Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Biogenesis
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 166 of 312 (477124)
07-30-2008 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 11:02 AM


The only reasonable natural explanation!
Thanks Bluegenes you have just agreed with me on the topic of the OP. LoB is a natural explanation for natural phenomena. And like you said it is observed everyday anywhere. Yes, I think he has It!
So, we're in agreement that natural explanations are the only sort worth considering, and that the law of biogenesis only concerns extant organisms. Good.
On the contrary, we have abiogenesis which is a natural explanation for a natural phenomenon that has never been observed anywhere or at any time. Were not even sure the phenomena has ever existed. The phenomenon only exists in the minds of the believers.
We agree that explanations should be natural, and we observe that life exists, so either it's eternal, or it must have formed from non-life by abiogenesis. You seem to be opting for the eternal explanation, which is interesting. Your way of looking at things means that if things are old, and their beginnings cannot be directly observed, they are eternal. You can argue with the cosmologists and creationists about that.
The answer to your first question is yes. It does require faith to expect unnatural or non-natural or supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. I have never observed the non-natural or the super natural. I don't think there is any physical evidence of the non-natural...
Good. So you agree that natural explanations for natural phenomena are the natural default, making the hypothesis of abiogenisis into a strong theory, unless life is eternal.
Now that we are thruough with that exercise, what makes you think that God is non-natural?
I don't think of your God as non-natural. I think of him as an imaginary friend that you carry around in your head, and this is a common phenomenon, with many different people having many different gods in their heads.
The Bible certainly never indicates so. In fact it indicates that God works through nature in every thing He does.
It disagrees with you on the eternal nature of life, as well. But Jewish mythology is as irrelevant to science as all other mythologies. Do discuss it and your friend in the religion threads.
Now back to the suject at hand. Does it require faith to believe in a natural phenomenon that has never been observed and is direct conflict with a well known natural law that has tremendous observability?
You understand what "extant" means by now, so you can see that there's no conflict. All things in historical science rely on indirect observation. That includes the evidence that life is not eternal. So, you see, abiogenesis is actually the obvious natural explanation for the observable presence of life, and therefore, obviously, it requires no faith to think that it happened at least once in the universe, and probably on this planet.
I know you don't see this, but you are contradicting yourself. Life is not made up of non-living matter. It is made up of living matter. The moment you break living matter up into non-living components whether atoms, molecules, or multimolecular machines, you have just transformed it from living to dead.
I am not contradicting myself. Atoms are never alive. Collections of them arranged in the right way can make life, as they can make all else we see around us. Do ask the physicists.
AOkid writes:
bluegenes writes:
Not at all. Many creationists have posted here for years without coming up with a single jot of evidence for creationism. We're accustomed to it, and I'm sure you'll be no exception.
That's quite a bold claim. I guess it's similar to my claim that not a single poster in these threads has come up with a single jot of evidence for their faith in abiogenesis.
Similar, yes, with the obvious difference that I can back it up.
Aren't you now in agreement that abiogenesis is the only plausible natural explanation for the existence of the life we observe around us? And, as we've agreed, there's no evidence of the supernatural or non-natural. So, a belief in abiogenesis comes from indirect observation and logic.
This is easy to understand, surely?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 11:02 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 1:59 PM bluegenes has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 167 of 312 (477126)
07-30-2008 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 11:57 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Even though this is a strawman argument, because it is a total perversion of anything that I have said, you make one interesting mistake.
You call me idiotic (ad hominen) while falsely claiming that I argue "Life exists, ergo God"(strawman). Where the reality is you and others have been over and over again claiming "idiotically" that "Life exists ergo Nature."
What blatant hypocracy and fallaciousness. No wonder people like you are sold on illogical concepts.
Back to Logic 101 with you. I called your argument idiotic, and told you why.
An ad hominem attack asserts that the argument is invalid because the opponent is an idiot.
Those are two different things. I didn't say "you're an idiot, so obviously your conclusions are wrong." I said "your argument is idiotic, and here's why."
The former is a logical fallacy. The latter is calling a spade a spade.
Further, nobody here is saying "Life exists, ergo nature." What we're saying is that the Law of Biogenesis as recognized by scientists specifically deals with fully-formed organisms and has nothing to do with the slow, gradual approach hypothesized by abiogenesis.
What we're saying is that it's foolhardy to say "we've never observed x, and so x is impossible." Unlikely perhaps, but there are very few absolutes in the Universe.
What we're saying is that abiogenesis research has gone a long way in providing evidence showing that abiogenesis may be plausible, and worthy of further investigation as opposed to something to be dismissed out of hand as you say.
What we're saying is that if we have models that have proven to be extremely accurate that make the existence of life in the Universe impossible at certain points and yet life exists, abiogenesis at some point is the only natural explanation.
What we're saying is that it violates parsimony to assume a supernatural explanation for life appearing in the Universe at some point when no actual evidence for a supernatural agency exists.
The Law of Biogenesis as it was stated by Pasteur and as it is recognized by actual scientists as opposed to internet Creationists deals with fully-formed organisms. It states that microbes and worms and other fully-developed contemporary organisms do not spring fully-formed from the ether, but rather are always the offspring of other living things.
The Law of Biogenesis does not state that nonliving matter cannot spontaneously self-assemble into an imperfectly self-replicating molecule that metabolizes energy from its surrounding environment. The fact that this has never been observed is irrelevant due to the very simple, very basic principle you seem to have completely blinded yourself to:
It is impossible to prove a negative without positively proving a contradictory statement.
You can't prove that abiogenesis is impossible simply because it has never been observed any more than you can disprove the existence of space aliens or gods or ghosts or Thor. The only way to prove something is impossible is to positively prove something that contradicts it; for example, I can prove that it is impossible for a human being to spontaneously fly without aid on Earth by positively proving the existence of gravity, which precludes such an action.
You have not provided evidence of any barrier to abiogenesis; instead, you've repeated the Law of Biogenesis repeatedly and insisted that your interpretation of its wording is directly reflected in reality, and asserted that simply because something has never been observed it must be impossible.
So, here we go genius: your deity has never been directly observed. By your own "logic," the existence of your deity is also impossible.
Do you see the flaw in your argument yet?
As an Atheist, even I don't claim that the existence of a deity is impossible, only that I have no reason to believe in one until objective evidence is provided. Yet you honestly think that you can prove that abiogenesis is impossible without providing evidence of a barrier that actually prevents it, but instead by repeating your mantra "It hasn't been observed so it can't happen, lalala!"
Your position is completely false, AOK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 11:57 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by bluescat48, posted 07-31-2008 8:59 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 192 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-01-2008 10:07 AM Rahvin has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 168 of 312 (477128)
07-30-2008 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 11:22 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
AlphaOmegakid writes:
There is no phenomenon observed that suggests that life came from chemicals.
Except the damn fossil record and all of cosmology.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
To argue that life is and once was not is evidence for abiogenesis is nothing more than the fallacious use of argumentum ad ignoratium.
Why is this a bad argument? How else would you explain it?
AlphaOmegakid writes:
But that may be appropriate for you.
Probably goes for me too. That's why I prefer to stick to reason and the evidence and not throw my ignorant opinions around.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
And then somehow you have the audacity to claim that the scope of LoB is limited.
Rahvin (nor anyone else on this thread) is not the one who claimed that LoB is limited: it's actually the very nature of science that claims this. TalkOrigins has a good article about the history of biogenesis and spontaneous generation, and how it relates to the evolution/creation debate. It has several citations for you, too.
Let's pretend there's a scientist who studies millipedes in a forest in northeastern Queensland. One of his experiments finds a certain pattern in the millipedes' ecology, and he writes a paper about it. How does he write his conclusion? He doesn't say, "I have found that millipedes behave in this particular fashion," he is forced by his academic honesty to say, "I have found that millipedes in this forest in this part of Australia behave in this particular fashion over this time period."
All scientific findings are restricted in scope until the scope is sufficiently wide to merit generalization. Remember that there is massive evidence for hundreds of millions of years of life on this planet, spanning broad variations in climate and even chemistry. That no organism was spontaneously born from inorganic matter since 1860 is not sufficient evidence to merit generalization to all time periods, climates and chemistries.
It's only natural (and logical, too) that a hypothesis such as abiogenesis should be put forward and tested in the laboratory. And, the results, starting with Urey-Miller and going on from there) are quite promising. In fact, there isn't an alternative hypothesis, so there is nothing to put in textbooks except abiogenesis.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
...that suggests that the word "all" in "all life" is limited in scope.
Are you really that married to the Pasteur's choice of words? Did you forget about the part in Atomic Theory where Dalton claimed that atoms are unbreakable? What makes you think Pasteur (or any other scientist) has the right to dictate with his choice of words what the rest of the scientific community has to accept as fact? Shame on him for thinking that his results applied across the board when the only thing he tested was a microbe community in water. And shame on you and everyone else who believes like you do for being so short-sighted as to think a 150-year-old phrase has the power to silence the workings of science in our time.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 11:22 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-31-2008 4:44 PM Blue Jay has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 169 of 312 (477129)
07-30-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 12:13 PM


What about a "law of chemogenesis"?
AOkid, what about a "law of chemogenesis"? It would assert that all chemicals must come from other chemicals. Don't we need that one, too?
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 12:13 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 170 of 312 (477136)
07-30-2008 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by bluegenes
07-30-2008 12:29 PM


Re: The only reasonable natural explanation!
So, we're in agreement that natural explanations are the only sort worth considering, and that the law of biogenesis only concerns extant organisms. Good.
Understanding is difficult to come by in this forum, so to make sure you understand, I will clarify. As far a science is concerned, natural explanations are the only sort that are allowed to be considered. That was a very carefully worded sentence. Read it several times.
For clarification, the LoB does not only concern extant organisms. Upon what basis do you claim this other than your imagination? The law states "all life". That includes extant, extinct, and future.
We agree that explanations should be natural, and we observe that life exists, so either it's eternal, or it must have formed from non-life by abiogenesis.
Absolutely not. You provide only two solutions. It is an argument of ignorance. Just because you cannot imagine other solutions, doesn't mean the solutions are limited to your level of intelect.
Physics has gone was beyond Biology IMO. The last time I checked, Phisics was scientific. Biology tends to only work with space and time. Physics, however, theorizes as many as eleven different dimensions within the universe. All of them natural. You have chosen to limit your knowledge to four dimensions. Biology has chosen to limit its knowledge to chemicals, organization, and time. Physics goes way beyond this at the subatomic level.
Just because you cannot imagine another natural explanation does not mean another natural explanation does not exist.
You seem to be opting for the eternal explanation, which is interesting. Your way of looking at things means that if things are old, and their beginnings cannot be directly observed, they are eternal. You can argue with the cosmologists and creationists about that.
This is a tired old strawman argument. You must believe mice come from straw. That's an equivalent strawman argument.
Good. So you agree that natural explanations for natural phenomena are the natural default, making the hypothesis of abiogenisis into a strong theory, unless life is eternal.
Great, you build your argument on a strawman fallacy and then you declare abiogenesis as a strong theory. It is a defeated theory. A debunked theory. The origin of life hypotheses that exist today are not falsifiable, because the environment and chemical pathways are just imagination. So if you believe that is strong science then I reccommend that you go to this website for some additional scientific evidence...strong scientific theories
You understand what "extant" means by now, so you can see that there's no conflict.
Sorry to dissapoint, but there is plenty of conflict between your falacies and my arguments.
All things in historical science rely on indirect observation.
Another fallacy. I suggest you study indirect observation. Interpretation of evidence is not an indirect observation. But it is consistent with your package of fallacies.
That includes the evidence that life is not eternal. So, you see, abiogenesis is actually the obvious natural explanation for the observable presence of life, and therefore, obviously, it requires no faith to think that it happened at least once in the universe, and probably on this planet.
That's what a fallacious person would think all right.
I am not contradicting myself. Atoms are never alive. Collections of them arranged in the right way can make life, as they can make all else we see around us. Do ask the physicists.
Then it is simple. We can account for every atom in a cell. We have for years documented the arrangement of the atoms and chemicals. So it's simple, just put them together Dr. Frankenstein and you'll have a real name for yourself. And while we are continuing with the fallacious statements, I hope you understand that everything you "see around us" is a funtion of the light that enters your eyes and which is not made up of atoms. Do ask the physicists.!
Aren't you now in agreement that abiogenesis is the only plausible natural explanation for the existence of the life we observe around us? And, as we've agreed, there's no evidence of the supernatural or non-natural. So, a belief in abiogenesis comes from indirect observation and logic.
This is easy to understand, surely?
For people who reason like yourself, I can see how it is easy to understand. That's why it's called mythology and not science. A story about something that happened long ago in the past. It has mythological characters like millions of years, primordial life, pre-life, chemical pathways, and let us not forget the king of all kings. The magical poof god of evolution who abiogenesists must invoke to have natural selection of non-living organisms.
Sweet dreams.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 12:29 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 3:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 173 by Blue Jay, posted 07-30-2008 4:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 175 by gruber, posted 07-30-2008 5:33 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 182 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2008 4:19 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 171 of 312 (477149)
07-30-2008 3:26 PM


Requesting a great debate
Can I request that AOkid and whoever wants to turn Abiogenesis/Biogenesis into a great debate?
I feel AOKid has glossed over several important points including the synthesis of the polio virus, Miller-Urey experiments, and Dr. Szostak's video. It seems to me it would be harder for him to dodge these if it was set up as a great debate.

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 172 of 312 (477153)
07-30-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 1:59 PM


Re: The only reasonable natural explanation!
AOkid writes:
Understanding is difficult to come by in this forum, so to make sure you understand, I will clarify. As far a science is concerned, natural explanations are the only sort that are allowed to be considered. That was a very carefully worded sentence. Read it several times.
But we're not too tightly bound by that in an EvC debate, obviously, as it inevitably includes some philosophy, because of the "C"! That's why I pointed out to you why we look for natural explanations (the absence of evidence for the non-natural).
For clarification, the LoB does not only concern extant organisms. Upon what basis do you claim this other than your imagination? The law states "all life". That includes extant, extinct, and future.
I've pointed out that your interpretation of the law requires life to be eternal. Combined with your rejection of evolution, this raises the fascinating spectacle of elephants having produced elephants for eternity. I love the idea, and it's certainly original, but there's overwhelming evidence against the eternal existence of contemporary creatures, and of life in general.
However, if you count this as my "imagination", let's look at some other views of your Law.
Biology Online.org has this in their dictionary (my emphasis):
quote:
Law of biogenesis. The law which states that life arises from existing life.
The ancient greeks believed that living things could originate from nonliving matter (abiogenesis) and that the goddess Gea could make life arise spontaneously from stones. aristotle disagreed, but he still believed that creatures could arise from dissimilar organisms or from soil. variations of this concept of spontaneous generation still existed as late as the 17th century, but towards the end of the 17th century a series of observations, experiments, and arguments began that eventually discredited such ideas. This advance in scientific understanding was met with much opposition, with personal beliefs and individual predjudices often obscuring the facts.
Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, proved as early as 1668 that higher forms of life did not originate spontaneously, but proponents of abiogenesis claimed that this did not apply to microbes and continued to hold that these could arise spontaneously. attempts to disprove the spontaneous generation of life from non-life continued in the early 1800s with observations and experiments by Franz Schulze and Theodor Schwann.
In 1864, louis pasteur finally announced the results of his scientific experiments. In a series of neat experiments, pasteur demonstrated that life today did not arise in areas that had not been contaminated by existing life. Pasteur's empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex ovo, latin for "all life [is] from eggs". thus dr. Louis pasteur finally overcame the longstanding belief in spontaneous generation of life.
It is worth noting that louis Pasteur's research dealt with what can be observed to happen in the present day and says nothing about what may have happened on earth in the past. Indeed, both advocates of evolution and advocates of creationism both endorse abiogenesis as the means by which life began on earth, the latter group simply claiming that god did it. young earth creationists even go so far as to claim that fully grown creatures were created in their present form some six to ten thousand years ago, an idea which would seem to be completely discredited by Pasteur's research.
Law of biogenesis Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary
Pasteur's research was entirely about dispelling the popular myths that things like maggots that appeared to materialise from nothing actually came from eggs, hence the famous quote "Omne vivum ex ovo", (which is actually not even true).
Your cherished law has nothing to do with origins, and neither Pasteur (Catholic) nor its other supporters thought that elephants had been producing elephants for eternity.
So, how do you disagree with my view that abiogenesis is the most plausible natural explanation for the origins of life? Philosophically, it could have been the game plan of a god who created nature, if you like, but god or no god, it's still life from no life.
And don't start waffling about string hypotheses. There's not much point in using arguments from incredulity about evolution and abiogenesis if you're prepared (as I am) to accept the possibility that we may be in a multi-dimentional universe!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 1:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 173 of 312 (477163)
07-30-2008 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 1:59 PM


Re: The only reasonable natural explanation!
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.
AOkid writes:
For clarification, the LoB does not only concern extant organisms. Upon what basis do you claim this other than your imagination? The law states "all life". That includes extant, extinct, and future.
I have two complaints with this statement:
  1. Wording is not evidence, nor can it be considered binding when it oversteps the bounds of the explanatory power of the data obtained in experimentation.
  2. You keep claiming that there is evidence for the application of the law of biogenesis to organisms that are not alive today, yet, curiously enough, neither Pasteur, Redi nor Spallanzani, or any of their successors, ever tested extinct organisms. How are you going to support this without resorting to an interpretation of the evidence in the fossil record?

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 1:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by bluegenes, posted 07-30-2008 5:18 PM Blue Jay has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 174 of 312 (477168)
07-30-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Blue Jay
07-30-2008 4:08 PM


Eternal life!
Bluejay writes:
I have two complaints with this statement:
Two very reasonable complaints, Bluejay, but I'm falling in love with the idea of eternal life.
There's no way out of it, if all life must come from life, the planet is eternal, and if macroevolution doesn't happen, we should be seeing my eternal elephants stretching through the fossil record to infinity.
AOkid doesn't seem to grasp it, but in attempting an attack on the naturalistic view of origins, he ends up with an attack on all origins theories, and the concept of origins itself.
I find this hilarious. Forget billions of years, we're talking infinite organisms here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Blue Jay, posted 07-30-2008 4:08 PM Blue Jay has not replied

gruber
Junior Member (Idle past 5720 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 07-22-2008


Message 175 of 312 (477171)
07-30-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 1:59 PM


Re: The only reasonable natural explanation!
I have sat back quietly and watched this whole thread play out the way it has and have been incredibly interested in it, much as i have been with every thread over the last 2 years (I always feel inadequate when it comes to posting on this forum as it seems many other posters are much more qualified and have much more experience on all of the subjects at hand).
As it stands i am very confused as to what your position actually is on this. You say abiogenesis cannot be true. Okay, I'll go with that. What alternative can you put forward to show that it didn't happen? What is/are the other possible explanation(s)?
I'm not saying that if you did not have an alternative this would be proof of abiogenesis, it would be foolish of me to do so.
Consider this, and think long and hard about it because it has been explained to you before in this thread many, many times. At some point in the past there was no life on this earth. No life. At all. Not a button of life. The earth had just been created in our solar system and was incredibly hot. Life could not have been around then.
The earth then eventually cooled and at some point from that time until now life "appeared" and populated the earth.
How did that life come about if not from abiogenesis?
The law of biogenesis is all well and good. It is observable and repeatable. This law cannot explain that for some reason in the past there was no life and now there is life. You can rehash all the arguments as much as you want but in the far past the earth was incredibly hot and had a hostile environment that was unable to support life. I don't care what the law of biogenesis says, this is a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 1:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 11:09 PM gruber has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 176 of 312 (477186)
07-30-2008 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by gruber
07-30-2008 5:33 PM


Re: The only reasonable natural explanation!
gruber writes:
I have sat back quietly and watched this whole thread play out the way it has and have been incredibly interested in it, much as i have been with every thread over the last 2 years (I always feel inadequate when it comes to posting on this forum as it seems many other posters are much more qualified and have much more experience on all of the subjects at hand).
Don't feel inadequate. I personally feel you have made better arguments than most people in this thread. Arguments are just words. Exercise for the mind. As you can see, I am in the minority, so I get alot of exercise. I will be happy to address your questions and arguments.
gruber writes:
As it stands i am very confused as to what your position actually is on this.
That's fair. After looking at this thread and all the fallacious diversionary arguments, I can certainly see why you might be confused. I have done my best to keep it on track, but this is as close to fallacy heaven as I've ever seen. So let me help with some facts:
Here is th OP from the first post:
AOkid writes:
Why is the law of biogenesis which states that "all life comes from preexisting living matter" not taught in any modern textbook today? It is probably one of the most widely used laws in biology and biological studies, but the law and the history of the law is ignored.
I'm a firm believer in teaching science in schools, and not teaching non-science matters which are religious. How can we justify teaching abiogenetic science which is full of faith and little evidence and not teach biogenesis which is full of science and no faith?
Now that is my point. LoB is good solid beneficial science. We derive scientific benefits from the apllication of this law every single day. Abiogenesis is a philosophical faith. It is not good science. The teaching of faith based sujects should be kept out of the classroom. Why ignore good science an preach bad science. That's just wrong. That in a nutshell is my argument.
gruber writes:
You say abiogenesis cannot be true. Okay, I'll go with that.
I can understand why you may think this, but it is just not true. You are reading the fallacious mantra that over and over again repeats the strawman argument that "I am saying that abiogenesis is impossible." Infact, I have said just the opposite, but what I say and what gets fallaciously argued by others later is nothing but a fallacy to avoid discusing the topic of the OP.
Here is what I actually said...in message 30
AOkid writes:
Hey everybody,
Since many are arguing that the law of biogenesis does not make abiogenesis impossible, let me clearly state that first that this is a straw man argument. It certainly isn't mine.
No scientific law makes anything impossible. All scientific laws potentially can be broken or there can be exceptions under certain circumstances. A scientific law is a description of how nature works. It always represents our current understanding of nature.
Now can that be any more clear. Again, I am not arguing that abiogenesis is impossible. However I am arguing that the LOB stands in its way. And that is what needs to be taught!
gruber writes:
What alternative can you put forward to show that it didn't happen? What is/are the other possible explanation(s)?
That's a valid question. There is life on this earth. Where did it come from, or how did it get here? The fact is we don't know. So why should we teach what we don't know? However there are three phisophically based thought processes that lead to these hypotheses.
1. Abiogenesis: Life originated from chemical processes in some unkown enviroment.
2. Creationism: In the beginning God created...
3. Panspermia: Alien life was somehow transplanted to the earth.
4. A myriad of possibilities involving potential natural processes and forces that man hasn't discovered yet.
Now all are faith based at this time. So what should we teach? I say either all or none. Not one.
gruber writes:
Consider this, and think long and hard about it because it has been explained to you before in this thread many, many times. At some point in the past there was no life on this earth. No life. At all. Not a button of life. The earth had just been created in our solar system and was incredibly hot. Life could not have been around then.
The earth then eventually cooled and at some point from that time until now life "appeared" and populated the earth.
How did that life come about if not from abiogenesis?
I don't disagree with the argument that life was not on this earth at one point in time. 1,2, and 3 above all agree that at one point in time, life was not on this earth and then life was on this earth. However, items 2, and 3 argue that life preceeded life on this earth somewhere else in the universe. So just because there once was life, and now there is life does not lean any heavier to abiogenesis than it does towards creation, panspermia, or a possible myriad of other natural explanations that haven't even been formulated yet.
gruber writes:
The law of biogenesis is all well and good. It is observable and repeatable.
Fine then let's teach LOB. It is currently being ignored by scientists, science books, and science classrooms. Why? Because it presents a rational logistical barrier for abiogenesis to overcome. And this is no small barrier.
gruber writes:
This law cannot explain that for some reason in the past there was no life and now there is life.
Well, if you are talking about life on this earth, LOB presents some real problems for abiogenesis. It presents no problem for creationists. In fact creation is very compatible with the science of LoB. And it doesn't present any problems for Panspermia. However, if you keep tracing life back in panspermia, then you are back to the original question of where did life come from? It seems to me that creation is the only logical explanation that actually agrees with the observable repeatable science that you affirmed.
And I agree that creationism is not science, it is a philosophical faith. But I also argue that abiogenesis and paspermia are also philosohical faiths.
So what do we teach? Do we teach observable repeatable science? Or do we ignore it and exchange it to teach our particular version of 1,2, or 3?
That is my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by gruber, posted 07-30-2008 5:33 PM gruber has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by bluegenes, posted 07-31-2008 1:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 177 of 312 (477197)
07-31-2008 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 11:09 PM


There's no evidence for the existence of the non-natural
AOkid writes:
2. Creationism: In the beginning God created...
We would have to consider the Spaghetti monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn along with your Allah.....
And how do we choose between all these?
Forbidden
There is no evidence for the existence of the non-natural, and if you want it in considered in science education, then you should get going with your Ouija board, and do some serious research.
Until you produce evidence for the non-natural, the best natural explanation is some form of abiogenesis. Rambling on about a law that biologists have never applied to origins will make no difference to this.
In fact creation is very compatible with the science of LoB.
You must be trying to amuse us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-30-2008 11:09 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-31-2008 2:23 PM bluegenes has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 178 of 312 (477248)
07-31-2008 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by bluegenes
07-31-2008 1:19 AM


Re: There's no evidence for the existence of the non-natural
We would have to consider the Spaghetti monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn along with your Allah.....
That exactly what we are considering with teaching abiogenesis. The Natural Spaghetti Monster. The Nature god. The all powerful, all knowing, ominpresent, all creating Nature god....with spaghetti arms of course.
There is no evidence for the existence of the non-natural,
Well that's a tuatological statement if I've ever heard one. But at least your fallacies are consistent.
and if you want it in considered in science education
More fallacies. Creating once again another strawman argument. Not once have I advocated teaching God (Cristian, Muslem, Spaghetti Monster or Nature god) in the public schools. Quite the contrary, I have advocated that good science....LoB.... be taught in schools, and bad science....abiogenesis via the Nature god....be left out.
then you should get going with your Ouija board, and do some serious research.
Wow, another fallacy ad hominen. You see, bluegenes, this seems to be the only level of logic that you have. When people attack me in these forums, I usually become quite persistent in highlighting their fallaciousness. What I have found over the years is that people are trained to think in fallacies. You are providing great evidence of this. That's why they are so easily fooled by fallacious tautologies and circular reasoning. I am trying to show you that your mind thinks in fallacies. You can recognize this, and change, or you can continue the process.
Until you produce evidence for the non-natural, the best natural explanation is some form of abiogenesis...
How do you explain something you have no evidence for? Another fallacy. I have been begging for evidence that life can come from non-living matter. Not one of you have shown any evidence. The best you've done is produce an imaginative annimation film. You claim there is no evidence for God or the supernatural. Fine, then don't teach it. Apply the same criteria to abiogenesis.
Let me give you an analogy. We have a multitude of chemical compounds that man has created that do not occur naturally. They are intelligently designed. Kevlar is one of them. Now Kevlar is made up of chemicals. And there is a chemical pathway/process to organize the molecules in the right order that you have Kevlar. But you will not find Kevlar naturally occurring. Just because you think you can demonstrate a hand full of the "building blocks of life" is not evidence that life sprung from a chemical organization. There are a multitude of examples of non-naturally occurring compounds that can and have been made. And at some point in time those compounds didn't historically exist, and after they were created they did exist. Nature didn't make them. Man did.
So the continuous argument that life exists, so it had to be abiogenesis is not logically sound.
Rambling on about a law that biologists have never applied to origins will make no difference to this.
You know if you repeat this over and over again, all you have done is lied and distorted the truth over and over again. The history of the LoB has been presented and ignored by this forum. It was about origins in the beginning with Redi and it was about origins with Pasteur, and it was about chemical abiogenesis with Huxley, and it is about origin of life today. That's why you don't want it taught, because it suggests that there may be a source of life beyond our naturalistic comprehension. That source could be God or it could be anything that we just don't understand yet. And there is plenty of that to go around.
You must be trying to amuse us.
So while you're laughing at my amusements, why don't you just look in the mirror and see a person who continually uses one fallacy after another in his/her logic. Then ask yourself if that's reasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by bluegenes, posted 07-31-2008 1:19 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Granny Magda, posted 07-31-2008 2:58 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 180 by Blue Jay, posted 07-31-2008 3:09 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 181 by bluegenes, posted 07-31-2008 3:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 179 of 312 (477250)
07-31-2008 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by AlphaOmegakid
07-31-2008 2:23 PM


Re: There's no evidence for the existence of the non-natural
How do you explain something you have no evidence for? Another fallacy. I have been begging for evidence that life can come from non-living matter. Not one of you have shown any evidence. The best you've done is produce an imaginative annimation film.
Then what is it about the model presented in the film that you find so unbelievable? What part of the model do you disagree with and, vitally, how can you demonstrate that any part of it is false?
I'm not just looking for vague hand-waving here. What specific step in the process outlined in the video can you demonstrate is not possible?

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-31-2008 2:23 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 180 of 312 (477251)
07-31-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by AlphaOmegakid
07-31-2008 2:23 PM


Re: There's no evidence for the existence of the non-natural
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.
AOkid writes:
I have been begging for evidence that life can come from non-living matter. Not one of you have shown any evidence.
We have shown lots of evidence, none of which you are willing to accept.
While Bluegenes does frequently lace his posts with ad hominems, he has also presented a good logical quandary for your model: the only alternative to abiogenesis is eternal biogenesis. Name a third alternative, if you can.
The universe has been dated with reasonable precision based on well-supported mathematical models, and the earth has been dated with similar techniques, as well as geological and geochemical evidence. If you want life to be older than Earth, it is possible, though the likelihood is, at present, unknown. If you want life to be older than the universe, it cannot happen.
So, in order to disprove abiogenesis, you must also show how Big Bang cosmology is wrong. Since all indications are that Big Bang cosmology and theories of earth's formation are correct, the only reasonable option for origins is abiogenesis. Any other explanation requires a massive violation of teraquads of well-supported science. While parsimony is not perfect, or even always reliable, it is scientific, so abiogenesis is science.
-----
Also, I'd like to go back to a previous point I made.:
Bluejay, message #173 writes:
You keep claiming that there is evidence for the application of the law of biogenesis to organisms that are not alive today, yet, curiously enough, neither Pasteur, Redi nor Spallanzani, or any of their successors, ever tested extinct organisms. How are you going to support this without resorting to an interpretation of the evidence in the fossil record?
All applications of the Law of Biogenesis are restricted to modern organisms, unless you want to admit the validity of interpreting the fossil record in terms of observations from our time. For example, you may point out that dinosaur eggs have been found in the fossil record, and that this is proof that the Law of Biogenesis was also in effect in the time of the dinosaurs. Of course, the problem comes in when you consider that the observation of maggots in the fossil record does not rule out spontaneous generation, so how could dinosaur eggs in the fossil record rule it out? The presence of dinosaur eggs in the fossil record could just as easily indicate that dinosaur eggs spontaneously generated from the dust.
So, all you have is an interpretation of the fossil record based on what you see today. Basically, you’ve assumed uniformity in the laws that govern natural functions. Interestingly, the assumption of uniformity lends credence to evolutionary models of natural history, which include common ancestry, and to cosmological models of universal history, which precludes the only real alternative to abiogenesis (i.e. eternal biogenesis).
This is a quandary that you must resolve before you can claim that biogenesis is a viable alternative to abiogenesis. Since nobody has yet been able to answer this quandary, the burden of proof is on whoever thinks they can, and the word “science” belongs to the only still viable alternative.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-31-2008 2:23 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by bluegenes, posted 07-31-2008 6:02 PM Blue Jay 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