Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 2:06 PM
32 online now:
caffeine, DrJones*, JonF, Lammy, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Tangle, Taq, Theodoric (10 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,830 Year: 9,866/19,786 Month: 2,288/2,119 Week: 324/724 Day: 49/114 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 31 of 297 (543654)
01-20-2010 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2010 3:30 AM


Re: English
Thanks, every bit counts to improve my English
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 3:30 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 4:34 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 297 (543658)
01-20-2010 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by slevesque
01-20-2010 3:26 AM


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.

I agree that he can. My point is that if we're going to define wine by the process that the experts talk about and the dictionary talks about, then no he can't.

But I think that you see my point, as I see yours.

No need to invent words, just use 'special creation' when talking about the first case ...

Only the phrase "special creation" means so much more than that. It would not, for example, incorporate the case where God created the first primitive life and then sat back and let evolution roll.

Talkorigins seems to be a bit outdated at times.

It is, 'cos they've stopped doing it. There's so many cool intermediate forms they could have written about since then, but it's frozen. Worse, they can't do anything about their mistakes. There's one thing they cite there where the scientist in question made a mistake, and he found it out himself, and published a retraction, but the retraction was too late, so the mistake is still on talkorigins, and the only thing I can do it write to people who've got it from talkorigins. I can't correct talkorigins, their archive is frozen in time. I can only correct the people who are still using their outdated information.

I always get thanked for the correction, which is a difference between evolutionists and creationists which you might like to make a note of.

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.

My experience of creationists is that, like 9/11 conspiracy theorists, they tend to shout "strawman!" whenever they watch someone debunk some aspect of the great tangled ball of creationism / conspiracism that they themselves do not happen to believe in.

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:

Well, we may never know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 01-20-2010 3:26 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by slevesque, posted 01-21-2010 4:50 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 297 (543660)
01-20-2010 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by slevesque
01-20-2010 4:21 AM


Re: English
Thanks, every bit counts to improve my English

It is already excellent, but the very fact that your English is so good suggests to me that you're the sort of person who would appreciate advice and correction on this subject. Because if you weren't, you wouldn't be nearly so good at it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by slevesque, posted 01-20-2010 4:21 AM slevesque has not yet responded

greyseal
Member (Idle past 2034 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 34 of 297 (543689)
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 responded

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

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 998
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 35 of 297 (543697)
01-20-2010 9:28 AM


quote:
slevesque writes; 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:

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). I’m pleased to see this much discussion of this subject. I’ll eventually answer your question above – not sure just how ordered this post will be. I’d like to keep this from being too long winded. But to basically summarize my point so far;

quote:
Hundard writes; 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!

I agree, but 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.

If a special interest group wants to see the definition of a word changed, they can get it done in a surprisingly short period of time. The perfect example is the word “gay”. I’m 55 years old, and growing up in the 1960’s, the word gay had a completely non-controversial meaning. It was simply synonomous with “happy, and had practically no other meaning. In only a few decades, it is seldom if ever used in any way except in the homosexual sense. The homosexual community wanted it, and they helped themselves to it.
The scientific community wants the term abiogenesis to take on new vagueness, so it can be claimed as a “fact”. They know that if it remains defined as it is, natural causes only, it is only speculation, ON THE SAME LEVEL AS INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

quote:
Briterican writes; Hi marc9000, welcome to the fray.

Thank you.

quote:
I agree with your assessment that the term "abiogenesis" cannot include creation, given that the definition involves naturalistic processes. I think when someone says "creationism is a theory of abiogenesis", what they mean to say is that creationism is an explanation (I disagree and consider it a non-explanation) that replaces abiogenesis.

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. I can’t see any hint of “replace” in it – I think the word “includes” is a much more reasonable way to dissect its meaning, and I think that fits the assertions of several other posters here. At this point, we’ve pretty much reached an impasse on it, but I’d like to see others thoughts on my opinion that the definition of the word is currently undergoing change, by a special interest.

quote:
Perhaps I'm wrong about this, perhaps another member will set us both straight. But I ask you this... what explanation? Where's the evidence for creation? What possible usefulness is it in the exploration of the history of life to simply say "OK it MUST have been divine intervention, a supernatural miracle" ? The enquiry ends with this cop-out, non-explanation, and scientists are not willing to sacrifice rational thinking in favour of magical fairy dust, sorry.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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 it’s a fact that we have a serious problem with atheist bias in the scientific community in the U.S.
Who can rationally and reasonably explain why I’m wrong about that?

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.)

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;

quote:
All of this isn't the scientific community's fault, it is the fault of ID proponents who, in THEIR haste to posit an intelligent designer have failed to demonstrate any evidence of such a designer.

ID proponents are no more hasty to posit an intelligent designer, than abiogenesis proponents are to posit their claim that “there is no God”. ID is “the search for evidence/signs of design in biological systems”, and it can do the equivalent of “PAH world hypothesis” in their searches for those signs. The testability, repeatability, and observability are comparable in both abiogenesis vs ID. I know that you’ll immediately demand detail in what ID can do that is scientific, and YOU WON’T ACCEPT PROMISORY NOTES. ID has plenty of promissory notes, AS DOES ABIOGENESIS. When ID proponents ask questions of the substance of abiogeneis studies, it seems they get lots of promissory notes. It is a huge double standard.

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.

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.

quote:
PaulK writes; I thin that there are two topics here. The talkorigins point is just one guy's opinion and doesn't really reflect any calculated or agreed strategy. So that's just a side issue, of no great importance.

I think it is of great importance, because 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.

quote:
RAZD writes; And in that sense it has simply meant life from non-life, as it would pre-date the scientific usage.

Predate scientific usage? From Aristotle onward, it has always been about science.

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.

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. As Thomas Sowell has said, To too many teachers, social workers and others in occupations with pretensions of being “professional,” what being a professional means is not having to listen to common sense from ordinary people, mush less develop any of their own.

quote:
Bluejay writes; Hi, Marc.
Welcome to EvC!
Kentucky's a nice place, ain't it?

It is at that, where in Ky are you from? I’m in northern Ky, the greater Cincinnati area, (just in case anyone wants to find me and kill me)

Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Huntard, posted 01-20-2010 9:38 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Huntard, posted 01-20-2010 9:41 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2010 9:56 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Blue Jay, posted 01-20-2010 12:11 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 3:14 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 44 by greyseal, posted 01-21-2010 8:11 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Briterican, posted 01-21-2010 9:51 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 468 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 36 of 297 (543702)
01-20-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
01-20-2010 9:28 AM


double post

Edited by Huntard, : double post


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

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 468 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 37 of 297 (543705)
01-20-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
01-20-2010 9:28 AM


Hello Marc, thanks for your reply.

I agree with most of what you say however this bit:

marc9000 writes:

The scientific community wants the term abiogenesis to take on new vagueness, so it can be claimed as a “fact”.


Is just plain worng. I don't know of any scietist who will say that how abiogenesis happened (IE: what processes were involved and how it happened) is a fact. The reason we don't have a clear picture yet of how it happened is not a reason for you to go claim scientists want to keep it vague. They wouldn't be researching it if they wanted to do that.

They know that if it remains defined as it is, natural causes only, it is only speculation, ON THE SAME LEVEL AS INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Then why are they researching the subject? Also, it's nowhere near the same level as intelligent design. We have, for instance, up until now found that all natural phenomena we have investigated are due to natural causes (IE: Lightning, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions etc....), while we haven't observed a single instance of something just poofing into existence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2010 9:28 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15084
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 38 of 297 (543709)
01-20-2010 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
01-20-2010 9:28 AM


quote:

I think it is of great importance, because 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.

talk.origins - for all it's virtues - is primarily a popular level site. And one that is currently receiving little to no maintenance. We're not talking about a peer-reviewed paper, just a short response to a creationist claim. We're not even talking about a clear factual error, just a poor argument.

quote:

The scientific community wants the term abiogenesis to take on new vagueness, so it can be claimed as a “fact”. They know that if it remains defined as it is, natural causes only, it is only speculation, ON THE SAME LEVEL AS INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

You've produced no evidence to support either assertion. The first is just a conspiracy theory. The second is a failure to understand what is going on in science and what is going on in ID.

The big difference between abiogenesis research and ID is that abiogenesis is the subject of active scientific research. There's virtually no ID research, and what is being produced isn't much use.

But there are plenty of other differences. Abiogenesis researchers don't start their research by writing school textbooks or soliciting for funds to support their strategy to influence society. They don't make films, making dubious charges of persecution. They don't try to link scientific opponents to the Nazis. They don't spend more time on the road preaching to the public than they do on research.

quote:

I think studies of naturalistic abiogenesis are comparable to studies of ID concerning usefulness to society, and open inquiry in science.

I don't even agree with that.

quote:

They also seem comparable in terms of being testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable.

That's dead wrong. Abiogenesis research is all about producing hypotheses that can be tested by means of repeatable observations. ID seems to be about avoiding that altogether.

quote:

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.

That's dead wrong too. "Darwinism" doesn't have a gap that is filled by abiogenesis at all. You might fairly say that science has a gap. You are also completely wrong to say that Darwinism was politically established (it won on scientific merit). And it is the ID paradigm that seems to conflict more with open inquiry.


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

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 870 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 yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 297 (543729)
01-20-2010 11:13 AM


As a theistic evolutionist, when I use the word "abiogenesis" I am referring to inevitible fact that life had to have come from non-life (because we know that there was a point in the universe where there was no life and there is life now) whether god had his hand in it or not and whether he use naturalistic or supernaturalistic means.
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 870 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 yet responded

Apothecus
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 42 of 297 (543769)
01-20-2010 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by greyseal
01-20-2010 9:02 AM


...untestable, unfalsifiable and entirely non-explanatory.

As is most biblical "evidence" we're asked to swallow as fact with nothing more than faith as basis for such.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by greyseal, posted 01-20-2010 9:02 AM greyseal has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 297 (543782)
01-20-2010 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
01-20-2010 9:28 AM


You do make a lot of stuff up, don't you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2010 9:28 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

greyseal
Member (Idle past 2034 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 44 of 297 (543834)
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.

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.)

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.

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 yet responded

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

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 870 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)

Hi, Greyseal.

greyseal writes:

marc9000 writes:

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. yes on number 1 because that's what it means. You may WANT it to mean something else, more specific, but actually it doesn't.

Did you notice that Marc put the phrase "by natural causes" at the end of his definition of "abiogenesis" in the first statement? In confirming that statement, you contradict your later usage of the word "abiogenesis," so I suspect this was just a minor error.

Adding the phrase "by natural causes" is the "something more specific" that Marc wants "abiogenesis" to mean.

Thought I'd point that out before it became a major source of confusion and sidetracking.

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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by greyseal, posted 01-21-2010 9:04 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

Prev12
3
456
...
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