Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 106 of 312 (476513)
07-24-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by AlphaOmegakid
07-11-2008 9:03 AM


A creationist's best angle of attack
AOk writes:
RAZD writes:
So you are saying that life has always existed, even before the planet existed? Curious argument.
Uhmmmm... That is the argument of creationism. Panspermia also argues that life was somehow transported to this planet after the planet existed. Either way both are philosophical faiths just like abiogenesis.
I am not at all a creationist, but I have no problem with the hypothesis that life existed elsewhere in the universe before Earth got it. To me, those who insist that Earth got it first are as geocentric as the creationists.
Which has the greatest likelihood: abiogenesis on Earth first, or extraterrestrial abiogenesis first and panspermic transport to Earth?
The only way out here is "multiregional abiogenesis," which would seem to have about the same likelihood as the other two options. We just don't know enough yet about abiogenesis to understand its formative principles. I doubt that God did it. But I don't have a clue on how it happened and, except for Earth, where else.
Creationists, this is your best angle of attack. God must have done it, because scientists can't figure it out. (Hey, maybe there's a parallel universe out there that holds some kind of a digital format for life, manifesting itself in the digital language of genes.)
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-11-2008 9:03 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 107 of 312 (476521)
07-24-2008 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Granny Magda
07-21-2008 5:22 PM


Re: You are Not Even Bothering to Play
Granny writes:
Or to put it another way, you can't point out anywhere where your precious law of biogenesis prevents the model presented in the video. You can only pour scorn, try to score semantic points over terminology and argue from incredulity.
Why would I want to argue a strawman argument. No scientific laws prevent anything. Scientific laws describe how nature works. That's what the law of biogenesis is. It is the reality of where life comes from. It says nothing about whether or not abiogenesis is possible. It only says that since we've been observing life, all life comes from life. That's science. We use it everyday to save lives on this earth. Let's teach it.
Abiogenesis is quite imaginative and is not falsifiable. The envioronment is unknown, the chemical reactions are unknown, and the organization of the chemicals is unknown. It is a philosophical faith. It is quite interesting, but not science, and should therefore be removed from the classrooms.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Granny Magda, posted 07-21-2008 5:22 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2008 1:40 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2008 2:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 111 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2008 3:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 112 by Granny Magda, posted 07-24-2008 4:09 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 108 of 312 (476525)
07-24-2008 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid
07-24-2008 1:30 PM


Re: You are Not Even Bothering to Play
Abiogenesis is quite imaginative and is not falsifiable. The envioronment is unknown, the chemical reactions are unknown, and the organization of the chemical is unknown. It is quite interesting, but not science, and should therefore be removed from the classrooms.
You want abiogenesis to be removed from the classrooms, and most creationists want the theory of evolution removed as well.
What else do you want removed? Geology (all those old strata)? Paleontology (all those old fossils)? Genetics (evidence for common descent)? All forms of radiometric dating (those dates are toooooo old!)? Archaeology and soil sciences (can't find evidence for a global flood)? Biology (too close to evolution)? Linguistics (does not provide evidence for Babel)?
The schools would be a pretty lonely place if we listened to creationists before setting the curricula, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-24-2008 1:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 312 (476529)
07-24-2008 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid
07-24-2008 1:30 PM


Scientific laws describe how nature works. That's what the law of biogenesis is.
But the law of biogenesis is not a scienific law. A quick google scholar search doesn't provide any scientific papers dealing with the law of biogenesis. Do you know of any scientific papers that deal with it? If science, itself, doesn't consider it a law well then, it ain't.
It says nothing about whether or not abiogenesis is possible. It only says that since we've been observing life, all life comes from life.
Sure, and what science is finding is that this probably is not true. That advancement is being made in how the first living cells came to be, science is realizing that somewhere along the line, life had to come from something that was non-living. And the logical extension of the law of biogenesis is that life has always existed. There could never have been the "first" life because it wouldn't have had anything to come from.
Also, saying that all life comes from life IS saying that abiogenesis impossible.
Just because we have only observed life comming from life does not mean that life cannot come from non-life.
The law of biogenesis is not a scientific law. Can you provide a source for a scientific paper that even mentions the law of biogenesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-24-2008 1:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-24-2008 4:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 110 of 312 (476542)
07-24-2008 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by bluescat48
07-21-2008 5:24 PM


Re: You are not even in the game.
bluescat48 writes:
Maybe if you looked at the video as a science piece and not a comedy, you may have understood that evolution only occured after the vesicle was capable of reproduction thus alive.
I did look at this video as a science piece. And it wasn't very scientific. It used alot of scientific terms, but the reality it presented was purely imagination. Nice graphics though.
On the otherhand if you understood the difference between reproduction and replication then you might see why evolution cannot occur until reproduction which requires life. Chemicals can replicate in certain environments, but only life can reproduce and evolve. Once again, this is nothing more than trying to squeeze evolution into the origin of life. Every origin of life theory invokes evolution and natural selection before the chemicals are alive.
And then the hypocracy of stating emphatically that origin of life theories have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Pure hypocracy and non-science. If you want to believe this stuff, that's fine with me. Just don't teach your philosophies in public schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by bluescat48, posted 07-21-2008 5:24 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 312 (476543)
07-24-2008 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid
07-24-2008 1:30 PM


Re: You are Not Even Bothering to Play
Why would I want to argue a strawman argument. No scientific laws prevent anything. Scientific laws describe how nature works. That's what the law of biogenesis is. It is the reality of where life comes from. It says nothing about whether or not abiogenesis is possible. It only says that since we've been observing life, all life comes from life. That's science.
That's vague. "Life comes from life" would include fleas spontaneously generating on dogs, or an invisible man making animals poof out of thin air by magic, neither of which is ever observed.
Let's try for an accurate statement:
"We observe that every organism today is produced by the reproduction (with some random variation) of a genetically similar organism or organisms. This obviously cannot have been true of the first organism, which must have originated in some other way."
"Biologists are not certain how this happened, but are guided in their research by another consistent observation in biology: that all biological processes have natural causes rather than happening by magic."
Abiogenesis is quite imaginative and is not falsifiable. The envioronment is unknown, the chemical reactions are unknown, and the organization of the chemicals is unknown. It is a philosophical faith.
And san incontrovertible fact. It happened. The only isssue between us is whether it happened by magic (like nothing we observe) or by natural processes (like everything we observe). It does not take "faith" to choose the option consistent with every observation ever made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-24-2008 1:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 112 of 312 (476546)
07-24-2008 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid
07-24-2008 1:30 PM


Played Out
You started this thread asking why the law of biogenesis wasn't taught in schools, but it quickly descended into a discussion about whether or not the LoB falsified abiogenesis. You now seem to be saying that it doesn't, in stark contrast to your earlier comments.
AKid writes:
Granny writes:
Or to put it another way, you can't point out anywhere where your precious law of biogenesis prevents the model presented in the video.
Why would I want to argue a strawman argument. No scientific laws prevent anything. Scientific laws describe how nature works. That's what the law of biogenesis is. It is the reality of where life comes from. It says nothing about whether or not abiogenesis is possible. It only says that since we've been observing life, all life comes from life.
In which case, why have you been banging on about it since post #1, if not to discredit theories of abiogenesis? It's certainly a bit of a departure from Message 15, where you say;
AKid writes:
I'm afraid the law of biogenesis (which came from science) does say that life cannot come from non-living mater. I'm sorry, but that is scientific.
Also from that message;
AKid writes:
Abiogenesis was falsified.
Now you say;
AKid writes:
Abiogenesis is quite imaginative and is not falsifiable.
You seem pretty confused about this. Since you now admit that the "law of biogenesis" does nothing to falsify abiogenesis, it would seem that your original post is answered;
The LoB does not contradict abiogenesis.
Where it is not taught in schools this is because it is outdated and no longer considered relevant.
You may as well drop the veneer of scientific objectivity now and just admit that you want the biogenesis in classrooms and abiogenesis out because you have decided that one conflicts with your religious views and one does not.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-24-2008 1:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 113 of 312 (476547)
07-24-2008 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2008 2:08 PM


catholic scientist writes:
But the law of biogenesis is not a scienific law. A quick google scholar search doesn't provide any scientific papers dealing with the law of biogenesis. Do you know of any scientific papers that deal with it? If science, itself, doesn't consider it a law well then, it ain't.
Maybe you should read this thread. I have presented substantial evidence that it is a law. Your argumentum ignoratium that it isn't a law is just one of your manny fallicious arguments. A law of science reflects what we see and observe in nature. We see biogenesis everywhere, everyday. We don't witness any violations of this law. That's your problem not mine. While you are googling, why don't you find me a reference why the law of biogenesis isn't a law of nature. Whether it is in any recent publication or whether any scientist recognizes it as a law does not take away it's status of a law. If the theory (Which it is definitely a theory) has universal, global apllication, and there is no known violation of the theory then whether anyone recognizes it or not, it is still a law of nature by definition.
wiki writes:
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.
The theory of biogenesis fits this perfectly. Unless of course you have evidence otherwise. Feel free to present some.
CS writes:
Sure, and what science is finding is that this probably is not true. That advancement is being made in how the first living cells came to be, science is realizing that somewhere along the line, life had to come from something that was non-living.
Baloney detector has just gone off. If you really believe this then show some evidence that life came from non-living chemicals. Science has not shown anything of the sort.
CS writes:
And the logical extension of the law of biogenesis is that life has always existed. There could never have been the "first" life because it wouldn't have had anything to come from.
Actually a theory that life has always existed would be logical in light of the law of biogenesis. It certainly is what I believe. Your last statement is a matter of perspective. Time is a relative thing you know. Maybe life came form somewhere outside of our current time relativity. That's what I believe.
CS writes:
Also, saying that all life comes from life IS saying that abiogenesis impossible.
Well you're beginning to see the light! That's what science is really showing us. However, science doesn't deal with impossibilities. It only deals with what we can observe or measure. And what we have observed thus far is that life does not originate just from chemical processes, but it does come from prexisting life. That's called reality.
CS writes:
Just because we have only observed life comming from life does not mean that life cannot come from non-life.
I'll agree with this argument if you'll agree that just because science does not consider the metaphysical supernatural that it doesn't exist.
CS writes:
The law of biogenesis is not a scientific law. Can you provide a source for a scientific paper that even mentions the law of biogenesis?
It is. Your claims do not make it not. If you want to present some evidence other than your ignorance on the subject, then please do so. I have presented evidence that it is indeed a law of nature. The ball is in your court.
"Reading is the magic key to take you where you want to be." Please read the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2008 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2008 5:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 312 (476553)
07-24-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid
07-24-2008 4:29 PM


Since you cannot present a scientific paper that even references the law of biogenesis, I assume you have conceided the point that it is a scientific law and will no longer claim it as such. Thank you.
Maybe you should read this thread. I have presented substantial evidence that it is a law.
You haven't presented one single piece of evidence that the law of biogensis is valid.
All you have is that we haven't observed a contradiction. But its to no avail because progress is being made and it is already not considered a law of science.
Baloney detector has just gone off. If you really believe this then show some evidence that life came from non-living chemicals. Science has not shown anything of the sort.
Not in its entirety, but you've already been linked to enough evidence to show that abiogenesis is plausible. You just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and sing "La, la, la". I can't argue with that.
Actually a theory that life has always existed would be logical in light of the law of biogenesis. It certainly is what I believe. Your last statement is a matter of perspective. Time is a relative thing you know. Maybe life came form somewhere outside of our current time relativity. That's what I believe.
That's just made up bullshit, though.
Our entire universe is in our "current time relativity". Since there is nothing "outside" our universe, if life always existed then life would have to have originated with the Big Bang. But we know that is impossible. SO therefore, at some point in the past there was no life in the universe. Now, there is life in the universe. Ergo, life emerged at some time. Since life emerged, it could not have come from pre-existing life, therefore abiogenesis had to have happened at some point in the history of the universe. Thus the law of biogenesis is refuted.
CS writes:
Just because we have only observed life comming from life does not mean that life cannot come from non-life.
I'll agree with this argument if you'll agree that just because science does not consider the metaphysical supernatural that it doesn't exist.
Science's inability to detect the supernatural in no way suggests that the supernatural does not exist.
So, you're going to stop posting that the law of biogenesis means that abiogenesis couldn't have happened, right?
CS writes:
The law of biogenesis is not a scientific law. Can you provide a source for a scientific paper that even mentions the law of biogenesis?
It is. Your claims do not make it not. If you want to present some evidence other than your ignorance on the subject, then please do so. I have presented evidence that it is indeed a law of nature. The ball is in your court.
"Reading is the magic key to take you where you want to be." Please read the thread.
I have read the thread. And no, you haven't presented one single piece of evidence that the LoB is a scientific law. Law's of nature don't mean anything. If all I have ever seen is white people, then I could claim that Only White People Exist is a law of nature. But that doesn't make it true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-24-2008 4:29 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 1:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 115 of 312 (476910)
07-28-2008 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2008 5:05 PM


CITATIONS for the Catholic Scientist
CS writes:
Since you cannot present a scientific paper that even references the law of biogenesis, I assume you have conceided the point that it is a scientific law and will no longer claim it as such. Thank you.
No thanks needed as I will continue to claim it is a scientific law of nature. Here are some citations that meet your criteria:
Science and Human Affairs
E. C. Stakman
Science 9 February 1951 113: 137-142 [DOI: 10.1126/science.113.2928.137]
Here is the direct quote from this article:
The record of the past hundred years is amazing when we consider the integration of knowledge regarding organic evolution, the laws of inheritance in plants and animals, the application of the law of biogenesis to microorganisms, the cause and nature of fermentation, the causes and nature of diseases of animals and plants, the principles of soil fertility, the structure of matter as a basis for modern chemistry and physics.
Is one enough? No you need more? Here is another...
Order in the Physical World and its First Cause According to Modern Science. From the French. New York, James Pott & Co. 12. $1.; Natural Law in the Spiritual World. By HENRY DRUMMOND. New York, James Pott & Co. 12 75 cts
Science 25 March 1892 ns-19: 177 [DOI: 10.1126/science.ns-19.477.177] (in Articles)
Here is the reference:
For instance, he speaks of the law of biogenesis, that life can only come from antecedent life,...
Here are some more from the Oxford Journal:
http://services.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/searchresults?full...
Wikipedia references the LoB:
Law of biogenesis
"La génération spontanée est une chimre" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream") (Louis Pasteur)
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.
The Cambridge Encyclopedia references LoB:
USA University College Directory - U.S. University Directory - State Universities and College Rankings
The principle that a living organism can arise only from another living organism. It contrasts with notions such as the spontaneous generation of living organisms from non-living matter by natural processes.
The term is also used for the assertion that life can only be passed on by living things, in contrast to abiogenesis, which holds that life can arise from non-life under suitable circumstances, although these circumstances still remain unknown.
Until the 19th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as spontaneous generation. It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life.
And certainly there are many scientific papers that reference the LoB from the creationist side. But there is no need to cite these as I've already destroyed your lame argument.
Oh did I forget! The original citation for this thread, a scientific address of the history of biogenesis and abiogenesis...
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE8/B-Ab.html
But none of this really matters, because science doesn't matter to you unless it meets your religious dogmas of abiogenesis.
CS writes:
You haven't presented one single piece of evidence that the law of biogensis is valid.
All you have is that we haven't observed a contradiction. But its to no avail because progress is being made and it is already not considered a law of science.
Au contraire! I am the only one who has presented scientific papers and citations for the Law of Biogenesis. To the contrary, you haven't presented one scientific publication that provides evidence that shows that abiogenesis is possible. That's called a lame argument. You haven't got a leg to stand on.
CS writes:
Not in its entirety, but you've already been linked to enough evidence to show that abiogenesis is plausible. You just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and sing "La, la, la". I can't argue with that.
That's right, you have plausibility. That is a logical reasoning process of an infinite number of chemical reactions that can lead to life. What you don't have is the science which requires observability and repeatability to go along side of your logical reasoning process. Plausibility is philosophical faith just as Thomas Huxley accurately identified the philosophy of chemical abiogenesis.
Let keep plausibility out of the classrooms.
CS writes:
Our entire universe is in our "current time relativity". Since there is nothing "outside" our universe, if life always existed then life would have to have originated with the Big Bang. But we know that is impossible.
Not so. You evidently don't understand the theory of relativity. Time is relative to both the speed of light and to gravity. There are gravity wells in the universe called black holes, and time "slows down" when gravity is increased. It also is slower the faster the speed of the clock. There are many time relativities within our universe. That's why it is called relativity.
We do not know this is impossible. If we don't know that abiogenesis is impossible, then how can you claim that life didn't pre exist the Big Bang. Abiogenesis is just as impossible as what you are declaring.
CS writes:
SO therefore, at some point in the past there was no life in the universe.
Again, you cannot prove this.
CS writes:
Now, there is life in the universe. Ergo, life emerged at some time. Since life emerged, it could not have come from pre-existing life, therefore abiogenesis had to have happened at some point in the history of the universe. Thus the law of biogenesis is refuted.
Ok la la la la la. Rather than argue this ridiculous claim, I will just ask you the same thing that you claimed I couldn't do. Please present one (only one) paper from a legitimate scientific source that discusses the refutation of the law of biogenesis. Otherwise you are lame. Evolution is mutating your two legs off your logic.
CS writes:
I have read the thread. And no, you haven't presented one single piece of evidence that the LoB is a scientific law.
This is either an outright lie or it is complete ignorance. From the beginning of this thread I have presented evidence while you have presented nothing but your claims.
cs writes:
Law's of nature don't mean anything.
They wouldn't to you. You obviously don't understand science at all to make such a statement.
Here is a citation from the Enclopedia Brittanica: Laws of Nature
Laws of nature are of two basic forms: (1) a law is universal if it states that some conditions, so far as are known, invariably are found together with certain other conditions; and (2) a law is probabilistic if it affirms that, on the average, a stated fraction of cases displaying a given condition will display a certain other condition as well. In either case, a law may be valid even though it obtains only under special circumstances or as a convenient approximation. Moreover, a law of nature has no logical necessity; rather, it rests directly or indirectly upon the evidence of experience.
Laws of universal form must be distinguished from generalizations, such as “All chairs in this office are gray,” which appear to be accidental. Generalizations, for example, cannot support counterfactual conditional statements such as “If this chair had been in my office, it would be gray” nor subjunctive conditionals such as “If this chair were put in my office, it would be gray.” On the other hand, the statement “All planetary objects move in nearly elliptical paths about their star” does provide this support. All scientific laws appear to give similar results. The class of universal statements that can be candidates for the status of laws, however, is determined at any time in history by the theories of science then current.
Several positive attributes are commonly required of a natural law. Statements about things or events limited to one location or one date cannot be lawlike. Also, most scientists hold that the predicate must apply to evidence not used in deriving the law: though the law is founded upon experience, it must predict or help one to understand matters not included among these experiences. Finally, it is normally expected that a law will be explainable by more embracing laws or by some theory. Thus, a regularity for which there are general theoretical grounds for expecting it will be more readily called a natural law than an empirical regularity that cannot be subsumed under more general laws or theories.
Universal laws are of several types. Many assert a dependence between varying quantities measuring certain properties, as in the law that the pressure of a gas under steady temperature is inversely proportional to its volume. Others state that events occur in an invariant order, as in “Vertebrates always occur in the fossil record after the rise of invertebrates.” Lastly, there are laws affirming that if an object is of a stated sort it will have certain observable properties. Part of the reason for the ambiguity of the term law of nature lies in the temptation to apply the term only to statements of one of these sorts of laws, as in the claim that science deals solely with cause and effect relationships, when in fact all three kinds are equally valid.
The LoB stand as a universal law of nature.
Let me give you some advise CS, get some legs underneath your arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2008 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Coragyps, posted 07-28-2008 1:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 117 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-28-2008 2:44 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 116 of 312 (476911)
07-28-2008 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 1:45 PM


Re: CITATIONS for the Catholic Scientist
Science 9 February 1951 113: 137-142
Do you really think science has not progressed since I was 3 1/2 years old, AOK? Really?

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 1:45 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 4:46 PM Coragyps has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 312 (476914)
07-28-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 1:45 PM


Re: CITATIONS for the Catholic Scientist
A valiant effort, kid, but you failed.
Science and Human Affairs
E. C. Stakman
Science 9 February 1951 113: 137-142 [DOI: 10.1126/science.113.2928.137]
Here is the direct quote from this article:
The record of the past hundred years is amazing when we consider the integration of knowledge regarding organic evolution, the laws of inheritance in plants and animals, the application of the law of biogenesis to microorganisms, the cause and nature of fermentation, the causes and nature of diseases of animals and plants, the principles of soil fertility, the structure of matter as a basis for modern chemistry and physics.
Simply mentioning the LoB is not a referencing it. You do know what a reference is, don’t you?
Order in the Physical World and its First Cause According to Modern Science. From the French. New York, James Pott & Co. 12. $1.; Natural Law in the Spiritual World. By HENRY DRUMMOND. New York, James Pott & Co. 12 75 cts
Science 25 March 1892 ns-19: 177 [DOI: 10.1126/science.ns-19.477.177] (in Articles
That one is from “Natural Law in the Spiritual World” and its from 1892
Here is the reference:
For instance, he speaks of the law of biogenesis, that life can only come from antecedent life,...
Simply mentioning some false “Law” is not a reference. A modern scientific textbook might mention the LoB in a discussion of the history of the discovery of microorganisms and how mankind found out that spontaneous generation was false. That is not referencing the LoB.
Wikipedia references the LoB:
Law of biogenesis
"La génération spontanée est une chimre" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream") (Louis Pasteur)
Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.
Now this one, this exposes what the LoB really is. Its not some biological law that refutes abiogenesis, it is the idea that fully functioning organisms to not spontaneously generate, with which I agree.
The Cambridge Encyclopedia references LoB:
USA University College Directory - U.S. University Directory - State Universities and College Rankings
The principle that a living organism can arise only from another living organism. It contrasts with notions such as the spontaneous generation of living organisms from non-living matter by natural processes.
The term is also used for the assertion that life can only be passed on by living things, in contrast to abiogenesis, which holds that life can arise from non-life under suitable circumstances, although these circumstances still remain unknown.
Until the 19th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as spontaneous generation. It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life.
Yeah, this is exactly what I’m talking about. I like this line:
quote:
The term is also used for the assertion that life can only be passed on by living things, in contrast to abiogenesis, which holds that life can arise from non-life under suitable circumstances, although these circumstances still remain unknown.
Your source agrees with ME
CS writes:
You haven't presented one single piece of evidence that the law of biogensis is valid.
All you have is that we haven't observed a contradiction. But its to no avail because progress is being made and it is already not considered a law of science.
Au contraire! I am the only one who has presented scientific papers and citations for the Law of Biogenesis. To the contrary, you haven't presented one scientific publication that provides evidence that shows that abiogenesis is possible. That's called a lame argument. You haven't got a leg to stand on.
You have still yet to present one single piece of evidence that the law of biogenesis is valid.
CS writes:
Not in its entirety, but you've already been linked to enough evidence to show that abiogenesis is plausible. You just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and sing "La, la, la". I can't argue with that.
That's right, you have plausibility.
Hey alright! You’ve admitted plausibility. At least you’ve moved from your original position that abiogenesis is impossible and the LoB refutes it but we all knew that was an idiotic position
CS writes:
Our entire universe is in our "current time relativity". Since there is nothing "outside" our universe, if life always existed then life would have to have originated with the Big Bang. But we know that is impossible.
Not so. You evidently don't understand the theory of relativity. Time is relative to both the speed of light and to gravity. There are gravity wells in the universe called black holes, and time "slows down" when gravity is increased. It also is slower the faster the speed of the clock. There are many time relativities within our universe. That's why it is called relativity.
You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.
CS writes:
SO therefore, at some point in the past there was no life in the universe.
Again, you cannot prove this.
In the earliest times of our Universe, there were not even atoms. Life is made of molecules which are made of atoms. Without atoms, life is impossible. This proves that some point in the past there was no life in the Universe.
CS writes:
Now, there is life in the universe. Ergo, life emerged at some time. Since life emerged, it could not have come from pre-existing life, therefore abiogenesis had to have happened at some point in the history of the universe. Thus the law of biogenesis is refuted.
Ok la la la la la. Rather than argue this ridiculous claim, I will just ask you the same thing that you claimed I couldn't do.
No, no, no. This is an important part that you shouldn’t ignore .
The LoB is impossible because the first life could never have arisen. What lifeform did the first lifeform come from if it had to come from another lifeform? Its impossible unless life has always existed in our Universe. But we know this isn’t true because in the distant past there were not even atoms to make up the molecules that life is made of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 1:45 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 5:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 118 of 312 (476920)
07-28-2008 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Coragyps
07-28-2008 1:51 PM


Re: CITATIONS for the Catholic Scientist
CORAGYPS writes:
Do you really think science has not progressed since I was 3 1/2 years old, AOK? Really?
What are you suggesting? That there has been some limitation to the LoB in the last 50 years? I'm interested in seeing it. Please present some evidence that the LoB is limited in any known way. I can certainly show you observable and repeatable evidence that the theory remains just as true today as it did in the mid 1850's when the theory was confirmed with evidence.
I assume you know of such progression.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Coragyps, posted 07-28-2008 1:51 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Coragyps, posted 07-28-2008 5:57 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 119 of 312 (476923)
07-28-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by New Cat's Eye
07-28-2008 2:44 PM


Re: CITATIONS for the Catholic Scientist
CS writes:
The LoB is impossible because the first life could never have arisen.
Oh I get it! LoB is impossible because we observe it every day, every where, in all forms of life. On the contrary abiogenesis is possible because we don't witness it anywhere, in the lab or otherwise. Abiogenesis is possible because of an imaginary environment and set of chemial circumstance that may never be able to be repeated. Wow! You are doing a great job of demonstrating the intelligence of your position.
CS writes:
What lifeform did the first lifeform come from if it had to come from another lifeform?
God. 1Ti 6:13 ...God, who gives life to all things,...
CS writes:
Its impossible unless life has always existed in our Universe.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God....
CS writes:
But we know this isn’t true because in the distant past there were not even atoms to make up the molecules that life is made of.
Unfortunately science doesn't "know this isn't true". Science doesn't make any claims to knowing what is true. It only reasons and theorizes about what evidence it has. Science is only as good as your mind, which in your case is lame, because you haven't provided any evidentiary support of any limit or refutation of the LoB since its inception.
But I knew you wouldn't, because this is about religious belief. Philosophical faith. It is not about science, or you would have some legs. But instead you chose more rhetoric, and you are crawling all over the place. In case you didn't recognize "la la la la la" is an abreviated form of "lame lame lame lame lame".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-28-2008 2:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Richard Townsend, posted 07-28-2008 5:54 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 123 by Rahvin, posted 07-28-2008 6:23 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4731 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 120 of 312 (476930)
07-28-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 5:17 PM


Re: CITATIONS for the Catholic Scientist
But AlphaOmegaKid, the 'law of abiogenesis' doesn't require that kind of refutation - it was never intended to cover the origin of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 5:17 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024