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
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 12 of 297 (543395)
01-17-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
01-17-2010 1:25 PM


Hi, Marc.
Welcome to EvC!
Kentucky's a nice place, ain't it?
marc9000 writes:
It is a term that refers to natural processes, a spontaneous generation of life from non-life by random, unguided processes...
...Abiogenesis is not just ANY origin of life as talkorigins asserts, it is only about a NATURAL origin of life.
To be perfectly clear, abiogenesis comes from Latin/Greek: a- means without; -bio- means life; and -genesis (this one should be obvious) means creation or beginning.
TalkOrigins is right: abiogenesis is not the name of a scientific theory. It refers to any idea that posits that there is life where once there was none. There is currently no real scientific theory about the origin of life. There are a large handful of competing hypotheses, but none of them is supported by enough evidence to be considered a real theory.
What is presented in scientific textbooks that I have read is the most logical extrapolation of the patterns seen in the available evidence from the fossil record. As we go further back in time, we see that earlier life forms are simpler than later life forms.
Given that, what is the most logical prediction for any life that we might find earlier than the earliest life forms we know now? We would predict that it will be simpler, wouldn’t we? Is there a reason to think otherwise?
-----
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.
I am confused as to why you think the Miller-Urey experiment is problematic for abiogenesis. Is it because they didn't actually generate life forms after zapping a flask of raw chemicals with a jolt of electricity?
Is that the logic you want to use? Well, then, let's apply it to another "experiment":
I am a lifelong Christian, and my fervant prayer last night did not generate any noticeable blessings (certainly none of the blessings I asked for). Using the logic you applied to Miller-Urey, you should conclude that the likelihood of a God who answers personal prayers is "scientifically diminishing."
Agreed? If not, I think it's you who is suffering from a bias.
-----
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.
The criteria set by science have always been the same: our ability to understand what fits those criteria improves as millions of researchers around the world accumulate an increasing body of knowledge through experimentation. We aren’t changing them all the time simply because we don’t want ID to be science: ID has simply failed to live up to the criteria that have always been agreed upon.
Furthermore, the question of whether or not something is science is a complete misnomer. Science encompasses a lot of different things: hypotheses, theories, experiments, raw data, statistics, brainstorming, etc. All of these things are integral parts of the scientific process. An untested hypothesis has as much right to be called science as does the oldest, most rigorously tested and thoroughly supported theory in existence.
What you mean to say is that abiogenesis is not a supported scientific theory. And, what you will quickly discover is that scientists will generally agree that there is currently no real scientific theory of abiogenesis. There is no controversy there. At all.
So, we have two ideas: one (abiogenesis) suggests that observable pattern of decreasing complexity as we look further back in time will continue to be seen as we look further and further back in time, until what we see is no longer complex enough to be considered life; the other (special creation/ID) suggests that the observable pattern is broken, and that an unevidenced entity is instead responsible for the origin of life using an unevidenced and undescribed means.
Whether or not life actually did arise from non-life through natural means, the current hypotheses about how this process might have occurred are scientific. They are not theories, but they are science.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

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

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 14 of 297 (543432)
01-18-2010 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by slevesque
01-17-2010 11:16 PM


Hi, Slevesque.
slevesque writes:
The problem comes when a Theist uses the word and says something like ''abiogenesis is impossible'' etc. Someone is bound to bring up the argument that the greek origin of the word simply means life-from-nonlife and therefore a theists also believes in abiogenesis etc. etc. (This has happened to me the both times I got involved in an 'origin of life' thread, and so I stopped going into this area because of it unfortunately ...)
The reason we respond like that is because the logic that concludes that a naturalistic origin of life is impossible must also conclude that special creation is impossible. You have to understand that: every argument brought against naturalistic abiogenesis is also ultimately fatal to special creation, as well.
That’s why we insist on pointing out that special creation is also abiogenesis: it is not just a semantic argument.
-----
slevesque writes:
They do not take into account that the definition of the word has evolved and changed, and that it is no longer this definition that applies.
No, the meaning has not changed. That’s the whole point of the Talk Origins quote Marc provided. It’s a partisan agenda that states that the meaning has changed. One faction wants a buzzword, a label by which it can call the other, so it co-opted a term from the other’s vocabulary (just like it did for the term evolution), and now insists that its usage trumps the original, intended definition of the term.
But, they don’t have jurisdiction over scientific terminology. In science, once we’ve solidly defined a technical term, we don’t change the meaning. The whole reason for making technical terms is so we have a stable vocabulary that we can use to communicate information in the most precise manner possible.
Abiogenesis is simply life from non-life. It was coined as an antithesis to Biogenesis, or the notion that life is created via biological reproduction. Unless you suggest that Intelligent Design was accomplished by means of biological reproduction, then you belong firmly in the Abiogenesis camp.
It’s really that simple.
And, because we’re all part of the same camp, the fates of our hypotheses are often shared. So, there is still need for a term that unites our two hypotheses based on their similarities. Unfortunately, people on your side have chosen to co-opt that term for something else, and it’s causing massive headaches for those of us who have to explain why the term was made to mean what it was meant to mean in the first place.
-----
slevesque writes:
Think about it this way, talk to about any scientists today about abiogenesis, will a single one of them think you are talking about supernatural creation? If not, then it shows that the meaning of the word has changed, and now means most probably ''life from non-life by natural processes''
Do not confuse colloquial usage with technical definitions. Any scientist who was actually critically examining the mechanistic similarities between special creation and, e.g., the primordial soup hypothesis, would come to the conclusion that there were enough similarities to warrant the coining of a term to describe both of them together. And, the logical choice for that term would be abiogenesis.
Edited by Bluejay, : I accidentally stated that I was personally involved in the coining of the term "abiogenesis," which is obviously false.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 01-17-2010 11:16 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 01-19-2010 2:36 AM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 39 of 297 (543713)
01-20-2010 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by slevesque
01-19-2010 2:36 AM


Know your Audience!
Hi, Slevesque.
slevesque writes:
Now unless you view supernatural intervention by God as a law of nature, special creation isn't included in naturalistic abiogenesis.
You’ll notice that I didn’t say that creation is included in naturalistic abiogenesis.
-----
slevesque writes:
Bluejay writes:
That’s why we insist on pointing out that special creation is also abiogenesis: it is not just a semantic argument.
That's why I'm insisting that it is but a semantic argument.
Uh... what?
I swear I didn’t alter that: go back and read it.
-----
slevesque writes:
Bluejay writes:
The whole reason for making technical terms is so we have a stable vocabulary that we can use to communicate information in the most precise manner possible.
Exactly, the information needs to be conveyed in the most precise manner possible. This means that everytime a scientist writes a paper ... he knows that simply using 'abiogenesis' will be understood to have this meaning by itself.
That is the exact opposite of precise, Slevesque. Precision requires you to not assume anything, and to explicitly articulate your manner in the most accurate---not the most convenient---way possible. And, in general, that’s what science does.
What's happening here is that you are missing the point of comparison: scientific papers do not compare naturalistic Abiogenesis to supernatural creation; rather, they compare it to natural Biogenesis (i.e. normal reproduction by organisms: see below for a more in-depth discussion). Therefore, you mistakenly attribute to the term Abiogenesis an attribute (naturalistic) that was never really intended to be addressed by this term.
-----
slevesque writes:
All I am saying is that IDers also should never be obliged to precise they are talking about naturalistic abiogenesis when using the word abiogenesis.
I can appreciate and accept that. I will use the word abiogenesis from now on to refer only to naturalistic abiogenesis.
But, what I’m trying to get across is that this isn’t just evolutionists being picky about words, despite what you and Cavediver assert.
There are more than just semantic reasons for saying that special creation is a form of abiogenesis. There are logical consequences of these two ideas being united by the characteristic of life from non-life. Because they share the feature of life coming from non-life, they also entail the same violations (alleged or real) of the laws of physics relating to the process of life coming from non-life. Thus, they need to be considered together for at least some aspects of the debate.
-----
Now, all that having been said, let me go off on a semantic tirade for a minute:
slevesque writes:
In my opinion, in the scientific community (not just colloquial usage) the adjective naturalistic has long being dropped and the exclusion of supernatural creation is implied when simply using the word abiogenesis. Why then can't YECist or IDers do the same ?
Context, man! The first rule of communication is to know your audience! You are assuming that supernatural creation is excluded by definition, when it is actually only excluded de facto. Since nobody is studying supernatural abiogenesis, the topic rarely ever comes up. But, once the topic does come up, we have to find how it fits within the schema we have been using.
Let’s use an example. When I’m talking to my lab-mates, I often use the word lacewing to refer to a specific species of insect from our study system. This works fine, because there is really only one species of lacewing in our study system, so it’s the only one we’re ever talking about. In actuality, there are well over 1000 species of lacewings worldwide; but, since we’re obviously not talking about the lacewings outside of our study system, we can just talk about lacewings without having to clarify.
Now, let’s compare my usage of the word lacewing to this debate about abiogenesis. What you have done is overheard me talking to my lab-mates about lacewings. Then, you jump into the conversation and list all of the shortcomings of lacewings, and tell us about another insect that you think is better. When you show us this insect, I notice that it is also a lacewing, albeit a lacewing of a different species.
What, exactly, do you expect me to do at this point? Do you honestly expect me to not point out that your insect is also a lacewing?
When you introduce supernatural models into a discussion that has, up until that point, only been about natural models, you can’t get mad when people start adjusting their usage of terminology to fit the new situation! We’re just trying to sort things according to our understanding of the terms! Our understanding of the term abiogenesis has always been life from non-life, and this should be obvious from the fact that, when we’re faced with another model of life from non-life, we rush to point out that it is also a type of abiogenesis.
Furthermore, Abiogenesis already has an opposite of sorts, and that’s Biogenesis (all life from pre-existing life), and that’s what scientific papers on the subject are using for comparison. Somehow, creationists always miss that.
Special creation belongs in a specific place on the Abiogenesis-Biogenesis axis (it unites with Abiogenesis, not with Biogenesis) and, in fact, introduces a whole new axis of variation. So now, the discussion involves four hypotheses:
  1. natural, life-from-life
  2. natural, life-from-nonlife
  3. supernatural, life-from-life
  4. supernatural, life-from-nonlife
Believe it or not, all four of these models are proposed in the normal course of the evolution/creation debate. A former EvC member named AlphaOmegakid tried to argue that biblical Creation was actually a form of supernatural Biogenesis, because it was life being created by a pre-existing life (God). Some Mormons believe that the creation of humans by God was analogous to natural Biogenesis. So I have personally dealt with all four origins models listed above.
So, there is a distinct need for a term to refer to life-from-nonlife, and we have been using it consistently as such. This entire semantic argument comes about because you are introducing something that can be classified within the schema we have been using, and referring to it as if it can’t, all because you didn’t read carefully enough to realize that our research has been contrasting Abiogenesis with Biogenesis.
End tirade.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 01-19-2010 2:36 AM slevesque has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 41 of 297 (543746)
01-20-2010 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
01-20-2010 9:28 AM


Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
1)The word does in fact mean life from non-life by natural causes currently...
The scientific community wants the term abiogenesis to take on new vagueness, so it can be claimed as a fact.
First, there is nothing new about the vagueness of the term. It has always encompassed every idea that refers to life coming from non-life, and, even in the restricted sense you want to give it, it still encompasses perhaps a dozen or so distinct hypotheses. When it was first coined, I suppose it was probably thought to be a much simpler issue than we view it as being today.
Second, you're missing the point here, just like Slevesque. No scientific paper that I have ever read compares naturalistic Abiogenesis to supernatural Creation, or even infers such a comparison! Rather, they all compare naturalistic Abiogenesis to naturalistic Biogenesis. The only axis of comparison used is life-from-life vs life-from-nonlife.
What you are doing is introducing a new axis of comparison: natural vs supernatural. It’s like scientists are comparing a big square to a small square, and you’re bringing in your big circle under a different name, and insisting that it’s not fair for me to say your circle is still big.
I admit that TalkOrigins did a lousy job of explaining this, but I only read TalkOrigins when someone else provides a link to it as part of their argument. But, in most cases, there is a context that creationists simply are not understanding!
-----
marc9000 writes:
They know that if it remains defined as it is, natural causes only, it is only speculation, ON THE SAME LEVEL AS INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
It certainly is predominantly speculation at this point, and I will agree that some of it is largely untestable and unfalsifiable at present; but it’s not on the same level as ID. All current hypotheses are based on known laws of physics, and there is a set of empirical evidence (an admittedly meager one) on the topic from which to make inferences. These are, and have always been, the only requirements for calling something science!
Science is not just well-supported theories: theories have to start somewhere, and the way you start developing a theory is just as scientific as the way you complete it.
-----
marc9000 writes:
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.
Intelligent Design is also fully compatible with Darwinian evolution. Look at these two scenarios:
Life arose naturally; then it evolved over time.
Life was created by God; then it evolved over time.
This is what TalkOrigins meant when it said, Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it. I have since agreed not to use the word abiogenesis in this way, but the principle is still there: even life that was originally created by God can evolve in the Darwinian fashion.
-----
marc9000 writes:
ID proponents are no more hasty to posit an intelligent designer, than abiogenesis proponents are to posit their claim that there is no God.
As a proponent of abiogenesis, I have never made the claim that there is no God. I believe in God.
-----
marc9000 writes:
...where in Ky are you from?
I prefer not to be too specific online, because I’m not keen on being found and killed by any random stalker types that might be reading in on us.

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

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 45 of 297 (543841)
01-21-2010 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by greyseal
01-21-2010 8:11 AM


Re: close but still no banana
Correction made. This post is no longer needed.
(content hidden)
Edited by Bluejay, : Hide correction: no use letting the topic get distracted by this.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by greyseal, posted 01-21-2010 8:11 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by greyseal, posted 01-21-2010 9:04 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 48 of 297 (543879)
01-21-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Briterican
01-21-2010 9:51 AM


Re: The futile search for design
Hi, Briterican.
Briterican writes:
You seem to imply that ID deserves equal footing with scientific matters, when it makes two tremendous, unsupported assumptions by its very definition: 1) life was designed, 2) the designer was intelligent.
In my mind, I don't view these as the assumptions of the model. But, then, I have a tendency to ignore the theological underpinnings of the ID movement and simply engage it as if it were science (that's what they want, after all, isn't it?).
There are logical reasons why IDists often think life had to be designed and whay the designer had to be intelligent. "Logical" here meaning that they can be derived from logical reasoning, given certain premises. Here are some examples:
In coded information in DNA, WordBeLogos argued that intelligence is required to make a code, because all known codes are the product of intelligence.
And, in Biogenesis, AlphaOmegakid suggested that the first life must have come from pre-existing life because the Biogenetic Law has been proven by repeated observation of life giving birth to new life.
The common thread of practically all ID arguments about origins is the concept of abiogenesis contradicting some known law of science. So, I would say that the basic assumptions of ID are that (1) the origin of life contradicts the laws of science; and (2) we have to introduce a supernatural entity (such as God) to compensate for the contradiction(s).
In my mind, the primary failure of ID arguments about origins is an inordinate obsession with the wording of broad theories, and a general aversion to engagement of the context and principles of the theory. They never get beyond the conceptual stage to the experimental stage, because they think the conceptual argument is strong enough on its own.
Edited by Bluejay, : Added "all" in the line about WordBeLogos

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Briterican, posted 01-21-2010 9:51 AM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Briterican, posted 01-21-2010 4:23 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 53 of 297 (543955)
01-22-2010 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
01-21-2010 6:36 PM


Hi, Dr Adequate.
Dr Adequate writes:
Now, if I am wrong, please tell me in what way the adjective "special" does qualify the noun "creationism".
This is probably my fault: I was the first one to use "special creation" in this thread. I intended it to refer to any sort of creationism that included a supernatural component; and, I think Slevesque started using it to standardize vocabulary with me.
In retrospect, I probably should have been more explicit about what I meant.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2010 6:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 64 of 297 (544044)
01-23-2010 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by marc9000
01-22-2010 8:44 PM


Huxley
Hi, Marc.
You're doing a good job keeping up with a whole swarm of opponents. I'm woefully bad at it, and I always end up ignoring and offending some people.
A few tips: many people will prefer that you respond with individual posts, using the "reply" button at the bottom right corner of a specific post. It helps them keep track of the conversation better.
Also, you can use "qs=person's name" instead of "quote" in the codes, and it makes the blue quote boxes we use. And, you can nest quotes inside other quotes to make it easier to follow the conversation, as I'm about to do here (click the "peek" button at the bottom right corner of a message if you want to see the codes used in the message):
marc9000 writes:
Bluejay writes:
When it was first coined, I suppose it was probably thought to be a much simpler issue than we view it as being today.
Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog) coined it...
This conflicts with your earlier statement:
marc9000, in the OP, writes:
The term abiogenesis has been around for hundreds of years...
At the time, I couldn't find any information about the term predating Huxley, but I’m not an expert on this topic, so I just assumed you knew something that I didn't. I don't care which of your two statements is true: I would just prefer that you stick with one story.
If we go with the Huxley origin of the term, it was coined as the opposite to "Biogenesis" (Pasteur's "omne vivum ex ovo"). Since evolutionary ideas were first popularized, the Biogenetic Law was always thought to be a problem for it, and Huxley’s Abiogenesis was a counter-argument to that.
Here’s the actual quote from Huxley, if you don’t believe me:
quote:
It will be necessary for me to refer to this hypothesis so frequently, that, to save circumlocution, I shall call it the hypothesis of Biogenesis; and I shall term the contrary doctrine—that living matter may be produced by not living matter—the hypothesis of Abiogenesis.
source (last sentence in the 10th paragraph)
I hope you take the time to read that entire essay (even though it’s quite long): it gives you a great view into the level of understanding and the speech habits of scientists in Darwin’s and Huxley’s time.
-----
marc9000 writes:
...and it’s quite a stretch to suppose he intended it to include Biblical creation, or that it has been used that way until only recently.
Again, stop conflating usage with definition. If I said, this spider is large, would you assume that I meant that statement to be upheld in a size comparison with a rhinoceros? In scientific circles, words can only be applied to scientific ideas. But, in public circles, including this debate, we have to find a way to incorporate non-scientific ideas into the framework that defines our worldview. Doing so apparently offends you.
I don’t object to the idea of using the term abiogenesis to only mean naturalistic hypotheses (and I have agreed to restrict my usage accordingly), but I do object to your accusation that evolutionists are intentionally equivocating on the meaning of the word in order to conspire against creation and Christianity.
I repeat: I am a Christian.
-----
marc9000 writes:
I don’t see biogenesis (life from life) as an issue here.
I believe I have now shown you that Biogenesis not only is an issue here, but is the issue here. Reread every scientific paper you’ve read on the subject with what I presented above in mind, and I think you’ll realize that scientists have only been dealing with the dichotomy of life-from-life vs life-from-nonlife, and that supernatural creation introduces an entirely new axis of variation, one that requires us to adjust our usage of terms to fully engage in debate.
-----
marc9000 writes:
Bluejay writes:
[dembski quote]
Life arose naturally; then it evolved over time.
Life was created by God; then it evolved over time.
This is what TalkOrigins meant when it said, Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it. I have since agreed not to use the word abiogenesis in this way, but the principle is still there: even life that was originally created by God can evolve in the Darwinian fashion.
No further contest at this time, except to say that "evolution" is a slippery word, and I believe talkorigins authors to be slippery people.
First off, I wasn’t quoting Dembski: why did you say I was?
Second, even if evolution is a slippery word, what difference could that possibly make in this case? The point here is that any arguments against abiogenesis are not arguments against evolution, no matter what evolution is taken to mean, so the meaning of evolution is totally irrelevant.
You’re just being anal about words for the sake of being anal about words.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 8:44 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by marc9000, posted 01-24-2010 4:23 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 66 of 297 (544051)
01-23-2010 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by marc9000
01-22-2010 10:26 PM


Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
Coyote writes:
It is, in fact, the exact opposite of science. It starts with a conclusion (creationism) and seeks to cherry-pick any data that might be stretched or manipulated to support that conclusion.
As those who control it today start with atheism.
Atheism is proportionately more common among scientists than among the general populace, but there are probably still just as many theists in science as there are atheists.
Please, stop equating science and atheism!

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 10:26 PM marc9000 has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 87 of 297 (544234)
01-24-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
01-24-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Explanatory power
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
you're a good poster.
Thanks. You too. I echo Buzsaw’s sentiment: I hope you and Minority Report (the other new guy) both stick around, and even work together occasionally. We so rarely get two quality creationists at one time.
-----
marc9000 writes:
But what we need to do in this thread is end all reference to supernatural abiogenesis at this time — we need a term that references only naturalistic abiogenesis, the scientific theory of abiogenesis, maybe more accurately the scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis. Hopefully we can agree that THAT is not a fact. I think from now on if we just say abiogenesis it should be understood that it references only naturalism.
I accept your conditions: the term abiogenesis shall only refer to naturalistic abiogenesis" in my usage.
-----
marc9000 writes:
It seems disingenuous that I’m constantly told that abiognesis and evolution don’t have a thing to do with each other. Aren’t the processes you’ve described above similar in many ways to the ‘simple to complex’ explanations of evolution?
You’re right: they are very similar in some ways, and they do have some things to do with one another. But, similarity and relatedness do not automatically translate into interdependency. Just because they are similar doesn't mean that one can't exist without the other.
Furthermore, similarity doesn’t mean that arguments against one count as arguments against the other. Certainly there are some of the shared logical fate issues that I talked about earlier, but the simple point here is that created things can evolve in the same way that naturally-formed things can evolve, so evolution is not dependent on naturalistic abiogenesis.
Agreed?
-----
marc9000 writes:
Should we compare the amount of time the Bible has been preserved to the amount of time the drawings (all information) of the Apollo missions lasted? ...There is a logical reason why everyone doesn’t worship science.
This is a statement that I really wish Christians would stop making. I don’t know any people who do worship science in the same manner that people worship deities and religion. And, there is good reason for this: science never proclaimed itself to be absolute truth, nor even capable of discovering absolute truth.
Rather, we scientists fully expect that, at some time in the future, we will become obsolete, and all our work and all our theories will be improved upon such that future generations of scientists will no longer need to rely on our accomplishments to explain the world around us. That’s the whole point of science: you don’t learn or progress by simply upholding what has always been upheld.
For the life of me, I don’t understand why people feel that ancient ideas are somehow superior to modern ideas. Read Genesis 30 for some good examples of the way the ancients thought: apparently, they believed that, if sheep conceived in front of striped sticks, they would bear striped young, and Jacob was able to manipulate this in his favor by controlling which sheep would bear striped young (which he had been granted as payment for his services).
If this is generally the quality of ancient knowledge, it seems foolhardy to claim that things of ancient date are superior to things of modern date. Do you agree with me on this?
Edited by Bluejay, : A space after my Genesis 30 url

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 01-24-2010 5:06 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:03 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 104 of 297 (544532)
01-26-2010 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by marc9000
01-26-2010 10:03 PM


Re: Explanatory power
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
Yes, I agree, but as we can easily see, those who take an interest in evolution have an equal enthusiasm for naturalistic abiogenesis.
I know a fair number of theistic evolutionists who would strongly disagree with you on this. Perhaps you've heard of this thing called "the Catholic Church"?
-----
marc9000 writes:
And abiogenesis may fall under a more 'loose', or more "exploratory" definition of what is science. One that I believe I can fit ID into.
Abiogenesis fits any definition of the word "science" that can be imagined, even the most stringent ones that ID fails to meet. It does not fit the scientific definition of the word "theory," which I think is what you're trying to get at.
To fit the definition of "science," an idea must contain (1) valid logical reasoning, (2) evidence that supports the possibility that it is accurate, and (3) a lack of evidence contradicting the possibility that it is accurate.
My assessment is that Abiogenesis meets these requirements, while Intelligent Design does not. Specifically, I don't feel that ID meets the "evidence supporting the possibility that it is accurate" part.
But, I'm fully willing to admit that I may have misjudged it. I would like to hear your argument(s) that ID meets these three requirements.
-----
marc9000 writes:
Atheists, and others as well, seem to automatically accept what the scientific community tells them.
There are those, yes.
But, I also know a lot of educated and intelligent atheists who do all their own thinking and do a very good job at it.
Also, let's be honest. Let me adjust a few words in your statement:
Christians seem to automatically accept what the Bible or their minister tells them.
Do you agree that this is also a true statement (granted, not for all Christians of course, but I would say it works for the majority of Christians that I know).
-----
marc9000 writes:
God directly speaks to no one today.
There are those who disagree with you about this.
-----
marc9000 writes:
Human nature hasn’t changed.
But, apparently, the laws of genetics have.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:03 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:43 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 106 of 297 (544544)
01-27-2010 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by marc9000
01-26-2010 10:48 PM


Re: Explanatory power
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
It will do one thing - challenge the current godless evolution establishment, and they NEED a challenge!
I'm a doctoral student in a biology lab. Let me give you a quick synopsis of the people in my lab:
1 is Anglican
2 are Catholics
1 is Mormon
1 is Protestant
1 is agnostic, but believes in an afterlife
and I've never talked about it with the last guy.
You keep referring to godlessness and atheism as characteristics of the scientific community. At least take into consideration the fact that many, if not most, members of that community are not atheists.
I mean it this time: stop doing that!

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:48 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:51 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 143 of 297 (548521)
02-27-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by marc9000
02-27-2010 7:50 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
I have to keep hammering this point home because it’s an important fact - those all happened after abiogenesis became science, with all the funding, all the attention, all the exposure to education curriculums, all the support from militant atheism, etc. ID doesn't have that luxury.
Okay, let’s get this straight: you don’t know when abiogenesis was first taught in education curricula; and you don’t know when it became science, so you really don’t have anything authoritative to say on the chronology.
I am skeptical that abiogenesis was widely taught in science classes before the 1950’s, and I am skeptical that it was accepted in science as an authoritatively demonstrated reality before then.
I request that you support this claim of yours by showing us a mainstream textbook, curriculum, statement from a relevant scientific society or some other evidence that abiogenesis indeed became science before it was supported with experimental results.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2010 7:50 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 8:53 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 217 of 297 (552387)
03-28-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by marc9000
03-28-2010 3:42 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
It’s a fact that ID is required to conform with many formal requirements to become science, and it’s a fact that no one here can show me where abiogenesis ever had to do that as a requirement for entrance as a scientific subject.
I still believe that the "formal requirements" for ID are neither formal nor any different from what they were/are for abiogenesis. But, just to humor you a little, let's summarize the history of the contenders:
Abiogenesis has never been superseded by a hypothesis or theory that explains the evidence better than it does.
Intelligent design, however, was superseded by a succession of several evolution-like theories that explain the evidence much better than ID does, culminating in the current champion, which we call the Theory of Evolution.
Abiogenesis still has no viable competitors in the race to explain what it intends to explain.
Intelligent design is massively outclassed by pretty much every alternative hypothesis and theory that has ever been proposed to explain the same data set.
Abiogenesis is the only hypothesis to have ever risen in a tiny, sparsely-populated field of study that still has not produced a single, actual theory; while ID is the revival of a long-ago debunked piece of pseudoscientific piffle from a field in which a very strong and well-supported other theory has proven its utility in generating predictions and satellite theories.
You can’t seriously expect the conditions of admittance/re-admittance into the science club to be the same for these two entities. It’s like comparing a newly-graduated businessman who thinks Athens, Georgia is ready for a minor-league water polo team to a convicted felon who wants to put a third American football team in New York City. The first is an uncertain risk with only minor consequences to the investor (it's cheap); the second is widely recognized as a completely stupid move destined for failure and bankruptcy.
Edited by Bluejay, : singularizing "businessman"
Edited by Bluejay, : "other" added before "theory"

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 3:42 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 4:45 PM Blue Jay has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 220 of 297 (552399)
03-28-2010 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by marc9000
03-28-2010 4:45 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
If you're going to label ID as a "revival", you're going to have to do the same for abiogenesis! Aristotle had primitive ideas about life from non life, debunked by Pasteur. If anything has been "revived", it's been abiogenesis!
That was not abiogenesis: that was spontaneous generation.
The failure of rotting juice to spawn bacteria and fungi after two months in a sealed flask does not debunk the notion that a network of chemical reactions can incrementally increase in complexity until it is as complex as life. Rather, it debunks the notion that rotten juices spawn bacteria and fungi.
Incidentally, we could also argue that Redi debunked creationism by showing that maggots are produced by flies, and not created by God. Somehow, I doubt you'll find this convincing, which can only lead me to conclude that either you do not understand the strengths and limitations of these experiments, or you are employing a double standard (or both, I suppose).
Earlier on this thread, you made a big stink about how the word abiogenesis shouldn’t be used to include special creation or intelligent design. Now, expect me to make a big stink about how the word abiogenesis shouldn’t be used such that it includes spontaneous generation. And, I will repeatedly paste this very paragraph into my responses to each instance in which you equate abiogenesis and spontaneous generation until you agree to my terms the way I agreed to yours earlier in this thread.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 4:45 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 6:57 PM Blue Jay has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024