), it must be. That, of course, is the point - it's a reducto ad absurdum of your position, because it's absurd to describe a paper about how bacteria evolve the capacity to metabolize new food sources by mutation as lending much support to abiogenesis. But, again, your position that evolution and abiogenesis refer to the exact same thing logically necessitates that you treat the Ledberg paper as proof of "abiogenesis."

Taq doesn't think the Ledberg paper is about abiogenesis, and neither do the rest of us, because evolution and abiogenesis are two very separate things such that support for one doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the other. (Practically, of course, different fields of science do very much inform each other.)

Why didn’t you correct him?

Well, I guess because I'm smarter than you, or I read more closely than you do, and therefore I didn't make the same boneheaded mistake you made in completely missing his point.

So that’s yet another paper about evolution, and has nothing at all to do with abiogenesis.

So you accept our position that evolution is something different than abiogenesis? Then Taq's argument has worked, and you've seen the flaw in your previous position revealed by the absurdity of having to consider the Ledberg paper support for abiogenesis.

But that paper wasn’t really about abiogenesis like he said it was, because abiogenesis is about LIFE FROM NON-LIFE.

Yes, exactly. The Ledberg paper is about evolution, not about "life from non-life." Which is Taq's argument, exactly - it's an absurd consequence of your position to have to consider the Ledberg paper about abiogenesis, which means that by reducto ad absurdum, your position was wrong. You seem to have tacitly accepted this by retreating from that position.

Let’s look at the words he used one more time

Yes. Now, please try to understand them.

I’m probably a little slow when it comes to fully comprehending the heights of atheist mocking, sarcasm, dancing.

I guess I don't understand. Do they not have reducto ad absurdum where you're from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:04 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 201 of 251 (655245)
03-08-2012 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:10 PM


Re: Analogies
But I do understand that one poster told me it was about abiogenesis

Again, you have failed to understand. Taq did not try to pass off the Ledberg paper as about abiogenesis, presumably because he assumed you would have read it and noticed immediately that it was not about abiogenesis. But, since you lack even the most basic qualifications in this field, since you in fact know less about biology than a 5th grader, that was probably overoptimistic of him.

So, don't take anybody's word for anything. Read the paper and then observe that it is not, in fact, about the generation of life from non-life. And then assume that Taq, a professional in the field of biology, knows at least as much about it as you, and now see if you can determine why he would, in opposing your position that evolution and abiogenesis are two words for the same thing, present a paper that he knows is only about evolution as being about "abiogenesis."

Because they are both about naturalistic increases in order and complexity, both with no purposeful guidance, over long periods of time.

So all things that are without "purposeful guidance" are "evolution" and "abiogenesis"?

What Darwin said about their separation was forgotten about.

Don't you just mean that you forgot?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:10 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 202 of 251 (655247)
03-08-2012 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:26 PM


Re: Analogies
I accept every theory in science that we can directly observe, and practically apply in our daily lives. None of it is used as a philosophical weapon against religion

Heliocentricity? Oops, you're wrong again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:26 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 203 of 251 (655248)
03-08-2012 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:24 PM


Re: Analogies
I was beginning to doubt that your link had a thing to do with abiogenesis, or with this thread.

It has to do with your argument, and how your position necessitates a logical contradiction.

Reducto ad absurdum.

I see another evolutionist is trying to dance for you however.

It's no dance. You're the least comprehending individual I've ever met, and I'm attempting to assist you out of pity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:24 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 176 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 204 of 251 (655250)
03-08-2012 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:26 PM


Re: Analogies
I accept every theory in science that we can directly observe, and practically apply in our daily lives.

Then you accept none.

No scientific theory can be directly observed, because a theory isn't a concrete thing. It's a collection of hypotheses that attempt to explain a broad range of observations from the natural world.

You might think of the theory of gravity as a theory that "we can directly observe and practically apply in our daily lives." You might think, we drop something, it falls. Thus, gravity. However, the theory of gravity is considerably more complicated than that, and cannot be directly observed.

By your definition, most of science would not qualify.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:26 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 205 of 251 (655263)
03-08-2012 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:30 PM


Re: Analogies
Hi Marc,

Since we have to use English to describe how you're misunderstanding English, I don't think this can ever be accomplished.

But I guess if abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing, then since there's micro and macro-evolution there must also be micro and macro-abiogenesis. There you go, now you can go around announcing that not only did Taq agree that abiogenesis and evolution are the same, providing a paper as a reference, now Percy is saying so too. And sarcasm and other rhetorical devices can just keep flying right over your head.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:30 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 206 of 251 (655270)
03-08-2012 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:26 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:

I accept every theory in science that we can directly observe, and practically apply in our daily lives. None of it is used as a philosophical weapon against religion, so that makes it less atheistic than evolution.

So if atheists began using Newton's three laws of motion as a philosophical weapon against religion, you'd become reluctant to accept them, too? Einstein's theory of relativity is often used as the basis for arguments against creationist views on cosmology, so are you going to reject relativity?

The overall point that EvC tries to make is that creationists do not use evidence as their criteria for deciding which theories to accept, and all you're doing is confirming that in spades.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:26 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2012 11:08 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18782
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 207 of 251 (655273)
03-08-2012 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
03-08-2012 10:48 PM


Re: Analogies
and then there's geology and the age of the earth and the lack of a global flood.

Things to deny keep cropping up for some believers ...

Enjoy.


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 206 by Percy, posted 03-08-2012 10:48 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4878
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 208 of 251 (655279)
03-09-2012 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:26 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:

I accept every theory in science that we can directly observe, and practically apply in our daily lives. None of it is used as a philosophical weapon against religion

Then you'd better hope that those mad men in their laboratories don't manage to cook-up life from rocks in your lifetime, because when they do, you're going to have to reject All of chemistry too. (Whoops, no more medicine.)


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:26 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1313
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 209 of 251 (655285)
03-09-2012 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:19 PM


Re: the slippery slope to understanding when opinions are false
Let us try a different analogy. Biomechanics is a subject closely related, in many ways, to evolution. They will often be discussed together, and they interlink and connect.

Nevertheless, it is possible to study the physical properties of, for example, the counter-current system in the blood-circulation of a dolphins flippers, without reference to evolution. Looking at the matter evolutionarily may help you explain how the system evolved, and may clarify some features of it, but you can demonstrate the mechanism by which the system maintains internal body temperature without talking about evolution. If all of a sudden we realised that creationists were right all along, and God poofed dolphins into existence last week, it wouldn't matter for work done explaining how this system works. A creationist studying it would note the same features.

Similarly, even though abiogenesis and evolution are interrelated, we can study the mechanisms of how a population evolved without reference to abiogenesis. Just as the discovery that God poofed dolphins into existence a few thousand years ago wouldn't change what we know about the mechanics of the dolphin circulatory system, so the discovery that God poofed life into existence 3 thousand million years ago wouldn't change what we know about subsequent evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:19 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18782
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 210 of 251 (655292)
03-09-2012 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by marc9000
03-08-2012 8:19 PM


Re: the slippery slope to understanding when opinions are false
Hi marc9000

Just a couple of points

This includes your conspiracy theory regarding atheists taking over science and plotting to take over the world by their imposition of teaching science.

Like you believe ID is a plot to establish religion in the U.S.?

Actually, I take the Wedge Document as an admission of the plot by the creationists of the ID movement. Evidence of such a conspiracy means it is not a theory.

marc9000 writes:

Belief in naturalistic abiogenesis has also been invalidated. That atheists continue to hold that false belief is disappointing. See how subjective, and largely meaningless, the word “invalidated” really is?

Curiously, you have omitted any evidence of such invalidation. It certainly would be news to all the scientists that are currently working in that field. Perhaps you could share this ground breaking news with us?

It’s not ground breaking at all, naturalistic abiogenesis has not reached the level of “theory” yet. It’s only a hypothesis, with lots of gaps.

Curiously, you did not provide any evidence to support your assertion and now are back-peddling?

It is, concerning discussions of evolution.

quote:
Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some ONE primordial form, into which life was first breathed

(bolded mine) That’s from ‘Origin of Species’, and it’s stilll the centerpiece of the TOE. You’re the first one I’ve ever seen try to dance away from it.

(bold revised)

Who gave the breath of life into that hypothetical (you do realize he was talking hypothetically yes?) "primordial form" proposed by Darwin as a possibility? An atheist?

Enjoy.


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 195 by marc9000, posted 03-08-2012 8:19 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
151617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017