Message 211 of 251 (655315) 03-09-2012 11:34 AM

Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000 03-08-2012 8:30 PM

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?

Message 212 of 251 (655316) 03-09-2012 11:41 AM

Reply to: Message 197 by marc9000 03-08-2012 8:26 PM

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.

Message 213 of 251 (655579) 03-11-2012 3:41 PM

MESSAGE 200

In a quick glance of a paper that I have little interest in, (since this discussion we’re having is largely philosophical) I saw terms like “agar media”, “velveteen yardage”, “autoclaves”, “auxoheterotrophics”, “dense inoculas”, etc. I didn’t/don’t 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?

That’s 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 he’s not dealing with honest people. I’ve been discussing creation v evolution (on this forum and one other) for about 10 years now. I must say I’m amazed by this new low by evolutionists, though it’s probably not new. I’ve probably just been missing it for that long.
____________________________________________

MESSAGE 211

I agree, that doesn’t 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 don’t think it’s because the religion is based on denial, I think it’s 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 I’m sure not chasing you and your goalpost moving for miles and miles. It’s 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 won’t.
____________________________________________

MESSAGE 206

I wouldn’t have a problem with the three laws, I’d just have a problem with what the atheists were saying about them /how the atheists were using them.

No, I’d 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 don’t 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 wouldn’t believe them. I’d 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 I’ll start watching for evolutionists to display the slightest bit of knowledge of mathematics, and other terms that are in the book “Darwin’s Black Box”. There are lots of English words there that evolutionists show no knowledge of.

Not necessarily, but you’ve 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 it’s 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 you’re glad to bring them up. It’s 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 it’s 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 I’ll 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. I’ll go around saying that one evolutionist LIED, and about a dozen other evolutionists winked and nodded. As I said, I’ve been posting in creationist v evolutionist forums for a decade, and it amazed even me. This is my final message in this thread. I’ll 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 everyone’s satisfaction.

Message 214 of 251 (655583) 03-11-2012 4:10 PM

Reply to: Message 213 by marc9000 03-11-2012 3:41 PM

It would be fine if you understood but disagreed, but you're leaving while still understanding very little.

--Percy

Message 215 of 251 (655593) 03-11-2012 4:58 PM

Reply to: Message 213 by marc9000 03-11-2012 3:41 PM

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.

Message 216 of 251 (655600) 03-11-2012 6:53 PM

Reply to: Message 215 by RAZD 03-11-2012 4:58 PM

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.
Wiki: A chemical process is a method or means of somehow changing one or more chemicals or chemical compounds. Such a chemical process can occur by itself or be caused by somebody. Such a chemical process commonly involves a chemical reaction of some sort.

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".
Evolution is "Life" to "Different life".
This seems to me to be a clear enough difference for all but the most delusional.

Message 217 of 251 (655614) 03-11-2012 9:14 PM

Reply to: Message 216 by Panda 03-11-2012 6:53 PM

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.

Message 218 of 251 (655617) 03-11-2012 10:03 PM

Reply to: Message 217 by RAZD 03-11-2012 9:14 PM

"Abiogenesis involves chemical processes, evolution does not."
This is simply incorrect.
Evolution does involve chemical processes.

Your explanation of "the essential difference between abiogenesis and evolution" is faulty.

Message 219 of 251 (655618) 03-11-2012 10:23 PM

Reply to: Message 218 by Panda 03-11-2012 10:03 PM

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.

Message 221 of 251 (655620) 03-11-2012 11:19 PM

Reply to: Message 220 by Panda 03-11-2012 10:37 PM

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.

Message 222 of 251 (655621) 03-11-2012 11:46 PM

Reply to: Message 221 by NoNukes 03-11-2012 11:19 PM

What is your opinion of RAZD's claim that "Abiogenesis involves chemical processes, evolution does not."?

Message 223 of 251 (655623) 03-12-2012 3:39 AM

Reply to: Message 218 by Panda 03-11-2012 10:03 PM

*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.

Message 224 of 251 (655625) 03-12-2012 7:05 AM

Reply to: Message 223 by anglagard 03-12-2012 3:39 AM

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Message 225 of 251 (655629) 03-12-2012 8:41 AM

Reply to: Message 222 by Panda 03-11-2012 11:46 PM

Evolution includes process that result in changes in DNA molecules. How is that not chemistry?