Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the source of life
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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 replied

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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 replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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 replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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 replied

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 82 of 211 (495942)
01-25-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by homunculus
01-25-2009 1:02 AM


Re: definition(s) of evolution
homunculus writes:
When I say Evolution, I mean the theory that incorporates abiogenesis, old age presumption, common ancestry and big bang speculation.thanks
Evolution does not include cosmology or the big bang. There's a separate forum for that: [forum=-2].
Evolution also does not include geology, there's a forum for that, too: [forum=-7].
Evolution also does not include the origin of life, there's a forum for that, too: [forum=-13]
Please use the standard definition of the biological concept of evolution. You cited the Wikipedia article on Evolution. If you give it another look you'll see that cosmology, geology and abiogenesis are not part of evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by homunculus, posted 01-25-2009 1:02 AM homunculus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 116 of 211 (496165)
01-26-2009 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by homunculus
01-26-2009 3:50 PM


Re: -Da Rules-
Hi Homunculus,
The science forums presuppose the standard definition of science. If you'd like to use a different definition, or if you would like to critique the standard definition, then you can only do so in [forum=-11].
Please use this thread to discuss the topic you proposed, how life could have begun naturally.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 3:50 PM homunculus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 120 of 211 (496183)
01-26-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by homunculus
01-26-2009 8:20 PM


Terminology
homunculus writes:
It's like saying (to a creationist) that apples have nothing to do with bananas or oranges or grapes. They may be subject to different fields of interests, per say, but they all are part of the same scheme, all sharing theoretical value that plays against the theory of creation.
When you want to refer to many fields of scientific inquiry at the same time, the proper term is "science".
When you want to refer to species change over time, the proper term is "evolution".
The definitions of these terms are not ambiguous, and it doesn't make sense to argue endlessly over simple terminology. If you could just accept and use the standard terminology and stick to the topic then discussion would become much more productive, and as a bonus you'd avoid attracting moderator attention.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 8:20 PM homunculus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 124 of 211 (496190)
01-26-2009 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by homunculus
01-26-2009 8:43 PM


Re: thanks for the comment
homunculus writes:
Or am I making up that Lyell was a supporter of Evolution and used that interest in Evolution to fuel his examinations and inspire his findings?
Yes, this is what you're making up. As I already explained, Lyell was never able to reconcile his religious beliefs with evolution, and so he was never able to accept it. He was conflicted about evolution right up until his death.
Lyell was a close friend, and a supporter of Darwin, but not of evolution.
But you're off-topic again. I responded about Lyell because I wanted to correct your error, not to start a geological discussion. Your geological imaginings do not belong in this thread. Please find a thread where they are on-topic, and when you do, be sure to support your assertions with evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 8:43 PM homunculus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 133 of 211 (496256)
01-27-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by caffeine
01-27-2009 8:26 AM


Re: thanks for the comment
caffeine writes:
Lamarck first started publicising his evolutionary theories in 1800, for example, so there's no reason Lyell couldn't have been influenced by it.
Lyell not only could have been influenced by the possibility of evolution, he most certainly was.
He opposed the idea.
It's clearly expressed here at The Victorian Web's article on Charles Lyell:
Victorian Web on Charles Lyell writes:
Lyell was obsessed with the implications of the evolutionary theory of J.B. Lamarck. In Lyell's view, if Lamarck was right then religion was a fable, Man was just a better beast, and the moral fabric of society would crumble to dust. A concerted refutation of Lamarck's theories of progress and evolution became a central part of the Principles.
This is not the thread for a discussion of Charles Lyell and his conflicted views on evolution. I only replied to Homunculus to correct his error. Lyell's position on evolution is a matter of record. Those wanting to dispute the record of history should propose a new thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by caffeine, posted 01-27-2009 8:26 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 134 of 211 (496260)
01-27-2009 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Larni
01-27-2009 3:51 AM


Re: Goldilocks
An additional source of confusion, though not for you I don't think, is that ICANT is playing games by using the word "creation" in the sense that the universe had a beginning, rather than in the sense that the universe was supernaturally created by God, which is what many are probably assuming.
It was games like this that caused ICANT to lose his privileges in the [forum=-2] forum, which is why he's constantly chomping at the bit to raise cosmological issues in threads where they are off topic.
To everyone: this thread is not about geology, evolution or cosmology. There are other forums for those topics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Larni, posted 01-27-2009 3:51 AM Larni has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 138 of 211 (496295)
01-27-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by homunculus
01-27-2009 12:47 PM


Re: Goldilocks
homunculus writes:
I believe there is an engineering prospect that can scientifically explain how life came to be, there is no argument there. In fact, I tend to follow the polymerization model in this consideration...etc...
So you accept the possibility of a natural origin of life.
What we see in your post is that in the on-topic portion you find the scientific position tenable, but in the rest of your post you're off-topic, and this keeps happening to you because you like to declare all your grounds for objecting to evolution in every thread. If you want to talk about your mistaken beliefs about the nature of science then you should discuss them in a thread where they're on-topic, like What is a Theory? where you're already contributing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 12:47 PM homunculus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 148 of 211 (496345)
01-27-2009 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by homunculus
01-27-2009 5:19 PM


Re: Darwin loves you.
Homunculus, this is your topic, it's about "the source of life." Please start discussing your topic or stop participating in this thread. If you want to talk about the nature of science, find a thread where that's the topic, like What is a Theory?.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 5:19 PM homunculus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 190 of 211 (496874)
01-31-2009 8:02 AM


Assessment of Arguments
In Message 185 Buz provided the details behind his rationale for accepting the Biblical account of the origin of life. Since this is a science thread, I'll assess these arguments using scientific criteria.
Buzsaw writes:
I've been reading this thread for an hour or so. By doing so I have been reminded of how the people of different ideologies look at life, origins etc and how different folks arrive at conclusions.
Reality is not an ideology.
1. No creation of energy is observed. Thus I assume that all energy is eternal.
Both theory and real-world evidence agree that energy and matter can be converted from one to the other, and the Casimir effect tells us that energy and matter can flit in and out of existence. Thus, energy is not eternal.
Notice also that the foundation of Buzsaw's assertion that all energy is eternal is, by his own admission, *assumption* and not evidence, so not only is the assertion wrong, it has no foundation in evidence.
2. Since all energy is eternal that does not contradict the Biblical record.
Buz erroneously reasons that assumptions that do not falsify his theory are supportive. Assumptions not based upon evidence cannot be supportive of anything, and Buz's assumption about energy was wrong anyway.
3. Observation attests to the likelihood that life comes from life. Therefore the likelihood of the source of life being an eternal source does not contradict the Biblical record.
For once Buz understates the case. He calls it a "likelihood", but observation tells us with near absolute certainty that life comes from life. What it doesn't tell us is whether there are other things from which life can spring.
Further, Buz's conclusion that it is likely that life springs from an eternal source does not follow from his premise, which was incomplete anyway.
4. Observation attests to the likelihood that complex design is effected by a designer. Again, no contradiction to the Biblical record.
When Buz says "observation attests" we have to understand that he means "my opinion about what I observe". It's only necessary to point out that the professional community studying evidence from the natural world does not share Buz's opinion.
5. Scientifically speaking, the more corroborating evidence there is supportive of a/an hypothesis there is, the more credible the hypothesis.
This is true, but I can only guess that Buz includes this in his list because he believes his four previous points contain corroborating evidence, which they do not.
6. Though there are debatable aspects of the Biblical record, there are historical, prophetic fulfillments, archaeological, social, and experiential corroborating evidences supportive of the Biblical record.
While Buz probably states this too strongly for most people's taste, we likely all agree that there are many passages in the Bible that have corroborating evidence and so are accepted as very likely true. While I have a problem with many of Buz's "corroborating evidences", I understand the spirit of what he his saying and so accept this statement. It's the next one where the serious problems arise.
7. The more corroborative evidences that can be cited supportive to any historical record, the more under girded the questionable and unsupported portions of the record become. As in working with science theory and hypotheses, math, etc; the unknowns are accepted or incorporated by alleged knowns by the proponents of a given hypothesis or theory.
Where Buz goes wrong is to draw a correspondence between his own reasoning and the reasoning used in science. Correct when he says that growing confirmations of a theory's predictions increase our confidence, he's dead wrong to equate unconfirmed predictions of theory with unconfirmed religious accounts. The former is derived from the theory's principles, while the latter have an unknown source that could range from actual events to complete mythology.
Even school boards sympathetic to creationism would understand that Buz's list of rationales is overtly religious. They would realize that even if *they* thought it belonged in the classroom that they'd never get away with promoting it as science.
And besides, this is a science thread. Buz correctly notes that to engage in a discussion of his points would lead off topic, which is why I addressed them from a scientific perspective, and looking at them in this way tells us that they contain no scientific evidence or justification for the Biblical account of the origin of life.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2009 6:47 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 195 of 211 (496997)
01-31-2009 8:40 PM


In Message 192, Buzsaw asks a couple questions that carry some misunderstandings and incorrect underlying assumptions. Energy does not cease to exist as in "completely disappear leaving nothing behind," but it can be converted to matter and back again and so isn't eternal. And 1LOT (conservation of energy) is consistent with the Casimir effect.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 201 of 211 (497083)
02-01-2009 2:40 PM


Abiogenesis and the Big Bang
Unless someone can describe how issues related to the Big Bang bear on the source of life, I think the Big Bang might be off-topic in this thread.
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024