Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 165 of 312 (477122)
07-30-2008 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Fosdick
07-30-2008 10:16 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Hoot Moon writes:
We don't believe in Designer Fairies, either. We believe in testable hypotheses, empirical evidence, and peer reviews.
But you do believe in the nature designer fairy that organized the chemicals in such a way that may not ever be able to be repeated again. And you don't believe in the hypothesis of Biogenesis, the empirical evidence that supports it, and the peer review that acclaimed it to its current status of a natural law. And you don't believe in the countless confirmations of this law since the 1800's.
Hoot Moon writes:
What does this law do for science?
This question is so argumentum ad ignoratium it is sad. Do you not even realize that the theory of evolution which all of you so admirally defend falls totally apart without LoB. It is used every day in every hospital all around the world to save lives. Our knowlege of germs is based on LoB.
Now to the contrary, what does abiogenesis do for science? Can you name one useful contribution since 1870?
Please keep this faith out of our schools and let real science back in. Don't you just hate these religious zealots?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Fosdick, posted 07-30-2008 10:16 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Fosdick, posted 07-30-2008 1:09 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 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

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 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

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 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

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


Message 183 of 312 (477260)
07-31-2008 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Blue Jay
07-30-2008 1:08 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Bluejay writes:
Except the damn fossil record and all of cosmology.
Well I hope you are not an atheist. That word..."damn"...has no meaning unless of course there is a God. If you are an atheist, you may want to refrain from using it, but rest assured, I will forgive you.
Bluejay writes:
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.
Your argument is quite good until you wrote your last sentence. Unless you want to give up the ToE, then I suggest that you reprhase. You see, the ToE relies on LoB from the first cell, to all extinct organisms in the fossil record, to all the extant organisms. Without the LoB, there is no ToE. According to ToE, the evidence for LoB is 3.8 Billion years worth. And that leaves a mere paultry 700 million years for something else to happen. So the evidence is 3.8 billion years worth unless you think there is another explanation for all those fossils, and of course you don't agree with ToE.
This means that LoB has extreme universality. Of couse that universality was why it was proclaimed a law of nature back in 1870. I'm sorry if this looks like you put you foot in your mouth, but of course I would never think that.
It's only natural (and logical, too) that a hypothesis such as abiogenesis should be put forward and tested in the laboratory
Hey, go for it. No opposition here. If people want to fund the research, I'm all for it. The individual hypotheses that are being tested in this field though are not the hypothesis of abiogenesis. They are individual hypotheses about much smaller chemical reactions. That's all. But to teach hypotheses???? That's generally not done until the hypotheses have been confirmed to a broader level of theory. Abiogenesis is a long way from that.
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.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. M-U produced a racemic mixture of amino acids and carcinogenic tar. Both are the antithesis to life. But I guess you think this is promising. That's why it is a philosophical faith. And in my recent posts, there are other philosophical faiths that are just as scientific at this stage as abiogenesis. (which is not very scientific)
However there is no question that LoB is important, even for ToE. Therefore why not put it back into the textbooks and leave abiogenesis totally out?
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.
Now this paragragh demonstrates how little understanding of this subject you really have. First it's not Pasteur's law. It was Redi's hypothesis and Pasteur and many others did experimentation over the years to confirm the hypothesis and eventually aclaim it as a natural law. That's usually how science works. Darwin's theory took years to be accepted in the scientific community. Laws generally take quite awhile to be accepted.
Theories and laws come and go if there is evidence that refutes them. Sometimes they are just modified to fit the new evidence. ToE has been modified countless times in the past 150 years. But LoB still stands strong. Not one ounce of refutation.
And shame on you for demonstrating your ignorance of this subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Blue Jay, posted 07-30-2008 1:08 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Rahvin, posted 07-31-2008 5:17 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 185 by Blue Jay, posted 07-31-2008 6:01 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 186 by Coragyps, posted 07-31-2008 6:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 188 of 312 (477266)
07-31-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Rahvin
07-31-2008 5:17 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
I'd very much like a response to my message 167.
You seem to have completely ignored it, and you have continued to accuse people of fallacies when their arguments are not actually fallacious.
You also seem to have completely ignored the fact that you are asserting proof of a negative, as I brought up in that post.
Your silence continues to be telling.
Your wish is my command. Sometimes the things we wish for are not really what we want. It will be my next post, but be prepared. Since your ad hominen attack and your comment about logic 101, I suggest you study up, becasue your two posts have more fallacies than bluegene's and Bluejay's combined.
I'll be baaaaaaack...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Rahvin, posted 07-31-2008 5:17 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 192 of 312 (477339)
08-01-2008 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Rahvin
07-30-2008 12:55 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Rahvin writes:
Back to Logic 101 with you. I called your argument idiotic, and told you why.
Ok Rahvin, let's just see how you told me why my logic was idiotic... from message 159
Rahvin writes:
You're idiotic arguments mostly consist of "Life exists, ergo God" (strawman) and "we haven't observed maggots springing out of the air, so abiogenesis is impossible." (strawman)Once again, your arguments are logically unsound. You complain about a lack of evidence on the Evolution side? (strawman)I don't need to present evidence to point out the logical fallacies in your arguments. (admision that your argument is lame)I shouldn't need to cite a paper about the Big Bang when that's not the topic, since you should know at least the basics (that the Universe in its earliest state was much smaller, hotter, and more dense, and that even atoms did not form until significantly later, and all heavier elements are the result of stellar fusion over the course of millions of years) because they are common knowledge.(a total red herring)
Wow, all of that in one short paragraph. Let's examine logic 101 for a moment...
1. "Life exists, ergo God" - Please cite where I have argued this. It's a strawman. An argument that you made up and claimed that it was mine. I agree, it's an idiotic argument. But it is not mine it's yours. You created the argument. That's fallacious.
2. "we haven't observed maggots springing out of the air, so abiogenesis is impossible." - Please cite where I have argued this. It is a straw man. An argument that you made up and claimed that it was mine. Once again I agree that that is idiotic logic. But it is your's not mine. You created this logic, and it is fallacious.
But wait a minute. I beleive I have argued exactly the opposite of your claim before. Let's see....
from message 12
AOkid writes:
Now scientific laws or laws of nature decribe how nature works. Usually these laws do create boundaries. The law of biogenesis certainly establishes a barrier. However, nothing in science is absolute, so I can agree with you there.
Do you see the yellow. LoB is not absolute. That's my logic!
Then in message 15
Aokid 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. You may mean that there is nothing in science that makes any law of science absolute. If that's what you meant, then maybe I'll agree with you. However, the law does exist, and it does stand until further observations refute it.
Again, I argue that LoB is not absolute. But there is more!
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 this was a general message to everyone to make sure that every understood the strawman, and that I was not arguing that abiogenesis was impossible. But there is more...
message 84
AOkid writes:
Please read post 30. It is a strawman argument to suggest that for some reason I am obligated to show the impossibility of abiogenesis. There is statistical evidence and chemical evidence that it is very improbable, but these topics are substantially away from the OP, so I have chosen not to argue them in this thread.
Arguing the impossibility of abiogenesis would be the logical fallacy of agumentum ad ignorantiam. Therefore, I have chosen not to use this argument. There is no evidence for abiogenesis. That I will argue. The lack of evidence does not prove that it is impossible. However, the lack of evidence does make it non-scientific which is the topic of the OP.
Now can I make it any more clear that I am not arguing that abiogenesis is impossible! Hold on, we are not done yet...
message 87
AOkid writes:
And finally, I think it is a strawman to suggest that I am arguing that abiogenesis is impossible. My argument is that abiogenesis has no supportive evidence. It is a philosophy. I have only mentioned Yockey and listed the above citation, because others have argued that abiogenesis is impossible, and they have presented evidence of such.
message 89
AOkid writes:
Abiogenesis has been falsified by observation and experiment. That doesn't mean that it is false or impossible.
AOkid writes:
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.
Now have you, and every one else got it? I have not argued that abiogenesis is impossible. So stop, over and over and over again creating this fallacious strawman argument. Continuing to do this just provides further evidence that if TalkOrigins has not covered the argument, then all of the diciples are lost. Please deal with my words and my arguments.
That's enough for now, I will finish the response later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2008 12:55 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2008 10:53 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 194 by Rahvin, posted 08-01-2008 12:40 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

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


Message 198 of 312 (477369)
08-01-2008 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by New Cat's Eye
08-01-2008 10:53 AM


Re: laws
CS writes:
Hey kid,
I don't care to prove to you that abiogenesis happened. I just wanted to correct your misunderstanding of what a scientific law is.
That's fine, Ive been wrong many times in my life. The important thing is to learn from your mistakes.
CS writes:
Scientific laws are equations. They have an equals sign in them.
Something like: PV=nRT the ideal gas law
The law of biogenesis is not a scientific law.
Huh. That's interesting. Could I be wrong? Let's see.....
The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. Laws of Science
A scientific law, is a law-like statement that generalizes across a set of conditions. To be accorded law-like status a wide variety of these conditions should be known, i.e. the law has a well documented history of successful replication and extension to new conditions. Ideally boundary conditions, where the law fails, should also be known.
A scientific law concerns the physical world. It therefore must have empirical content and consequently be capable of testing and potentially of disproof. Analytic statements that are true or false by logic alone are not scientific laws, though may feature as part of scientific theories.
While the concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory, it is important to realize that a scientific law does not grow from or supersede a related scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it.
The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences and hence the term is used interchangeably with the term physical laws. Scientific Laws
A physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior ,(i.e. the law of nature [1]). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing the observable laws. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science.
Laws of nature are distinct from religious and civil law, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law. Nor should 'physical law' be confused with 'law of physics' - the term 'physical law' usually covers laws in other sciences (e.g. biology) as well.
So what can we conclude. Clearly the terms are used interchangeably. In Britain they generally say Law of Nature. In the US it is usaually a scientific law. Some have empirical equations and some do not. So I don't think that you are justified in your critisism especially when predominantly I have refered to LoB as a Law of Nature. A scientific law is just a synonym.
Scientific laws are pretty much absolute. For example, F=ma. The force of an object is, by definition, its mass times its acceleration. It can't be anything else. Now, laws can be disproven, but they're are either true or false, there is not a grey area and in that sense, they are pretty much absolute.
Yup. Will I make your day if I agree with you? Laws of nature are pretty much absolute in that they are universally observed without contradiction. LoB is universally observed without contradiction. But any Law of Nature can be limited, bounded, or eventually disproven which makes it not absolute. So I pretty much agree with you here.
CS writes:
And yet, you've been shown on multiple occasions the supportive evidence of abiogenesis. But you avoid responding to those points.
Pardon me, but if this is really true, then I apologize. Please identify the posts with evidence that I have ignored. Evidence is not the posters words. Evidence is a citation or some other source if info that supports that life has come from chemicals. I know that I have begged for these citations. If I missed one, then would you help me identify it?
If you have some evidence, cite it, and then discuss why you think it supports the theory that life can come from non-living matter. Ive already shown that the argument that life is here and life was not once here is not evidence for abiogenesis. That is an argument ad ignoratium. That's a fallacy. Cite experiments, detail anything. If I've missed something then I will address it.
I have addressed the video in two posts. I've been asked to address it again. I will. Is there any other evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2008 10:53 AM 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 201 of 312 (477560)
08-04-2008 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Rahvin
08-01-2008 12:40 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Rahvin writes:
You entire purpose in this thread is to show that, since the Law of Biogenesis requires that all life originates from pre-existing life, abiogenesis is impossible and a Creator is necessary. You haven't given any evidence in support of such a notion, you've simply insisted that the law of Biogenesis as interpreted by you is inviolate. You are, essentially, saying "Life exists, ergo God," because you are claiming that natural causes are made impossible by the Law of Biogenesis.
Not a strawman, just an obvious extrapolation of your claims.
Every thing you said in the above paragraph is a strawman. If you want to discuss my arguments, then quote my statements. Stop distorting my statements into your idiotic strawmen arguments.
Rahvin writes:
And yet that's what your entire claim in this thread revolves around. You have claimed, specifically and repeatedly, that abiogenesis is "poor science" because it is contradicted by the Law of Biogenesis.
Yes, it is poor science, because the theory has been falsified and there is no observable phenomena to support it, and because the LoB oppopses it.
Rahvin writes:
Thank you for basically providing multiple occasions where you have compeltely contradicted yourself. Let me draw this out very simply:
I think this sentence says it all! You are going to ignore all my words, all my quotations, and now you are going to once again construct exactly the same strawman that you did before. Go figure...
Rahvin writes:
You claim that abiogenesis is poor science because it is refuted by the Law of Biogenesis, which states that all life originates from pre-existing life.
That's not just a claim, that's the reality of science. But at least you got this part right.
Rahvin writes:
You deny that this was intended to apply only to modern, fully-formed life, and has nothing whatsoever to do with life's origin.
The LoB applies to all life. It is that simple. I don't know what "modern fully formed" life is. Is there such a thing as "non-fully formed" life? You see, this is why this crap should not be taught, because you believe there is such a thing. The Cell theory states that all living things are made up of cells. It also states that the cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in living things. No matter what belief or faith you have in these pre-biotic mythological beings, abiogenesis has to either totally change the current definition of life, or it has to start with something and end with a cell. At that moment the cell will be fully formed. And unfortunately for you, it will also be modern.
The LoB has everthing to do with origins. It is call Biogenesis. Life's beginnings. Life's origins. Saying that it doesn't is just pure ignorance on your part.
Rahvin writes:
These claims only make sense if you are claiming that abiogenesis is impossible due to the Law of Biogenesis. If the Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute, why are you arguing agains abiogenesis? It doesn't make any sense, and is basically a giant contradiction.
There it is, you constructed exactly the same strawman once again. Maybe that's because Rahvins sit atop scarecrows all day long, and they just feel at home making such fallacious claims. But as long as you continue, I will continue to point it out. No law or theory or anything in science makes anything impossible. Believe abiogenesis if you want, it is possible. It is a falsified theory, and has no natural phenomenon to support such a theory. It is a philosophical faith as Huxley rightly identified. Just don't teach about these mythological pre-life creatures in the schools. That is scientific crap. I am arguing against teaching abiogenesis, because it is just as much a faith as YEC. Keep it out of the schools.
rahvin writes:
But even further, you claim "there is no evidence for abiogenesis." This is blatantly not true, and others in the thread have given you some of the evidence in favor of abiogenesis. We have managed to observe spontaneously self-assembling pre-biotic chemicals in teh lab from abiotic organic compounds, and multiple pathways to life have been proposed from these and other experiments. A great deal of research has been done on abiogenesis, and the results are extremely promising. Further, unless we introduce a supernatural entity we have never observed, abiogenesis at some point in the history of the Universe is the only possible natural explanation for life - and that supernatural entity we have never observed violates parsimony.
There isn't any evidence that life has come from non living matter. This is a faith. You use the phrase "spontaneously self-assembling pre-biotic chemicals". Did you realize that every chemical reaction in the world fits that descrition. All chemical reactions are spontaneous at some point. All chemical reactions have some level of self assembly. And all chemical reactions can be considered pre-biotic if they aren't alive. So if you and others are making up chemical pathways from these, then it is clearly imagination of faith without evidence. You say the results are promising from experiments on abiogenesis. They would be promising only for a person of faith. However if all the scientific evidence was shown, the results would be dead ends. Only the results which suit the faith are shown.
Rahvin writes:
Your claim that there is no evidence for abiogenesis is simply wrong, AOK. It may not be a complete theory, and it certainly needs more research to determine its accuracy, but so far the results match what we observe. (anothe tautology) Apparently for you, a hypothesis has "zero" evidence until it is a compelte and accepted theory. But that's not the case, that's not what evidence is. A fingerprint alone does not complete a detective's murder investigation, but it is one piece of evidence. We may not have the smoking gun yet with abiogenesis, but we have multiple fingerprints, a lot of circumstantial evidence, and the DNA testing is running as we speak.
You make an interesting argument about evidence. Unfortunately your argument fails the evidentiary criteria. Fingerprints being linked to suspects are only good evidence, because the phenomena of people leaving fingerprints behind has been observed in the past. There is a chain for this dicovery. With the hypothesis that life came from non-living chemicals we do not have the chain. There is no evidence that suggests that any chemical arrangement of steps for self replicating lipid bilayers or self replicating RNA's or anything else for that matter can form life. The chain only exists in yours and other's imaginations. That's why it's faith.
Rahvin writes:
1)"You complain about a lack of evidence on the Evolution side? (strawman)"
You did complain that evolutionists were not supporting their arguments with evidence. Right here:
AOkid writes:
I am beginning to see how this forum works...Creationists must present evidence to support their arguments. Evo's present nothing but rhetoric. Then they hijack the thread when they are pigeon holed. Then they declare victory! Halelujah praise the nature god!
Not a strawman, I simply called you out on your bullshit.
Sometimes it is hard to translate peoples thoughts from what they write. I guess you do not think that there is a difference from Evo's (evolutionists) and Evolution. Bringing Evolution into this debate is correctly cited as a strawman, however, I see that you are equating EVO's and Evolution, so I will withdraw the strawman claim in this case.
Rahvin writes:
2)"I don't need to present evidence to point out the logical fallacies in your arguments. (admision that your argument is lame)"
I wasn't aware of the "lame argument" fallacy.
Of course you are not aware of it, because you evidently flunked logic 101 and you evidently have a reading problem. I didn't say there was a lame argument fallacy. I said your argument was lame. If you knew anything about logic you would know that good arguments present citations of evidentiary support for their claims. A lame argument doesn't provide a citation for anything. That's your arguments in a nutshell. Even if you call me on a fallacy, you need to quote my words and identify the fallacy.(like I do every time with you). Instead you claim I am fallacious by creating several strawman arguments in your words. Get some legs Rahvin! Support your arguments with something other than your words.
Rahvin writes:
But then, I also wasn't wrong: when you make a fallacious argument, all that is required to show the argument is false is to show the fallacies used. No evidence is required for such arguments beyond the fallacious quotes.
I agree. But you do have to provide the quotes! Like I do with you. Instead, you claim that I am arguing that abiogenesis is impossible. Yet you can't provide a quote of me saying that. Instead you imagine my argument. That's dishonest and that is fallacious.
Rahvin writes:
This is because pointing out fallacies has nothing to do with the evidence the argument is based upon; if you commit an ad hominem, or an argument from ignorance, or any other fallacy, your reasoning is unsound and your conclusion is unfounded. This is not a "lame" argument on my part, it's you whining because I point out your fallacious arguments.
No it's not whining, it's showing how little you know about logic. your arguments are unsound because you continually use strawmen, red herrings and ad hominens. And all arguments are lame if you don't provide citations (legs) for your arguments. You might want to learn some of this stuff rather that embarassing yourself.
Rahvin writes:
3)"I shouldn't need to cite a paper about the Big Bang when that's not the topic, since you should know at least the basics (that the Universe in its earliest state was much smaller, hotter, and more dense, and that even atoms did not form until significantly later, and all heavier elements are the result of stellar fusion over the course of millions of years) because they are common knowledge.(a total red herring)"
This isn't a red herring, it was an example. We had spoken eariler about how the conditions of the Universe in teh past would have made the existence of life impossible. Specific mention was made by myself and others regarding how hot and dense the Universe was, and that even atoms didn't exist at first. This was relavent because it requires life to form from nonlife because at some point we know that life did not exist, yet it exists today. In this quote, I used that previous note as an example of how I should not need to submit a paper to support an assertion based on common knowledge like the Big Bang.
It still is a total red herring. It's an off topic argument. Even if I agreed with the BB theory, it is off topic to this thread about what we should teach regarding LoB and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a theory that must have evidentiary support. The BBT is not evidence in anyway shape or form of abiogenesis. Evidence of abiogenesis is some hint of observation that there really is a chemical pathway. Instead we have an infinite number of steps and nothing suggesting the linkage of all those steps together. Imagination is all you have. That's why when I keep requesting citations for evidence, you say "I don't need to provide evidence." That's because there is none.
Rahvin writes:
I note that you did not mention the fact that my accusation that your logic was "idiotic" was not an ad hominem as you claimed. I did not say "you are an idiot, ergo your conclusion is invalid." I said "you logic is idiotic." I pointed out your fallacious reasoning as the invalidation of your conclusion, not your stupidity.
The fact is it is an ad hominem attack. A person's logic comes from their mind. You effectively are saying my mind is idiotic. You are claiming that I have a severe form of retardation. Now if that is not ad hominen, then nothing is. You would be thrown out of logic 101 making such a statement about an opponent. Just because you try and spin this does not take away the personal attack.
Here is evidentiary support for you:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. Ad hominem
Again, the only argument you used was your own made up and debunked strawman argument. So the only idiocy was your own words, because you cannot cite me saying those things. It is a continuance of your fallaciousness.
Rahvin writes:
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 has been stated many times and in many ways is that life didn't once exist on this earth and now it does. That's the "life exists" part. The next statements basically say "therfore abiogenesis is the only natural answer." That's the "ergo nature" part. This has been argued by many in this thread.
You continually make the claim that LoB "specifically deals with fully-formed organisms and has nothing to do with the slow, gradual approach hypothesized by abiogenesis." Now I challenge you to present evidence that there is such a thing as a non-fully formed organism. Abiogenesis must at some point arrive at the cellular level. There is no evidence of life smaller than the cellular level according to the Cell theory. So, I'm waiting. What are these mythological characters you call non-fully formed organisms? This is nothing more than equivolcating language which is just more Rahvinous fallacies.
Rahvin writes:
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.
You see Rahvin, you use fallacies so often that you don't even know when you do it. Here you go once again using the strawman fallacy that I said "x is impossible". I haven't. Quote me if you think I have.
Rahvin writes:
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.
Plausibility is in the eyes of the beholder. It is not "theoretically" plausible. But if you want to believe it and fund it and persue it, then go ahead. I have nothing against that. Just don't teach that it is plausible. That's faith.
Rahvin writes:
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.
And what I have shown previously is that this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium. With quantum physics at its infancy, you are only allowing your mind to realize the four dimensions of space and time to draw your conclusions. There is evidence that there are many more dimensions in this reality of science. And some of those dimensions may be involved with the origin of life. All of this would still result in a natural solution.
Rahvin writes:
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.
It's clear from this statement that you do not understand parsimony. If anything the slow gradual process of the mythological abiogenetic process violates the law of parsimony relative to the creation myth.
Rahvin writes:
Once again, AOK, you throw the word "fallacy" around like it's going out of style, and in doing so you incorrectly identify arguments as fallacious constantly.
Once again Rahvin, you don't understand fallacies, because you practice them so frequently. I've addressed your whole post now, and have added to your list. I've quoted your words and spelled out the fallacies. While you create arguments and call them mine.
Rahvin writes:
On top of that, your actual argument has been repeatedly crushed by myself and others.
Yes, it's pretty easy to crush an idiotic argument that you make up isn't it. But that's what Rahvins do. They sit atop strawmen all day long. Funny, I think you're the one who has been thoroughly refuted. And you have demonstrated how little you know about fallacies and logic. But you do live in an imaginary world with non-fully formed life.
Rahvin writes:
Abiogenesis is not poor science.
No it is just falsified science.
Rahvin writes:
It does have supporting evidence, even if it is not a fully-formed theory as of yet.
Maybe hypotheses and theories can be not fully formed like pre-biotic life. If the hypothesis is not fully formed, then it is not falsifiable, and it is poor science.
Rahvin writes:
It is a valid conclusion based on teh evidence we have available about our Universe.
So is creation theory. It and abiogenesis are philosphical faiths.
Rahvin writes:
And teh law of Biogenesis has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life itself, as you have erroneously claimed.
Nothing whatsoever. The word Biogenesis means the origin of life. But it has nothing to do with the origin of life.
We could accurately call it the Law of the Origin of Life. Would that help your understanding? Nah.......
Rahvin writes:
Furiously backpedaling by saying "the Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute, of course" only serves to contradict your own argument, which depends entirely on the Law of Biogenesis being absolute.
Furiously backpedalling. Yes, over and over again, I have stated from the beginning of this thread that the LoB is not absolute. But to equivocating Rahvin, that is called backpedalling. And I see you cannot help but once again restating your continuing strawman that my argument depends on this. Look at the OP Rahvin. Do I mention "absolute". No. But your mind works in mysterious ways. You have the ability, and you think you have the right to restate others arguments. I find that not only fallacious, but dishonest. In your case after showing you time and time again, and ignoring all my quotes, you still persist. But that's what Rahvins do. They perch atop strawmen all day long.
Well for now, this farmer is going home. He's tired of blasting Rahvins off his scarecrows with his shotgun. But somehow this Rahvin keeps resurrecting. Maybe that rahvin is not fully formed!?!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Rahvin, posted 08-01-2008 12:40 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Fosdick, posted 08-04-2008 8:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 203 by dokukaeru, posted 08-04-2008 8:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 204 by dokukaeru, posted 08-04-2008 8:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 205 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2008 11:35 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 217 by Rahvin, posted 08-05-2008 12:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

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


Message 206 of 312 (477591)
08-05-2008 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Fosdick
08-04-2008 8:11 PM


Re: Didn't God make water?
Hoot Moon writes:
Why, in your opinion, would the discovery of the principles of abiogenesis”let's even say the Laws of Abiogenesis”be anything more or less that an objective disclosure of God's creative work? If God created us after His own image then why wouldn't He be absolutely delighted to see us learn all we could about is His perfect ways? Doesn't God want us to be more like Him? Isn't that what grace is all about?
Rom 1:20-25 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
I concurr with this opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Fosdick, posted 08-04-2008 8:11 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Fosdick, posted 08-05-2008 10:01 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 218 by LinearAq, posted 08-05-2008 12:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 207 of 312 (477599)
08-05-2008 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by bluegenes
08-04-2008 11:35 PM


Re: Abiogenesis is the scientific explanation
bluegenes writes:
Creation myths are about supernatural origins of life, and there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural.
I disagree. The creation myth that comes from the Bible represents God and Jesus as being the creators. Nothing in the Bible indicates in any way shape or form that God is "supernatural". In fact using the current modern scientific definitions of nature, it is impossible for anything to be supernatural. Therefore, my conclusion is the God represented in this creation myth is natural.
bluegenes writes:
Abiogenesis is a natural explanation for a natural phenomenon, the origin of life. That natural phenomena in general tend to have natural explanations is a view well supported by evidence, making some form of abiogenesis by far the most likely explanation.
Yes, but it is a matter of philosophical faith. It has been falsified by direct observation. There is no observation that would suggest abiogenesis except the mind. The creation myth is also a philosophical faith. I think it is just as natural as abiogenesis. Both are faiths. Both are myths. Don't teach them.
bluegenes writes:
It is a common and rather ridiculous tactic of creationists to try and put the natural and supernatural on an equal footing, without presenting a scrap of evidence for the latter. It requires no grand philosophy to assume natural explanations as by far the most likely for natural phenomena in this day and age, when we have so many good ones, and the evidence for the supernatural remains at zero.
No evidence??? Just everything that you see and discover. You personally have argued that with panspermia you eventually still have to work your way back to a chemical evolution of life (abiogenesis). That evidently seems rational to you. Well with the BBT you either have to start with mass or energy. One must be present in the beginning. I think it was energy. The all powerful, almighty God. There has to be something in the beginning. That is the same rational you used with abiogenesis.
What is your natural explanation for that? If God is natural as the scriptures portray, then all of these natural explanations are nothing more that revelations of God to you.
bluegenes writes:
Abiogenesis of some sort applies however many dimensions the universe has, and string theory does nothing to contradict its likelihood.
That's not a natural solution. We have already discovered the natural solution. Biogenesis. Life comes from life. That's the creation myth. It's natural. Abiogenesis myth is non-natural.
bluegenes writes:
Do suggest a natural alternative that does not involve the eternal existence of life, as current cosmology makes this impossible.
I already have. Why do you eliminate the eternal existance of life in your criteria. The scripture represents God as light. One who travels at that speed would be eternal. That's the physics of relativity. Light is energy, but no mass. No atoms. Cosmology is mostly about mass. Where did all that matter come from? What is your natural solution to this? It could only be transformed from energy. Then where did the energy come from?
You falsly represent God as being non-natural. Cosmology does not make eternal life impossible. It doesn't make anything impossible.
bluegenes writes:
How did life come into existence in your opinion if not by abiogenesis of some kind?
As the scripture represents, life has always existed and been controlled by God. It didn't come into existence in the universe. The universe came into existence via life and energy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2008 11:35 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by bluegenes, posted 08-05-2008 9:56 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 211 by Blue Jay, posted 08-05-2008 10:23 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 208 of 312 (477605)
08-05-2008 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by dokukaeru
08-03-2008 5:04 PM


dokukaeru writes:
If it is just the lack of evidence to abiogenesis that you have a problem with please point out in my next post or in someone else thread how the evidence is faulty.
In the case of abiogenesis, there is no evidence upon which the hypothesis could be inferred. The evidence of life all points to biogenesis. Abiogenesis has and is falsified. The science of a gradual process/evolution of life is a philosophical faith. Not good science. The observations refute it.
Evidence is never wrong. The interpretation of that evidence is what can be faulty. Logic. If the logic is based on creationism, then biogenesis is consistent with natural observations. But it is a philosophical faith. So we don't teach it. If the logic is abiogenesis, then we have interpretations based on a philosophical faith. That's fine, just don't teach it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by dokukaeru, posted 08-03-2008 5:04 PM dokukaeru has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 11:53 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 212 of 312 (477617)
08-05-2008 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Fosdick
08-05-2008 10:01 AM


Re: Didn't God make water?
Hoot Moon writes:
Lord, why did you give us brains and then expect us to use them as door stops?
It's real simple Hoot Moon. He gave you the brains and the mind. You see, there are many things that natural science cannot explain. Things that defy our wisdon.
We know gravity exists, but we don't know what it is, and we don't know why it is. Why would a mass exert a force on another mass? And where did the mass come from? And of course where did life come from? And where did the mind and consciousness come from. All of these enigmas that have no natural answers.
It takes faith to believe in natural solutions for all of these. To trust in a natural solution for all of these is trust in the supernatural. As Author C Clarke points out:
any science beyond current scientific explanation and understanding is considered "Magic", mystical, or supernatural until or unless it can be described by science. Conversely any claimed "science" which has not been proven is by definition supernatural or beyond science supernatural
That trust is Pantheistic. Keep it out of the schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Fosdick, posted 08-05-2008 10:01 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Fosdick, posted 08-05-2008 11:38 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 219 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 1:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

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


Message 216 of 312 (477624)
08-05-2008 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Fosdick
08-05-2008 11:38 AM


Re: Didn't God make water?
Hoot Moon writes:
That's OK with me. I'm all right with you saying that God created gravity, for example. True, scientists don't know what it "is." They don't even know what the universe "is." So, let's all say that what it "is" is a creation of God. Gravity came from God, and He proclaimed it to behave thus and so. Great!
Now, just what do I do with this profound "knowledge"?
Well that's up to you. Many people believe in a god. They believe in the god that makes the most sense to them relative to what they have been taught and how their logic works. And usually they "do" or behave relative to what type of god they believe.
I personally believe in the God of the Bible. Why, because I've studied the Bible, and to me, the claims make logical and natural sense. But that's just me. Many have different opinions. But that's my faith. I don't want it taught in the schools. I do want it taught in the churches.
This God has revealed various ways that are right and various ways that are wrong. What I do with that is try and practice the rights and avoid the wrongs. He also has made various promises in the Bible, and I trust Him in those promises.
That's what I do. Others do various different things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Fosdick, posted 08-05-2008 11:38 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 11:56 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 220 of 312 (477635)
08-05-2008 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by dokukaeru
08-05-2008 12:00 PM


Re: Another nice example
dokukaeru writes:
This is another example of your lack of understanding. Viruses are not only agents of death. Have you ever heard of a bacteriophage?
Wikipedia writes:
Replication
Bacteriophages may have a lytic cycle or a lysogenic cycle, but a few viruses are capable of carrying out both. With lytic phages such as the T4 phage, bacterial cells are broken open (lysed) and destroyed after immediate replication of the virion. As soon as the cell is destroyed, the new bacteriophages viruses can find new hosts. Lytic phages are the kind suitable for phage therapy.
In contrast, the lysogenic cycle does not result in immediate lysing of the host cell. Those phages able to undergo lysogeny are known as temperate phages. Their viral genome will integrate with host DNA and replicate along with it fairly harmlessly, or may even become established as a plasmid The virus remains dormant until host conditions deteriorate, perhaps due to depletion of nutrients, then the endogenous phages (known as prophages) become active. At this point they initiate the reproductive cycle resulting in lysis of the host cell. As the lysogenic cycle allows the host cell to continue to survive and reproduce, the virus is reproduced in all of the cell’s offspring.
Sometimes prophages may provide benefits to the host bacterium while they are dormant by adding new functions to the bacterial genome in a phenomenon called lysogenic conversion A famous example is the conversion of a harmless strain of Vibrio cholerae by a phage into a highly virulent one, which causes cholera. This is why temperate phages are not suitable for phage therapy.
Wow. Thanks dokukaeru. We can all learn from each other. What I learned from you is exactly why we shouldn't be teaching this crap to our kids.
It is amazing to me how some people of faith can read whatever they want to read in a given text. Look at the underlined sections of the passage you cited. (by the way, thank you for at least citing something) Bateriophages are all agents of death. It is all underlined for you to understand. If you can.
You may be referring to the phenomena of horizontal gene transfer that happens in a lysogenic conversion. What you don't understand is this is not the same as normal horizontal gene transfer between living organisms. The virus remains dormant until such time as it is ready to lyse. (kill the cell) That's why all the examples of this that we have are extremely virulent diseases like diptheria, cholera, botulism, scarlet fever, Shiga toxin, and tetanus. lysogenic conversion
All viruses are agents of death. Your own citation is against your argument. But somewhere you've been taught this mystical garbage that viruses are at the "edge" of life. So is arsenic. It's a chemical. Voila!. Abiogenesis. It's magic!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 12:00 PM dokukaeru has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2008 1:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 222 by cavediver, posted 08-05-2008 2:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 223 by Coragyps, posted 08-05-2008 2:22 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