Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-26-2019 2:58 AM
30 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,465 Year: 15,501/19,786 Month: 2,224/3,058 Week: 82/516 Day: 3/79 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 710 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 181 of 312 (477253)
07-31-2008 3:31 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
AlphaOmegakid writes:

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.

The difference between natural explanations for natural phenomena and non-natural explanations for natural phenomena is that the former are well proven to exist, and the latter, like Santa Claus, are not known to exist and are apparent products of human imagination.

Abiogenesis of some sort somewhere is the only plausible natural explanation for the existence of life at this moment.

Writing one hundred posts containing the word "fallacy" 1000 times will not change that. If you can think of any other natural explanation for the existence of life, do tell us.

Non-natural explanations are easy to make up, and I gave you a link to some of the world's many creation mythologies in the previous post. As you can see, they're all silly and contradict the evidence we have about this planet.

Keep your temper. ;)


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

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 182 of 312 (477259)
07-31-2008 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by AlphaOmegakid
07-30-2008 1:59 PM


Re: The only reasonable natural explanation!
You ignored my last post here (msg 105) so I will try again:

cavediver writes:

I'm sorry, I specifically requested you point out where the Law of Biogenesis would prevent the mechanisms portrayed in the video from occurring. However, I do fully understand if you are not capable of addressing this subject at that level.

AOK writes:

Because it uses imaginary mystical life forms.

There was nothing in the slightest bit mystical in the video - it was remarkable in its almost trivial simplicity - but I can understand how someone with your outlook would view it as mystical.

I will try once more - where would the Law of Biogenesis prevent the mechanisms portrayed in the video from occurring?


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

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1109 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.:o

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 responded

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

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 184 of 312 (477262)
07-31-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by AlphaOmegakid
07-31-2008 4:44 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-31-2008 4:44 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-31-2008 6:04 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 185 of 312 (477263)
07-31-2008 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by AlphaOmegakid
07-31-2008 4:44 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Well I hope you are not an atheist.

I'm not an atheist. I'm a creationist who likes to pretend he’s an evolutionist on internet forums because creationists’ reactions are much funnier than evolutionists’. ;)

One of the preceding sentences is false.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

You see, the ToE relies on LoB from the first cell, to all extinct organisms in the fossil record, to all the extant organisms.

What is it, exactly, that you think the ToE says? Does the ToE require common ancestry? Does it demand that nothing new can be introduced into the system by extraneous means? It doesn't. Would ToE suddenly stop working if we found that monotremes were actually transplanted to Earth from some distant planet? No, not at all.

ToE does not require all animals to have come from a single source, nor does it have the power to dictate where things cannot come from: it only has the power to predict what will happen to their population(s) if they reproduce. It does not have the capacity to rule out spontaneous generation, let alone abiogenesis.

You're confused, so I'll explain it, as I have for many other creationists, college students and at least once before to you, too. ToE is the model that explains how life diversifies. Natural history is the extrapolation of this model into the fossil record, a description of how ToE has influenced the development of organisms in Earth's past. ToE does not require natural history to be in any specific order, nor does it require all organisms to have come from other organisms on this planet in order to function. We know of several times in Earth’s past where evolution was advanced by invasions of one place by animals from another place. So, if an animal drops in from Mars, or is made in a laboratory, or happens to spontaneously generate from a rotting slab of venison, it will still evolve as long as it reproduces.

So, if it were shown that an occasional animal popped out of the dust, or from the rotting corpse of a water buffalo, ToE would not suffer a whole lot, wheras LoB (in the form you espouse) would be completely thrashed. All that ToE requires is that animals reproduce, not that they don't occasionally pop out of rotten meat. ToE can stand without LoB so long as, once the animals appear, they reproduce.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

The individual hypotheses that are being tested in this field though are not the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

Of course not: you can’t test abiogenesis until you’ve found whether or not the steps leading up to it are plausible, can you? That’s why abiogenesis scientists are working on the formation of DNA, amino acids, lipid bilayers, etc. The spontaneous formation of all these things under early Earth conditions have been shown to be possible, and all that remains is to show how they came together. Cavediver provided one possibility for that.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

But to teach hypotheses???? That's generally not done until the hypotheses have been confirmed to a broader level of theory.

On the contrary: I believe that hypotheses should be taught just as much as theories. You see, if you just teach to students things that are shown to be true, they miss out on seeing how the truths are found, and many of them just assume that science is just a collection of concepts, a theology, if you will (incidentally, I think this is one of the major reasons why American kids don’t understand science these days). Teaching hypotheses shows students that science is an active learning process that is in constant progression, and even invites them to begin working on the process themselves. But, if we followed your logic, we’d get a nation of science-illiterate morons (wait, isn’t that what we have already?).

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Therefore why not put it (biogenesis) back into the textbooks and leave abiogenesis totally out?

I learned about, and have taught, Pasteur and Redi and Spallanzani. I assure you that this stuff is not being left out of textbooks. Although, admittedly, it’s been awhile since I’ve looked at a highschool text, so I can’t vouch for that. Biogenesis and origins are not my area of expertise, but I am quite familiar with them, as would be any working biologist these days.

The reason abiogenesis is not left out is because it’s the only logical conclusion from the predictions of several well-supported scientific theories, as Bluegenes and I have have explained in recent posts, and CS and RAZD and Dr A have explained prior to that. Life had to have come from somewhere, and there is ample evidence that it could not have existed during the early parts of Earth’s existence or during the early parts of the universe’s existence. So, the amount of time it is given in which to exist is finite. Even if you want to say it predated the earth, or even our known universe, you’re still only pushing the question back. The possibilities are:


  1. Wherever it first appeared, it arose gradually and naturally, just like planets, stars, galaxies, molecules, atoms and even subatomic particles.
  2. Wherever if first appeared, it was “poofed” into existence in a decidedly non-gradual and non-natural way.

I cannot think of another alternative. If you can, I would be happy to hear it. Otherwise, only one of the two above jives well with the facts. But, come to think of it, I don’t care either way.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Now this paragragh demonstrates how little understanding of this subject you really have.

Followed by a bunch of semantic arguments that really have nothing to do with the central theme of the topic anyway. But, if wording is all you can argue, stick to what you do best, man. Your evidence consists of Pasteur, plus some high praise from Huxley. Meanwhile, you still can’t explain how else life came to be, if not by abiogenesis.

-----

I hope you appreciate the fact that you’re debating with real scientists on this forum, including myself. How many times do you think I have been taught, and have taught, this very subject? I’ll admit that this statement really stung my pride, and I’m having a hard time resisting the urge to use all the dirty words I can think of right now to get back at you. But, I realize that part of this is my fault: I haven’t been the most civil debater in the world, and I’ve been really rough on you and your ideas. Nobody takes strong disagreement very well, myself included.

But, I hope you realize, 46-year-old president of a small company, that you are debating with actual scientists working in the relevant fields, who have reviewed, handled and even discovered the evidence that backs up the claims we’re making on this forum. I should think that would count for something, at least for enough to give us the benefit of the doubt.

But, like most creationist, you know better, of course.


Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-31-2008 4:44 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5398
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 186 of 312 (477264)
07-31-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by AlphaOmegakid
07-31-2008 4:44 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
M-U produced a racemic mixture of amino acids and carcinogenic tar.

...my emphasis.

Got a cite, AOK? Do you poison a lot of wells?


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-31-2008 4:44 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 710 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 187 of 312 (477265)
07-31-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Blue Jay
07-31-2008 3:09 PM


Side note
Bluejay writes:

While Bluegenes does frequently lace his posts with ad hominems...

Careful. There wasn't one in the post that AOkid is referring to, but, ironically, his accusation and the sentence that followed it was one. An ad hominem is not just a personal comment or attack, but has to have the object of diverting attention from the real argument.

I have no reason to divert attention from kid's line of argument. I like it. He digs his own holes for me. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Blue Jay, posted 07-31-2008 3:09 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Blue Jay, posted 08-01-2008 12:59 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1109 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 yet responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2423 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 189 of 312 (477280)
07-31-2008 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Rahvin
07-30-2008 12:55 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
I don't see why alphaomegakid can find fallacies in your post 167 (Message 167).
Everything that you state conforms to science.

Edited by AdminNosy, : added link to post 167


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2008 12:55 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 190 of 312 (477286)
07-31-2008 9:56 PM


More Creation Science
The great scientist Thomas Jefferson, inventor of the lightning conductor, rejected the notion that giant ground sloths had become extinct.

No-one's ever seen giant ground sloths go extinct.

Indeed, no-one's ever observed the death of a single giant ground sloth.

Scientists are unable to replicate ground sloths going extinct in the laboratory.

Therefore, we have a Law Of Nature: giant ground sloths can't go extinct, and are in fact immortal.

The hypotheses evil-utionists have about their extinction are unproven and mutually contradictory (and yet evil-utionists have the nerve to teach people about these hypotheses, shame on them).

The only "evidence" that evil-utionists have for this preposterous, unobservable, unrepeatable event are the claims that there aren't any giant ground sloths now and there were once.

This last claim, I need hardly point out, is merely an interpretation of the evidence, viz all those frickin' bones. And an entirely successful one, but let's keep quiet about that.

Therefore, we can conclude that giant ground sloths cannot and did not go extinct.

And so it follows with a crushing logical inevitability that God killed them all using magic.

Now, if anyone wants to find any fallacies in my reasoning, I shall blandly ignore them for the remainder of this thread while making the same mistakes over and over and over again.


New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 312 (477300)
08-01-2008 1:49 AM


A better question....
How much longer are you guys going to feed this troll?
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1109 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 responded

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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 312 (477346)
08-01-2008 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by AlphaOmegakid
08-01-2008 10:07 AM


laws
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.

No scientific laws prevent anything. Scientific laws describe how nature works. That's what the law of biogenesis is.

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.

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.

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.

My argument is that abiogenesis has no supportive evidence.

And yet, you've been shown on multiple occasions the supportive evidence of abiogenesis. But you avoid responding to those points.

Which is why I have not interest in your argument anymore. You're just trolling. But I reserve the right to tell you where you're wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-01-2008 10:07 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-01-2008 3:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 194 of 312 (477356)
08-01-2008 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by AlphaOmegakid
08-01-2008 10:07 AM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
quote:
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

quote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

But wait a minute. I beleive I have argued exactly the opposite of your claim before. Let's see....

from message 12

quote:
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

quote:
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

quote:
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

quote:
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

quote:
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

quote:
AOkid writes:

Abiogenesis has been falsified by observation and experiment. That doesn't mean that it is false or impossible.


quote:
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.

Thank you for basically providing multiple occasions where you have compeltely contradicted yourself. Let me draw this out very simply:

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.

You deny that this was intended to apply only to modern, fully-formed life, and has nothing whatsoever to do with life's origin.

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.

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.

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. 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.

That's enough for now, I will finish the response later.

I'm not done though. Remember that first bit you quoted from me? You didn't complete that, and you didn't address most of my post:

quote:
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)

Let's address those three now, shall we?

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:

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

That takes care of your reply, but you didn't address half of my post, so let's continue:

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."

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.

You did not address any of the following, either, so I'll just restate it here:

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.

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.

On top of that, your actual argument has been repeatedly crushed by myself and others. Abiogenesis is not poor science. It does have supporting evidence, even if it is not a fully-formed theory as of yet. It is a valid conclusion based on teh evidence we have available about our Universe. And teh law of Biogenesis has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life itself, as you have erroneously claimed. 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.

Once again, AOK, you fail.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-01-2008 10:07 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-04-2008 6:01 PM Rahvin has responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 710 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 195 of 312 (477358)
08-01-2008 12:47 PM


Biogenesis for all known life forms assumed.
Thomas Henry Huxley in 1870:

quote:

Thus the evidence, direct and indirect, in favour of Biogenesis for all known forms of life must, I think, be admitted to be of great weight.

I'm sure this is not so much taught in school science classes as assumed. Creationists might object, if they realised the implications, but no-one else would.

The original forms of life are not, of course, known to us, and Huxley "expected" that these were the result of some sort of natural abiogenesis process.

His view that all known forms of life come from other life contradicted the creation mythology that most believed at that time (and many superstitious people still do) that known life forms, including Adam, were brought into existence from non-life.

I suppose it is often regarded as a law because, creationists excepted, no-one argues that a known life form, even the simplest extant bacteria, could have come into existence without coming from other life, and because the original life form that must have come from non-life is not "known".

Whether it's considered as a law or not, Huxley's view that biogenesis applies to all known life forms (those known only indirectly from fossils included) certainly holds in modern times.


RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019