Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 8:02 PM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,098 Year: 5,135/19,786 Month: 1,257/873 Week: 153/460 Day: 95/58 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   the source of life
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3543 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 61 of 211 (495786)
01-24-2009 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Vacate
01-24-2009 5:19 AM


Re: Woah!
To Mr. Vacate #38,

homunculus writes:

there is nothing substantial about this presupposed environment. It really is a speculation.

This is your evo crushing argument? You nearly made me fall out of my chair given that you went and said this right after:Since the lord created the physical universe, that would suggest he created science

Take it slow, when you get it you may laugh as hard as I did.

Nope, no laugh. That is however a presumption.

From message 25 writes:

Since there is no other life in 'observable space', we can safely assume that, according to evolution, spontaneous generation would've had to have taken place due to earth's global specific environs.

1- We didn't even have the technology to see extra-solar planets a few decades ago and your ready to declare the universe empty of all life? That doesn't make much sense if you actually try thinking about it does it?

2- If you read up on what evolution actually says you will quickly discover it has nothing to do with spontaneous generation. So when you think about that for a quick second it doesn't make much sense either.

3- Earths "global specific environs" have been found to be quite different in the past, they are also quite different depending on the seasons, and are remarkably different at various locations at the same time. Think of conditions at a thermal vent at the bottom of the ocean and ask if that is the same "specific environ" as the Sahara or the amazon rain forest. There is no specific environment so, personally, I wouldn't play that card either.

Perhaps you need to re-think your position a tiny bit?

1) No, I'm not yet prepared to disappoint you. You should know, however, that the 'observable universe', once again, is the part of the universe/space/galaxy/solar system that we have 'OBSERVED'.

2) Covered, and I will continue to call adaptation, adaptation and Evolution (union of principles),Evolution.

3) You made a good point with the protozoa dwelling at the thermal heat vents. That is obviously a sign of intelligent design or that adaptation has played a role in keeping the protozoan under such intense heat. However, that doesn't sway my original theory about providential generation. I will also point out that the examination was subject to

ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION

Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Vacate, posted 01-24-2009 5:19 AM Vacate has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18371
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 62 of 211 (495788)
01-24-2009 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by homunculus
01-24-2009 3:30 AM


Re: thanks for the comment
homunculus writes:

Charles Lyell's book (wrote in 1833, before Darwin's "The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life") "principles of geology", where the geologic column originated, elaborates on the geologic column being layers in the earth that hold testament to Evolutionary science.

You're making things up again. Lyell and Darwin became close friends, but evolution was a delicate topic in a friendly relationship that both obviously valued highly, and they had to take care to avoid it becoming an issue of contention. Lyell was unable to reconcile his religious beliefs with evolution. His conflicted views on evolution changed over time and defy any concise characterization, at least by me.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 3:30 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 8:43 PM Percy has responded

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3543 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 63 of 211 (495795)
01-24-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Vacate
01-24-2009 5:41 AM


Re: coming up for air!
Replying to Mr. Vacate #40.

Alright, this is rich. First lets post;

Also you seem to have ignored the fact that any form of "life" that was to spontaneously arrise in our current environment would almost immediatley be consumed by life that is currently occupying that environment. I consider that to be stacking the deck in your favor. I am sure any scientist in the field would agree that life spontaneously arrising in todays competition is hardly likely, and even less likely to be witnessed. Now imagine a world without life and it becomes possible, but your likely going to respond that we can't witness it. Nice way to win a debate but it doesn't mean such an event didn't happen.

This is a pretty big "what if" for starters. Your asking me "Is it possible that earth's Primordial environment, without a competitive community to extinguish the self sufficient organism (as suggested), could support reproducing proteins and sustain the growth of said protein.

of course!

I also take the liberty of comparing this scenario with another. 'If I ask you if you believe in aliens (that's intelligent life, for you young hipsters), you'd say, for example, no! then I'd say, but is it possible? your answer would have to be, yes! It doesn't matter how i answer the question, the constance (the possibility) stays the same.

the "primordial environment" could possibly be. But it's not my speculation, it's yours.

Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.

Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.

Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Vacate, posted 01-24-2009 5:41 AM Vacate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 01-24-2009 10:44 AM homunculus has not yet responded
 Message 75 by CosmicChimp, posted 01-24-2009 10:13 PM homunculus has responded

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3543 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 64 of 211 (495796)
01-24-2009 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by lyx2no
01-24-2009 6:25 AM


Re: You Need Air All Right.
Reply to lyx2no #43

Your reply is not applicable to anything I, or anybody here has said. yes, even though choice "scientists" keeping moving the percentage up and down, depending on how they want to view global warming, I'll say 1-3%, naturally, anyone who want's to take a crack at the christian will chime in something as inexhaustibly trivial and pointless as what you have said.

On that note, I would like to applaud you on your candid ignorance. I am not without the knowledge that I am far outgunned here. I debate, not so to convince someone I'm right and they are wrong, although that certainly is the case, but to make sure you people understand the principles will not change for your interests or your opinions.

Life produces life and that's all we, still, have observed.

Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by lyx2no, posted 01-24-2009 6:25 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 01-24-2009 10:47 AM homunculus has responded
 Message 77 by lyx2no, posted 01-25-2009 12:18 AM homunculus has responded

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3543 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 65 of 211 (495797)
01-24-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Brian
01-24-2009 6:25 AM


Re: -What Law of Providence is That?-
Brian #44

Because that's whats observed...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Brian, posted 01-24-2009 6:25 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 01-24-2009 10:40 AM homunculus has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Brian, posted 01-24-2009 5:26 PM homunculus has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18371
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 66 of 211 (495799)
01-24-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by homunculus
01-24-2009 10:23 AM


Re: -What Law of Providence is That?-
HI Homunculus,

You're placing little indicators like this in your posts:

Brian #44

These are unnecessary. If you look at the top right and the bottom left of your message, you'll see little links to Message 44. As long as you use the little reply button at the bottom of the message you're replying to, you'll always get those links.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 10:23 AM homunculus has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18371
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 67 of 211 (495800)
01-24-2009 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by homunculus
01-24-2009 9:55 AM


Re: coming up for air!
Hi Homunculus,

Just noticed you trying to quote by writing [Vacate writes:].

What you instead want to use is [qs=Vacate], and of course close it with [/qs] at the end of the quoted text.

You might want to give the Help for dBCodes a read.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 9:55 AM homunculus has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18371
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 68 of 211 (495801)
01-24-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by homunculus
01-24-2009 10:17 AM


Re: You Need Air All Right.
homunculus writes:

I debate, not so to convince someone I'm right and they are wrong, although that certainly is the case, but to make sure you people understand the principles will not change for your interests or your opinions.

What you're actually doing is confirming the hypothesis of a positive correlation between certainty and being uninformed.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 10:17 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 8:56 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3543 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 69 of 211 (495802)
01-24-2009 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Huntard
01-24-2009 6:32 AM


Re: -What Law of Providence is That?-
I appreciate you actually exacting your words making it inclusive to reply to. I've read books and seen videos on polymerization and morphogenesis, I've simply been implying we haven't observed it yet. I like the "nuh-uh" and "goddunit" speech towards creationists, its is pretty encouraging.

No, my friend, see I actually see a supernatural being at the helm an extremely practical thing. I don't think your evolutionists friends would share my sentiment. funny really, I've seen all kinds of tolerances, compassion, avocation for the 'equality' of the sexes movement, civil rights movement, animal rights movement, environmental movement, but someone mentions god and people clam up.

Edited by homunculus, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 01-24-2009 6:32 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Huntard, posted 01-24-2009 11:07 AM homunculus has responded

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3543 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 70 of 211 (495803)
01-24-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Brian
01-24-2009 6:52 AM


Re: -Law of Providence-
Suffice to say that's on another thread.

I'm still choking down the origin of life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Brian, posted 01-24-2009 6:52 AM Brian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Blue Jay, posted 01-24-2009 12:54 PM homunculus has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 403 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 71 of 211 (495804)
01-24-2009 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by homunculus
01-24-2009 10:55 AM


Re: -What Law of Providence is That?-
The problem is not the mentioning of god, the problem is that some of the ones mentioning god want everybody else to live like they do too.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 10:55 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 9:10 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 72 of 211 (495815)
01-24-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by homunculus
01-24-2009 7:05 AM


Re: Goldilocks
homunculus writes:

Let's see, I would like to ask you to not use immature speech on a debate friendly, uncensored forum. Thanks.


Since this thread is on its way down the toilet, I might as well tell you a little about myself.

I'm a cranky person. I normally don't respond to people. When I respond, I sound cranky, because I am cranky. If I were to respond more often, you'd think that I am cranky all the time, and you would be right. It has nothing to do with you. Like the old saying goes, it's not you, it's me.

Rather, I will assert that Even though Evolutionists don't have a shred of evidence to back up their principles (which, ironically is the absence of principle), they still become frustrated (I.E. Taz) to a point of nearly giving themselves a stroke.

Ok, let's sit back for a moment and look at this. Let's assume that evolution is completely wrong. Let's assume that all "evolutionists" have recanted. How in the world does this prove a supernatural being?

Are you aware that you've just given a live demonstration of what I've been saying for years about creationists?

Rule 1 about creationism: disprove evolution ---> creation is proven by default.

I say I don't understand, when really I do. As I had said before, if I had stated on here that everything came from nothing or created itself (I.E. the big bang THEORY)

Then I would say you've been grossly misinformed and that you really really really need to seek out a cosmologist.

I said that not really expecting you to do so simply because you're a creationist, and creationists have a track record of knowing everything.

if I said that life originated from nothing or created itself (abiogenesis, or whatever name it be tagged for the season),

Then I would say you've been grossly misinformed and that you really really really need to seek out a biologist whose discipline is abiogenesis.

But again, I really don't expect you to do so because you seem to know everything already.

But because I said we have only seen life produce life, suggesting the possibility of a god, it's like a black man walked in the middle of a kkk convention with a white girl.

You got it all wrong, so let me attempt to calmly explain this to you again.

The fact that we don't know how life began is a gap in our knowledge. What you are doing is worshipping the god of the gaps. I'm sure you've heard of this since you seem to know everything.

The god of the gaps exists solely in the gaps of our knowledge. As science progresses, the more gaps we fill in. This means that your god of the gaps continually loses a place to live. This is a frightened god, frightened by progress. This god will always be afraid of scientific progress, because it is human nature to continue to make scientific progress and fill in the gaps of our knowledge.

Do you really want to worship the god of the gaps? Unlike you, there are people who worship honest-to-god a god that occupies more than the gaps of our knowledge.

Does the idea of a supernatural creator really crawl on you that much?

No. What crawls on me is using the goddunit answer for everything we don't know.

Just sit back and imagine this. Imagine Kepler using the goddunit answer rather than spending years seeking out a mathematical pattern for the motions of the planets. Instead of Kepler's 3 laws of planetary motion, we'd have kepler's 3 goddunit laws of planetary motion.

Just imagine Einstein using the goddunit answer to explain Mercury's orbit. Well, goddunit.

How do people get sick? Instead of a germ theory of disease, we'd have the goddunit theory of disease.

Why do things fall down? Instead of the theory of gravity, we'd have the theory of goddunit.

Don't you see the implications of using the god of the gaps to explain the unknown?

{Back to cranky mode}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 7:05 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 12:47 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 73 of 211 (495824)
01-24-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by homunculus
01-24-2009 10:58 AM


Darwin loves you.
Hi, Homunculus. Welcome to EvC!

I’m going to reply to some of the key motifs I’ve seen in many of your posts here in one post. Forgive me for it's length.

homunculus, post #57, writes:

Creation's alternative counterpart is Evolution.
Evolution, as is usually argued about it's true meaning. Either, that Evolution is the grain behind the principles of the universe being billions of years old, inspiration to the invention of the geologic column, inspiration to the invention of "species", the belief of universal common ancestry and abiogenesis/self generation origination/autopoiesis, as universally identified or, as argued by some, progressive adaptation. (evolutionism, evolutionist)

This is actually terribly wrong, as others have said.

Let me try my best to explain why.

In religion, there is great emphasis on universality. “All truth can be circumscribed into one, great whole” is a quote my Church particularly likes.

In science, we are not particularly interested in explaining everything with a single theory. Rather, science is interested in practicality. So, we divide up the physical realm into chunks to make it easier to understand. We define our “chunks” by similarity of the underlying mechanisms, and build up a theory to explain those mechanisms.

So, something like the Theory of Evolution (hereafter: ToE) was constructed to describe a specific “chunk” of nature. ToE’s jurisdiction is the process of change over time in biological populations. It does not have jurisdiction over the processes that resulted in the initial emergence of life, just as doesn’t have jurisdiction over the processes that cause planets to move in elliptical orbits.

Let’s take an example. Let’s say God created a bacterium, and placed it on the earth. Then, over time, this bacterium evolved into myriad kinds of life.

In this scenario, God created life, and life evolved. ToE holds true, even though the bacterium did not arise through autopoiesis (your term).

The Theory of Evolution does not require life to have come spontaneously from non-life.

“Evolutionism” is not a grand worldview, but just a small theory that explains a subset of the physical phenomena that this universe contains.

-----

homunculus, post #39, writes:

I said only that life producing life is all that has been observed.

Life producing life is the basis of ToE: ToE stipulates that, when life produces new life, it does so imperfectly, such that the new life is somewhat different from the parent life; and that, given enough time, these subtle differences can build up into dramatic differences.

Non-life producing life is not required.

-----

homunculus, post #42, writes:

Here is where I decide to go out on a limb and say that I understand that the idea of god turns your stomachs, but something tells me that until i say, "there is no god, there is only evolution" you people will continue to fling feces at me.

homunculus, post #49, writes:

But because I said we have only seen life produce life, suggesting the possibility of a god, it's like a black man walked in the middle of a kkk convention with a white girl. You people have went bonkers. Does the idea of a supernatural creator really crawl on you that much?

This is simply not true. Your inference of anti-theism from these posts betrays only a measure of paranoia in yourself. By now, you have surely figured out that I am an evolutionist. Yet, I continue to hold on to my belief in God, and my evolutionist colleagues here on EvC have not yet demanded that I relinquish this belief, nor have they ridiculed or belittled me because of it. To the contrary, they have been most respectful to me.

I stand as a living testament to the ridiculousness of your claim. You are receiving negative reviews of your arguments, and extrapolating from that that your opponents despise you, your God and everything about both, and will only be satisfied when your morale is completely crushed and all mention of your God is erased from the face of the universe. I have stood my ground against them, have been hammered by them, have lost and won various arguments, and, to date, even my worst of critics have permitted me the privilege of continuing my worship while studying evolutionary biology.

They are not “out to get you” or “out to destroy your way of life,” but are only hoping to preserve the fruits of hundreds of years of rigorous, honest, scientific labor. To be sure, we are quite miffed that you don’t respect the work of our colleagues and predecessors (and ourselves), and this frustration can often be seen in our posts: but this is like the frustration of an aviation engineer who is being told by a teenager who took Physics 101 that his new jet fighter design will not fly.

However, to my horror, I note that many of my Christian brethren really are out to destroy their enemies, at any cost whatsoever, with the misinformed excuse that the enemies they are trying to destroy are trying to destroy them. Don’t become one of those.

Remember that scientists partition their worldview into chunks: an argument against a specific point is only an argument against that point, and nothing more. Despite what you have been taught by your ministers, scientists are very good at knowing their bounds: it is one of the most prominent skills we are trained to use. Please recognize that.

{AbE: I realize that some people here aren't scientists; but, the argument generally holds for most of them, too.}

-----

homunculus, post #31, writes:

First, I would like to bring to surface that the asset of this thread is that 'organic life coming from non life' or, if it is OK, 'spontaneous generation'

No, this is not okay.

Sometimes, in the course of science, terminology catches up with itself too late to fix a gross misunderstanding by the public.

Spontaneous generation is a specific phenomenon (which has been shown not to occur) which held that reproduction by today’s organisms was possible by means other than sex or cell division. Specifically, baby mice arose from wheat fields, rather than from their mothers’ wombs, and rotten meat morphed into maggots.

This is not the same proposition currently under study under the name “abiogenesis.” Since we now know more about the chemistry of life, we have been able to explore the processes that could initiate the self-sustaining chemical reactions that combine into the phenomenon that we call “life.” This is a gradual process, whereby different molecules become more and more closely associated with one another until their functions become interdependent and can “evolve” as a single unit.

Whereas “spontaneous generation” was a theory of ontogeny, “abiogenesis” is a theory of phylogeny. Look those words up if you don’t know what they mean.

-----

homunculus, post #70, writes:

I'm still choking down the origin of life.

So are we, in a manner of speaking: we don’t have a good, solid theory for the origin of life yet.

You are free to debate the origin of life, but don’t so so under the pretense of disproving evolution, because you can’t get at ToE through abiogenesis.

Edited by Bluejay, : Addition, and my traditional "five dashes"

Edited by Bluejay, : "initial emergence of life" makes more sense than "initial emergence of time."


-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 10:58 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 5:19 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3067 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 74 of 211 (495865)
01-24-2009 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by homunculus
01-24-2009 10:23 AM


Re: -What Law of Providence is That?-
.

Edited by Brian, : missed hom's reply that answered this post


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 10:23 AM homunculus has not yet responded

    
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 306
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 75 of 211 (495893)
01-24-2009 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by homunculus
01-24-2009 9:55 AM


Re: coming up for air!
Greetings homunculus,

you're a little bit new to the forum and so I hope you don't mind me pointing out a small tip for you. You edited your post (this one that I'm replying to), and if I'm not somehow screwing up the timezone or something else, about ten {ABE} nine hours after you originally posted it. I remember reading the original post and do not remember there being anything about "primordial environment" therein. I'm assuming you have added the last sentence by editing your post. Is that right?

Editing is important for clarity; but it is only fair in debates/exchanges like we have here on EvC forums, to show the proper flow of ideas and exchanges in a stepwise logical progression. What I mean is, that you should not change or edit your posts for content after you have posted them. If you must, for whatever reason, then at least do so by showing what has been changed. There is a convention used here of placing new material beside an abbreviation called {ABE} which stands for Added By Edit. There is also the possibility to give a reason for the editing done in a small field in the user interface GUI. I would appreciate you doing that in future as to me these forums are quite a good source of understanding and should remain so.

Edited by CosmicChimp, : Screwed up on the hours, nine not ten (my reason for editing my post).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 9:55 AM homunculus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 11:44 PM CosmicChimp has acknowledged this reply
 Message 78 by Taz, posted 01-25-2009 12:40 AM CosmicChimp has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019