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:   abiogenesis
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 4 of 177 (543362)
01-17-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
01-17-2010 1:25 PM


quote:
Quote:
Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.
CB090: Evolution without abiogenesis
I don't think that anyone disagrees that there once was no life on earth and now there is. I know of no worldview that disputes that. But in my view, the rest of that paragraph is completely false.
abiogenesis is, put very simply, "creation of something which is alive from something which is not alive".
for the creationist, this does not mean god was not alive, it means that god took the clay or earth or what-have-you and turned it into a living human being - thus life from non-life - thus abiogenesis.
for the scientist it's the start of a somewhat longer, more detailed and difficult route from rocks to man, but essentially at some point before abiogenesis occurs we have only chemistry, and after it, we have life.
Personally I find it amusing that creationists proclaim loudly "we didn't come from rocks!" when, to be frank, it says right there in the bible that we did.
Anyway...
Creation does not harmonize with abiogenesis, it conflicts with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not just ANY origin of life as talkorigins asserts, it is only about a NATURAL origin of life.
I hope you agree that you are wrong. I'm not going to hold my breath, but after all you are entitled to your own opinion. Just not your own facts.
Evolution does not automatically have it.
one more time, and everybody join in:
quote:
evolution and abiogenesis have nothing to do with each other.
evolution does not require abiogenesis, evolution charts how natural selection has shaped the lifeforms that were into the lifeforms that are and does not depend on how they came to be to be a valid theory.
and, for the record, "theory" in this context is not the "theory" you're used to. If you say "just a theory" I'm sure someone, somewhere, will hunt you down a slap you with a hardback copy of the entire encyclopedia brittannica.
Creation is NOT a theory of abiogenesis.
abiogenesis is "life from non-life". saying "god breathed life into adam" is a very valid theory of abiogenesis.
Now, I haven't been at school in many years, my recollection of studies dealing with it are hazy, but I think I've shown you why your views on this particular nugget are incorrect, and as far as your claim of "the scientific community’s haste to set criteria just higher than the concept of intelligent design can attain", that's a mighty long yardstick you're using as "poof!" is a whole world away from the stacks of books, theories, papers and actual lab-work that's gone into studying our origins.
But hey, reading one short book's a lot easier than decades of reading hundreds, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2010 1:25 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Briterican, posted 01-17-2010 3:52 PM greyseal has replied
 Message 20 by Apothecus, posted 01-19-2010 5:02 PM greyseal has replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 7 of 177 (543382)
01-17-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Briterican
01-17-2010 3:52 PM


biogenesis = life from life
abiogenesis = life from non-life
In that sense, I agree with you, although I have come across several definitions that include the words "through natural processes" or "spontaneous generation".
oh, the creationist "god breathing live into adam" story is in no way a scientific theory - it's a theory, but not a scientific one by a loooooong stretch. I didn't mean for it to be, although it's about as scientific as creationists ever actually get (they'd probably quite happily get a PhD from their favourite diploma mills for writing "we know it happened that way because god said it did in the bible").
I think that's what and how TO meant it when they said it - creationists and scientists both agree that there were times on the Earth both before AND AFTER life existed, so something must have happened, and technically it's abiogenesis either way.
If you're going to talk about the scientific theory of abiogenesis (if there IS one yet!) then it's quite literally a whole new world and the one-liner in the KJV cannot compare with the stacks of work that either has or will have gone into it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Briterican, posted 01-17-2010 3:52 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Briterican, posted 01-17-2010 4:52 PM greyseal has not replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 34 of 177 (543688)
01-20-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Apothecus
01-19-2010 5:02 PM


I'd have to disagree with the usage of theory in this context
I think I have to agree with you - there's the scientific "theory" and the non-scientific mixed in the same small set of paragraphs.
As a complete hypothesis, let's say, it's valid - if untestable, unfalsifiable and entirely non-explanatory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Apothecus, posted 01-19-2010 5:02 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Apothecus, posted 01-20-2010 1:44 PM greyseal has not replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


(2)
Message 44 of 177 (543833)
01-21-2010 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
01-20-2010 9:28 AM


close but still no banana
Glad to see I haven’t been completely forgotten, I’ve just been waiting for the dust to settle (and busy with other things too).
actually we were wondering if you'd come back...
I think we can come to two conclusions, when averaging this discussion together with an overall look at the history and the concept of the term abiogenesis;
1)The word does in fact mean life from non-life by natural causes currently.
2) The word is now in the process of a definition change.
nope on number 2 and number 1. yes on the first part (life from non-life) 1 because that's what it means but it does not specify "from natural causes". You may WANT it to mean something more specific that "life from non-life", but actually it doesn't. As such, "godidit" is the creationist one-liner and the scientific literature on it is significantly larger and more detailed, if lacking a definite answer at this point in time.
In analyzing the statement creationism is a theory of abiogenesis I think it is stating that creationism is one of several subsets, or paths, of the broad, vague term of abiogenesis.
Yes, this backs up the first point I made and helps demonstrate you are wrong.
...At this point, we’ve pretty much reached an impasse on it...
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean your refusal to acknowledge you're wrong about what "abiogenesis" means then sure...but don't blame us when the evidence YOU'VE been showing also proves you wrong
I think I've made my thoughts on your idea clear
I think studies of naturalistic abiogenesis are comparable to studies of ID concerning usefulness to society, and open inquiry in science. They also seem comparable in terms of being testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable. The reason the scientific community treats them so differently is because one compliments Darwinism, (Darwinism actually has a huge gap without it) and the other challenges Darwinism. Darwinism is an established paradigm — a politically established one — and established paradigms can and usually do conflict with open inquiry.
Once again, with feeling,
quote:
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
the Theory of Evolution is a perfectly complete and correct scientific theory of the change we see in animal populations over time whether god made the world or not
I said it last time. I didn't expect you to bring up the same canard YET AGAIN in the very next message you posted here. In the immortal words of one of my best friends:
quote:
This horse is dead. Fuck it, or walk away, but stop flogging it
.
ID has provided nothing, nothing, of the sort of quality demanded by serious scientific researchers. It is hidebound to one book in anything it's proponents attempt - you may think it difficult to overturn current opinion on certain facts and theories when it comes to science, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to overturn opinion on anything to do with ID. FLATLY IMPOSSIBLE because they all demand that any ID work be in accordance with the bible, and anything not in accordance is deemed automatically to be wrong.
We do not have, to my knowledge, a complete understanding of abiogenesis through natural means, however the simple fact is that both groups agree with that simple fact that at one time on the planet Earth, there was no life, and after some point, there was. THIS is the core of abiogenesis - it happened and we can all happily disagree with the how, but do not pretend that your one-liner explains anything, nor that because this one (however important) piece of the jigsaw is missing that we must give up everything else (however UNCONNECTED) because of it, and instead go back to a theory which boils down to "godidit". That is absurd. Explain rationally why it isn't, please.
quote:
marc9000 writes:
Since the Miller-Urey experiment, combined with an ever increasing scientific knowledge about the simplest forms of life and conditions on an early earth, the likelihood of life beginning on earth by purely naturalistic processes is scientifically diminishing, not increasing.
quote:
Briterican writes; I would disagree with this assessment. The longer we study the possibile scenarios for abiogenesis, the closer we come to viable explanations. Take for example the PAH world hypothesis: I consider it uncanny that the separation between rings in a PAH stack is 0.34nm, precisely the same separation found in RNA and DNA. This hypothesis may not be the answer, but it is much more compelling than the bare assertion, unsupported by evidence, that an intelligent designer was involved.
  —Briterican
I’ve seen several webpages that claim that unscientific assumptions are made concerning early conditions on earth, among other things, that show that abiogenesis falls short of attaining testability, repeatability, observability.
Now, why have I highlighted Britericans words?
To save the suspense, I'll tell you - it is because Briterican has made it clear that we do not have a complete understanding of how to turn non-living chemicals into life-forms.
Then you come along and state that your unnamed webpages say that "unscientific assumptions" are made - if your webpages reference other webpages from the populist press that states outlandish things like "boffins create life in the lab!!!" then you'd be right, but still, that would have no bearing whatsoever on the work being done to complete a theory still in it's infancy.
We can't create life in the lab yet. We don't know how abiogenesis happened yet. We can't prove it did happen naturally yet.
BIG DEAL.
If you don't understand why it's not a problem then ask again.
quote:
Bricerican writes; Let me try.
The scientific community does have strict criteria, and "intelligent design" simply doesn't meet it. (Hypotheses regarding abiogenesis do rise to the necessary criteria, and your proposition that they do not is simply false.)
  —Briterican
I think if one does, the other does, and if one doesn’t, the other one doesn’t. You take an interest in abiogeneis obviously, with your look at PAH world hypothesis, and take very little interest in intelligent design, as we see with your next statement;
Briterican answered your question rather succinctly. The ID crowd does NOT meet scientific standards with their work. If they did, they'd have a wealth of papers out on their own merit, not pushed through by biased editors (and later withdrawn).
If you don't like that, tough, that's the way it is.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
The reason that Briterican (and anyone else seriously interested in the scientific field of abiogenesis) is not interested in creationist views is because creationist views are fulfilled by the statement "godidit". They offer nothing, teach nothing, explain nothing. they are, as I and others have said, anti-knowledge as they do nothing but stop research and learning.
When you and your ID guys know the magic words god used, or can replicate the chemical composition of the breath of god, or even get god himself to write down the equations he used to create the folded warp manifold then get back to us
ID proponents are no more hasty to posit an intelligent designer, than abiogenesis proponents are to posit their claim that there is no God.
say wha? Intelligent Design proponents don't posit an intelligent designer?
I'll have WTF for $200 please Bob.
However, scientists examing naturalistic abiogenesis (as I have explained, EVERYBODY is an abiogenesis proponent, including you) have nothing to say about the existence of god in manners pertaining to their work. They are simply searching for a natural explanation for the appearence of life. God could still have made the universe that way such that it would happen naturally.
quote:
Irreducible complexity has been demonstrated (in a court of law) to be wrong. The courts have determined that intelligent design is no more scientific than astrology or alchemy. Would you like the schools to teach those subjects as if they were supported by evidence? No? Then why would you support the teaching of intelligent design?
We don’t live in a perfect world, and there is evidence that courts may not be perfect. If a science class is referred to talkorigins by a teacher to demonstrate to them that abiogenesis is a fact, there needs to be some balance, in a free society with open inquiry. There is a clear, publicly established implication that religion is false.
Once again, you are wrong.
When talking about abiogenesis, we know it is a fact. Your stubborn refusal to understand the word notwithstanding, when a teacher teaches about abiogenesis in a science classroom (not a religious classroom, or a philosophical classroom) he or she can only speak about facts, and cannot favour any particular religious viewpoints. This is the establishment clause and I would hope you would understand it. Even without such a clause, religious tracts contain no such facts and as such do not fit with scientific learning, not because they are wrong or right but because they are NOT SCIENTIFIC.
quote:
The onus is on YOU (ID proponents) to provide evidence for your assertion of an intelligent designer. In the meantime, the scientific community will continue to examine things on a rational, logical basis, and not resort to pseudo-science and bare, unsupported assertions.
What I see evidence of is the scientific community going into great technical detail about abiogenesis, and hastily hand-waving away any technical detail about Intelligent Design. Not necessarily rational and logical.
There are no technical details proving ID. None. There has been no meaningful irrefutable proof of ID in it's entire existence. Please produce this proof if you wish to prove your point.
Books arguing from incredulity DO NOT COUNT because saying "I do not understand this" does not mean "it cannot be understood".
Books proving that shotgun debugging of an organism results in unworking organisms is not proof just the same way that removing a capstone from an arch and making it fall over does not prove an arch cannot be built.
Books talking about missing pieces of information do not count because having an incomplete set of facts does not invalidate the ones we do. you are free to find more facts and improve and theories, but then the onus is on you.
got that?
If you wanted to do something earth-shattering and prove that diseases are proved by microscopic "animals" too small for the eye to see, you'd face ridicule and laughter. If you wanted to prove that apes and humans are actually related and not just similar in build, you'd be scoffed at. If you wanted to send man to the moon, they would call you mad.
yet all these things have happened. And more.
I’m always told the science is safe from an atheist bias, because the scientific community always polices itself. That statement abiogenesis is a fact has been at talkorigins for some time. No one has policed it, and it is obviously a very questionable statement.
and now you know why it's still there. policing doesn't mean silencing dissent. At least, not in a free country.
Aren't you glad you live in one? After all, you get to tell us your views just as much as we get to tell you why you're wrong about them.
science is atheist - and you know why I can say that? because science has no truck with religion. It cannot quantify, measure, count or investigate anything about a god or gods. It has a hard time proving things that aren't there - if you can't touch, taste, hear, smell or see it, the scientific method can't really talk about it.
Scientists don't say that there is no god, unless you're asking their opinion (and then they may be telling you there is!) - there is no "atheist bias". when over 70% of the population of the USA is christian (and an ever higher percentage theist) then you can't complain about being oppressed.
Maybe you could - and should - be asking why many scientists who have actually done their homework don't believe, but that's an entirely different question.
quote:
RAZD writes; And in that sense it has simply meant life from non-life, as it would pre-date the scientific usage.
  —RAZD
Predate scientific usage? From Aristotle onward, it has always been about science.
curiously, the ancient greeks worked out that the earth was a sphere, and reasoned that the suns and planets were too.
They were right, or do you think the earth is flat?
However RAZD is correct about the usage - he means the renaissance when europe dragged itself out of a thousand years of darkness, marked by bloodthirsty crusades, torturing, sickness and plagues, witchhunts and ignorance, when the royal society in the UK began investigating "natural philosophy" overturning years and years of useless dogma and superstition, when the principia mathematica and other great works were written by people hounded by the church for their heretical views that the earth was not flat, that it orbitted the sun and was not, infact, the centre of the universe...
quote:
Curiously, reality is completely non-dependent on your opinion. Anyone is free to be 100% wrong about any number of topics and it will not affect reality in the slightest.
Equally, reality is not completely encompassed by science. Science is not the only source of knowledge. The scientific community can be completely wrong about events in the past, it can ram them down school childrens throats, it can win in the courts, it can destroy religion and gain an ever increasing political status, and after all that, it will still not affect reality in the slightest.
I'm personally glad about the onward march of science you're so pessimistic about - but when you come up with a better system for investigating and cataloguing real facts let me know. It's Standard Creationist Retort #159 is that statement, and it's as pointless now as it's ever been.
quote:
Now, I expect that you would not want just any one single person's personal belief to be a foundation for education, so you should agree that your personal opinions and beliefs are also not a valid basis on their own for education, whether scientific or not.
Enjoy.
I don’t want any one single special interest group’s personal opinions to be a foundation for education. I don’t want arrogant tenured college professors personal opinions to be foundations for education.
you don't want any single special interest group's personal opinions to be a foundation for education?
Says the man who wants his own special interest group (ID) to be a foundation for education!
YOU want the courts to FORCE the teaching of YOUR religious book in a scientific classroom, and only your book. I don't think you want to hear about the cosmic egg, do you? You don't want to hear about the egyptian book of breathing, or the book of the dead, in a scientifc classroom, do you? What about the Bhagavad Vita? The mahabharata? the koran? Are all of these scientific enough for you?
You know, I once knew a christian who said "how come christ was born from a virgin then?" - and so I pointed out that so was dionysis - and he looked me straight in the eye and said "oh, but those books are just fairy tales!"
This was the same guy who had no trouble believing some guy on the internet could ba prophet, but wasn't ready to believe that I was, yet couldn't tell me how he knew. He just said "it was obvious"...
Cheers,
Greyseal.
Edited by greyseal, : spelling
Edited by greyseal, : bluejay's fault

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2010 9:28 AM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2010 8:31 AM greyseal has replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 46 of 177 (543848)
01-21-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Blue Jay
01-21-2010 8:31 AM


Re: close but still no banana
ack! you are correct! I shall edit my post appropriately. I even noticed that when I went to reply, but read through the post first and missed it on the way back

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2010 8:31 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 52 of 177 (543929)
01-22-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Briterican
01-21-2010 4:23 PM


Re: The futile search for design
Bluejay writes:
They never get beyond the conceptual stage to the experimental stage, because they think the conceptual argument is strong enough on its own.
What would the experimental stage consist of? Given the ways in which nature, unguided by a choreographer, manages to "whip up" great complexity, what possible experiment would provide evidence for a designer? (Its a legitimate question, not rhetorical, one that has probably been asked and answered elsewhere, but I've missed it).
that's part of the problem - ID is nothing but a "what if" conjecture at this point, and years and years of trying has taken it no further.
I expect that their burning desire to destroy "materialism" and put the bible and yahweh up on an untouchable pedastal (rather than, you know, actually do any hard work) is a large part of the problem. It would only be arrogance for me to say that the rest of the problem is because there is nothing for them to find (since I cannot be sure) - but until they actually knuckle down and do some frigging work and produce something of scientific value, there is zero point in teaching what they don't have.
ID makes no predictions that can be falsified - it only ever amounts to "I don't understand how this works, so it must be designed!" or "if I pull out this part it all falls down, so it must be designed!"
ID is creationism, plain and simple, and christian apologetics at best - intelligent design mandates a designer, the designer they posit is always the christian god.
muslims are quite happy in many arab states to expouse the same sort of words - my friend went to Saudi Arabia and came back with a very highly made glossy book telling him how wonderful allah was and how scientific a book the koran is. It's surprisingly identical to fundy american stuff. scarily so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Briterican, posted 01-21-2010 4:23 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 72 of 177 (544084)
01-23-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by marc9000
01-22-2010 10:04 PM


standard creationist tactics 3 through 17 on display...
Hi marc9000,
If you wish me to actually know you've taken a look at something I posted, please use the reply button, otherwise I'll chance upon it eventually, perhaps, but it may take time.
As to the meaning of abiogenesis - I'll know whether I agree with you if you can decide whether the meaning is new (~150 years) or old (~2000) and if you can produce evidence that it's meaning is changing, as you claim, AND whether such a change in popular usage is an issue with texts written under it's original use.
I personally think that if somebody were described as being "happy and gay" a hundred years ago, it probably didn't mean they were homosexual. Similarly, if abiogenesis meant simply "life from non-life" when it was used in the past and by those who use it now, then claiming that it shuts out "special creation" in all cases when it clearly doesn't is a falsehood.
But sure, go ahead, pound that fist
quote:
Once again, with feeling,
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Feeling (emotion) often goes along with insecurity. Talkorigins doesn't even attempt to put fourth that whopper.
Emotion doesn't come in to it, this is just a standard canned creationist objection to a problem that doesn't exist.
abiogenesis and evolution are not dependant on one another. they need have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.
evolution is true whether god made us or the universe came from the big bang.
do you understand this statement? A yes/no is all that is required. If no, read it again until you understand. If yes, don't bring it up again.
evolution requires that life began to exist, correct, but evolution does not require any specific form of abiogenesis. Here is your quote-mine in full - please note to expanded context!
quote:
Evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists. However, many have thought that the theory of evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true. Of those, many have thought that a natural account of the origin of life is necessary, and some have proposed models which have borne up or not as research proceeds.
Did you catch that?
Clearly, the talkorigins usage of "abiogenesis" is thus:
* abiogenesis means "life from non-life"
* evolution, whilst requiring that life exist, is not dependant on the nature of that abiogenesis
* some, however, feel that abiogenesis should be possible through natural means rather than supernatural
* those people are busy examining the hows and whys of natural abiogenesis
* this still does not affect the status of evolution
quote:
the Theory of Evolution is a perfectly complete and correct scientific theory of the change we see in animal populations over time whether god made the world or not
I said it last time. I didn't expect you to bring up the same canard YET AGAIN in the very next message you posted here.
That’s because I’ve seen it stated many times, and never seen any more detail to go along with it to back it up. If you’d say Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, just like ID has nothing to do with religion", it could be more believable. Or if you had given examples of other subjects that start with step two and see no need for a first step.
Ok, I'll start with (very simple) definitions of the words "evolution" and "abiogenesis"
quote:
Evolution (from Evolution - definition of evolution by The Free Dictionary)
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
quote:
Abiogenesis (from Abiogenesis - definition of abiogenesis by The Free Dictionary )
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
these are not hand-picked to support my points, not vettted, or compared, they're just the first on the list.
As I hope you can see, abiogenesis says only "life from non-life" and evolution says "the change in populations over time".
Whilst it is obviously true that you cannot have evolution of life which isn't there, I would hope it is trivially obvious to even you that change in the populations of living creatures is not dependant on the method or source of abiogenesis.
Do you believe me yet? I mean sure, go ahead, try to find a credible site that says "evolution is dependant on naturalistic abiogenesis to be true" - you won't. Even talkorigins (so far proven to be reliable and correct and unbiased, whatever your apparent feelings for it) doesn't say this.
evolution requires abiogenesis - correct
abiogenesis MUST ONLY mean natural abiogenesis - incorrect
Your bald assertions notwithstanding, the evidence that you yourself have attempted to show discredits you.
Something else that starts with step two? how about gravity?
We don't know what causes gravity - but if you think you can fly because you don't believe in it you're in for a rude awakening. or a very quick stop. One hopes it isn't fatal
How about the big bang? We don't know what caused the big bang, what went on "before" it, but the evidence appears to support it.
that's two. I'm sure there are more, but whether there are or not STILL doesn't change things.
quote:
ID has provided nothing, nothing, of the sort of quality demanded by serious scientific researchers. It is hidebound to one book in anything it's proponents attempt - you may think it difficult to overturn current opinion on certain facts and theories when it comes to science, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to overturn opinion on anything to do with ID. FLATLY IMPOSSIBLE because they all demand that any ID work be in accordance with the bible, and anything not in accordance is deemed automatically to be wrong.
This is a clear indicator of the double standard that we have — the shouting down that is going on. It’s forceful enough throughout the scientific community that it seldom gets the discussion that it deserves.
double standard? so, uh, where ARE the mountains of papers on ID? Where ARE the peer reviewed works?
why is it a double standard to call adherence to a known outcome BEFORE the experimentation is done, non-scientific?
ID get the discussion it deserves? Those who think ID should be put on an untouchable pedastal (the ones who wrote the WEDGE document) think that their shouting loudly makes up for the total lack of actual work that hasn't been produced. When there is something to discuss about, you can be sure it'll be discussed.
You know what they call "alternative medicine" that actually works? medicine.
If ID were scientific, we'd not be having this conversation. If it's not, stop trying to get it taught in a science classroom.
The subject of ID has nothing to do with creation or the Bible. It is a study for evidence of design. If one or more religious people involved with it tie it into the religion in any way, that is only their personal opinion and nothing more.
Yet strangely, the designer is always the judeo-christian god. yet strangely, the ONLY people who believe in ID are (fundamentalist) christians. Yet strangely, the fundies write about ID in their wedge documents and proclaim their intention to "destroy materialistic science".
Odd, that.
When Dawkins writes a book called The God Delusion, I’m told that’s his personal opinion and nothing more. When Victor Stenger writes a book called How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist, I’m told that’s his personal opinion and nothing more.
correct! they have every right to write books about any subject they please, same as your gish's and coynes and what-have-you's.
you'll notice, however, that those books are NOT science textbooks.
You did notice that, right? right?
If Phillip Johnson, or the late Henry Morris say/said anything that ties ID to their personal beliefs, it’s no more representative of ID than is Dawkins or Stengers opinions on evolution.
so...where's the solid work on ID that should go into the textbooks? Oh, sorry, you don't have any.
glad to know that you don't think there's an atheist bias in the scientific community because there happen to be atheists that write books on atheistic subjects, the same way you don't think that there's a religious bias in ID because there are theists that write religious books.
double standards much?
Your give up everything else claim is false. It’s only part of the emotional shouting down process.
It is? So you don't really mean to tie paleontology, geology, cosmology, biology and evolution together, so that if, say, you can point out that there isn't a naturalistic theory of abiogenesis yet, that evolution (and therefore everything else) must be abandoned?
Because that's certainly how it appears to me!
The study of ID can be done alongside other things, compared to other things, compete with other philosophies that dominate todays scientific community. An addition doesn’t necessarily have to be a replacement.
ID has nothing to add - yet. And still you want it in the classrooms as if it did. By all means investigate ID, but don't pretend that you have anything of substance to teach yet. It is not "stifling criticism" if you get your bald-faced assertions and arguments from ignorance shot down for being meaningless.
If it's speculated on in science textbooks, it really is a big deal, if the ACLU isn't suing.
I'm sorry, but speculation on a naturalistic origin of life is not a matter for the american civil liberties union. If experiments were conducted and their occurences documented and backed up, then you may teach about them!
If it were saying "it MUST be natural, we don't know how though!", then you'd have a case. Go hunt that snark first, kay? Remember, the establishment cause is about religion, not science.
It's quite sad when your own sources say
quote:
The concept of abiogenesis is not evolution
, but let's go on to your now named website. Unbiasedly it proclaims on the very top
quote:
The Myth of Abiogenesis
An Impossible Evolutionist Claim
Anyway, I read through it, and it's amazing how upset they get about experiments made back in what, 1957? Anyway, I don't find their objections all that reasonable - it's all argumentation from ignorance, such as "Fine, these clays can adhere organic molecules such as amino acids, and can direct their polymerisation into proteins, the building blocks of life BUT". It seems, once again, that because the theory is incomplete, abiogenesis must be thrown out, and therefore so much evolution (despite your pleas to the contrary).
I don't see why you're so upset about modifying an incomplete hypothesis to deal with issues that arise during investigation! It's as if you expect scientific work to be dogma, unchanging and static! Surely you can't think that scientists think they have the answer from a book that's already been written...
and as for nwcreation.net, well yes - excuse me if I think their religious wish to redefine abiogenesis in their favour is not valid. They are mistaken, plain and simple.
It seems that evolution textbook disclaimer stickers in a southern state causes a much different legal reaction than do textbook speculation/instruction of abiogenesis. (the naturalistic kind)
quote:
If you don't understand why it's not a problem then ask again.
I’ll have to ask again, because I asked in my previous post, and you didn’t address it. Promisory notes are no problem for studies of naturalistic abiogensis, and are unacceptable for ID. Why?
Because, and I thought it would be obvious, ID has been proven time and time again to be religious in nature, and there is this "establishment clause" that forbids teaching of religion by the state.
naturalistic abiogenesis, on the other hand, is not religious dogma, it is chemistry.
Do you, or do you not, understand this?
I'll have to deal with the rest of your post later.
Cheers,
Greyseal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 10:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 88 of 177 (544242)
01-25-2010 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Briterican
01-24-2010 11:59 AM


Re: Explanatory power
marc9000 writes:
Briterican writes:
I think greyseal and others have more than adequately addressed the points you've raised in this post.
Uh oh, my opinion of you just went down a notch.
I'm not sure if I should feel insulted or vindicated.
You complained that talk origins (among others) called "abiogenesis" a fact - when it is.
You complained that an incomplete theory (as part of a chemistry lesson, it would seem) is discussed in a science classroom, yet you want religion taught by the state in clear opposition to your own constitution.
You complained about ID not being accepted in the scientific community - when it has produced nothing that can be.
You complained about an atheist bias when scientists (as part of their work) can only talk about what they can interact with, and have proclaimed nothing about god in their work, and when many scientists have faith in a god or gods - yet the fact that ID proponents are to a man religious entirely escapes you.
You complained that your religiously biased websites say that other, unnamed scientific sources make "outlandish claims" - yet your religious websites are wrong and demonstrably so about these claims.
If I'm wrong, show me. that you don't like the (correct) usage of the word "abiogenesis" does not mean you can call those who use it (correctly!) "liars" or are worthy of a smackdown by the ACLU. As I said, teaching chemistry is not against the law, but the state teaching religion IS.
It's not that I'm trying to smother your voice, it's that you're not saying anything new.
To do you a favour, in this thread I will say "naturalistic abiogenesis" to differentiate between it and "theistic abiogenesis" - but do please understand that you can wish the word meant something other than it does all you want, but it won't change the meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2010 11:59 AM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:09 PM greyseal has replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 105 of 177 (544541)
01-27-2010 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by marc9000
01-26-2010 10:09 PM


Re: Explanatory power
I don’t want religion taught by the state, never claimed that I did. I like the U.S. foundings just as they are, and don’t want my Protestant Lutheran views taught as science.
great!
The subject of ID is not religious.
demonstrably false. strike one.
If it’s used as a weapon against atheism, it’s no different than science used as a weapon against religion.
True, this is why science in the classroom says NOTHING ABOUT GOD. strike two - since ID is religious and is used as a "weapon"
(Stenger/Dawkins) If its founders (Morris, Johnson) were Christians, it’s no different than abiogenesis proponents (Huxley, others) being non religious.
Well, this would be true - IF abiogenesis meant only "naturalistic abiogenesis". Let's call that a foul ball!
You complained about an atheist bias when scientists (as part of their work) can and do only talk about what they can interact with, and have proclaimed nothing about god in their work, and when many scientists have faith in a god or gods - yet the fact that ID proponents are to a man religious entirely escapes you.
Abiogenesis proponents are to a man atheist.
strike three! yeeeerrrrr outtatheeeeeeeeeerre.
All joking aside, you haven't shown this to be true. ID, on the other hand, has been shown in a court of law to have been dreamt up by creationists who failed to get creationism into the classroom on the establishment clause. You know this, right? You may not agree with the findings (when it suits you but thems they are.
The atheist leanings of the current scientific community are comparable to the religious leanings of the ID community.
How? There's no scientific version of the "wedge", there's no presupposition in scientific endeavours (ID demands a designer who is intelligent - demonstrated to be "god", and all the CSI's of the world say something like "all our work must be in accordance with scripture"). I don't know of ANY non-religious ID proponents, but creationists are OFTEN crowing about their own who are scientists AND "YEC's", "OEC's" and so on.
An uninvolved God is right next to a non-existent God.
That's a valid proposition, and one that has interested philosophers for centuries. Not scientists though (as a function of their jobs). If that's your beef with the scientific community, then I'm sorry - science and scientists have nothing to say on the subject of god (except as a PERSONAL opinion, which they are more than entititled to). If in your opinion the facts borne out by experimentation threatens your view of your god, that is not a reason to discontinue experimentation and investigation - and this SEEMS to be the kneejerk reaction to people who proclaim that everything MUST agree with the bible but then discover that...well...things don't.
If ID were done AS SCIENCE IS, then I would have no problems with it. When it threatens REAL work, it's a problem.
It's not a problem you want it in schools, except when you call it the equal of all scientific endeavour without a shred of actual worthiness, and call shoving it in on a pedastal as "teaching the controversy" - because there is NO controversy there.
We'll get into the theistic evolutionist thing later - either in this thread or another.
It must be another thread, I think, unless you can tie it to ID specifically - although one thing you have to note is that you yourself said "science has an atheist bias", so my question is "what's this 'theistic evolution' thing then?"
Edited by greyseal, : rassen frassen autocopypasta

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:09 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:45 PM greyseal has replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 109 of 177 (544553)
01-27-2010 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by marc9000
01-26-2010 10:37 PM


Re: Explanatory power (or lack thereof)
What does the "Christian Faith" have to do with biology, and why do they feel the need to "defend" that faith from objective scientific research? I'll answer that for you: because their faith is contradicted by the evidence of objective scientific research.
A better answer would be, because their faith is under political attack, and scientific research is the weapon being used.
If they feel they are under attack, that is their opinion. Stifling investigation so they can sleep easier at night is hardly the right thing to do!
I expanded on the PAH World Hypothesis to give you an example of the explanatory power of a real hypothesis. My brief (1 paragraph) paraphrasing of source material provided (hopefully) most of the main points.
I then asked you if you could expand on ID to give us an example of its explanatory power in helping to understand the world around us, to which you replied:
quote:
marc9000 writes:
I'll need time - I do have a busy life.
As do the rest of us marc. But if you can find the time to say things like this (from your original post) ...
quote:
marc9000 writes:
It seems to me that in the scientific community’s haste to set criteria just higher than the concept of intelligent design can attain, they have also made it impossible for abiogenesis to be considered science.
... then you should be prepared to support those comments with some form of evidence. We are all also busy people.
- and you (marc) then proceeded to waffle on again - look, I'm not being rude, it's just you've still not shown evidence whereas Briterican did. Not even one paragraph.
Would you consider the hypothesis that extraterrestrial intelligence exists to be of value in explaining/understanding anything?
good question, and YES, I would consider it. It tells us we may be the result of "directed panspermia", it tells us that evolution can happen elsewhere. It tells us that our planet isn't so special, that we're not stuck here without a "place to go" - it tells us LOADS of things.
And, most important perhaps, whilst many think it's a waste of time, it is being done in a rigourous manner such that results (if any) cannot be cast aside.
I’m saying that if water on the moon is surprising to the scientific community, I don’t automatically accept as fact their proclamations about what’s going on in deep space, at unimaginable distances. It seems that a lot of what the scientific community proclaims is not falsifiable, something that is often required of subjects the scientific community doesn’t like.
Science is a changing field. Constantly. All scientists can tell you is that the facts they are presenting are well researched and HERE it is (great big fat lump of paper that anyone can sift through and pick apart).
Take the moon - demonstrably it had no atmosphere. Demonstrably it has no seas. Demonstrably it is the wrong temperature for liquid water. Demonstrably there are no plants.
With the information we HAD, it was an airless ball of dry rock, so that's what got taught. Now, it's STILL an airless ball of dry rock, but there had been theories about ice in lunar craters for a looonng time - and so new experiments proved there was. Now the moon's an airless, dry ball of rock with ice trapped in certain parts. What's really changed?
Certain ideas ARE conjecture - but it is conjecture based on the best information had at that time. Take exoplanets - logic told us that other suns SHOULD have planets around them, but for centuries we saw none. Then about twenty odd years ago there were signs - wobbles of orbits, periodic dimmings of the light, that sort of thing.
Then, finally, pictures.
Do you still not believe there are other planets because you've not been standing on one?
I shouldn’t have brought it up, but now that I have, I’ll clarify it as briefly as possible, then be done with it. I’m saying they might be seeing a galaxy hundreds of billions of light years away, or they may be seeing a star similar to our sun one or two light years away, with dust around it. If all these foreheads are being smacked about water on the moon, I tend to not readily accept what they tell me about billions of light years.
They have a mountain of work to show for their opinion. Please, by all means become a scientist and investigate it! However, dismissing their work without understanding any of it is hardly fair.
If you don't think it's fair that I can look at the words of ID proponents themselves and see their "adherence to scripture" and wedge documents, the legal cases against them won and the lack of papers and infer that they're full of it, well...
And if you want to be a moon landing denialist, then you're either wearing a tinfoil hat or haven't bothered checking up on the many, many sites disproving every single one of the conspiracy theorists' complaints.
Want some links?
Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:37 PM marc9000 has not replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


(1)
Message 122 of 177 (545839)
02-05-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by marc9000
02-03-2010 7:45 PM


Re: Explanatory power
What current work does ID threaten? What is the basis for your fears?
ID as I mean it is ID as creationists mean it.
Call that statement an axiom if you will.
ID is evidence from incredulity.
it's so amazing, it must be designed!
ID is evidence from ignorance.
I can't work how it could be done, so it must be designed!
ID is unprovable, untestable, unfalsifiable
You must admit that it's possible that everything is the way it is because an all-powerful god made it that way...
ID isn't a process, it is an end-point. It says "god (the designer) made everything. The end. You can stop exploring now."
It means no work on curing cancer (cancer's the way things are). It means no work on diseases (you get sick when you disobey god, it's like he's spanking you). It means no investigating the natural world to explain where we've come from, where we are, or thinking about where we could be going (why bother, the answers are all in a book written two thousand years ago about a designed world less then 10000 years old that's destined to be destroyed in fire).
That's why.
If it doesn't mean that - for example if it means the toothless gumming of RAZD's designer that can never be seen - then it's fine, but (and here's the point) if it's not scientific then it should not be taught in a science classroom. If it is religious it should not be taught by the state.
Really short answer? It's not ID that I'm worried about, it's the agenda of the people wedging it in.
Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:45 PM marc9000 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024