|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
well, the whole problem stems from language, I guess.
Strictly speaking, abiogenesis means life from non life. In a scientific sense, however, it can only apply to natural causes, since that is all science can study. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
Why thank you.
It's all a question of semantics, and Huntard put his finger right on the problem. In other words, when a scientist uses the word ''abiogenesis'', no one ever thinks he is referring to supernatural creation of life.
I don't know if no-one would think that. I certainly wouldn't
This is in fact the general understanding of the definition of the word as of today in both layman and scientific terms, and as Briterican said you should usually find this '... by natural processes' in the definition of the word.
I disagree. In laymen's terms, it still refers to life from non life. That's how I use it when talking to a layman, anyway. When talking to a scientist, I assume he means by natural causes, because, you know, that's what science studies. When talking to a layman, I use it to mean "life from non life", and so, that also includes creation.
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 ...)
Actually, that is the definition of the word. It's just used differently in science. "Abiogenesis" is not impossible, in fact, this is what must have happened. That the scientific use of the word only refers to natural causes is because that's all science can study, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't call creation "abiogenesis".
Of course I hope everyone can see the fallacy in this. 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. 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 you're talking in a scientific context, then no, I don't think he will. Most people aren't scientists however, and don't talk about abiogenesis in a scientific context.
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''
No, it shows that when talking about it in a scientific context it refers to natural causes. When talking about it in any other context, it simply means "life from non-life". I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
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 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. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
{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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Iblis writes:
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. Haha no, that's the whole discussion! There's nothing to the question beyond the concession you just made! Ok, compromise withdrawn
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
double post
Edited by Huntard, : double post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello Marc, thanks for your reply.
I agree with most of what you say however this bit:
marc9000 writes:
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
marc9000 writes:
Actually, Talkorigins is an archive, not a website "made up of many scientists". Also, could you provide me a reference that shows thtat a large part of the scientific community regard it as a scientific website?
Talkorigins, in a vague, general way, did just that — a website that is supposed to be made up of many scientists. A large part of the scientific community heartily endorses talkorigins as being a scientific website, a scientific reference Sure they would, they would just research it in a less vague (naturalistic) way.
But, the only way for sceince to research something is in a naturalistic way. Do you want scientists to als research gravity in a "less vague (naturalistic)" way?
If it’s specifically defined as only naturalistic, the religious community can legitimately question if it’s criteria for study is an exercise in atheist philosophy, rather than legitimate science.
But athesim has nothing to do with it. Being a scientist (and thus examining the natural world) has nothing to do with being atheist. There are many religious scientists.
If its definition is vague, then the same atheist philosophy can be claimed to be pursuit of greater understanding of a fact.
But it's definition is not vague. In fact it is very precise. In science it means "Life from non-life through naturalistic ways", in all other uses it means "life from non-life".
Because most of the scientific community is made up of atheists, and no one is completely neutral and perfect.
Oh please. Being atheist has nothing to do with it. It's not because of atheism that science can only study the natural world. That's due to the fact that only the natural world can be studied reliably. Tell me, how would you study a supernatural world, where everything can change in a heartbeat and react completely different than the way it did before. There can never be reliable conclusions when studying the supernatural. And so, science cannot study it.
Not everything can be studied scientifically. Human behavior, love, lots of things.
Of course they can be studied, that's called psychology.
Origin of life may fall into that category.
Well, we won;t know unless we study it, now will we?
At a certain point, the scientific community leaves science and enters philosophy in the public establishment.
No it doesn't. Science doesn't do philosophy. It studies the natural world.
(education/university grants, etc.)
And what's that got to do with philosophy?
AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT, unless they point accusing fingers and haul into court others who seek to do it in a way that differs from a godless position.
They do those things because it's not science, but religion wanting to supplant science. Religion's fine, in religious classes, not in science classes. If they really are doing science, let them prove it by doing science, not by playing political games.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
marc9000 writes:
Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of belief in gods.
NONE, including atheism. That’s what I’m saying. It needs to quit teaching a godless speculation about what went on billions of years ago, and stick to scientific facts in the present, facts that can be verified by the five human senses of hearing sight, taste, touch, and smell.
But those facts don't show any gods active. Now or in the past. So this doesn't really make sense. We shouldn't teach "godless" things, yet the fats don't show a god. Strange reasoning.
Proclamations of events of billions of years ago are not facts.
Of course they are. Are proclamations of the holocaust not fact because wee can't see, smell, hear, taste it? What about say, King Henry VIII? Nothing to see or smell or taste or hear there either. Absolutely no facts known about him? Do you really want to have this untenable position?
Your bet is the same straw man against me that is common in this thread. I believe the atheism that’s in science should be balanced, but not by religion, by evidence of design.
The best way to do that is to actually show evidence for design. Since nobody so far has been able to do that, why should we even consider it?
Abiogenesis is a scientific subject that strongly implies that religion is false.
So? You're the one who wants to go with the facts. It's not science's fault when they don't support religious belief. There are tons of other facts that don't support religious belief. Say thunderbolts for example. They aren't from Thor. Should we stop examining lightning because it "strongly implies that religion is false"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
marc9000 writes:
So, once they are all dead, no more evidence for the Holocaust, eh?
Human witness from the past fits the sight sense. Authorized written history counts as fact, because the acceptance of it’s accuracy almost always transcends worldviews.
That also goes for the these facts. The acceptance of their accuracy also almost always transcends worldviews. Evidenced by the fact there are many Christian, buddhist, moslem and so on scientists. The evidence for the holocaust goes against some worldviews as well, you know.
Because atheists don’t have a perfect record in presenting evidence before presenting their godless views.
We present the evidence we have, it's not our fault god is nowhere to be found in the evidence.
Surely you’ve seen the ape-to-man picture (who hasn’t) that shows the progression of 8 or 9 gradual steps as a chimpanzee turns into a caveman.
An artists' rendition is not science.
That illustration actually originated in Darwin’s time before there was any evidence for ape-to-man evolution.
Source? And so what? I never claimed that it is science.
It’s clear that religious people aren’t the only ones who start with a pre-existing concept and then try to make evidence fit what they want it to fit.
Of course not, you have unscientific shit going on everywhere. This doesn't do anything to the accuracy of the actual science being done though. Which is also done by lots of religious people, who agree with the findings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
marc9000 writes:
Ok. Just wanted to clear that up. So, you agree that we don't need witnesses alive or actually having witnessed something to know it has occurred, thank you.
Uh, no. Written history, particularly corroborated with other writers, lives on indefinitely beyond the lives of its writers. That works, if you WORSHIP science, if you believe it's the only source of knowledge.
I don't worship science. Science however is the only thing I've seen that produces reliable results.
My worldview tells me that written history is far more accurate than those who try to discredit it by looking through microscopes.
So, if someone had written "the flu is caused by demons, and it's cure is an excorsism", and this is then accepted as fact, and is corroboratred by more writings, men looking through microscopes to find out that it's actually a virus are completely wrong? You have a strange worldview.
Then why did I see it in a mid-sixties SCIENCE TEXTBOOK?
1) Because, apparently, you are old. 2) See dwise1's Message 239
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
marc9000 writes:
Actually, it is central. All you've said so far about ID and abiogenesis shows this to be the case. More on this later.
*Then in message 246, we find this;
you make religion such a central part of your "public" persona. This isn’t a statement about the subject we’re discussing, it’s about my personal faith being a foundation of my assertions. False of course, anyone familiar with this thread knows that it’s not central for me to make assertions based only on a personal faith. None of my other opponents will correct him of course — it’s more important for them to be silent about it because they’re on his 'side'.
The reason I don't "correct" him is because I agree with him. If he were wrong in my oppinion, I would point it out.
Science can and should make changes or additions as it makes new discoveries. In keeping with open inquiry, it shouldn’t be too hasty to close old doors, but it should be quick to open new ones.
I completely agree.
Recent scientific discoveries [Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics]about the simplest forms of life...
Did you just say the human genome project was about "the simples forms of life"? Guess you did.
...shouldn’t necessarily close the abiogenesis door, but have IMO shown today’s speculation of chemical abiogenesis to be as obsolete as yesterday’s ‘spontaneous’ abiogenesis was shown to be obsolete by Louis Pasteur.
You've made a couple of mistakes here that were pointed out to you upthread were wrong, yet you still use them. First of all, nobody is saying the first life was anywhere near as complex as what we see today, and second, Pasteur didn't investigate "spontaneous abiogenesis", but spontaneous generation of modern lifeforms (maggots from rotting meat, for example). This has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
It’s a whole new scientific ballgame today considering recent discoveries of the simplest forms of life.
The discovery of regarding the simplest forms of life have no impact on abiogenesis whasoever, they're there for evolution to explain, which it idoes.
Todays scientific community is a milti-million dollar special interest political machine.
That's simply not true. The scientific community deals with science, not with politics. Individual scientists might deal with politics, but that's on their personal behalf, and not on behalf of the "scientific community" of whom a majority are religious.
It will continue to claim an association/lack of conflict with religion, while simultaneously marching forward to destroy it.
It's not science's fault a litteral interpretation of the bible is not supported by the real world. It does not "destroy religion" it destroys narrow views of some "holy" texts. It's statements like these last few that clearly show how central your religious views are to your worldview.
t’s been going on for decades and nothing’s going to change anytime soon. Some scientific facts being kept hidden...
No facts remain hidden, even if someone were to attampt to hide them, they would soon be found out.
...and other areas of exploration going unexplored, is part of that unfortunate process.
There are only limited funds available, you know.
hat’s what I did my best to get at throughout the thread, and it’s the reason I started it.
And yet you were unable to do just that. Ah well, thanks for trying anyway.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024