Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 8:30 PM
29 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, Tanypteryx (5 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,664 Year: 6,701/19,786 Month: 1,242/1,581 Week: 64/393 Day: 47/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2776 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 16 of 297 (543535)
01-19-2010 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Blue Jay
01-18-2010 2:45 AM


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.

Naturalistic abiogenesis is is life coming from non-life by natural means; in other words, the laws of nature applied on matter and energy. Now unless you view supernatural intervention by God as a law of nature, special creation isn't included in naturalistic abiogenesis.

Thatís 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. the whole issue turns on if we should always put the word 'naturalistic' in front of 'abiogenesis' if we wanted to exclude supernatural creation of life, or if simply saying 'abiogenesis' is enough to convey the information that special creation is not being refered to.

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 ? Why can't they use the word abiogenesis the same way all scientists use it, ie excluding special creation ?

The truth is that every time one says abiogenesis without 'naturalistic' in front, they get fed the Red Herring of technical definition. I consider this a Red Herring because the intended meaning the speaker wants to convey is clearly understood by everyone, and so bringing it up simply diverts the attention on a meaningless point.

I'll end with this last bit:

But, they donít have jurisdiction over scientific terminology. In science, once weíve solidly defined a technical term, we donít 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.

Exactly, the information needs to be conveyed in the most precise manner possible. This means that everytime a scientist writes a paper on the origin of life, he will never feel obliged to explicitly precise that he is talking about abiogenesis by natural means. He knows that simply using 'abiogenesis' will be understood to have this meaning by itself. 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 do think a quick mulling it over will show that it is just plainly sensical both parties should be allowed to use the same words in the same way.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 01-18-2010 2:45 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 2:54 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 39 by Blue Jay, posted 01-20-2010 10:06 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 17 of 297 (543538)
01-19-2010 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by slevesque
01-19-2010 2:36 AM


slevesque writes:

I do think a quick mulling it over will show that it is just plainly sensical both parties should be allowed to use the same words in the same way.


No they shouldn't. For with creationism and ID a supernatural abiogenesis is actually what they say happened. So, you can't exclude it from the meaning when discussing creationism or ID.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 01-19-2010 2:36 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 01-19-2010 1:34 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2776 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 18 of 297 (543594)
01-19-2010 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Huntard
01-19-2010 2:54 AM


When an IDer wants to refer to 'supernatural abiogenesis' as you call it, he will say 'special creation' or something similar. Heck, this applies to everybody. Did you ever hear Dawkins use the expression 'supernatural abiogenesis' ? In my knowledge of his work no, he also talks about 'special or supernatural creation' when he wants to refer to divine intervention to create life.

In other words, this is the terminology that is being used 99,9% of the time at least:

- special creation: Supernatural intervention to create life

- Abiogenesis: Life-from-non-life via natural processes

Note also that in the case of the Biblical creation event for example, special creation is more appropriate then 'supernatural abiogenesis' since every living thing except for man was spoken into existence rather then a none-life-to-life process


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 2:54 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by cavediver, posted 01-19-2010 1:56 PM slevesque has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1779 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 19 of 297 (543597)
01-19-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by slevesque
01-19-2010 1:34 PM


Got to side with you, Slevesque, here. I cannot see the point of this argument. Using abiogenesis in a non-naturalistic sense is simply confusing and is the non-creationist way of getting back at creationist bullshit regarding the word evolution (cosmological, chemical, etc.)

If a creationist states that abiogenesis is impossible, it's utterly counterproductive to retort with "well, how did God make people then?" The response should be - "so, what you are saying is that you don't believe that life can naturally arise from what we would consider non-living material."

If it really is the case that naturalistic means cannot* bring about life, that in no way stops the great djinn from popping a rabbit into existence by twitching its nose.

* I have to say that to me it so damn obvious that life will arise from the correct natural conditions, that I find it hard writing that conditional clause!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 01-19-2010 1:34 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Apothecus
Member (Idle past 546 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 20 of 297 (543608)
01-19-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by greyseal
01-17-2010 3:41 PM


Hi Greyseal.

"god breathed life into adam" is a very valid theory of abiogenesis.

I'd have to disagree with the usage of theory in this context. In general, a theory is a framework used to explain data, or sets of data, which we see, collect, and analyze in the world around us, as well as to predict new observations. Again, maybe we're talking semantics here, but a more appropriate term may be at best, hypothesis and at worst, conjecture, IMO. A hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess which can be tested, tested and tested some more until it has been tested so much that, in time, it may become a theory.

A supernatural explanation would have a bear of a time attaining the level of theory, at least from a respected scientific standpoint. But I'm being redundant...

Have a good one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by greyseal, posted 01-17-2010 3:41 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by greyseal, posted 01-20-2010 9:02 AM Apothecus has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 21 of 297 (543619)
01-19-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by slevesque
01-17-2010 11:16 PM


In other words, when a scientist uses the word ''abiogenesis'', no one ever thinks he is referring to supernatural creation of life. We all know he is talking about scientific hypothesis about a natural explanation to the origin of life. This is in fact the general understanding of the definition of the word as of today in both layman and scientific terms ...

Well, for that matter, if you were to ask an únologist, or look in a dictionary, you would be told that wine was an alcoholic beverage produced by the fermentation of grape juice or other plant juices.

And yet I should think it a strange semantic quibble if someone were to argue that in that case, by definition, Jesus couldn't have turned water into wine; and stranger still if this argument came from a Biblical literalist.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by slevesque, posted 01-20-2010 12:13 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 23 by Iblis, posted 01-20-2010 12:41 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2776 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 22 of 297 (543628)
01-20-2010 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
01-19-2010 8:51 PM


I don't think any person, biblical literalist or otherwise, would call Jesus turning water-to-wine ''fermentation''

This is why I don't think anybody should call God turning Dust-to-man ''abiogenesis''.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-19-2010 8:51 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 2:30 AM slevesque has responded

Iblis
Member (Idle past 2031 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 23 of 297 (543631)
01-20-2010 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
01-19-2010 8:51 PM


Recognition
And yet I should think it a strange semantic quibble if someone were to argue that in that case, by definition, Jesus couldn't have turned water into wine; and stranger still if this argument came from a Biblical literalist.

They do say that though, in essence; or great gobs of them do, at least. They say that what he turned the water into was "new wine", alias grape juice, ie unfermented, aka won't get you drunk. They say this is why the wedding guests were so surprised that he didn't serve that first, but waited until they were all drunk and couldn't really appreciate the flavor and freshness of it. I know it makes more sense the other way around, but making more sense to the mature drinker isn't on their agenda anywhere.

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/wine.htm

The difference between the denominations is really just a matter of recognition.

Catholics fail to recognize Protestants as fellow Christians.

Protestants fail to recognize the authority of the Pope.

And Baptists fail to recognize each other at the liquor store ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-19-2010 8:51 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 01-20-2010 3:04 AM Iblis has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 24 of 297 (543637)
01-20-2010 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by slevesque
01-20-2010 12:13 AM


I don't think any person, biblical literalist or otherwise, would call Jesus turning water-to-wine ''fermentation''

Touchť. I see your point. But then, you see mine --- according to the sort of reasoning you're invoking, you would then have to admit that whatever Jesus made, it wasn't wine.

This is why I don't think anybody should call God turning Dust-to-man ''abiogenesis''.

You wish, I gather, to make the word refer to a sort of process, albeit one that neither of us can adequately describe --- you want it to mean the production of life from non-life by possible means to the exclusion of the production of life from non-life by impossible means.

I think that (especially when having these sorts of discussions) it makes sense for the word to refer to the event, whether it took place in accordance with or contrary to the laws of nature.

Perhaps we should invent two new words with no ambiguity, but how would we make them stick?

Until then, I would point out that the person who made the OP wasn't actually confused by what the folks at talkorigins said, he just wanted to complain about those pesky scientific folk using a word differently from him. My heart bleeds for him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by slevesque, posted 01-20-2010 12:13 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 01-20-2010 3:26 AM Dr Adequate has responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2776 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 25 of 297 (543639)
01-20-2010 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Iblis
01-20-2010 12:41 AM


Re: Recognition
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners.

I wonder what Jesus drank that John didn't ... probably water ...

In all seriousness, I think the view presented in the link you gave would probably be in the minority amongst christians (or at least certainly here in quebec)

Edited by slevesque, : drinked --) drank


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Iblis, posted 01-20-2010 12:41 AM Iblis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 3:30 AM slevesque has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 26 of 297 (543641)
01-20-2010 3:12 AM


A compromise, perhaps?
{ABE}: Compromise withdrawn!

Ok, to finally get to the gist of this discussion,. can we all at least agree that for the sake of this discussion, "abiogenesis" refers to life from non life due to natural causes, and "special creation" to god creating/designing something, even if it is from non life?

At least we can then get on with it!

{ABE}: Compromise withdrawn!

Edited by Huntard, : Compromise withdrawn


Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Iblis, posted 01-20-2010 3:20 AM Huntard has responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 2031 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 27 of 297 (543643)
01-20-2010 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Huntard
01-20-2010 3:12 AM


Re: A compromise, perhaps?
Haha no, that's the whole discussion! There's nothing to the question beyond the concession you just made!

If there had been, I would have posted something sensible about the primordial buffet by now.

PS: Oh, I guess there is the one dig about atheist bias, you could give that a good slapping. NM, carry on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Huntard, posted 01-20-2010 3:12 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Huntard, posted 01-20-2010 3:27 AM Iblis has not yet responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2776 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 28 of 297 (543646)
01-20-2010 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2010 2:30 AM


Touchť. I see your point. But then, you see mine --- according to the sort of reasoning you're invoking, you would then have to admit that whatever Jesus made, it wasn't wine.

Mmm yeah, well we have no other way to do wine but through fermentation, and so we include this in the definition. But we all know wine simply is the chemical mixture of alcool+whatever other organic molecule is in there, so he can still miraculously make some.

A simpler example would be God speaking a molecule of CO2 into existence. Just because he didn't use combustion wouldn't make it any less carbone dioxide.

You wish, I gather, to make the word refer to a sort of process, albeit one that neither of us can adequately describe --- you want it to mean the production of life from non-life by possible means to the exclusion of the production of life from non-life by impossible means.

I think that (especially when having these sorts of discussions) it makes sense for the word to refer to the event, whether it took place in accordance with or contrary to the laws of nature.

Perhaps we should invent two new words with no ambiguity, but how would we make them stick?

Well since we know that there once was no life, and after that there was life, there really is two alternatives:

1- With supernatural intervention
2- Without supernatural intervention

No need to invent words, just use 'special creation' when talking about the first case and 'abiogenesis' when talking about the second case. This is already how it is being used in the scientific community and so I don,t why we wouldn't use this simple and more precise manner here on EvC.

Until then, I would point out that the person who made the OP wasn't actually confused by what the folks at talkorigins said, he just wanted to complain about those pesky scientific folk using a word differently from him. My heart bleeds for him.

Talkorigins seems to be a bit outdated at times. Sometimes, it will be very insightful and a good read, but I remember when I was patrolling it a lot it wasn't uncommon to see a strawman, Red Herring or equivocation.

But aside from that, I don't know if marc9000 is still around, but I would have liked to know what he meant by that last part in his OP:

It seems to me that in the scientific communityís 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 has to be evenly applied, or there is a serious problem with non-scientific bias. Since there is evidence that abiogenesis is referred to and noted in most, if not all, science textbooks at the high school and college level, it appears to me that itís a fact that we have a serious problem with atheist bias in the scientific community in the U.S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 2:30 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 4:28 AM slevesque has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 29 of 297 (543648)
01-20-2010 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Iblis
01-20-2010 3:20 AM


Re: A compromise, perhaps?
Iblis writes:

Haha no, that's the whole discussion! There's nothing to the question beyond the concession you just made!


Oh yeah! Stupid me. See what happens when you post this early in the morning, your sleepy head forgets the actual gist of the topic, and ionvents one on its own.

Ok, compromise withdrawn


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Iblis, posted 01-20-2010 3:20 AM Iblis has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 30 of 297 (543650)
01-20-2010 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by slevesque
01-20-2010 3:04 AM


English
I wonder what Jesus drinked ...

"Drank". I'm not being snippy, it's just that I thought you'd like to know.

Also, the word "sensical" that you've invented doesn't really exist. Yes, I know, logically, if the word "nonsensical" exists, then the word "sensical" should, and maybe you would find it in a sufficiently large dictionary, but no-one ever uses it except you. There are a number of English words that are like that: people say "immaculate" but not "maculate", for example. "Maculate" is a word, it means "spotted", but no-one ever uses it.

Anyway, back to the topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 01-20-2010 3:04 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by slevesque, posted 01-20-2010 4:21 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Prev1
2
3456
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019