EvC Forum: Biogenesis

quote:
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.

Fine. How about this one?

Well I think the hypothesis that Redi proposed that "all living matter has sprung from pre-existing living matter" is a very well known fact. It can be observed very easily, and it is observed all the time. These facts were considered by the scientific community some years later to have such a universal application that Thomas Huxley declared this theory as an "established law of nature."

Huxley's address can be found Here

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.

You claim directly here that the law of biogenesis creates a boundary that eliminates abiogenesis as a possibility.

So how exactly did I create a strawman? The bit about a Creator and God is a simple extrapolation, but feel free to ignore that bit if you'd like - we all know that's what your argument eventually boils down to anyway.

quote:
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.

Provide, immediately, the falsification of abiogenesis. Note that falsification cannot involve "we've never seen it," or I can falsify god. Falsification means you must provide positive observations that eliminate abiogenesis as a possibility, or you need to prove a negative. If you cannot do so, concede that abiogenesis is not falsified.

quote:
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...

What claim of yours, or what refutation of mine, did I ignore? Please be specific.

quote:
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.

And yet you still have it wrong. As has been explained to you, a few times even by actual biologists, the Law of Biogenesis has nothing to do with the origin of life. It refers to observations regarding extant life, like maggots and bacteria. Fully-formed modern organsims do not spring from the ether, but rather come from pre-existing life. This has nothing to do with where life itself comes from, and in no way can a lack of observation prove that something is impossible. That would be proving a negative.

quote:
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.

So now you've shifted the goalposts from "life" to "cellular life?" How convenient. I'm sure that's what you'll say was your definition of life all along, but it's not a reasonable definition of life at all. Obviously, the first cell could not possibly have originated from a pre-existing cell, unless you believe life has always existed, and we know it has not. It also excludes viruses which have many of the properties of living things, and it excludes the possibility of non-cellular life that may or may not exist elsewhere in the Universe.

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.

AOK, you aren't comprehending anything anyone has said to you. The Law of Biogenesis refers to the spontaneous generation of living microbes and other modern forms of life from nonliving matter, like maggots spontaneously forming on a loaf of bread. It has to do with the origins of individual modern lifeforms, not the origin of life itself.

The Law of Biogenesis is based on our observation that extant organisms do not spontaneously appear, and our knowledge of how extant organisms reproduce. None of those observations preclude abiogenesis; in fact, the latter seems to support it chemically.

quote:
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.

The bolded statements directly contradict one another. Your entire argument in this thread has been that the Law of Biogenesis falsifies abiogenesis, and the bolded statements (well, one of them) confirms that you are making this assertion. The other statment of course says that the Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute...meaning it doesn't actually falsify anything, and so your argument defeats itself.

Abiogenesis is based on solid research and valid observations, and has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. It is not a complete theory, but it does have supporting evidence. Note that supporting evidence is not the same as proof, which is the way you seem to be using the term.

quote:
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.

Except that life didn't always exist, and now it does. That means that somewhere along the way, life came from an environment where life did not exist.

Of course, you can get around this by invoking imaginary deities, but you've already established that you don't like it when I extrapolate your real argument from your basic statements, so I won't go there.

This is a faith.

In what way? be specific. If there was no life at one point, and there is life today, does that not mean that abiogenesis must have occurred? Is that not suppoting evidence, if not specific proof regarding the exact chain of events that occurred? What alternative explanation do you offer? A deity? You likely already know my responses to that one, so please do think of another.

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.

Don't quible over semantics, AOK. Abiogenesis requires specific chemicals to be able to self-assemble in a natural environemnt, without the artificial conditions of a chemistry lab like specific heating and cooling, ctalysts, etc. The right pre-biotic organic compounds must exist naturally.

Of course, we observe many of these abiotic organic compounds on Titan today, so we know they can and do exist without life around to make them.

So if you and others are making up chemical pathways from these, then it is clearly imagination of faith without evidence.

It sounds like you don't know anything about the chemistry of abiogenesis. The chemical pathways proposed begin with the conditions of teh early Earth as suggested by the observations of geologists and places like Titan. Those observations would be evidence, AOK, not imaginings, unless you'd care to assert that geology and direct observation of Titan are somehow "imaginations of faith?"

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.

This statement is confusing. You seem to be saying that all of the proposed pathways should result in life, and none of them should result in dead ends. That's not consistent with what we expect from abiogenesis - there may be multiple possible pathways, but we certainly don't expect all of them to work.

And of course we only concentrate on teh experiments that work. It's not like we'll get very far building on all the dead ends beyond learning why they stopped, will we?

quote:
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.

...except that life did not exist, and now it does, and self-replicating RNA dna lipid bilayers are necessary steps towards abiogenesis. Those would be evidence that it's plausible, not faith. Again, you seem to be using "evidence" to mean "proof," and that;s not the way it works. nobody is saying "we have determined with absolute certainty that abiogenesis happened." We're saying it's the only natural explanation we can think of, and there is a large amount of supporting evidence that suggests it may be a valid explanation.

quote:
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.

Retraction noted.

quote:
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.

So, in other words, you're crying becasue I paraphrased you a few times rather than making direct quotes, and therefore my argument is false?

If I get your point wrong in paraphrasing, feel free to correct me by clearly restating your position. My arguments are against your position, not against your semantics.

quote:
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.

Look above. You did claim that the Law of Biogenesis makes abiogenesis impossible. You contradicted yourself in teh very next sentence, but you did. Here, I'll quote it again:

You say that the Law of Biogenesis creates a barrier, referring to abiogenesis. That's a direct claim that the Law of Biogenesis makes abiogenesis impossible. You;ve done this elsewhere as well. Then you immediately backpedal and say that the Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute...meaning no actual barrier is established. That's where you stop even making sense, let alone constructing rational arguments.

quote:
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.

You throw around accusations of fallacies like candy, yet I haven't seen you correctly identify any.

quote:
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.

It's not off-topic. The Big Bang was brought up to briefly illustrate the fact that, until enough time had passed, it was impossible for life to exist anywhere. This is extremely relavent to abiogenesis, as it eliminates the possibility of life having always existed.

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.

Abiogenesis does have evidentiary support. It's just not proven, which is what you seem to think "evidentiary support" means. Multiple (NOT infinite) pathways have been proposed, and many of them have in fact been linked together. Combined with the fact that we don't see any barrier preventing abiogenesis from happening given the environment of the early Earth, and teh fact that life did not always exist but now does, and the fact that life as we know it for all objective purposes seems to be nothing more than a complex series of chemical interactions, well...that's not imagination, AOK. That's evidentiary support. It's not proof, but it's enough to say "we think this might be it."

This evidence has been provided to you multiple times in the thread. Your insistence that no evidence has been provided is dishonest.

quote:
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.

Christ. You really do need to go back to Logic 101. An ad hominem takes a very specific form:

"Because you are an idiot, your argument is false."

Note that the claim that the argument is false rests entirely on the accusation of idiocy. There is no support for the idiocy, neither is any actual reason given that would refute the argument. This is an ad hominem.

"Your argument is idiotic. Here's how it's wrong..."

Note that in this case the argument is refuted not by the accusation of idiocy, but by the explanation of why the argument was invalid. The charge of idiocy is actually a conclusion irrelevant to the actual refutation based on the clumsiness of the opponent's argument. The charge of idiocy is not part of the refutation in any way. This is not an ad hominem, and this is what I did.

Here is evidentiary support for you:

quote:
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

And your own definition proves that Im right. Note the bolded section. Specifically, "of the person making the argument or claim." I said your argument was idiotic. I did not say you are an idiot. My refutation did not consist of a charge that you are an idiot and thus your argument was false. I said your argument was idiotic, and showed why.

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.

Well, let's go back, shall we? Here is the post in question:

quote:
You're idiotic arguments mostly consist of "Life exists, ergo God" and "we haven't observed maggots springing out of the air, so abiogenesis is impossible." Once again, your arguments are logically unsound.

Note that I said that your arguments were idiotic. I claimed that your argumetns are unsound. Most of the rest of my post was spent showing why those arguments are unsound.

And stop with the bullshit about strawmans. You've claimed we've been using strawman arguments when we refer to the claims above, but here you are making those precise claims:

quote:
CS writes:

What lifeform did the first lifeform come from if it had to come from another lifeform?

God. 1Ti 6:13 ...God, who gives life to all things,...

Disassembling this argument shows that you are, in fact, arguing that "Life exists, ergo god." You claim that abiogenesis is refuted by the Law of Biogenesis, and thus the only possible explanation is God.

Obviously, that wasn't a strawman, as your own words show that it is an accurate portrayal of your position.

I'll once again say that your argumetns are idiotic because you are attempting to show that god is a reasonable explanation by excluding abiogenesis, and your argument against abiogenesis is riddled with holes. Once again, the evidentiary support for the Law of Biogenesis is a lack of observation of abiogenesis, combined with what we know about how extant life forms reproduce. Neither of those bits of evidence refutes abiogenesis - at best, the lack of observation is neutral, and cannot prove the negative that abiogenesis is impossible. It's worse, because we don't even expect abiogenesis to occur in today's environment - it's compeltely different from the environemnt where those chemical pathways are possible. So claiming that abiogenesis is refuted is an idiotic claim.

quote:
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.

Science concerns itself with natural explanations, because (as has been stated by others) observed natural phenomenon have thus far always had natural explanations. We have a great deal of evidence suggesting that everything in the Universe has a natural explanation - we have no evidence of the supernatural. The supernatural comprises an extraordinary claim - that is, it claims something beyond ordinary observation. Thus it requires extraordinary evidence in order to support it as opposed to a natural explanation. This is why we accept the scientific, natural explanation for lightning, for example, and do not believe Thor or Zeus are actually responsible. If you propose that the supernatural is an explanation for the existence of life, you are making an extraordinary claim and must provide extraordinary evidence to support it. Abiogenesis is a natural explanation for what appears to be a natural phenomenon. There is no evidence of supernatural involvement, and yet there is supporting evidence in favor of abiogenesis. It is not based on faith, but rather on objective evidence and rational conclusions based on teh evidence - the very opposite of faith.

Your insistence that abiogenesis is a faith-based approach is nothing more than projection of your own silly faith-based beliefs in god.

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.

Now you expect me to provide evidence that doesn't exist yet? Abiogenesis is incomplete, AOK, and we've never claimed otherwise. How could I possibly show you an example of a pre-cellular organism if we haven't gotten that far yet? You're expecting abiogenesis to be a complete theory, and it's not - neither have any of us pretended otherwise. It's a good hypothesis based on strong evidence, but if we had gotten so far as to show pre-cellular life, abiogenesis would be virtually proven and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But as an example, viruses are non-ceullular and yet have most of the properties of life. Not quite all, as they require a living host cell to hyjack so that they can reproduce, but they are some excellent evidence that the properties we identify as life are not so much of a black/white, alive/not-alive binary, but are rather part of a spectrum with inert matter on one side and life on the other, and a lot of gray area in between. Abiogenesis research explores the gray area, and so far it looks like that view may be correct, and that given the correct environment and enough time, cellular life can eventually develop from inert matter.

quote:
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.

Sure. Here you go:

quote:
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.

You claim that abiogenesis is refuted by the Law of Biogenesis. You've said this several times in the thread.

Do you understand what that means? If law X refutes hypothesis Y, it means that Y should be impossible if law X is at all accurate. You claimed, right here, that the Law of Biogenesis makes abiogenesis impossible so long as the Law of Biogenesis remains accurate.

The problem, of course, is that it does not refute abiogenesis. It refutes the idiot Creationist video about life springing from a jar of peanut butter, but that was a ridiculous strawman of abiogenesis. Are you also strawmanning abiogenesis in this way? Because such scenarios are the only ones where the Law of Biogenesis has any relavence.

The Law of Biogenesis does not refute abiogenesis because the evidence supporting the Law of Biogenesis consits of a lack of observation, which can never prove something impossible because you cannot prove a negative, and knowledge of modern, extant life forms, which are compeltely different from the first forms of life hypothesized by abiogenesis, existing in a compeltely different environment.

So once again, AK, your claim that the LoB refutes abiogenesis is flatly wrong. No strawman, just a very simple refutation based on facts.

quote:
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.

Plausibility in scientific terms is not a subjective assessment, AOK. That abiogenesis is thus far a plausible explanation for the origin of life is an objective conclusion based on the evidence - it has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. You're confusing personal credulity with whether something has been shown to be possible or impossible. So far, abiogenesis has not been refuted, yet has not been completed. Thus it is a possibility, a plausible hypothesis based on the evidence available.

That's not faith. Faith is a belief that is not based on evidence...like your faith in god, and your belief that god is the initial lifeform that spawned all other life. And don't try to say I'm strawmanning you again - for fucks sake, I quoted you saying exactly that a few paragraphs above.

quote:
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.

Quantum physics is in its infancy? Really?

There may be additional dimentions in our Universe, and still more outside of it. But that's irelevant - we're talking about biology here. If you believe other dimensions may have an influence on biology, feel free to present evidence ofsuch an extraordinary claim, because we've never observed life being influenced by any dimension other than the four we know of. I won't hold my breath.

It looks like you're the one arguing from ignorance. "We don't know, so anything is possible! Except abiogenesis. Another dimension could be responsible for life!"

quote:
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.

Ah, so you're a subscriber to the "simplest explanation" meaning "the explanation most attractive to my personal credulity, and easiest for me to understand."

Let's take the time to explain parsimony to you then, shall we, AOK?

1 + 1 = 2

AND

1 + 1 + x = 2

THEN

x = 0

In this case, the x is at best irrelevant to the equasion, and at worst nonexistent. We can write it out as

1 + 1 + x = 2

or even

1 + 1 + x + x + x + x = 2

and so on. But this violates pasrimony - the simplest expression, meaning the expression utilizing the fewest terms, is to be preferred. So we write such an aquasion as

1 + 1 = 2.

In the case of the Universe, we have observational evidence for natural processes, life, the three spacial dimensions, etc. We do not have evidence of the supernatural, or god. One equasion could be written this way:

+ + =

AND

+ + + =

THEN

is at best irrelevant, and at worst nonexistent. In any case, without evidence requiring to be included in the expression, it is a violation of parsimony to include it.

You seem to be saying that because is simpler than , and so is the more parsimonious explanation. That's not what parsimony means, and further, doesn't explain anything any more than explains how my car was repaired.

In this way, the slow, natural evolution of life from simple self-replicating molecules is more parsimonious than invoking the supernatural becaue there is no evidence of the supernatural - adding unnecessary entities when another explanation is available is a violation of parsimony, while extrapolating evidence with reasonable conclusions is not.

quote:
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.

I've illustrated how you're wrong, AOK. You misuse nearly every term you touch, from ad hominem to parsimony.

quote:
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.

Did you notice how everyone in the thread agrees that you're wrong about the same points? It would appear that you're only correct in your own mind.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Abiogenesis is not poor science.

No it is just falsified science.

Present the falsification of abiogenesis or concede. Once again, a falsification cannot consist of a lack of observation, because you cannot prove a negative. Further, a falsification cannot involve observations that are irrelevant to the hypothesis - that is, observations that all forms of existing life spring from pre-existing life are irrelavnet when discussing the initial form of life, partcularly when the environment would be compeltely different.

quote:
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.

It is falsifiable. Show that there is a barrier beyond which pre-biotic chemicals cannot cross on the pathway to life. Show that some of the chemical interactions required for life are not possible given the conditions of the early Earth. Show that living matter is fundamentally different from nonliving matter except that it is participating in the specific set of chemical interactions we identify as life. Any of these would falsify abiogenesis.

quote:
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.

Bullshit. Creation "theory" is based on an old myth. Abiogenesis is rooted in observations of teh real world. Don't try to conflate faith and science, AOK. There are no observations that support creation, no evidence beyond words written by stoneage nomads who still thought the Earth was flat and rested on "pillars." Creation "theory" violates all of physics, geology, biology, oceanography, meteorology, and astronomy. Abiogenesis violates no scientific models, fits with what we know about the early Earth and the rise of life, and thus far is chemically sound. There's an awfully large difference.

Science is held to far higher standards than your religious bullshit, AOK.

quote:
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.......

There's a reason it's not called that. The evidence used to formulate the Law of biogenesis had literally nothing to do with life's origins. It has to do with the origins of individual, extant life forms. The genesis of maggots and bacteria comes from pre-existing life; the genesis of life itself is entirely different.

quote:
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.

You've claimed in this very post that the LoB refutes abiogenesis, which it can only do if the LoB is an absolute.

If it's not an absolute, then it cannot refute abiogenesis.

So which is it, AOK?

AOK, you toss around fallacies left and right, accusing people of strawman arguments when they actually do reflect your position. You accuse people of red herrings when they try to illustrate a relavent point. You accuse people of ad hominem attacks when your arguments are refuted.

You don't even use terminology correctly. You clearly don't understand parsimony, or abiogenesis. You invoke the supernatural in a science thread without a shred of evidence.

You're nothing more than a particularly loud Creationist. We've seen your type before, latching onto a scientific principle you barely understand and insisting it proves other scientific theories wrong, as if actual scientists wouldn't have noticed that before you. You're like the idiot Creationist who claims that teh Second Law of Thermodynamics proves evolution cannot happen.

Like them, your argumetns are flawed due to your basic misunderstanding of the scientific principles you are using. Worse, you exacerbate your ignorance with accusations of fallacious reasoning when the comments you refer to are not.

Provide some actual evidence that refutes abiogenesis or concede your argument, AOK. The Law of Biogenesis certainly doesn't do it.

2 online now:	PaulK, Phat
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,332 Year: 3,589/9,624 Month: 460/974 Week: 73/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/1