Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 196 of 312 (477359)
08-01-2008 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by bluegenes
07-31-2008 6:02 PM


Re: Side note
Hi, Bluegenes.
bluegenes writes:
Careful. There wasn't one in the post that AOkid is referring to...
You're right. I didn't mean to impune your honor: I wasn't in a very good mood while writing that post, and I was incautious towards the innocent bystanders. Most people can tell that your ad hominems (when they occur), are just jokes.
bluegenes writes:
An ad hominem is not just a personal comment or attack, but has to have the object of diverting attention from the real argument.
Yeah, like my creationist comment at the end of my message: "His argument is dumb because he's a creationist."

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by bluegenes, posted 07-31-2008 6:02 PM bluegenes has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 197 of 312 (477363)
08-01-2008 1:50 PM


The Debate So Far
After reading this message, I am officially confused about what AlphaOmegakid is actually arguing in this thread. I'll try my best to review his claims:
-----
He claims that a scientific law represents our current state of knowledge, but is not absolute.
He claims that positive evidence makes a principle into a law, even if potential contradictions arise elsewhere.
He claims that Biogenesis is a scientific law, and that Abiogenesis is unscientific because it violates Biogenesis.
He is opposed to the teaching of Abiogenesis in science classes, and wants to know why it is being taught and Biogenesis is not.
He has been told that Biogenesis, in fact, is being taught in science classes.
He has been told why scientists consider Abiogenesis scientific and believe it should be taught in science classes.
He continues to argue that it should not be taught, because it violates a known law.
He claims that scientific laws do not render conflicting laws impossible.
-----
This is what confuses me: the Kid wants Abiogenesis not taught, on the grounds that it violates a known scientific law, which is not absolute and doesn't refute Abiogenesis.
AlphaOmegakid, is it your argument that science classes should only teach things that are "proven and verified to a high degree of accuracy" (to quote a great friend of everybody, who shall remain nameless)? You do not feel that it is appropriate to teach students about science that is currently in the works today, and you're just using Abiogenesis as an example? Or, is it just this one hypothesis that you have a problem with?
Edited by Bluejay, : I said "...render other laws impossible." I changed it to "...render conflicting laws impossible."

Darwin loves you.

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

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4614 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 199 of 312 (477491)
08-03-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
06-25-2008 8:17 AM


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?
I want to go back to this OP. You admit that there is little evidence of abiogenesis. Little evidence is still evidence. I will get to this in a bit.
In the end of message 198 Bluejay asks you whether it is just abiogenesis or all current science research you have a problem with. Let us compare abiogenesis, a largely hypothetical biological science with quantum mechanics of the 19th an 20th century, largely a hypothetical physical science at that time. The work that some in that field produced was nothing more than the extrapolation of equations. For instance, Satyendra Nath Bose predicted based on his calculations that there was a new type of matter that formed near absolute zero (0 K, -459 F). The work was rejected by peer review until Einstein attached his name to it. There was no way to test this at the time. Absolute zero is still considered impossible. In 1995, the first Bose-Einstein condensate was observed to form at .00000017 K! It took 70 years for the theoretical matter to be observed. There was no real evidence during that time. Should Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman have pursued the unknown realm based almost entirely on the assertion of Bose that a form of matter should exist? What if they were never taught about absolute zero and the possible formation of condensates? I am not implying that they learned of it in public schools, but the possibility did exist.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-25-2008 8:17 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-05-2008 9:39 AM dokukaeru has replied

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4614 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 200 of 312 (477493)
08-03-2008 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
06-25-2008 8:17 AM


Do you have another natural explanation other than abiogenesis you would like to share with us so that we may teach it in public schools?
This quote is from the wiki post on Abiogenesis, which I suggest you read. Please point out any errors in this quote or in the entire article so science can correct it:
Wikipedia writes:
Current models
There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:
1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.
The origin of the basic biomolecules, while not settled, is less controversial than the significance and order of steps 2 and 3. The basic chemicals from which life is thought to have formed are:
Methane (CH4),
Ammonia (NH3),
Water (H2O),
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
Carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and
Phosphate (PO43-).
Molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) were either rare or absent.
As of 2008, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached. The biologist John Desmond Bernal, coined the term Biopoesis for this process, and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life. Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell
Bernal suggested that evolution may have commenced early, some time between Stage 1 and 2.
Like many others have pointed out, can you show where any of the above is faulty?
This has also been pointed out to you: In 2002 researchers at SUNY made the polio virus from its chemical code. (Wiki Polio Virus). They literally mail-ordered the DNA pieces and had it assembled by a gene synthesis company. The DNA was then converted back into RNA which was used to make the virus polypeptide. So they took chemicals (non-life) and created a virus (life). That is abiogenesis. You can argue that a virus is not life because it does not meet all the criteria for life. Eventuall this will not matter. It is only a matter of time until this process is accomplished with single-celled organisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-25-2008 8:17 AM AlphaOmegakid 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

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 202 of 312 (477564)
08-04-2008 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid
08-04-2008 6:01 PM


Didn't God make water?
AOkid,
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?
When humans learned that living organisms run on digital operating systems”genes”I think we got a closer look at how God created life, and how He keeps it going. (Hey, maybe God is digital programmer!) And if I actually did believe in Him I would want to use these arguments against any helpless scientist who can only reply: "Show me a testable hypothesis and some empirical evidence and then we'll have a peer review."
btw: Didn’t God use hydrogen and oxygen in a 2:1 ratio to make water? If He didn’t He should have. It's a good chemical.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-04-2008 6:01 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-05-2008 8:26 AM Fosdick has replied

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4614 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 203 of 312 (477565)
08-04-2008 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid
08-04-2008 6:01 PM


AOKid writes:
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.
We do have a linkage. We do have a finite number of steps. Did you forget about the video you were shown?
AOKid writes:
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.
We should move away from this "fully-formed" idea and more towards the idea that as life evolved, it picked up new accessories. When Ford's Model-T came out in 1908, it had very little in common with a 2008 Thunderbird.
I would consider a virus bordering on what is life. I would consider prokaryotes-archaea and bacteria to meet all the criteria for life. They are the simplest forms known and agreed upon. Prokaryotes lack many cell organelles including the cell membrane. If you look at this graph from wiki, we can see that there is an overlap in size between the smallest prokaryotes and the largest viruses. This is contrary to what you claimed in message 96:
AOKid message96 writes:
Viruses are about 400x's smaller than the smallest known cell.
In fact, there is less than an order of magnitude between the largest proteins and the samllest known living thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-04-2008 6:01 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4614 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 204 of 312 (477567)
08-04-2008 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid
08-04-2008 6:01 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
AOKid writes:
The chain only exists in yours and other's imaginations.
I am beginning to think you believe that having an imagination in school is a bad idea.
How do you know what is or is not being taught about biogenesis, spontaneous generation, and abiogenesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-04-2008 6:01 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 205 of 312 (477572)
08-04-2008 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid
08-04-2008 6:01 PM


Abiogenesis is the scientific explanation
AOkid writes:
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.
Creation myths are about supernatural origins of life, and there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural.
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.
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.
Abiogenesis of some sort applies however many dimensions the universe has, and string theory does nothing to contradict its likelihood.
Do suggest a natural alternative that does not involve the eternal existence of life, as current cosmology makes this impossible.
How did life come into existence in your opinion if not by abiogenesis of some kind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-04-2008 6:01 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-05-2008 9:04 AM bluegenes 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

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


Message 209 of 312 (477607)
08-05-2008 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by AlphaOmegakid
08-05-2008 9:04 AM


Re: Abiogenesis is the scientific explanation
AlphaOmegakid writes:
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.
We'll agree to disagree, then. However, there is no evidence for the existence of Gods, elves, angels or unicorns, whether you want to describe them as supernatural (as the English language would) or anything else.
There's plenty of evidence for chemical reactions, and that fact alone gives chemical abiogenesis more evidence than all the creation mythologies combined, which remain, like poor old Santa, at the zero evidence point.
AOkid writes:
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.
Wrong, as explained above, good natural explanations for natural phenomena do not require faith. All religions and all of the many creation mythologies certainly require faith, and it's the blind faith that zero evidence will always require.
AOkid writes:
It has been falsified by direct observation.
Wrong. No-one can directly observe what happened around 3.8 billion years ago.
There is no observation that would suggest abiogenesis except the mind.
Both the fact that life was once not there and now is and some encouraging experiments are observations that would suggest abiogenesis. Only our very superstitious brethren fail to see that.
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.
You talk of the creation myth as if there's only one. There are many, they are all myths, and in the English language, they all involve the supernatural. Chemical processes are known to exist, mythical creators are not. Big difference there, mate.
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.
There's no scientific evidence for this thing you call God. There are many religions and many Gods in many scriptures, which is strong evidence that humans invent such things.
If you want to start a thread on the origins of the universe, do go ahead, but you started this one on abiogenesis and biogenesis.
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.
Biogenesis is about known life forms not being spontaneously generated. It is not a theory of eternal life, and if it were, it would be a dead theory.
AOkid writes:
I already have. Why do you eliminate the eternal existance of life in your criteria. The scripture represents God as light.....
Jewish mythology is irrelevant to science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-05-2008 9:04 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 210 of 312 (477610)
08-05-2008 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by AlphaOmegakid
08-05-2008 8:26 AM


Re: Didn't God make water?
AOkid writes:
Rom. 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools.
How foolish of me to try to reason with such deep wisdom as yours. How shallow my thoughts. How wasteful my words. May the God of Blind Faith save us all from the evils of testable hypotheses and empirical evidence.
Lord, why did you give us brains and then expect us to use them as door stops?
”HM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-05-2008 8:26 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-05-2008 11:16 AM Fosdick has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024