|
QuickSearch
|
| |||||||
Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
DeepaManjusha | |||||||
|
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is not Abiogenesis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 7421 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
That makes Abiogenesis similar to Geology as well where simple chemicals result in complex arrangements of sediments over long periods of time through undirected naturalistic processes. It is the same as crystal formation where complex arrangements of molecules develop slowly over time through undirected and naturalistic processes. Do you agree or not agree that Abiogenesis and Evolution are separate processes?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 7421 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Then you accept evolution because it can be directly observed and practically applied. We can even directly apply common ancestry between humans and apes. By comparing genomes through the lens of common ancestry we can look for possible candidates for disease genes and human specific adaptations. A little algorith called SIFTER is based on evolutionary mechanisms and it accurately predicts protein function from amino acid sequence in 96% of cases. That is an EXTREMELY useful tool. The only reason that scientific theories can be used against religion is that the religion is based on denying the evidence that supports these theories. It is NOT the fault of science that you have your religious beliefs contradict reality. That is your fault. You are the only one to blame. There is a way to fix this situation. Follow the evidence. Don't ignore it. There are millions of christians who fully accept evolution, and I am sure if abiogenesis were supported by mountains of evidence they would accept that as well. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member (Idle past 159 days) Posts: 906 From: Ky U.S. Joined: |
________________________________________ MESSAGE 200
In a quick glance of a paper that I have little interest in, (since this discussion were having is largely philosophical) I saw terms like agar media, velveteen yardage, autoclaves, auxoheterotrophics, dense inoculas, etc. I didnt/dont know or care if these terms are exclusive to abiogenesis or not. I assumed maybe they were, because I foolishly believed the lie I was told.
I understand now one evolutionist lied, and a dozen others winked and nodded.
So in science, points can sometimes be made by telling lies? Thats largely where the creation v evolution debate is today. Evolutionists are so far removed from morality and truth that they think nothing of playing this type of game referencing something with big fancy words, lying about what it means, watching a dozen other like minded evolutionists trip and fall all over themselves to cover for them, then ridiculing any creationist that is surprised that hes not dealing with honest people. Ive been discussing creation v evolution (on this forum and one other) for about 10 years now. I must say Im amazed by this new low by evolutionists, though its probably not new. Ive probably just been missing it for that long. MESSAGE 211
I agree, that doesnt clash with my views at all.
No abiogenesis would have a slightly closer relationship with evolution than it would with things like geology, because both abiogenesis and evolution concern biology / living things. Another important reason they're not separate is that they both provide intellectual fulfillment for atheism. MESSAGE 212
Depending on how evolution is defined, yes. Change over time, within kinds.
I dont think its because the religion is based on denial, I think its because some scientists tweak the evidence to make it appear to contradict religion. After all, a Noble prize winning scientist, Steven Weinberg, said that science should be used to weaken the hold of religion. He appeared to receive no criticism whatsoever from the scientific community for that statement. MESSAGE 210
You can call it back-peddling if you want, but Im sure not chasing you and your goalpost moving for miles and miles. Its common knowledge that there is nowhere near a complete theory on how life can naturalistically originate. One of the other evolutionists here could easily explain that to you. But they wont. MESSAGE 206
I wouldnt have a problem with the three laws, Id just have a problem with what the atheists were saying about them /how the atheists were using them.
No, Id reject (question) those who use it that way.
Evolutionist pots calling creationist kettles black is also confirmed in this thread. Evidence is always carried, presented, proclaimed by imperfect humans. Creationists use evidence the same as anyone else, they just dont always trust those who present evidence. Geologists could go on a complete, thorough examination of gravesites, rocks and soil in the states of Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, etc. and claim to produce mounds of evidence that the civil war never happened. I wouldnt believe them. Id acknowledge their evidence, and agree with them that it means something, but not necessarily what they claim it means. MESSAGE 205
I do have problems with terms like velveteen yardage, autoclaves, auxoheterotrophics, dense inoculas, and those terms are largely irrelevant to philosophical discussions such as these. If you disagree let me know, and Ill start watching for evolutionists to display the slightest bit of knowledge of mathematics, and other terms that are in the book Darwins Black Box. There are lots of English words there that evolutionists show no knowledge of.
Not necessarily, but youve just largely made my entire point, so this will be a good place to summarize, and finish up. On many places on the internet, and well as forums such as these, the terms micro and macro are brought up almost exclusively by creationists, to distinquish between changes within kinds, and the (more philosophical) changes necessary for all life on earth to have one common ancestor. And its evolutionists who say there is no difference between them, that they are completely useless terms. That evolution works exactly the same way, there is no distinction between micro and macro. Now that you thought those terms could suit the evolutionist in this particular discussion , I see youre glad to bring them up. Its a perfect example of the slipperyness of evolution, the presto-changos that are so common among evolutionists. Actually, abiogenesis would have nothing to do with micro or macro, since its simply a theoretical beginning of ONE life form from non life, without concerning anything near the complexities of the diversity of life that evolution is involved with. But it would still share the change over time concerning biology that evolution also has.
All Ill go around saying is that Taq linked a paper on evolution in message 127, and called it a paper on abiogeneis. It may be considered sarcasm by some worldviews, it may be considered recucto ad absurdum by some worldviews, it may be considered a cute and fun thing to do by the atheist worldview, but any honest worldview will consider what it actually is, a LIE. Ill go around saying that one evolutionist LIED, and about a dozen other evolutionists winked and nodded. As I said, Ive been posting in creationist v evolutionist forums for a decade, and it amazed even me. This is my final message in this thread. Ill probably continue to check the proposed new topics forum from time to time to see what new stuff gets promoted, just to see if there are any more questions I can answer to everyones satisfaction.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 16963 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
It would be fine if you understood but disagreed, but you're leaving while still understanding very little. --Percy
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 19477 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Abiogenesis involves chemical processes, evolution does not. Evolution involves biological processes, abiogenesis does not. They cannot be the same thing nor can one be a subset of the other. The rest of the post is filled with misunderstanding and misrepresentation, such as:
The full dialogue is:
Curiously, you did not provide any evidence to support your assertion and now are back-peddling?[/qs] And yes, changing from a position that abiogenesis was invalidated to it is just an hypothesis is back-peddling, at high speed. Nobody here has claimed that abiogenesis is demonstrated and has reached the level of theory, but that is different than saying it is invalidated. Meanwhile the additional assertion of moving goal-posts is not substantiated. Typical. Enjoy. 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)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 1453 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Surely chemical processes are a subset of biological processes? Wiki: A biological process is a process of a living organism. Biological processes are made up of any number of chemical reactions or other events that results in a transformation. Although I agree that abiogenesis and evolution are different areas of research, I do not see how your statement supports that. Abiogenesis is "No life" to "Life". If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 19477 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
There are clearly processes in abiogenesis that are different from processes in evolution, for instance population dynamics is not a chemical process, it is a biological process and it affects evolution. That there may be some processes in common does not rule out processes that are exclusive to the two sciences. Enjoy. 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)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 1453 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
I agree. But that does not negate the fact that chemical processes are a subset of biological processes.
I agree. But that is not what you originally said. "Abiogenesis involves chemical processes, evolution does not." Your explanation of "the essential difference between abiogenesis and evolution" is faulty. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 19477 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Would you not agree that there is a majority of chemical processes that are not biological and have nothing to do with biology?
Biology uses some chemical reactions. Abiogenesis involves purely chemical processes, evolution does not. You get the nit-picker award, happy? Enjoy. 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)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 1453 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Would you not agree that chemical processes are a subset of biological processes?
You would rather be wrong than be corrected? Or are you just upset at having to hand over your nit-picker award? If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Member Posts: 10470 From: Central NC USA Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
In order to answer no to your question, I would only need to identify a single chemical process that was not also a biological process. I chose for my example of a chemical process that is not also a biological process the formation of xenon dioxide by way of hydrolysis of xenon tetrafluoride. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 1453 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
It is a shame that RAZD was too busy sulking to actually address my question (even though I asked it twice). I think I agree with your answer. What is your opinion of RAZD's claim that "Abiogenesis involves chemical processes, evolution does not."? If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member Posts: 2171 From: Big Spring, TX, USA Joined: |
*blink* in what context? I guess the daughter best change her fall schedule, since according to you, inorganic chemistry does not exist independent of life, only organic chemistry exists. I think you may want to rephrase this response. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 1453 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Yes. NoNukes successfully explained my mistake in Message 221. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Member Posts: 10470 From: Central NC USA Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
Evolution includes process that result in changes in DNA molecules. How is that not chemistry? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018