Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 300 (419922)
09-05-2007 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 2:21 PM


Re: Eye of the tiger
Is abiogenesis always in direct relation with the Big Bang theory, where the Big Bang lays it out, and abiogenesis works from there?
This is the case that evolutionists would like you to believe.
But, Vashgun, everyone reading this thread can see that evolutionists say the exact opposite.
Why tell tall tales like this when you know that you're going to get caught?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 2:21 PM Ihategod has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 300 (419923)
09-05-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Buzsaw
09-05-2007 9:40 AM


Re: Regarding The Really Hard Questions
It is the inadequacy of BB evolutionist in answering some of your questions ...
Perhaps he could decide that for himself?
I apply the thermodynamic laws in supporting my hypothesis, though they see it as inadequate.
Perhaps, to avoid confusion, it should be pointed out that we think the laws of thermodynamics, as found in, y'know, thermodynamics textbooks are perfectly adequate.
What I find inadequate, I speak only for myself, are creationists who behave as though "thermodynamics" is a magic word which will magically make them right.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 09-05-2007 9:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 300 (419951)
09-05-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 4:56 PM


Re: Eye of the tiger
Of course their is! Look around. People, earth, solar systems, etc...
I should explain that the word "system" doesn't mean "thing created by a supernatural being" even if you write it in italics.
I'd explain what petitio principii means, too, but you seem to have got the hang of it on your own, carry on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 4:56 PM Ihategod has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 300 (419953)
09-05-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 5:02 PM


Re: Fallacy: appeal to consequences.
If things like common descent and God were known, then there would be no debate.
It doesn't follow. There are still people who argue that the Earth is flat. That doesn't mean that the answer to the question of the shape of the Earth is unknown per se --- it's just unknown to them.
Of course Creationists prefer their religion to meaninglessness!
Actually, you seem to have hit on an ingenious method of combining the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 5:02 PM Ihategod has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 300 (420614)
09-08-2007 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Buckets
09-08-2007 3:29 PM


The easiest way to see that the BB, abiogenesis, and evolution are independent is to see that we could combine them or their opposites any way we choose.
For example, we might suppose that the Big Bang is "just one of those things that happens from time to time", as one physicist put it; that abiogenesis from chemicals occurred, and that then one day God was watching the universes grow, saw that one of them had life on it, and said to himself: "This is drab green slime, but it it has potential. I'm thinking giraffes, and wombats, and maybe one with a really big nose ... what this place needs is some Guided Evolution!"
Or you could have God creating the Unverse let's say 6 billion years ago, with the appearance of being twice that age and starting with a Big Bang. Then he goes off and does something more interesting while abiogenesis and evolution take their merry course.
Now, no-one (AFAIK) does have cosmologies along these lines, but each is self-consistent; and the possibility of picking and mixing like this shows that the three questions are logically independent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Buckets, posted 09-08-2007 3:29 PM Buckets has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 300 (420760)
09-09-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Ihategod
09-09-2007 12:18 AM


Depends on what you mean by non-religious. It is scientifically sound to say that life was created...
... though for some reason scientists haven't noticed how "scientifically sound" it is.
If it is, it shouldn't be.
Well, it's those pesky scientists again, I'm afraid. They have this nasty habit of saying "what does the evidence support?" rather than "what would pander to Vashgun's prejudices?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Ihategod, posted 09-09-2007 12:18 AM Ihategod has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 300 (421229)
09-11-2007 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buckets
09-10-2007 10:00 PM


That is exactly what I was trying to say. "What is the purely naturalistic explanation for the origin of life?".
Oh, that's an easy question. There isn't one. Come back in a hundred years, and we'll see what we can do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buckets, posted 09-10-2007 10:00 PM Buckets has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 09-11-2007 4:28 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 65 of 300 (421232)
09-11-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by CTD
09-11-2007 11:55 AM


Poisoning The Well
I suppose this string of ill-natured lies about your opponents might deceive Buckets --- if he knows nothing about biology, and never comes into contact with anyone who does.
Otherwise, it's going to tell him a lot more about creationists then you intended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by CTD, posted 09-11-2007 11:55 AM CTD has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 300 (421248)
09-11-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by CTD
09-11-2007 11:55 AM


I almost didn't notice that some of your rant was on topic.
Life only comes from life. That's a law of science. That's a well-established fact. Anyone disputing it has quite a large burden of proof (if you want to actually be scientific about it).
Enjoy.
But apart from very simple cases like this, it is true to say that we only ever observe organisms being produced by the reproduction of similar organisms. But you didn't actually say that, did you? You said "Life only comes from life", so that you could conflate an actual empirical observation with God making organisms by magic, which is not the reproduction of an organism or organisms, and which is not something that we ever observe.
I should be interested, by the way, to see a single scientific definition of "life" which includes both God and a bacterium.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by CTD, posted 09-11-2007 11:55 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Ihategod, posted 09-16-2007 2:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 73 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 10:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 300 (422420)
09-17-2007 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Ihategod
09-16-2007 2:12 AM


I see. Nobody has ever observed macro-evolution. No has observed the Big Bang. Nobody has really ever observed positive mutations or adding of genetic information to a genome in a chromosome. Yet you will stand at your podium at spit fairy-tale stories of how life began and state them as scientific. You just cater words and definitions to your specific arguments. The only way evolution can be won is in a discussion board with delusional word games.
I notice that not only is this all irrelevant to my post, but also some of it is downright untrue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Ihategod, posted 09-16-2007 2:12 AM Ihategod has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 86 of 300 (422421)
09-17-2007 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by CTD
09-16-2007 10:17 AM


Apart from simple cases? No, apart from any cases whatsoever.
The one I cited?
It fits some definitions of life, but not others.
Crucially, it can evolve.
Just how many orders of magnitude separate the simple molecular building blocks from a living cell?
Lots.
Do you have some reason for asking?
A dead cell is still 10,000 times more complex and organized than anything man's managed to cobble together in a lab.
Which, somehow, is meant to serve as proof that cells were, in fact, "cobbled together" by an Intelligent Cobbler?
If they could somehow, someday assemble a cell they still couldn't get it to live.
Are you a vitalist or something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 10:17 AM CTD has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 300 (422425)
09-17-2007 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by CTD
09-16-2007 11:55 AM


Re: My favorite watchword
That's what the science of biology teaches. That's what evolutionism has been forced to concede, and it's been an uphill battle.
Er ... a little tip ... the practitioners of the science of biology are also the chief cheerleaders for what you are pleased to call "evolutionism".
So in your amusing little daydream, as quoted above, biologists have had an "uphill battle" to "force" themselves to "concede" that their own opinions are correct.
If you must rewrite the history of science, and as you are a creationist, perhaps you really must, then I suggest that you do it in private where people won't watch and snigger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 11:55 AM CTD has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 88 of 300 (422427)
09-17-2007 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Ihategod
09-16-2007 2:12 AM


Vashgun writes:
Yet you will stand at your podium at spit fairy-tale stories of how life began and state them as scientific.
Oh, really, will I?
Here, in full, is my reply in post #63 of this thread to Buckets' question: "What is the purely naturalistic explanation for the origin of life?"
Dr Adequate writes:
Oh, that's an easy question. There isn't one. Come back in a hundred years, and we'll see what we can do.
Vashgun, have you taken some sort of solemn oath to be wrong about everything?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Ihategod, posted 09-16-2007 2:12 AM Ihategod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 5:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 300 (422574)
09-17-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by CTD
09-17-2007 4:50 AM


One is also free to disregard these artificial boundaries, and no harm is done. None of the scientists of previous ages cared much about them.
However, this does not mean that you are free to pretend that, for example, astronomy and organic chemistry are the same thing, unles the name of that thing is "science".
When it is convenient, why not talk of 'stellar evolution' as a separate topic from 'planetary evolution'? Fine and dandy. But it's a mistake to insist that others must consider these topics as having nothing in common when they clearly do have much in common.
And of course, no-one has ever insisted that you should consider them as having "nothing in common", as you well know.
Someone can present any hypothesis, and if it does not run contrary to any law of science it is scientifically valid.
No. Possibility (w.r.t. tthe laws of nature insofar as we know them)is not the same as validity.
The big error comes when one accepts speculation in place of hard science ... But an hypothesis without observation or experiment to back it up is still speculation. It should never be mistaken for firm knowledge, and anyone who portrays it as such is in error or deceptive.
You mean like the story with the magic snake and the talking fruit?
Science used to have a strict hierarchy to keep tabs on the progress of ideas: hypothesis then theory then law.
Of course, you cannot back up this fantasy of "theory then law" by reference to any actual evidence, 'cos it's something you made up.
Just look at how the term 'theory' has devolved. It used to mean an idea that was not just possible, but one that had withstood testing and scrutiny. But today it is used to designate any fragment of speculation you could imagine ...
I don't like it when words change meaning. If there's a need for a new word, one should be coined - not altered. And when a word is altered as a means of advancing an argument, well it's a sign of a weak argument.
The involved dishonesty of that statement is breathtaking.
You people. You spent decades pretending that "theory" means "any fragment of speculation you could imagine", so that people wouldn't know what scientists meant when they said "theory of evolution" --- and now you whine about it as though scientists have changed the meaning of the word. We have not.
By "theory of evolution" we still mean "well-tested explanation of evolution".
To be fair to Darwin, he wasn't trained as a scientist and there is a (slim) chance he wasn't aware of how deceptive the the title of his book actually was.
What do you think the title of his book actually was?
Let me guess, you think it had the word "theory" in it somewhere, don't you?
The other two were fully aware. And the general public had no clue.
The other ... two?
Oh, right. You're not just smarter than Darwin, you're smarter than Einstein too!
Oh, this is going to be a fun thread.
Reading threads here, one will easily spot the term 'transitional form'. The term was used by Darwin to indicate a form of fossil which clearly showed itself to be intermediate between species. He had no examples. He felt that by predicting them it would strengthen his 'theory' if they should be found. This term has been altered over the years to mean 'the closest we can get', because no 'transitional form' has yet been discovered which meets the standard set by Darwin. There is nothing in all the countless fossils which he himself would call a 'transitional form'.
Of course, you cannot demonstrate this by quotation from Darwin, because this is something you made up in your head.
Here is the text of the Origin of Species. It is the work of seconds to search through it for all uses of the word "transitional". Please let us know if you find anything to validate your claim.
Redefining terms is not how language evolves. (Note that the new meaning of 'evolve' is now 'change', rather than in the past when it meant 'improve'.
Another assertion for which you can produce no evidence.
Would Darwin have watered down the term?
Let's look at how Darwin uses the term "evolution", shall we? Rather than at the fantasies in your head:
"At the present day almost all naturalists admit evolution under some form ... That species have a capacity for change will be admitted by all evolutionists; but there is no need, as it seems to me, to invoke any internal force beyond the tendency to ordinary variability, which through the aid of selection, by man has given rise to many well-adapted domestic races, and which, through the aid of natural selection, would equally well give rise by graduated steps to natural races or species. The final result will generally have been, as already explained, an advance, but in some few cases a retrogression, in organisation." --- Darwin, Origin of Species
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 4:50 AM CTD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2007 8:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 100 of 300 (422582)
09-17-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by CTD
09-17-2007 5:17 AM


Re: Oh goodness me!
That sure looks like a quotemining challenge.
Minutes to refute, weeks to be thorough. A tough choice. Glad I wasn't challenged - I'd probably have to toss a coin!
What are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 5:17 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 8:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024