Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 8:28 AM
30 online now:
Hyroglyphx, jar, RAZD, Stile (4 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,846 Year: 9,882/19,786 Month: 2,304/2,119 Week: 340/724 Day: 3/62 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1049 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 301 of 312 (478675)
08-19-2008 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by bluescat48
08-16-2008 6:20 PM


Re: Fallacious Idiot
bluescat48 writes:

How can it be falsified. There is no theory of abiogenesis. It is still a hypothesis, in fact several.

Ummmmm.... hypotheses can be falsified. Abiogenesis was falsified as a hypothesis. It never reached the evidentiary support level to be a theory. The current so called hypotheses of the origin of life all fall under the falsified hypothesis of abiogenesis which states that life can come from non living matter. The slow gradual emergence of life from complex chemicals is life coming from non-life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by bluescat48, posted 08-16-2008 6:20 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-19-2008 1:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 305 by dokukaeru, posted 08-19-2008 2:16 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 311 by bluescat48, posted 08-19-2008 11:01 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 302 of 312 (478676)
08-19-2008 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by New Cat's Eye
08-19-2008 12:18 PM


Re: In Summation
CS writes:

It was a gradual emergence of life, itself.


CS, I don't want to give AOkid credit for starting an argument between scientists, but we really don't know if abiogenesis was gradual. We know it was not spontaneous—not of the old spontaneous-generation kind—but the raw truth is that we don't know for sure if there was even an RNA world before abiogenesis.

AOkid is taking this to the bank, of course. But his bank has declared a holiday, and his LoB is in foreclosure. Time to move on.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-19-2008 12:18 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-19-2008 1:31 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 312 (478680)
08-19-2008 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by AlphaOmegakid
08-19-2008 12:55 PM


Re: Fallacious Idiot
The current so called hypotheses of the origin of life all fall under the falsified hypothesis of abiogenesis which states that life can come from non living matter. The slow gradual emergence of life from complex chemicals is life coming from non-life.

No, its not. You're equivocating the term "life" here.

The slow gradual emergence of life, itself, is not the same as life, modern organism, coming from non-life.

This is your bigest misunderstanding in this thread.

The falsification of abiogenesis, aka "spontaneous generation", does not falsifiy the current models of abiogenesis which are gradual emergence of life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 12:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 304 of 312 (478681)
08-19-2008 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Fosdick
08-19-2008 12:56 PM


Re: In Summation
I think you misunderstood me, Mon. (might've been my fault)

I wasn't saying that life definately gradually emerged, just that the current theories, or hypothesis, on abiogenesis say that it did.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Fosdick, posted 08-19-2008 12:56 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2788 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 305 of 312 (478684)
08-19-2008 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by AlphaOmegakid
08-19-2008 12:55 PM


So you concede?
I assume that since you are ignoring Message 290 and Message 292 that you concede:

1. The video is plausible. You cannot show otherwise.

2. You made up the term agent of death.

3. Your understanding of viruses is lacking.

4. Viruses fall somewhere between life and non-life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 12:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1049 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 306 of 312 (478689)
08-19-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by New Cat's Eye
08-19-2008 12:18 PM


Re: In Summation
CS writes:

There was a point in time in our universe when even ATOMS didn't exist. No matter the definition of life, it has to be made of atoms. No atoms = no life, no matter the definition of life you want to use.

The BB is a theory based on facts. The BB is not a fact. It is not observable or repeatable. It is a theoretical model that there were no atoms. The big bang theory is not evidence or data.

Please provide a citation of scientific evidence or data that atoms didn't exist 13Bya. This is actually a consequence of the BBT, it certainly is not data.

cs writes:

But we don't have to redefine "life" to know that at some point in the past, when there were no atoms, it was impossible for life to exist (by any definition).

This is argumentum ad ignoratium. A fallacy. You adhere to a hypothesis which most of the data to support the hypothesis (abiogenesis) lies in our current state of scientific ignorance. We are searching for this data. However, you are completely oblivious that science is ignorant of many things including other dimensions and possibly forces that haven't been discovered yet. Why are you OK with ignorance in regards to your hypothesis,but you aren't OK with ignorance in other areas that may provide the answer to life. God may be one of them. An unnamed intelligent designer maybe one. A yet undiscovered vital force may be one. There potentially are many valid scientific or metaphysical explanations for the beginning of life. Just because you are ignorant of them doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist.

cs writes:

Yes, we have observations of life comming from life. But no, we don't have observations that life cannot come from non-life.

You think I am wrong? I will cite for you and Bluejay the definition of falsification....which you will continue to ignore.

wiki writes:

Falsifiability (or "refutability") is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

The mere fact that life coming from non-life has not been proven impossible makes the hypothesis unfalsifiable. There is no way by observation or experiment to prove anything is imposiible. A hypothesis based on this logic is invalid and unfalsifiable. That's why real scientists are very careful at stating them.

However, the hypothesis that life can come from non-living chemicals has been and is falsified. It was falsified by direct observation that life doesn't come from chemicals, but it comes from pre-existing life. Every organic experiment in the history of man has confirmed the LoB and has confirmed the falsification of abiogenesis. No experiment or observation has presented evidence that life can come from chemicals. That is a philosophical faith. Period. You are sadly wrong CS.

You are exchanging overwhelming evidence (LoB) for fantasy (abiogenesis).

cs writes:

But we don't have to redefine "life" to know that at some point in the past, when there were no atoms, it was impossible for life to exist (by any definition).

But you and others are redefinining "life" with the faith of abiogenesis. You are using mythological undefined terms as "primordial life", "early life", "first life". Just as soon as these terms are defined, the hypothesis is open to falsification. By leaving these terms open to interpretation, the the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. That is the epitome of equivocating the definition and understanding of life, without supporting evidence.

cs writes:

Well that's because the Law says, literally, that "spontaneous generation is a dream". It disn't say that ALL life comes from life like you think it did, it says that life comes from an egg.

from wiki:

quote:
Law of biogenesis
"La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream") (Louis Pasteur)

Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.


Once again all you can cite is wiki. Did you even read it? Not one citation in this editorial article. Again your argument is lame. No evidence.

I on the other hand have provided historical evidence from a scientific peer at the time. That peer was presenting to a group of scientific peers. That evidence clearly defines the LoB as stating that all life comes from pre-existing life. And that citation comes from a peer who was an ardent abiogenesist. That is evidence. That has strong legs.

The wiki article is factually unsupported and wrong. You are wrong CS. Cite something with some evidentiary support. Or continue to hobble along as you normally do.

cs writes:

But the abiogenesis you are talking about is not the same as spontaneous generation. There was nothing spontaneous about it at all.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

It was a gradual emergence of life, itself. That is very different from modern organisms spontaneously arrising from non-life.

It is exactly the same. The supposed oldest known evidence (data) of living organisms appear to be very similar to "modern" bacteria and algae. There is no evidence of any other micro fossils of the mythological primordial life type. There is no evidence that the earliest life was not exactly the same as modern bacteria like Pasteur used. (this whole "modern" term is another example of an undefined equivocation term).

Then, just in case you don't understand, spontaneous does not mean "rapid" or "fast" as in opposition to gradual. As in "gradual emergence."

cs writes:

Spontaneous means a self-generated event, typically requiring no outside influence or help.

A gradual emergence of life is a spontaneous generation of life by definition. They are exactly the same. All the chemical reactions that happen on the slow "gradual chemical pathway to life" must be spontaneously generated. By definition.

You are just plain equivocatingly fallaciously wrong, as you have been shown over and over again. But your faith is strong.

cs writes:

Why can you not realize that the LoB says nothing against current theories on abiogenesis?

Because it does. It says that life comes from life. All of it. Why can't you realize that it is a silly argument that the slooooow gradual emergence of life itself is not by definition a spontaneous generation event. And that has been falsified.

The abiogenesis hypotheses of today all posit the existance of cell wall like structures that eventually are able to metabolize and then reproduce and the evolve. Each step of the way is a spontaneous generation event.

cs writes:

I think it's because abiogenesis present a problem for you religion so you want to discredit it so that it is not better than your religion.

I don't have to discredit abiogenesis. It has no credibility except for those of that faith. Science has discredited abiogenesis. The spontaneous generation of the past and the "modern" spontaneous generation over the magical millions of unfalsifiable millions of years has already been discredited.

But isn't it interesting how the faithful are doing their darndest to remove LoB from all literature and educational processes. Isn't it interesting how your wiki citation inaccurately defines the LoB. Isn't it interesting that this law of nature can probably be one of the easiest science experiments to be demonstrated to students in a classroom. But it is being elliminated from discussion.

This forum is a prime example of religious fervor in regards to this topic. I have nothing to fear from people like you. If my faith is wrong and you are right, then fine. I will cease to exist when I die and I will be some of those non-living chemicals. But if your faith is wrong and my faith is right, then you have some real problems ahead of you. I have nothing to loose if I am wrong. You have everything to loose if you are wrong.

cs writes:

It just makes out to look like an idiot though.

Well in my opinion idiots don't recognize what good science demonstrates. (LoB) Idiots use lame arguments with no evidentiary support. Idiots only rely on wiki articles without researching the citations every now and then. Idiots don't realize that every defineable step in any hypothesis of abiogenesis is spontaneously generated. Wow. That would make you, by my definition an idiot.;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-19-2008 12:18 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Blue Jay, posted 08-19-2008 5:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 308 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-19-2008 5:44 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 309 by onifre, posted 08-19-2008 6:42 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 871 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 307 of 312 (478691)
08-19-2008 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by AlphaOmegakid
08-19-2008 4:59 PM


Re: In Summation
Hi, AOkid.

AOkid writes:

You think I am wrong? I will cite for you and Bluejay the definition of falsification....which you will continue to ignore.

AOkid writes:

The mere fact that life coming from non-life has not been proven impossible makes the hypothesis unfalsifiable.

AOkid writes:

However, the hypothesis that life can come from non-living chemicals has been and is falsified.

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.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 4:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 308 of 312 (478693)
08-19-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by AlphaOmegakid
08-19-2008 4:59 PM


Re: In Summation
The BB is a theory based on facts. The BB is not a fact. It is not observable or repeatable. It is a theoretical model that there were no atoms. The big bang theory is not evidence or data.

Please provide a citation of scientific evidence or data that atoms didn't exist 13Bya. This is actually a consequence of the BBT, it certainly is not data.

:laugh:

Talk about a lame argument.

This amounts to:

quote:
Nuh-uh!

Why are you OK with ignorance in regards to your hypothesis,but you aren't OK with ignorance in other areas that may provide the answer to life. God may be one of them. An unnamed intelligent designer maybe one. A yet undiscovered vital force may be one. There potentially are many valid scientific or metaphysical explanations for the beginning of life. Just because you are ignorant of them doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist.

:laugh:

So for your position to be in any way valid, life has to be magical.

:rolleyes:

But you and others are redefinining "life" with the faith of abiogenesis. You are using mythological undefined terms as "primordial life", "early life", "first life". Just as soon as these terms are defined, the hypothesis is open to falsification. By leaving these terms open to interpretation, the the hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

But there isn't one big Theory of Abiogenesis. It is still in its infancy.

There are a bunch of hypothesis that are small steps in the whole picture. Each one of those is falsfiable.

Wrong again, kid.

It {current theories on abiogenesis and spotaneous generation} is exactly the same.

But they are different. How could they be the same?

Spontaneous generation was the idea that maggots came from rotting meat.

"But most currently accepted models {on abiogenesis} build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life."

Certainly they are not the same.

Because it does. It says that life comes from life. All of it. Why can't you realize that it is a silly argument that the slooooow gradual emergence of life itself is not by definition a spontaneous generation event. And that has been falsified.

The abiogenesis hypotheses of today all posit the existance of cell wall like structures that eventually are able to metabolize and then reproduce and the evolve. Each step of the way is a spontaneous generation event.

Now that is equivocation.

Spontaneous generation was the idea that maggots came from rotting meat.

"But most currently accepted models {on abiogenesis} build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life."

You're talking about two different things.

I don't have to discredit abiogenesis. It has no credibility except for those of that faith. Science has discredited abiogenesis.

:laugh:

Riiiight :rolleyes:

All those biologist who are working on the hypotheses involved in abiogenesis don't actually exist in the science community, they are not scientists, and they have been discredited.

:laugh:

The spontaneous generation of the past and the "modern" spontaneous generation over the magical millions of unfalsifiable millions of years has already been discredited.

Except, it hasn't.

You just think it has been because you can't see that the LoB was talking about spontaneous generation and not the current theory on aboigenesis.

But isn't it interesting how the faithful are doing their darndest to remove LoB from all literature and educational processes. Isn't it interesting how your wiki citation inaccurately defines the LoB. Isn't it interesting that this law of nature can probably be one of the easiest science experiments to be demonstrated to students in a classroom. But it is being elliminated from discussion.

No, its not interesting.

There is no grand atheist conspiracy in science and you're crazy to believe that there is one.

This forum is a prime example of religious fervor in regards to this topic. I have nothing to fear from people like you. If my faith is wrong and you are right, then fine. I will cease to exist when I die and I will be some of those non-living chemicals. But if your faith is wrong and my faith is right, then you have some real problems ahead of you. I have nothing to loose if I am wrong. You have everything to loose if you are wrong.

And now you're gona throw Pascal's Wager out there :laugh:

This is rich! Man you are stoopid.

Oh and by the way, I'm a Christian and I've already got my ticket to heaven so, once again, you are hopelessly wrong.

Well in my opinion idiots don't recognize what good science demonstrates. (LoB) Idiots use lame arguments with no evidentiary support. Idiots only rely on wiki articles without researching the citations every now and then. Idiots don't realize that every defineable step in any hypothesis of abiogenesis is spontaneously generated. Wow. That would make you, by my definition an idiot.

So, you don't even know what an idiot is :laugh:

What's that like the 3 times in this thread alone that you've exposed your misunderstanding of very simple concepts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 4:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by onifre, posted 08-19-2008 6:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 309 of 312 (478696)
08-19-2008 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by AlphaOmegakid
08-19-2008 4:59 PM


Re: In Summation
Please provide a citation of scientific evidence or data that atoms didn't exist 13Bya.

If atoms existed then why do we need Quantum physics, String/M-theory, Particle physics etc...? Wouldn't GR explain it all?

However, heres a link to explain particles to you since they would be found T the earliest time in our universe and are NOT atoms,

http://universe-review.ca/F15-particle.htm#particles

There potentially are many valid scientific or metaphysical explanations for the beginning of life.

I think this is the whole point to your line of thought, in that you don't know where to seperate the 2.

*In Science,

There are many valid scientific explanations for the beginning of life.

*In Theology,

There are many valid metaphysical explanations for the beginning of life.

The 2 do not over lap. Abiogenesis, and/or the origin of life from chemicals, can ONLY be understood in a scientific sense. By invoking God you did nothing to explain the process by which these chemicals came to be, what we define, as 'life'.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 4:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 310 of 312 (478697)
08-19-2008 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by New Cat's Eye
08-19-2008 5:44 PM


Re: In Summation
8 smiley faces???

I believe you got on Cavedivers case for placing 5 on one post...you sir are out of control!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-19-2008 5:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2363 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 311 of 312 (478717)
08-19-2008 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by AlphaOmegakid
08-19-2008 12:55 PM


Re: Fallacious Idiot
Abiogenesis was falsified as a hypothesis.

How & when & not as spontaneous generation, but as abiogenesis


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 12:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3884
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 312 of 312 (478718)
08-19-2008 11:09 PM


Closing time
Past 300 messages and not looking that good.

If there is something happening that someone wishes to pursue further, please propose an new topic.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019