Biogenesis

Hi, AOkid.I was afraid you’d left us. What are you arguing, then? Everytime we argue for Abiogenesis, you point out that it isn’t supported by any evidence and contradicts an existing law, and that it shouldn’t be taught. If you don’t believe that Abiogenesis is rendered impossible by Biogenesis, I don’t see what argument you could possibly be making.Also, you’re very married to semantics in this argument: everything is about exact wording, providing quotes, etc. Everybody else in this debate sees that, in order for your argument to carry any weight, Abiogenesis indeed must be impossible, even though you have not directly said this. If Abiogenesis is not impossible, then Biogenesis, as you interpret it, is not a universal law of nature, and there is no reason for us not to teach Abiogenesis. So, unless you’re willing to commit to “Abiogenesis is impossible because of Biogenesis,” you don’t have an argument. Well, it isn’t off-topic, because the history of the universe predicted by BB theory is some of the best evidence that supports Abiogenesis. If you wish to claim that life did not come from non-life, you have to disprove BBT. BB theory predicts clearly that, at one point in the universe’s history, there was not the appropriate set of conditions for life to exist. So, if life actually is eternal, it had to have existed “outside” the universe, and/or existed in some form that is completely different from the carbon-and-water form it exists in today.I’m no cosmologist, but I’m reasonably confident that there is no evidence that carbon or water could exist “outside” of our universe, so there is no evidence for your form of Biogenesis applying to a definition of life that includes carbon and water. And, in the absence of direct evidence for either alternative, parsimony swings decidedly in favor of Abiogenesis, making it the more scientific of the two, and thus, the more appropriate subject for science classes.Thus, BBT is not a red herring. You must answer it, or your Law of Biogenesis is in direct violation of the best-supported model of the history of the entire universe, and therefore, should not be taught in science class. Well, the question goes like this: where did life come from---molecules or another planet? Another planet. Okay, how did that planet get life? Another planet. Et cetera. Either you keep following life back to another planet, then another planet, then another, etc., or you eventually get to a point where life first began. Seeing how planets did not always exist, you’re eventually going to have to start discussing alternatives to the “from another planet” concept. And, those alternatives can be summarized as “from pre-biotic chemicals” or “from nothing,” because, eventually, you get to a point where pre-biotic chemicals and nothing are your only options for the raw materials of life. Parsimony again favors pre-biotic chemicals. Thus, we teach Abiogenesis instead of Amateriogenesis. This sounds to me like you’re laboring under an entirely different definition of “life” than is commonly accepted by science. Just like the word “species,” science doesn’t really have a perfect definition of “life,” but it should go without saying that, whatever definition is used by science, at least in relation to Abiogenesis/Biogenesis, it involves carbon and water, which can be shown by BBT to have not existed at some point in the history of the universe.Look, I’m not going to tell you that the Scriptures are false, because I believe partly in them myself. But, if you want to believe that life existed where carbon and water did not, you’re still going to have to show how this life transitioned into the proteins-and-lipids medium it now inhabits today, and I don’t see how that transition could be called anything but Abiogenesis from a physical, scientific perspective.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, AOkid.Since you're not going to respond to me anyway, I think I'll just say whatever I feel like from now on.You have so many messed-up ideas about science that I'm surprised you even made it to forty-six. I can tell that you pattern your "science" after your scripture study, because you seem to have it built in to your thick head that wording is absolute and holy.For instance, First, did you know that the scientific name for the ostrich (Struthio camelus) means “camel sparrow?” Would it therefore be your argument that the ostrich must be some sort of hybrid/chimera of a camel and a sparrow? If not, then please stop trying to make the argument that, because “Biogenesis” means “beginning of life,” it therefore must refer to the primal source of all life.Technically, “genesis” doesn’t mean “beginning,” anyway: it means “creation.”Second, definitions in science are only used to make the data more convenient for scientists to analyze. Definitions do not wield any sort of influence over the way the universe functions. So, just because viruses have been denied the title of "life," it does not mean that they are to be automatically dismissed when we discuss things that we do call "life."Consider: viruses are made of the much of the same stuff as life (nucleic acids and proteins) and they evolve by natural selection and mutation, just like life does. The only thing missing is the ability to independently reproduce. In fact, when you look at all the theories that have been erected about how life behaves (e.g. predator-prey cycles, carrying capacity, mutation/genetic drift, etc.), it seems that viruses follow them all. So, why shouldn’t viruses be considered when looking for the origin of life? They behave a lot like life, but they’re simpler than life, and, if life evolved from non-life, shouldn’t it have gone through a phase that is something like a virus?Granted, that’s all speculation, but it’s not unfounded speculation, is it? In fact, you could call it a decent hypothesis. There’s only one person on this entire website who doesn’t know what “falsify” means. ICANT even knows how to use it.You claim that the failure of M-U is “falsification” of abiogenesis. So, how many times did Edison “falsify” the lightbulb concept before he actually made one? No doubt you would have said, in 1878, that the concept of the lightbulb should not be taught in science classes because it had been “falsified.” Then, one year later, you’d be the biggest jackass in all of the scientific community.Given what I said above, can you give me any reason why “falsified,” of your usage, should be given any sort of respect by a scientist? What difference does it make whether an idea is falsified, if falsification can be reversed? Your usage of the term is utterly, irreconcilably, incomprehensibly wrong.But, wait: there is a proper usage of “falsified” in the Edison context. He falsified the X thousand hypotheses that each of the X thousand things he tried would actually produce a sustainable electric light. So, applying this across fields, what did the M-U experiment falsify? It falsified the hypothesis that electricity, ammonia, CO2 and some other stuff in a flask would create life. Did it falsify the hypothesis that non-life could turn into life?No. So stop saying that it did.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, AlphaOmegakid.You're getting predictable. Well, I don’t really care why you’re not responding to me, but you’ve just confirmed my suspicions that, in order to get you to respond, I have to start with a direct rub or ad hominem remark. Please understand, it’s nothing personal: I just wanted to find a way to get answers to my questions, and this seemed to work best. Really? That’s interesting. Here’s you in Message #89: What logical fallacy is that? Equivocation, maybe? Whatever it is, you are now officially arguing something that you weren’t arguing at the beginning of this thread. I personally think it’s because, after having seen that “Biogenesis is silent about origins” conflicts with your philosophical faith, you promptly switched sides on the debate.Oops! I made an ad hominem.Withdrawn. That’s what they say in courtrooms after they’ve said something inappropriate, but don’t really want to take it back---I saw it on Law & Order.If you were not referring to Miller-Urey, or something similar to it, when you said this--- ---what were you referring to?But, I’ll go ahead and let you be right. I apologize for misunderstanding your argument and assuming that I knew what you were saying when, in fact, my argument was a complete and total strawman. In fact, all silliness aside, I can see how I kind of jumped the gun on that one. Sorry. Please notice that CS called me on this as well. See, that’s how I know he’s an honest debater, because, even when he agrees with me, he tells me when I’m making bad arguments.But, now I’ll repeat my argument, except with “Pasteur” instead of “M-U”:Reformed Bluejay writes: You claim that Pasteur’s meat-and-maggots experiment is “falsification” of abiogenesis. So, how many times did Edison “falsify” the lightbulb concept before he actually made one? No doubt you would have said, in 1878, that the concept of the lightbulb should not be taught in science classes because it had been “falsified.” Then, one year later, you’d be the biggest jackass in all of the scientific community.

​

Given what I said above, can you give me any reason why “falsified,” of your usage, should be given any sort of respect by a scientist? Why should we even regard the term as meaning anything in particular? What difference does it make whether an idea is falsified, if falsification can be reversed? Your usage of the term is utterly, irreconcilably, incomprehensibly wrong.

​

But, wait: there is a proper usage of “falsified” in the Edison context. He falsified the X thousand hypotheses that each of the X thousand things he tried would actually produce a sustainable electric light. So, applying this across fields, what did the Pasteur experiment falsify? It falsified the hypothesis that maggots can form spontaneously from rotting meat. Did it falsify the hypothesis that life can arise gradually from non-living chemicals through a gradual increase in complexity of naturally-occurring chemical reactions?

​

No. So stop saying that it did.Lest you accuse me of further strawmanization of your arguments, here are two quotes of you claiming that Pasteur’s experiment falsifies Abiogenesis: Now, support the claim, or retract it, because you very well did make it.----- What’s even more crucial is that we actually define a term that accurately portrays reality. Since viruses behave the same as life with respect to pretty much all theories that relate to life, I propose that, for all theoretical purposes, viruses be considered “life.” They certainly behave more like life than like non-living things.That’s why there’s so much debate about exactly what certain terms mean: not because we care about semantics, but because our human tendency to become married to semantics has often caused us to overlook all those areas where nature itself has “equivocated” on what it considers "life" and "non-life." Why should a virus behave like life in relation to any of the laws of nature if it is not life, or at least some sort of “life-oid?” It’s not our definitions that are equivocating, but rather, nature playing silly buggers with our categorizing fetish.-----And now, we have a role-reversal: Please show me where I have made this claim. This is a strawman argument: I didn’t say anything about pigs or China or God or the Bible. In fact, the only thing I remember saying about God on this entire thread is that I believe in Him too.If you wish to complain about other people’s exact wording, you’d better be willing to stick to exact wording, yourself. Otherwise, you are being intellectually dishonest.-----One other point I’d like to address: How is this valid? If there was a point in history wherein no life existed (as predicted by Big Bang Theory), then, if the Law of Biogenesis were universally true, there would never be any life in existence, because life could not arise where no life exists. So, your claim here is invalid.The thing you have to do is defeat Big Bang Theory, because the “Law of Biogenesis,” as you see it, is in direct violation of BBT.Edited by Bluejay, : I didn't like my wording around the "nature's equivocation" part.Edited by Bluejay, : Cool yellow color to my text.Edited by Bluejay, : Removed a childish, offensive and Forum-Guidelines-breaking remark ad replaced it with something more innocuous. I apologize to AOkid if he already read it.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Kid. Given the state of the debate, I wasn't going to make any assumptions. Um... the evidence clearly shows that I did recognize it, and that I did call you on it, and that I am still waiting for you to put up a rebuttal against my original argument. You keep diverting the thread away from the topic at hand for the opportunity to mock me and my colleagues, and have somehow managed to forget that your whole point on this thread was to show me that abiogenesis is not science, and that you are not addressing this main point because you would rather make fun of scientists.If you would like, I could go through all my nearly four hundred posts and point out all the stupid errors I made in every one of them---I am sure there are a lot, because I have effectively learned formal debate logic from this forum, and have been very pleased with how it has improved my ability to do good science in the real world. Then, I will create an entire thread about how stupid and fallacy-prone Bluejay is, and you can spend hours mocking me and my ignorance about science---that could be a good creo recruitement tool, too. Maybe then, after you’ve settled down (in a year or so), we can have an intelligent debate about whether or not Abiogenesis is a reasonable conclusion from the little evidence we have, regardless of who the person is who is making the argument.Go to the nearest university or other academic setting, and ask all the logicians, mathematicians and scientists there to choose between our conflicting definitions of “falsification.” I guarantee that they will all line up behind the definition you have rejected, despite having been provided it half a dozen times or more on this one thread. Until you have done this or the equivalent, I will not entertain any more discussion with you about the definition of "falsification," because it won't do a lick of good.I have been straightforward and honest with you, admitting to you when I made mistakes, changing my arguments to your satisfaction, apologizing when my wordings or assumptions were poor, and repenting when I wrote something inappropriate. Yet, all you seem capable of returning to me is self-righteous "forgiveness" for a swear word and mockery for an inability to understand your miserable interpretation of the workings of logic and science, with a simultaneous inability and/or unwillingness to respond to any of the arguments placed before you. I understand your arguments just fine: I am rejecting them, because they are stupid and wrong. And you are simply calling me stupid because I disagree.-----Now, to refresh your memory, here are the points that I made in Message 246:

1. You have changed your position on whether or not Biogenesis has anything to say about the origin of life. I think this is because you realized you were making claims contrary to your philosophical faith, or are equivocating in a vain attempt to stay ahead. What is your explanation for it?
2. You have claimed that Pasteur's experiment disproved the mechanism proposed for an abiotic origin of life when, in fact, it disproved an entirely different mechanism.
3. You still think definitions and quotes hold more credibility than straightforward observations of the world around us, such as, “viruses can’t be life because there is a definition that excludes them, even though they certainly behave like life.”

Please read Message 246 and take the time to respond to the three main points I made, as outlined directly above this paragraph.You have several options:

1. Show how I have misrepresented you in each of these cases (this one will be hard, because I have a paper trail to prove them all).
2. Show how your reasoning in each of these cases is appropriate for science.
3. Admit that you were wrong or that you made a simple mistake or typo.

-----In addition, I would like you to take a look at Message 197, because I think your answer to that would be a tremendous help for everybody on this thread. Note: I made one minor change in the wording of that post. I apologize in advance if this offends or upsets you, and I will be happy to change it back to the original wording if you like that better.{AbE: The link I provided to message #197 isn't working, and I've tried to redo it several times. You may have to just go there manually. Sorry.}Edited by Bluejay, : Apology added at the end.Edited by Bluejay, : Switched links to the "msg" dBCodes. Thanks, CS: I knew there was a reason we kept you around.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, AOkid.Thanks for being civil with me. I'm sure we can work out our misunderstandings like the good Christians we both are. I’ll try to behave myself. It seems to me that you are being much more liberal with your own wording than you are with everyone else's. You didn't say, "The LoB is silent on the identity of the first organisms," you said, "The LoB is silent on origins." The phrase, “silent on origins” means, “it don’t got nothin’ to say about how life arose.” Since a great deal of your argument has centered around the meaning of words and exact quotations, I figured it was a safe bet to take your word at face value. If I was wrong, I don’t think it’s very honest of you to blame me for it.-----On the subject of "falsification," (which I said I wouldn't get involved in, but have now revoked my pledge) you provided this definition: First of all, this is a definition of “falsifiability,” not “falsify.” I’m sure you know the difference there.Here is a repeat of the portion I want you to look at closely: Note that the word in quotation marks is "falsifiable," not "falsified." Note that the second clause (after the semicolon) says that if something falsifiable is false, it can be shown to be false. That process of showing something to be false is called "falsification." Something that has undergone the process of "falsification" is considered "falsified." In other wrods, Something that has been shown to be false is “falsified.” (I've beaten this horse enough).The underying point is that your definition does not describe "falsification" as tentative, nor does any proper definition of "falsification." This is because falsification is final and absolute. If an idea is not absolutely false, it is not falsified.So, when you say that Abiogenesis has been falsified, you are saying that it has been shown to be false. That is the source of the problem we are having in this thread. Everyone is putting forth what you insist are strawman arguments, and Catholic Scientist is repeatedly calling you a troll, because you are not saying what you think you are saying (Granny Magda already said this once, in Message 242).Nobody has falsified the hypothesis that life can arise through a gradual accumulation of interrelated organic molecules and reactions. Somebody has falsified the hypothesis that life can arise in a complex state from decaying material. These are two distinct classes of mechanisms, and only one of them has been falsified.-----Now, I want to go back to this topic of falsification in relation to Abiogenesis. As you have said, the general concept of Abiogenesis is not falsifiable (at least at this stage in our understanding), because there are just so many possible pathways to test (Granny Magda said the same in Message 242). But, each individual pathway is testable. And, experiments like Miller-Urey looked at (and are looking at) different steps in some of those pathways. Step one (the natural formation of biologically-important organic molecules) has been proven possible. Other observations, such as the possibility of spontaneous homochirality of amino acids and RNA's ability to self-catalyze, also support the possibility of the overall model. Naturally, there are many steps or phases of the process that must still be worked out, but we have yet to hit something that definitively says that the mechanism cannot work.----- It doesn’t matter what BBT says about the very beginning of the universe for the purposes of this debate: what matters is that BBT predicts a point in time where the structures (i.e. atoms) necessary for life simply did not exist. Therefore, at some point after carbon appeared, life had to have emerged in the universe. No matter how it happened, it would still be called “Abiogenesis,” because there simply was no life in existence from which it could come, unless you want to change the definition of “life” so that it excludes material (which would, incidentally, call into question the universal validity of Pasteur’s and Redi’s and Spallanzani’s work, and rather undermine the whole argument).-----Before I get myself too deeply into this discussion, let me state for the record that I do not have an opinion on whether or not viruses constitute an intermediate between life and non-life. I have proposed it as a possibility that really can’t be entirely ruled out by what we know today. When I say the word “behave,” I am referring to their conforming to scientific models that describe patterns seen in nature. For example, viruses evolve in the same manner as bacteria: mutation/genetic drift. Like parasites and predators, they go through population cycles in response to fluctuations in their host (prey) populations. Also, they can be described in terms of ecology. The predominant patterns in their interactions with the world are described in pretty much the same way as life. They are more like life than they are like anything else that has been observed. It makes sense to group it with life into a “clade,” so to speak.Consider Cavediver’s video. The first nucleic acids to enter one of the vessicles in that video were essentially plesiomorphic viruses. Natural selection could work on individual nucleic acid sequences, favoring the ones that could catalyze their own penetration into better and better protected host cells, and then, life and viruses evolve alongside each other.-----You have stated that the word “life” has a restricted definition based on a few decisive characteristics. I agree with you on this definition, for the most part. But, the use of a definition like this is problematic for the simple reason that it is essentially arbitrary, just like the word “species.” Why should we define some things in nature based on whether or not they can reproduce? Let’s say we’re going to define a new category of things in the universe: we’ll call them “bobs.” I choose to define “bobs” as “things with more than two cells.” Does this automatically mean that all things that have two or fewer cells are governed by different laws than things that have three or more cells? Wouldn’t a definition that describes what laws of nature a thing obeys be a better definition for scientific usage than a definition based on a specific characteristic?Well, even that’s a bit iffy: life obeys the same laws that other organic chemicals obey, and organic chemicals obey the same laws the inorganic chemicals obey, etc. Everything in the universe is rather incompatible with the rigid classification schemes we always like to use in science. Definitions are notoriously unruly in relation to nature, so it’s not generally okay to take them as absolutes.Once again, I am not arguing that viruses should be considered “life.” What I am arguing is that you cannot defend an argument with a definition when the definition itself is the item that is being challenged. You have essentially drawn a line in the sand, and argued that only explanations that support that line are acceptable. I don’t completely agree with your line, and I am arguing that your line is possibly not a good standard by which to judge the rest of the sand. Your response is, “But that’s the line.” Please stop doing that.----- Again with etymologies. Would it also be a safe bet to assume that you are the offspring of a goat because your name includes the word “kid?” Doesn’t that mean they’re alive inside the host cell? I can take a joke. Sadly, though, some people do see this as a legitimate argument. For that reason, some evolutionists will not take this joke very well. Expect some hate mail, even though you withdrew it.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi Again, AOkid. I'll grant you that the word "Abiogenesis" does not have to imply just a gradual process. But, the Abiogenetic hypotheses studied and taught by scientists are gradual processes, so it doesn't do you any good to make this point. You certainly can't conflate them all under one title and claim that, because one is false, they're all false---that's a composition fallacy.You can't falsify a sudden process by experimentation and claim that the experiment also falsifies a roughly analogous gradual process.Consider this: "I have proven that snowballs do not teleport from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill: therefore, snowballs clearly cannot reach the bottom of the hill from the top of the hill." (composition fallacy again)Did Pasteur leave his flasks sealed long enough for life to arise via the gradual accumulation of organic molecules in the absence of already existing life? If we use the number you provided, that process could require anywhere up to 700 million years to be completed. I don't think Pasteur's experiment covered that. Technically, all he proved is that raw meat does not give rise to maggots in the period of time it takes for fly eggs to hatch (or a little bit longer: I don't remember the exact time period, but don't get anal on this). Extrapolating that out to millions of years is a bit dishonest, wouldn't you agree?

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, AOkid. Um... bull crap. Every virus has the genes to make its own capsid proteins. And, unfortunately for you, the field of biology also includes the study of viruses. Isn't that interesting? What? Are you serious? In the immortal words of Rrhain: Answers.com on “oxygen”: And, on “atom”: ----- So, what does make Abiogenesis impossible, then?And, what is your complaint, again?----- I will no longer respond to this stupidity with anything except my previous explanation, which is a damn good one, by the way:

---

Darwin loves you.

Since it has become clear that this thread is not going to progress any further, I will present here a sort of closing argument and summary of the debate.Semantic ArgumentationMy assessment of the situation is that AlphaOmegakid has nothing to argue except semantics, and that further debate with him will only cause the emergence of more terms whose definitions and etymologies he can exploit and blaspheme in an effort to constantly shift the burden of proof to his opponents, thus avoiding any need for him to bring up any of his own evidence. Perhaps Catholic Scientist was correct to call him a troll, though I personally believe that the Kid’s trollish behavior is not intentional, but is, in his own special way, sincere.AlphaOmegakid does not entertain debate about the validity of the definitions he supports, insisting that to do so is only “equivocation” or “blurring the line.” And, apparently, he fails to note that definitions are inherently descriptive, and not proscriptive. When a definition is challenged, it is on the basis of real-world observations, which frequently defy discreet definitions; but, in the Kid’s mind, the definition is authoritative, and its integrity must be upheld because, once an experiment is run, every letter of the write-up enters into the holy canon of science.He argues that “life” is defined as a cellular entity that can metabolize and reproduce (not of itself an irrational statement). However, he has further asserted that “life” cannot arise from “non-life,” and has dismissed our attempts to hypothesize at possible transitional forms by simply asserting the definition of “life” as prohibitive of transitional forms. When a discussion arose about viruses and their possession of genes, he promptly equivocated on the definition of “gene,” failing, apparently, to note that, even if only some viruses had genes, it would still prove the point of the person who posted it.On another thread, he has followed a similar line of reasoning with the word “species,” again insisting that reproduction is the defining characteristic. Only, this time, he complained that the myriad of conflicting definitions of “species” is simply a tool employed by scientists to permit equivocation in defense of our theory, failing to note that scientific data does not revolve around definitions, but around data.The Scientific Method and FalsificationEveryone is familiar with his complete failure to understand the term “falsify,” and it took us until almost message 200 before we realized that he was laboring under a different definition than we (to my own unending shame, to be sure), and not just misunderstanding the implications of the appropriate definition. Yet, even now, at the end of the thread, he is still asserting his own usage of the term, and has reverted to simply ignoring the many times where his usage has been shown to be incorrect by multiple posters.He believes that “falsification,” like acceptance of a theory, is tentative, but fails to realize that, even if Abiogenesis was falsified under a tentative usage of the term, there would still not be any reason to omit Abiogenesis from textbooks, because tentativity would effectively render falsification impotent. The only thing science does definitively is disprove, and that’s really the power behind science: it discovers which ideas are wrong by showing how the evidence conflicts with them. As long as the evidence remains within the explanatory power of a theory, the theory is not falsified.AlphaOmegakid has asserted that falsification occurs when predicted positive evidence fails to be found. But, this is a fallacy of composition: the lack of a specific piece of evidence does not preclude the possibility of other evidence, and so, cannot falsify a theory on its own. In an analogy, the absence of a gun at the crime scene does not falsify the hypothesis that the victim was killed, simply because a gun is not the only way for a victim to be killed.He frequently commits the fallacy of composition, insisting that, since spontaneous generation was falsified (he used the word properly in this case, but, I think it was just incidental), every other possible mechanism for Abiogenesis was falsified alongside it. He also fails to realize that the evidence for Biogenesis (which is the same evidence that falsified Abiogenesis in his mind) was all collected within a timeframe that he knows is too short for Abiogenesis to have occurred in. Attempts to point this out to him have been met with “magical time” libel and no contradicting evidence. He also fails to note that a world without pre-existing life (such as the hypothetical primordial earth of Abiogenesis) is inherently a very different environment from a world with life already abundant, thus rendering any conclusions gained from a world with life invalid to the discussion of a world without life.Abiogenesis and the Rest of ScienceAlphaOmegakid believes that, since we failed to prove spontaneous generation (our equivalent of a gun at the crime scene), Abiogenesis is falsified. Clearly, this is a fallacy of composition. Since the evidence has clearly not come down against the gradual mechanism proposed by science for Abiogenesis, but only against a sudden, untransitional mechanism, the current hypotheses of Abiogenesis are still viable and tenable hypotheses. Furthermore, many plausible steps of an Abiogenetic process have been discovered by scientists (e.g. formation of amino acids, homochirality of amino acids, RNA self-catalysis and spontaneous bilayer formation by lipids), and no evidence that any of the as-yet undiscovered steps could not have happened has been found.Meanwhile, our colleagues in cosmology and physics have pieced together a model for the history of the universe that is remarkably well-supported. This model shows clearly that there was a point in time at which life simply did not exist in the universe, at least not in any sense that holds scientific meaning. Any “life” (including God) that may have existed when the universe had no carbon or even atoms does not satisfy the definition of “life” provided by LoB or Cell Theory, which AlphaOmegakid has used extensively in support of his argument. Therefore, if such “life” gave rise to “life” as defined by Cell Theory, this process still constitutes Abiogenesis. Furthermore, AlphaOmegakid’s assertion that God both is “life” and was existent when carbon was not is simply equivocation on the definition of “life.”ConclusionEven though his entire premise for this thread has been the alleged poor logic and bad science of his opponents, AlphaOmegakid has relied heavily on inconsistent, fallacious and perhaps even dishonest arguments to support his claim that Abiogenesis has been falsified. Meanwhile, on the other side of the debate, science has upheld Abiogenesis as the only tenable possibility for an origin of life simply because that’s where the objective observations and mathematical models of multiple fields of study have pointed us. The overarching point is that we were not led to this conclusion by a philosophical belief, but by an honest search for a parsimonious answer to the questions about nature. That’s what makes it science, and that’s what qualifies it for science textbooks. As of right now, it’s the only idea that qualifies, so, logically, we teach it.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, the Kid. Well, I waited. What if I argue that viruses evolve by natural selection, and my opponent argues that they do not. Then, we put viruses in a Petri dish, and we all watch as they do indeed evolve by natural selection. Is my argument still just semantics then? Alright, so, in other words, you believe science revolves around definitions and that it does not revolve around data.Here are a couple of questions to get you thinking about the implications of this rather absurd notion. If you wanted to change a scientific definition, how would you go about doing this in a scientific manner? And, if you wanted to change some scientific data, how would you go about doing this in a scientific manner?This should be a no-brainer.-----And, here’s another thought:Look at an E-M spectrum diagram and mark for me exactly where “blue” ends and “violet” begins. No matter where you draw the line, you draw it between two things that are more similar to each other than either is to most of the rest of its side of the line. That is, if you provide for me an exact wavelength, I can show you how the wavelengths one nanometer to either side of the line produce a color that is more like the color directly across the line than it is to the wavelength fourteen nanometers deeper into its own side.Now, you can argue to me that a certain wavelength should be considered the break point, and that such a wavelength is, in fact, accepted in science. But, given what I just said above, isn’t this definition just arbitrary? Why should an arbitrary distinction be considered acceptable support for any agument?In fact, can you argue to me that any definition is not essentially arbitrary? Is an “atmosphere” different from “space,” and where do you draw the line between the two? Can you tell me where the forest ends and the prairies begin? What is the exact temperature or weather condition that tells you when the “cold season” has ended and the “warm season” has begun? At what point does a substance count as a “liquid,” and at what point does it count as a “solid?” Can you provide for me any example where nature provides a clear-cut distinction between two entities without some sort of spectrum (or "grey area") between them?Nature does not deal in discreet definitions: nature deals in subtle spectra. This is true in nearly every observation ever made by science. Why do you think our data is always presented in the form of a regression with a statistical significance score, instead of as discreet, tightly-organized bundles? It’s simple, really. It’s because data does not organize itself into neat, discreet little bundles: scientists organize data into neat, discreet little bundles because it’s easier to understand if we put a name to things. But, in the end, the name we assign is essentially arbitrary, designed only to help us organize the information, and not to proscribe the functions of the universe.Definitions are completely artificial. Yet, you are insisting that this arbitrary means of categorization somehow transcends the world of language and wields power over the elements.That is why you have noticed that people in internet forums always bring up the "semantic argumentation" charge against you. It's not because your opponent's argument is losing; it's because you have an obsession with wordplay in a world that revolves around physical evidence.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, AlphaOmegakid. Grow up, dude: you’re forty-six!!You know damn well that I know what a virus needs to survive and evolve: you are only picking at words. Stop playing dumb, give your opponent the benefit of the doubt, and find a way to get over my exact wording, because you know damn well that this sort of “debate” is only going to piss people off, and that it doesn’t support your argument at all.What the hell difference does it make whether I added, “with an appropriate bacterial host, grown on a substance of potato agar, and allowed to incubate at 36 degrees Celsius for seven years, extracting individuals from the population each week to run DNA extraction and PCR to look for mutations and their possible effect on the host, while simultaneously growing multiple control cultures that are kept virus-free in order to replenish the infected populations in the event of a die-off”? That would have been a very awkward clause in the middle of that sentence, don’t you think? I was assuming that both parties knew what was needed for viruses to grow, and that it thus didn’t need to be explained in detail, but you weren’t willing to extend the same courtesy, and instead used my attempt at brevity as a reason to poke in a little insult.Whether or not you realize it or intend it, that is trolling. Stop doing it. It also clearly demonstrates that you did not understand the point that I was trying to make, so I will try again, just in case it’s my fault for explaining it poorly.First, the whole reason we go through the “establish the definition with evidentiary support” step is so that we’re not just arguing words. Scientists seek out physical evidence instead of quotes because we don’t want to be debating semantics, we want to be debating reality. Unfortunately, Bible-thumpers and political conservatives have been trained since youth to interpret words rather than principles, so we never get past the “agreement of terms” step in any debate on EvC.Second, as I said in the message you just responded to: You are not using definitions in this debate as tools for organizing data and formulating a debate: you are trying to assert them as proof of your point. As you said, in a debate, the parties must agree upon definitions, but not because the definitions actually have any power to command nature, but because the definitions are our way of communicating with one another. I still do not agree with your definition of “life” on the basis that it does not delineate a meaningful division in relation to the scientific laws that govern "life" and nothing else, but your only response to my challenges is the reiteration of the definition I am challenging. It’s as if you think your definition is immune to my challenges just because it’s a definition. That is not the process you described in that quoted segment above.And, in earlier parts of this debate, we granted you your definition of life, and showed how your argument, based on that definition, violates many other obvious observations and mathematical models. Since you’re still unwilling to let that penetrate, we’re trying this new angle of attack because it probably hits closer to home when we talk about words and definitions. I was aware that all of that was there, AOkid. I didn’t quite think you realized that it was there, though. The point in my asking you how definitions are changed in science was to get you to say, for perhaps the sixth time, that definitions can be overturned by data, whereas data cannot by overturned by definitions. I hoped it would help you see that data have power over definitions. In fact, you have even said that definitions are based on data. Yet, you continue to believe that definitions are just as important as data, and continue to assert that your definition of “life” has the power to deflect my challenges without using anything but its own assertions.Since Big Bang Theory has hordes of mathematical and observational data to support it, we must consider the implications of the theory to be real. The implications include a period of time in the past when “life” (of whichever definition) could not exist. Therefore, there had to have been a beginning of “life,” whether or not “life” includes viruses. A beginning of life automatically falsifies Biogenesis’s tenet of “all life from pre-existing life.”Data to hypothesis to more data to more hypotheses and, eventually, to theory. That’s science. That’s Abiogenesis.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, AlphaOmegakid. How is my logic based on a definition when no definition that has been discussed allows “life” to exist for maybe 500,000 years after the Big Bang? You can’t come up with a definition that allows this unless you would be willing to also include as life, not only viruses, but planets, stars, asteroids, individual amino acids, rocks, every atom in the periodic table, and all the baryons modern science has ever identified. But, if you use such a definition, the Law of Biogenesis becomes a useless restatement of thermodynamics and doesn’t prevent cells from coming out of raw chemicals.It is for this reason that I say your argument has been falsified. If your definition is correct, your argument fails. If your argument is correct, your definition fails. Either way, you have cells coming from non-cells. It’s a catch-22. So, which is it? Do I have data, or not?What more do I need to disprove origins by LoB than, “life didn’t exist 13 billion years ago, and now it does”? How does this not disprove Biogenesis as a hypothesis on origins? I have not proposed a redefinition, AOkid, nor have I made an argument that requires a specific redefinition in order to succeed. I have argued that your definition is arbitrary, and I have even shown you how your definition defeats your own argument. Your definition is the focus of this debate, and mine is, at best, of peripheral concern. I do not hold an opinion as to what the term “life” refers to, nor do I intend to support a single definition: it is my intent to show you that LoB, of your usage, is impotent no matter what definition of “life” we use, and that that is why it is not taught in science classrooms.If your origins by LoB theory is false, what alternatives remain? Wouldn't any alternatives be accurately called “Abiogenesis” by default? And, there are many different competing hypotheses of Abiogenesis, no one of which is being exalted above the others in any current textbook that I am aware of. If this is being done in some high school textbook, I will support you in your protest against said textbook. I will not, however, support your argument that LoB falsifies Abiogenesis.Edited by Bluejay, : space after a comma

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, AOkid. I can't believe you're still spouting all of this. You are providing the definition of "falsifiability," not of "falsification." We've been through this with you at least a dozen times, each. And, even if you're right about the meaning of "falsification," your argument still cannot get past the "no life before, life now" principle.I'm tired of this, and you're not worth it anymore.Good-bye.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.