Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


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


Side note
Bluejay writes:
While Bluegenes does frequently lace his posts with ad hominems...
Careful. There wasn't one in the post that AOkid is referring to, but, ironically, his accusation and the sentence that followed it was one. An ad hominem is not just a personal comment or attack, but has to have the object of diverting attention from the real argument.
I have no reason to divert attention from kid's line of argument. I like it. He digs his own holes for me.

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

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

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


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


Biogenesis for all known life forms assumed.
Thomas Henry Huxley in 1870:
quote:
Thus the evidence, direct and indirect, in favour of Biogenesis for all known forms of life must, I think, be admitted to be of great weight.
I'm sure this is not so much taught in school science classes as assumed. Creationists might object, if they realised the implications, but no-one else would.
The original forms of life are not, of course, known to us, and Huxley "expected" that these were the result of some sort of natural abiogenesis process.
His view that all known forms of life come from other life contradicted the creation mythology that most believed at that time (and many superstitious people still do) that known life forms, including Adam, were brought into existence from non-life.
I suppose it is often regarded as a law because, creationists excepted, no-one argues that a known life form, even the simplest extant bacteria, could have come into existence without coming from other life, and because the original life form that must have come from non-life is not "known".
Whether it's considered as a law or not, Huxley's view that biogenesis applies to all known life forms (those known only indirectly from fossils included) certainly holds in modern times.

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

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

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


Message 235 of 312 (477687)
08-06-2008 1:28 PM


Answers in Genesis
Here's the Answers in Genesis version of AlphaOmegakid's attempt to attack a natural explanation for the natural phenomenon of life. There's one major theological difference. AiG do not attempt to pretend that their God is natural, and refer to the supernatural creation of life.
Like AOkid, they attempt to use the law of biogenesis to refer to all life that has ever existed, rather than all existing life forms, or all known life forms. It's hilarious, and I expect that we'll soon see this transferred to their "arguments that creationists should not use" page. (Incidentally, AOkid, natural selection being a tautology is already on that page for very good reasons ).
I'm going to write in and point out that if they want to use the law of biogenesis to attack abiogenesis, they can only do it by attacking all origins of life beliefs, including their own, and arguing for the eternal existence of life.
They really do treat their readers like children.
quote:
The Law of Life (Biogenesis)
There is one well-known law of life: the law of biogenesis. This law states simply that life always comes from life. This is what observational science tells us: organisms reproduce other organisms after their own kind. Historically, Louis Pasteur disproved one alleged case of spontaneous generation; he showed that life comes from previous life. Since then, we have seen that this law is universal”with no known exceptions. This is, of course, exactly what we would expect from the Bible. According to Genesis 1, God supernaturally created the first diverse kinds of life on earth and made them to reproduce after their kind. Notice that molecules-to-man evolution violates the law of biogenesis. Evolutionists believe that life (at least once) spontaneously formed from nonliving chemicals. But this is inconsistent with the law of biogenesis. Real science confirms the Bible.
AiG page here
The author gets in trouble with his tenses. The description of the law of biogenesis as stating that all life comes from life is, in a sense, correct. He then says "evolutionists believe that life (at least once) spontaneously formed from non-living chemicals" and says that that contradicts the law. In "comes" and "formed" we have different tenses, and therefore no contradiction.
The "eternal life" law would have to state "life comes and always came from life".
There's no such law and never has been, and this AiG quote, along with this thread, is a very good example of creationists clutching at straws.

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


Message 243 of 312 (477738)
08-07-2008 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by AlphaOmegakid
08-06-2008 10:38 PM


Is AlphaOmegakid from a 19th century timewarp?
AlphaOmegakid writes:
The theory of Biogenesis did falsify the theory that life could come from non-life.
Not Huxley's version of biogenesis, about known life forms, obviously.
But that's OK with me that you want to pursue abiogenesis. Just don't teach it. It is bad science.
If you think that this is bad science, then you need to present the evidence that contradicts it.
From NASA:
quote:
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe.
From wiki:
quote:
The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. The essential idea is that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day.
You see. Abiogenesis, rather than eternal life, is supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. That makes it damn good science, whether it's O.K. with little you or not, and whether you understand the lines of evidence or not.
In the nineteenth century, Huxley could be excused for regarding his own view that some form of abiogenesis was responsible for the origin of life as being a philosophical view, because he had none of the cosmological or chemical evidence that we have now. Also, supernatural explanations for many things were still given credibility in his culture (despite complete lack of evidence for such things), so that natural explanations for natural phenomena might still, in 1870, be regarded as philosophical viewpoints (bizarrely).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-06-2008 10:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 244 of 312 (477743)
08-07-2008 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Granny Magda
08-06-2008 11:25 PM


Eh?
Obsolete.
Edited by bluegenes, : Just saw moose's edit on granny's post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Granny Magda, posted 08-06-2008 11:25 PM Granny Magda has not replied

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


Message 278 of 312 (478374)
08-14-2008 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Blue Jay
08-14-2008 3:43 PM


Re: In Summation
Bluejay writes:
Furthermore, AlphaOmegakid’s assertion that God both is “life” and was existent when carbon was not is simply equivocation on the definition of “life.”
I thought that AOkid's assertion that his God is life was the funniest part of the thread. I was wondering, according to the AOkid interpretation of Pasteur's law that life comes from life, who his god's parents were, and who they in turn descended from. Or, is his God the exception to the law? Did AOkid's living God emerge spontaneously from a mountain of bullshit?
The second funniest part was watching someone regularly equivocate on the word "equivocate".
That's a well written and accurate summary, Bluejay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2008 3:43 PM Blue Jay has not replied

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


Message 279 of 312 (478376)
08-14-2008 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by onifre
08-14-2008 4:13 PM


Re: In Summation
onifre writes:
isn't Panspermia, also a tenable possibility? I only mean it in the 'tenable' aspect.
It requires abiogenesis somewhere. The point that we've been making, that once there was no life in the universe, then there was, is not about where it originated, just that it must have done so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by onifre, posted 08-14-2008 4:13 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by onifre, posted 08-14-2008 5:58 PM bluegenes has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024