|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I need an answer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Peg writes:
Thus he is clearly distinguishing between evolution and abiogenesis.
Charles Darwin wrote in his conclusion on Page 484 "I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype....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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Peg writes:
As best I can tell, the religious community objects because they have this ridiculous, made up, non-biblical theology of original sin, and it was hard to square that with the idea of evolution.
Darwins states that he believes that all living things descended from "one prototype" i think that explains full well his belief and why the religous community objected to his theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
theodoric writes: Care to provide the quote? I do not own the book. You can read it yourself here try pages 14-18 where in brief he says:
The Selfish Gene writes:
the account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative by definition nobody was around to see it happen. The simplified account I shall give is probably not too far from the truth. Chemists have tried to imitate the chemical conditions of the young earth. They have put these simple substances in a flask and supplied a source of energy....artificial stimulation of primordial lightening. Processes analogous to these must have given rise to the primeval soup...the organic substances became locally concentrated...under ultraviolate light from the sun they combined to form larger molecules. At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed called a Replicator. Whether we call the early replicators living or not, they were the ancestors of life, they were our founding fathers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Peg,
Don't you ever tire of being wrong? You must enjoy it, because even the simplest search for the term "spontaneous generation" would have put you right, but no... What Dawkins describes in the extract quoted is abiogenesis. It is not spontaneous generation; that's something else.
Wiki writes: Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete theory regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). The theory was synthesized by Aristotle[1], who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory. The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial, now that the life cycles of various life forms have been well documented. However, the question of abiogenesis, how living things originally arose from non-living material, remains relevant today. Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Well not always, lets be honest about that. Spontaneous Generation preceeded the current term 'abiogenesis' by many centuries...that is that flies are produced from rotten meat for example....Louis pasteurs experiements put the belief to rest until 1924 when Alexander Oparin revived the spontaneous generation argument by speculating on earths primitive conditions and the primordial soup. Spontaneous generation and abiogenisis are 2 different things. SG is life from dead life whereas Abiogenesis is life from non life. Again you are using two different ideas as the same. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Nope. Your wrong again.
Maybe you should research the term. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
yes fair enough, i should be using the term abiogenesis which is 'non biological' matter springing to life
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8557 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
'non biological' matter springing to life I understand you are want to hold this view for your own reasons, but it is a false view. None of the abiogenic hypotheses identify some "ka-ching" moment when non-life became life. Only religionists believe that. Identifying life in the gross, like between a rabbit and a rock, is easy. In the fine-line chemical continuum of abiogenesis no such distinction can be made. In the end "life" is a human construct, not a reality. We are but complex chemistry in action. Something I'm sure your view cannot support. Regardless, abiogenesis is not matter "springing" to "life" except within a religious context. The non-religious abiogenic hypotheses posit considerable time and identify no such demarcation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
abiogenesis which is 'non biological' matter springing to life
Wrong again. Have you looked at any of the the current hypotheses for abiogenesis? In none of them does life "spring" Maybe if you thought of where the line is between non-life and life, you could have a better concept. Do you know where the line is between life and non-life? I think a lot of people would give a lot of different answers. ABEOops. Sorry if this was piling on. I see my comments are very similar to AZpauls. I should have read his comments first. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RyanVanGo Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
it's getting pretty heated. i appreciate the breakdown of the creationist theory. However you take a much less literal point of view than others i talk to, who believe it took 6 days, it's 10000 years old and so on and so forth. they way you put it is basically the catholic school point of view saying "when they said days they meant like...God's days...which could be millions of years...cuz god has no sense of time." this i have been taught, but i appreciate a creationist getting in the fray. i haven't been ignoring my own thread, just like to see the argument steer away from "Ryan, you're silly for believing this. don't be agnostic be an atheist". keep it up everyone i'm learning things which is never a loss.
Ryan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BobbyCrick Junior Member (Idle past 5040 days) Posts: 1 From: Manchester, England Joined: |
Sounds like a dilemma I had. My parents were both methodists, and I enjoyed church for quite a few years. When I got to High School I really started to enjoy science, in turn this got me questioning anything a lot more. My minister at church didn't like the questions, and he certainly didn't give me the answers. I also started to question the idea of believing because I was told to. Without writing my autobiography, this led me to being an atheist. I do not believe in God, or any Gods. I have yet to get proof of the existence of any supernatural being.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Sounds like a dilemma I had. My parents were both methodists, and I enjoyed church for quite a few years. When I got to High School I really started to enjoy science, in turn this got me questioning anything a lot more. My minister at church didn't like the questions, and he certainly didn't give me the answers. I also started to question the idea of believing because I was told to. Without writing my autobiography, this led me to being an atheist. I do not believe in God, or any Gods. I have yet to get proof of the existence of any supernatural being. Growing up I had no problem reconciling my religious beliefs and my love for science. However, as I grew older I found that my religious beliefs were no longer important to me. They felt like extra baggage that I was carrying around for no other reason than to make my family happy. Once I was out on my own I stopped going to church and have not regretted it since.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8557 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Once I was out on my own I stopped going to church and have not regretted it since. This may not seem it at first but this is (or will be) on topic. I will get to abiogenesis, specifically stone springing into life. Just bear with me. It is not that I regret not going to church. I use to have a great time going to church. Then I got barred. I mean legally barred. The Archdiocese of Louisville took out an Injunction against me. I cannot enter any of their churches. By extension the other Archdioceses filed and the courts agreed to extend the Injunction to all. I cannot go in to a church. The matter has been referred to Rome, but even though the Pope has not made it formal, I have been informed that I am not welcome to enter Vatican City let alone any of the buildings there. It used to be great fun, and I thought, and still do feel, innocently so. When I enter a church all the statues jump up screaming, crash through the stained glass windows, and run away. I was costing the archdiocese a fortune every month. I had once maintained that I have been, somehow, divinely rehabilitated but no one wants to bear the potential cost of testing that hypothesis. Edited by AZPaul3, : correction
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024