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 8:55 PM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, edge, Faith (5 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,666 Year: 6,703/19,786 Month: 1,244/1,581 Week: 66/393 Day: 49/17 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
20Next
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14930
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 196 of 297 (551186)
03-21-2010 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by marc9000
03-21-2010 4:05 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
quote:

t’s not an informal consensus when it comes to ID, is it? ID has to conform with many formal requirements that abiogenesis and the SETI institute never had to, doesn’t it?

That seems to be an unfounded assumption on your part.

quote:

That it’s a step beyond anything ID has managed is only your opinion. ID has also put forward some serious ideas.

It seems to be an obvious fact to me. What has Id produced that is comparable ? How productive has it been in terms of inspiring research ?

quote:

“Experiments that supported”? It says;

As I said experiments that supported some of his ideas:


Oparin outlined a way in which basic organic chemicals might form into microscopic localized systems - possible precursors of cells - from which primitive living things could develop. He cited the work done by de Jong on coacervates and other experimental studies, including his own, into organic chemicals which, in solution, may spontaneously form droplets and layers. Oparin suggested that different types of coacervates might have formed in the Earth's primordial ocean and, subsequently, been subject to a selection process leading eventually to life.

Did you miss that part ?

quote:

Dembski and Behe haven’t released any extensive experiment to investigate any of their ideas either, but that doesn’t mean no one possibly can 30 years from now, at least to the feeble extent that Miller did for abiogenesis. Yet abiogenesis was science when Oparin was only forwarding his “ideas”, wasn’t it?

Neither Dembski nor Behe have done ANY significant experiments to verify their ideas. If you want to claim that their contributions are on the same level as Oparin's you are going to have to do better than unsupported assertions.

quote:

Abiogenesis IS considered science – I’m saying it has been there since long before the politics of today, long before separation of church and state, long before the ACLU. There’s nothing to suggest that it was legally prohibited from being in science textbooks 90 years ago. If it was limited in science textbooks 90 years ago, (as I suspect it was) it was because of school board decisions, not legal action. ID’s content in science textbooks should equally be determined by school board decisions, not legal action as it is today.

Whether or not a field of study is considered science has nothing to do with separation of church and state or the ACLU. (Although I think that you will find that the First Amendment is rather older than a mere 90 years).

quote:

As we now see, abiogenesis didn’t start with research, it started with ‘ideas’ (Oparin) One book called “The Design Revolution” by William Dembski (2004) has enough ideas about ID to compare with a couple of decades of abiogenesis ideas by Oparin and several of his friends, I’d venture to say.

I'd venture to say that it contains nothing comparable at all.

quote:

The scientific community constantly clamors for evidence of “research” for ID, as if to imply that if the research is good enough, thorough enough, scientific enough, then it will welcome ID into the scientific community with open arms. As we clearly saw with Behe, it doesn’t matter what the ID community comes up with, when it releases anything, the scientific community goes into destroy mode.

By which you mean that they find the errors in his work. All part of the scientific process and Behe should know it. But it is significant that Behe has published very little about ID in the scientific journals - and I've yet to see any significant evidence of him submitting seriosus papers that have met with unmerited rejection.

quote:

How can that possibly be? I’m constantly told that evolution and abiogenesis don’t have a thing to do with each other!

That's a very silly argument. What you have been told is that abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory, not tat it is completely unrelated. But then Oparin being called "the Darwin of abiogenesis" doesn't establish any real link anyway. All it really means is that Oparin is seen as the founder of abiogenesis - if any working ID theory is produced it is unlikely that Behe or Dembski will rate a similar title.

quote:

Hahaha – IF NO CHALLENGES WERE MADE, THAT IS EVIDENCE OF A FREE PASS! One thing is for sure - the scientific community doesn't have the market cornered on logic!

If no challenge have been made that means that no challenges have been made. It does not mean that abiogenesis has the sort of special privileges you want for ID.

quote:

Because of the differences in reaction of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY to popular books – the way it embraces the authors and ideas of atheist books (Stenger/Dawkins), and tries to discredit the authors of books that scientifically challenge evolution. (Behe/Dembski)

I must admit that I have seen no evidence to support that. (And you would have to show that the difference is reaction was not due to the relative quality of the books),

quote:

Not by government action, by government INACTION, the same inaction that abiogenesis got 90 years ago. Why do you put the words “affirmative action” in quotes, as if I said them?

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the concept of "scare quotes", where the quotes are used to indicate that the enclosed words do not precisely represent the situation.
However, government inaction cannot in any way give ID special privileges, so obviously you meant something more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 4:05 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 3:42 PM PaulK has responded

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


Message 197 of 297 (551187)
03-21-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by marc9000
03-21-2010 4:37 PM


Re: Theistic science?
Hey there marc9000.

marc9000 writes:

I believe the atheism that’s in science should be balanced, but not by religion, by evidence of design.

huntard writes:

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?

cavediver writes:

What evidence??? What possible evidence is there of design? Every claim ever made by the ID crowd has been soundly refuted. Do you have anything new?

And I'll make it a hat trick, marc9000: of what evidence do you speak? I'm sure it'll be good, god of the gaps stuff...

Have a good one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 4:37 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14930
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 198 of 297 (551189)
03-21-2010 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by marc9000
03-21-2010 4:17 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
quote:

ID leaders like Dembski have put forward ideas about how design in biology can be detected by scientific methods.

Dembski's method requires identifying ALL explanations other than design and showing that ALL of them are ridiculously improbable. It has not been successfully applied to find design even once in biology. It seems to be so utterly impractical as to be worthless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 4:17 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 987
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 199 of 297 (551192)
03-21-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by RAZD
03-17-2010 10:08 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
RAZD writes:

Hi marc9000, sorry to take so long replying.

If anyone doesn’t deserve an apology for someone else's long absence, it would be me.

RAZD writes:

quote:
Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.

This is the general definition that I started with, and have then compared to old definitions of science to show that it has not changed in the last 182 years in order to exclude ID but have already allowed abiogenesis.

Do you agree that this 1828 definition includes abiogenesis in the same way that it "falls under" the definition above?

I don’t think abiogenesis can get any closer to a prediction or predictable type of outcome than ID can, because there are limits to proof and facts about an early earth atmosphere, and many other things about naturalistic life from non-life. Very comparable to the limits ID has in addressing a realm other than time and rearrangement. Abiogenesis can make suppositions about those gaps, and then experiment and observe in the time and rearrangement realm based on it. ID can do exactly the same things – it can make suppositions about matter/conditions appearing from nothing by supernatural causation, then experiment and observe a subsequent~design~ in the time and rearrangement realm.

Here we see that the term science is applied to subjects founded on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy. Natural philosophy at this time meaning the study of the natural world.

So far we haven't found an old definition that would fit the current status of ID, so the claim that the definition has been changed to keep ID out is spurious assertion without merit.

If you can't show that ID meets these definitions then you will need to agree that the definition has not been changed to omit ID, rather that ID just has not stepped up to the plate yet, and that it is not the fault of the science community that ID has not stepped up to the plate.

I can easily show that ID meets those definitions. It is a science of design detection, and there are already other sciences of design detection. Anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and SETI, are others. Design detection – detection of purpose in nature is natural philosophy just as much as abiogenesis.

RAZD writes:

marc9000 writes:

I’d like to see some documentation on that. I’d like to see the date when abiogenesis was declared to be science, and what science it had “done” to gain that status.

These threads show the ongoing scientific investigation of the possibilities of life forming through natural laws from available chemicals, including several different options and including the PAH hypothesis, and that show that this subject is "founded on experiment and observation" and meets the 1828 definition as well as the general definition above.

But that’s not what I asked for, and that’s not what you allow ID time to do. You don't allow ID to be "ongoing", you require it to be complete for its scientific entrance. I asked for documentation of abiogenesis “STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE”, The opening details and date of it. You require ID to step up to the plate, and no one seems to be able to tell me when or how abiogenesis was AWARDED FIRST BASE. The 1920's it appears, with one persons "ideas" and little else. The ID community has plenty of ideas.

These threads only touch the surface of the volume of ongoing scientific study into the possibilities of life forming through natural means from available chemicals.

I know – searches for atheism. Time and rearrangement, with everything else ruled out.

Except that the 1828 definition does not "forcefully excludes the supernatural (atheism) art, agriculture, navigation, arts, painting, sculpture" does it? Rather it distinguishes between difference between natural science, art and philosophy, notably including metaphysics.

The 1828 definition doesn’t say anything about testable, repeatable, falsifiable, observable either does it? Why are those things constantly applied to ID?

Curiously, mathematical (and philosophical) challenges are not facts, and fact is what you need to challenge science. Scientific theories and hypothesis are only falsified by facts that contradict them, not by contrary theories and hypothesis (which is all mathematical and philosophical deductions can be).

“Falsified”? That word doesn’t appear in your 1828 definition.

It isn't religious to propose the concept of irreducible complexity, where it gets religious is in the assumption that if an observed instance of irreducible complexity cannot be explained by evolutionary processes that the default is that some god or other was involved.

That’s not one bit different than the evolutionary process explaining something, so that by default no God was involved. Theistic evolutionists will claim that God was sitting there, doing nothing, just that he wasn't involved. Other than that, atheists can answer all their questions for them. It's not convincing.

Interestingly, the Irreducible Complexity Hypothesis has been falsified, yet the IDologists refuse to discard it as would be done in any proper scientific investigation.

This is a clear indication of the dangers of only one worldview (godlessness/naturalism/atheism) ruling science. When we tell students that Irreducible complexity is falsified, we imply that the removal of one part of a complex system CAN’T cause the entire system to come to a standstill, and it’s a FACT that it can, and almost always does, in systems that humans have designed, and in biology as well. The remaining parts sit still, and almost always quickly deteriorate / die. If this is naturally true after the beginning of a complex system, questions can arise about that natural characteristic during the formation of that system. Naturalists can launch themselves down complex paths to show that it doesn’t matter and doesn’t affect the evolutionary process that they hold dear, but they can’t conceal their anger, or their desire to discard, and not teach, a fact of nature. Just because it’s provable to be applicable to existing biological systems so far, doesn’t mean it’s not biology.

If you cannot defend the points of a website, then it would appear that you would not have the understanding of the subject to know whether what the website is saying the truth or an elaborate fabrication intended to delude the more under-informed and gullible people, telling them what they want to believe, and relying on confirmation bias.

Or, it could also appear that I CHOSE not to defend the more detailed points of a website (that I put forward way back in message 56) that most of my opponents here showed no interest in. I count a total of 25 posters in this thread. Excluding myself, Admin, and four others who’ve taken no exception to anything I’ve said, that leaves 19 opponents that I have. That makes you 1/19th of my opposition. It was you who said the following, in message 59;

quote:
The problem is focus rather than responding to every little reply.
And yes, the more you sling around and throw off replies to each and every response you get, the more the topic (whatever it is) will be buried by additional comments that drift further from any specific topic.

I feel that the focus of what 19 combined people are saying about this specific topic is best served by not going into more detail about a website that only you appear to be interested in. If I’m accused of being UNABLE to respond to something that I CHOOSE not to respond to as I face a large number of posters, it’s simply another example of the shouting down process that is common from evolutionists, as they seek to oppose anything but naturalism.

marc9000 writes:

Your curiousity should diminish when you add up the instances when abiogenesis was on the receiving end of an ACLU lawsuit, vs that of the ID community.

Poor baby. Gotta have that persecution complex or you're not happy.

The presence (and absence) of ACLU lawsuits are facts. Let’s review what a “fact” is – the scientific community often seems to do some stretching with it. A fact is generally described as something that actually happened in real time, known to be true by evidence, etc. The best way to clarify it is that it would transcend worldviews, by being obvious to the five human senses of hearing, sight, taste, touch, and smell. When the scientific community says it’s a fact that a big bang happened billions of years ago, or that a Tiktaalik Roseae crawled out of the ocean millions of years ago to later sprout into a human, they’re not entirely correct, because they’re not observable by those five human senses of persons from a wide variety of worldviews. When we look at the basic existence of lawsuits, they come on real strong with the hearing and sight senses of any person, of any worldview, if that person takes the time to do some serious historical research on them. The philosophical application of the outcome of those factual lawsuits isn’t a persecution complex to near the extent as the persecution complex that atheists feel from a different type of scientific study that need not concern them if they choose not to participate in it. Unless of course, they’re afraid of it.

ID is not recognized as science because it is not a testable hypothesis based on observation and testing of the evidence found in the natural world.

The word “testable”, or even an abstract reference to it, does not appear in your 1828 definitions above. That’s one of the ways you allow abiognesis in – an early earth atmosphere is not testable. You’re not able to get away from your double standards.

It currently is political trash-talk at its worst, and philosophical hypothesizing at its best. Fascinatingly neither is considered the pursuit of science.

Abiogenesis is atheistic trash talk. It can be dressed up in the shiny suit of science only because of the atheists who control science.

I note that you have ignored the several opportunities that ID had been given, both from the Discovery Institutes pet research facility and from Templeton Foundation (Message 149):

I haven’t ignored them, I’ve noted that politics is involved, and considering the emotional treatment that ID proponents like Dembski and Behe have received in the past, I’ve actually explained them. (personal, emotional opposition to these two men in the past are “facts”. )

William Dembski has written several books on Intelligent Design, describing exactly what it is, and what it proposes, and ideas about research for it, the same type of ideas that were good enough for abiogenesis at its beginning.

As for funding, try this little piece of news:

[link]

There's your funding, available and ready to be used ... nobody applied to use it to actually do something scientific with it.

Opportunity not taken, so it's not the fault of secular science that ID has not done any real science yet, it is the failure of the ID people to do science.

There are a lot of evangelical colleges and places that could also provide funding, but it seems ID can't convince religious schools either (from the same article):

quote:
The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.
Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.

This was discussed on ID Failing--at Christian Institutions.

Yes, I glanced over that thread. Message 16 from administration warned the poor babies about the “personal sniping” against the lone ID proponent. The “persecution complex” often goes through the roof when the subject of ID comes up, doesn’t it?

In that opening post, we had a c/p with some quotes from Derek Davis, of Baylor, a Baptist university, who wants to quit “playing games” about the religious worldview being advanced. I wonder what he thinks about the atheist worldview being advanced? What he thinks about the list of books that I showed in message #171. (the existence of those books is a ”fact”)

If ID can't convince religious schools that it's science, how can you expect secular universities to do so?

Even religious schools have to be very careful about what goes on in their science classes. They’re not immune from politics.

I have falsified several of your claims, particularly that the definition of science has been changed in order to exclude ID,

With your additions of the words “testable” and “falsifiable” for ID that are not included in your definitions, sorry, you have not.

that ID is just as scientific as abiogenesis,

With your complete inability to document the opening, original abiogenesis “step up to the place”, you have not.

and that ID is unable to find funding to do science,

PUBLIC funding to do science. It was offered bait, and it had political reasons for not taking it. It’s a mousetrap thing – ID goes for the cheese, and the ACLU becomes the spring and the bar.

so it seems that all you have left is repeating your pet peeve rants in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Let me ask you this, in my message #157, I responded to this statement;

quote:
science seeks to prove itself WRONG…
.

By saying this;

“Today’s scientific community does not seek to prove Darwinism wrong.”

Then again, in message #159;

marc9000 writes:

bluescat writes:

If there was anything that was considered absolute truth, then the research into that study would cease, and would then be as religion that is dogma.


Public research involving a disproof of Darwinism HAS CEASED. ALL scientific study of it today only seeks to support/strengthen it, nothing more. It is dogma.

Neither of these posters have challenged my responses so far. Do you have evidence to show that science seeks to prove evolution wrong? If not, why would you think it would seek to prove abiogenesis wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2010 10:08 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Iblis, posted 03-22-2010 1:39 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 208 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-24-2010 2:20 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 233 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2010 9:02 PM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 987
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 200 of 297 (551193)
03-21-2010 5:28 PM


Haha - I knew I wouldn't have time to line-em all up in a row! In a few weeks, guys.
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 201 of 297 (551197)
03-21-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by marc9000
03-21-2010 4:17 PM


The conflict is in the interpretation, not the religion
hi marc9000, can't let this go by ...

But when 90+ percent of them oppose religion, or “fundamentalist Christianity”, they all have one huge thing in common,

That they are not anti-religious or atheist, nor do they have problems with reality as shown by the evidence around us.

When only a small fringe subsect of one of many religious groups has problems, it is not because of the science and the knowledge derived from scientific pursuits, it is the small fringe subsect that is the source of the problems.

If a person can be both christian and support the science of evolution, then obviously there is no conflict between them, per se, and that any perceived conflict is therefore due to different interpretations of christianity rather than fact, reality, and content.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 4:17 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18413
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 202 of 297 (551198)
03-21-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by marc9000
03-21-2010 4:17 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
marc9000 writes:

But when 90+ percent of them oppose religion, or “fundamentalist Christianity...

What makes you think "90+ percent of [scientists] oppose religion or 'fundamentalist Christianity'"? If you define religion as belief in a personal God then in the US only around 40% of scientists are not religious, and in other parts of the world the percentage is even smaller. Even smaller percentages are actually atheist or agnostic.

Scientists are atheist, agnostic, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Jewish, Morman, and a host of more minor religions. More scientists than not believe in a personal God. Scientists are a very diverse group.

IDists are primarily evangelical Christians.

When a scientist is in the lab he's looking for natural answers. When a scientist is contemplating his own mortality he's looking for spiritual answers.

You do the exact same thing. When you're working or fixing your car or playing a sport you're not looking for spiritual answers. The spiritual world is not the place to look for answers to what's wrong with your car or how to do your job.

Scientists do not seek natural answers to natural problems because they're evil atheists with an agenda against Christianity. They seek natural answers because that is what has been proven to work.

You, on the other hand, don't care whether science works or not, you just demand answers that don't cast your bronze-age religious beliefs in a ridiculous light.

ID leaders like Dembski have put forward ideas about how design in biology can be detected by scientific methods. There should be a difference between the understandable opposition to it by atheists, vs the open inquiry of it by valid science.

If Dembski was sincere about wanting his ideas considered by the scientific community then he would submit his ideas about design to the scientific community, but he doesn't do that. He publishes popular press books. So does Michael Behe, he of irreducible complexity.

More scientists than not believe in God and have nothing against Christianity. Scientific conceptions are not atheistic but naturalistic.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 4:17 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 3:52 PM Percy has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 203 of 297 (551199)
03-21-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by marc9000
03-21-2010 4:37 PM


Re: Theistic science?
More poor logic marc9000,

Abiogenesis is a scientific subject that strongly implies that religion is false.

Nope, it implies that creationist special creation is wrong, but it does not imply that religion in general is wrong. One religious view does not represent all religious views.

From deist (and various other theistic) perspectives abiogenesis is part of the design of the universe - how it was designed to function.

All science determines is how it may have happened, not why.

enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 4:37 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 204 of 297 (551217)
03-21-2010 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by marc9000
03-21-2010 4:26 PM


Re: Theistic science?
Science is WITH religion, when it tries to challenge it, oppose it, replace it.

Except that science is not challenging religion, only in the minds of fundies does one see any conflict or challenge, and that from the religion side. Moderate theists don't.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 4:26 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

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


Message 205 of 297 (551233)
03-22-2010 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
03-21-2010 5:24 PM


abioGENESIS
Abiogenesis is atheistic trash talk. It can be dressed up in the shiny suit of science only because of the atheists who control science.

No, I can't let this stand, sorry. You think you are defending some sort of high ground, whereas in fact your position is untenable. There is nothing intrinsically atheistic about abiogenesis. Far from it!

NEWS FLASH: The Jesuits believe in God! And they have defended abiogenesis throughout the history of their order. And they aren't alone, the vast majority of intelligent Christians with an interest in natural history have always defended it, going back at least to the 3rd century when the New Testament's view of the Old and the doctrines of the Church Fathers had certainly begun to be collected.

Do you know why? Because it agrees with the Bible! It is a Biblical concept, and it only became a scientific concept when science began to be the prevailing world view. Let's just look at Genesis, and see what God is said to have created and how life is said to have come to be.

First let's look at creation

Genesis 1:1 writes:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

That's pretty clear, isn't it? Nowadays we might say "spacetime" and "matter/energy", but we know what we are talking about. The sky, and the planet, might sum it up? And we can assume that they were created with the properties that they have, that the nature of the universe and the matter in it are part of this alleged creation event. Yes?

So, is anything else created right thereafterward? Well, not in so many words.

Genesis 1:3 writes:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

But I won't argue about it. The light is commanded to BE. That could well be a description of a special creation, possibly a detail in the creation of matter/energy, but I won't say it isn't creation. There's another command for something to directly BE, right after that.

Genesis 1:6 writes:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Again, the firmament is commanded to exist. This may well be a special creation, even if the word "create" isn't used. But notice that we already have these waters, that the firmament is to divide. These are part of the "heavens and the earth" that were already created. They are properties of the preexisting matter, in other words. With me so far?

So now let's look at how life comes about.

Genesis 1:11 writes:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Did you catch that? He doesn't create the plants, like he did the heavens and the earth (primary creation.) He doesn't even command them to be, the way he does the light and the firmament (secondary creation.) No, what he does is, he commands the earth to bring them forth. He has created the earth, matter, with the innate ability, to bring forth vegetable life. It does it at his command, BUT it's the earth that does it.

This is a wonderful pre-ce picture of abiogenesis isn't it? Unliving matter brings forth living foliage. Now let's have a look at the rest of the origin of life.

Genesis 1:20 writes:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

See that? He commands the water, to bring forth simple animal life. The earth is already there, it has vegetable life, it has water, now the water has the innate ability, on command, to bring forth simple creatures. He doesn't create them, he tells the water to do the trick he created water with the ability to do. Got it?

Genesis 1:24 writes:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

That's right! The earth, now with vegetable and simple animal life, has the capacity, on its own, on command, to bring forth complex animal life. This is super-clear, these life forms aren't created, they aren't commanded to be, the earth is commanded to bring them forth. If God commands you to bring forth a forum post, is that a special creation? Or is it something you have the ability to do, which you received as part of your own nature?

Now, is there anything else that God is said to have actually created? Sure, let's look at this part.

Genesis 1:27 writes:

So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Pretty interesting, huh? This might be a rough spot, but I don't think it is. Is it the body of man that is the image of God? I don't think so, I think it has something to do with what St. Paul later calls "a living soul". We could call it intelligence, if we want to use scientific terms. The second story in Genesis goes into more detail, the man is descended from complex organic crud ("red clay") but what God adds to that, is a living spirit.

Is there anything else in Genesis 1 to support this view? Well yes, as ICANT has been kind enough to point out more than once.

Genesis 1:21 writes:

And God created great whales ...

Yep. You got it. The only other organism, that God is specifically noted as creating, rather than just having the world bring forth naturally, are the cetaceans. That's right, the only other set of organisms, besides the primates like ourselves, whom science suspects to have intelligence high enough to constitute self-awareness. "A living soul". Read it, understand it. Stop believing what lazy biologists and dishonest mathematicians tell you about it, and read it, for yourself.

And this is why the Jesuits stuck so hard to spontaneous generation in the pre-Pasteur years. Because it made a good example of how things needed to be, for the story to be true. They had a hard time giving up their example, just as some of us still have difficulties giving up the clay theory, just as I myself still love to use PNA as an example, even though I know GNA is the real candidate. But you know, science marches on. If anyone disproves abiogenesis ever, it will be science, because the fundies cant be bothered to do real work and the Jesuits would prefer not to.

So stop claiming there's anything atheistic about matter bringing forth life the way God commanded it to in Genesis 1. Now.

NOTA BENE: Apologies to everyone fighting the good fight, I know this is a science forum. But he keeps claiming a literal reading of the book says something that it doesn't, and that's not right. I would maintain that literacy is a genuine academic study, and that calling him on it is of interest to science. But I'm done now, with the provision that any further attempts to claim abiogenesis is the least bit atheistic are also off topic. Thanks!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 5:24 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 12:25 PM Iblis has responded
 Message 216 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 4:01 PM Iblis has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 297 (551340)
03-22-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Iblis
03-22-2010 1:39 AM


Re: abioGENESIS
Is there anything else in Genesis 1 to support this view? Well yes, as ICANT has been kind enough to point out more than once.

Genesis 1:21 writes:

And God created great whales ...

Yep. You got it. The only other organism, that God is specifically noted as creating, rather than just having the world bring forth naturally, are the cetaceans.

Lets look at the whole thing in context. KJV Genesis 1:

quote:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


It looks like the waters brought them forth, but God still created them after their kind.

Not that this makes it make any more sense...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Iblis, posted 03-22-2010 1:39 AM Iblis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Iblis, posted 03-23-2010 6:21 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

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


Message 207 of 297 (551684)
03-23-2010 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2010 12:25 PM


Re: abioGENESIS
Lets look at the whole thing in context

Yes yes, of course, but I didn't want to get bogged down there. My posts run way too long as is. So when I got to the point where that can of worms would have come open, instead I tied off the spurting artery with a trite subliminal association between "jesus saves" and "save the whales" and proceeded to my apologies. You knew that already.

But sure, it could be read that way. It certainly looks all mixed together in English, and I don't mind the implications a bit. When I look at the Hebrew though, I see what look to me like separate clauses. I see the whales tanniyn being created bara', and the creatures nephesh being brought forth sharats, and then God seeing ra'ah that they're good towb. So while I wouldn't argue against an interpretation that the whales are also brought forth, and/or that the creatures are also created, what I couldn't tolerate arguing would be that the whales were not created, or that the creatures were not brought forth. See the difference?

created them after their kind

In the same way, based on the word order, I wouldn't put up much of a fight against this further interpretation. It very well could be saying that they were also created after their kind here. But the primary association is with "brought forth", so it is no good saying that they were not brought forth after their kind.

So fine, the complexities of the interpretation are up for grabs. What I don't feel is debatable at all is the fact that the text shows unliving matter bringing forth life. This is a textbook example of abiogenesis historically, and it's at the exact opposite end of the book from atheism.

The fact that it then proceeds with two more iterations of this "bringing forth", which could be interpreted to refer to philogeny and speciation respectively, is pretty much out of scope here. The neat association between two kinds of intelligent life in these events is an interesting mnemonic tool. I won't bother arguing here against the concept that the text may be teaching something inconsistent with evolution, but it's undeniable that unliving earth and water are depicted as bringing forth living plants and animals on command. So abiogenesis is safe on home base.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 12:25 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-24-2010 11:29 AM Iblis has not yet responded

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 466 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 208 of 297 (551747)
03-24-2010 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
03-21-2010 5:24 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
Hi, marc9000,

I'll start by saying I feel some regret or pangs of conscience about being your 20th (or so) antagonist in this thread -- the pro-science folks at EvC seem prone to ganging up on the poor anti-science folks (who seem to be rather outnumbered). Or maybe it's just that the anti-science folks can't seem to stand together in mutual support the same way that the pro-science folks do... (Why would that be?)

Anyway, I'm having some trouble with your representation of (assertions about) ID.

marc9000 writes:

ID ... can make suppositions about matter/conditions appearing from nothing by supernatural causation, then experiment and observe a subsequent~design~ in the time and rearrangement realm.

I don't understand what you're saying there. Can you describe what sort of experiment your referring to? What sort of experimental result would support inferences about a "designer" or assertions that a specific biological form was "designed" (as opposed to resulting from evolution)?

I can easily show that ID meets those definitions [for science]. It is a science of design detection, and there are already other sciences of design detection. Anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and SETI, are others.

First, if it's easy to show, please show it, or point me to where it has been shown. (In the Dover trial, Behe admitted that a definition for "science" that included ID would also, logically, include astrology. Do you agree with Behe on that point?)

Second, if you are comparing the "design detection" of ID to that of anthropology, archeology, etc, you are missing a crucial point: those other sciences seek to detect design on the basis of having observable evidence regarding the action or process of design, the physical properties and abilities of the designer, and the purposes that the designer has for the design.

For example, the archeologist detects design in the shaping of stones to form tools, and attributes the design action to humans, because (a) the stones are found with other indications of human presence, (b) humans can be observed to perform similar actions today, making tools out of stones, and (c) we readily understand at least some of the purposes served by the affected stones. In cryptography, they don't even look at anything that isn't known to be created/designed by humans for use by humans. In the relatively fringe case of SETI, the capacity to detect design is constrained by our limited ability to conceive of communication methods that we've never experienced; the strategies are inescapably founded on an assumption that other life in our galaxy must have something physical in common with us, in order to be recognizable by us as having "intelligence" expressible through physical media.

In contrast, every explanation of ID I've seen refers to some unspecified designer who cannot be directly observed at all (let alone while performing the actions to implement a design), and whose purposes are not discernible, knowable, or comprehensible by mere humans. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that, but if that's correct, then I really don't understand how ID can establish any sort of objective, scientific basis for anything it asserts to be "designed" in that sense. Can you explain in what sense such a design assertion would be scientific and objective? (And different from the assertions of astrologers?)

BTW, don't forget to include ornithology and entomology in your list of "design detection" sciences, because the nests of birds, bees and ants are "designed" in the same sense that various human shelters are designed: with observable actions by observable "designers", for comprehensible reasons.

When we tell students that Irreducible complexity is falsified, we imply that the removal of one part of a complex system CAN’T cause the entire system to come to a standstill, and it’s a FACT that it can, and almost always does, in systems that humans have designed, and in biology as well.

You misunderstand the intent of ID/IC and how these were supposed to "counteract" evolutionary explanations; you also you misrepresent the impact of falsifying ID/IC. The point of the ID/IC argument is to say that some biological system could not have evolved to be the way we see it today, because the ID/IC "theorist" asserts that all conceivable evolutionary pathways to the given system involve stages that are not viable -- that is, that some forms of an organism that would need to be posited in the evolutionary chain could not survive, due to missing some essential component.

It's not an argument about cutting some piece out of a viable organism and noting whether or not it dies as a result. No one is arguing about that -- "evolutionists" fully understand and accept the notion that organisms can die when vital parts are removed. {AbE: This is also fully understood by every school-age child. Alas, this notion does get in the way when people consider donating a kidney...}

What the argument is about, and what scientists don't accept, is that the assertions of an ID/IC "theorist" about the possible pathways of evolutionary development are supposed to suffice as the last word, the closing of the door on further research into a given question of biology. Based on every explanation of ID/IC I've seen, the intent of their assertions is to say "further research into the developmental history of this biological form is no longer needed and should not be done, because we have decided that it results from purposeful design by some entity, which we know nothing about and claim is unknowable."

When scientists falsify these assertions, they are simply demonstrating that the ID "theorist" failed to account for a particular evolutionary pathway where viability is established for each of the relevant intermediate stages of development, based on observable evidence.

In an earlier message (Message 56) you said:

This is what I wish someone would rationally explain to me. Why is it always claimed that a scientific acceptance of ID somehow causes some naturalistic aspect of science to be removed?

I hope the last few paragraphs above help to make this clear. Please let me know if you're still wondering about this. If you think I've misrepresented ID/IC, please explain.

In that same previous message, you also said:

The subject of ID has nothing to do with creation or the Bible.

That has been disproven -- in a court of law, no less. The judge's conclusion was based on ample physical evidence involving the editors and contributing authors of the book Of Pandas and People, as well as the various web sites and organizations that support ID and promote that book, all of which had a primary focus on evangelical Christianity in various fundamentalist forms, rather than on science. Remarkably, some "staunch Christian" Dover school board members perjured themselves at that trial regarding their acquisition of the book for use in the classroom -- so much for honesty as a "Christian virtue".

The subject of ID would not have existed, had it not been for the fate of the more explicitly Christian-based "Creation Science" (which was also shown, in a court of law, to be essentially religious rather than scientific). Most of what you've posted in this thread has further solidified the linkage between ID and particular anti-scientific religious beliefs that are characteristic of some fundamentalist Christian sects. I guess I should thank you for that (?)

Edited by Otto Tellick, : added a phrase as noted, plus some grammar repair


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 5:24 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 03-24-2010 8:19 AM Otto Tellick has acknowledged this reply
 Message 218 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 4:37 PM Otto Tellick has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18413
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 209 of 297 (551789)
03-24-2010 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Otto Tellick
03-24-2010 2:20 AM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
Otto Tellick writes:

(In the Dover trial, Behe admitted that a definition for "science" that included ID would also, logically, include astrology. Do you agree with Behe on that point?)

This is a little off-topic, but I think Behe's testimony at the Dover trial is often treated unfairly on this particular point (and only on this point). That Behe was specifically asked about astrology confuses what he was actually trying to say, which is that disproven scientific theories are still scientific. For example, the luminiferous aether theory tested by the Michelson-Morley experiment has been disproven, but it was developed and tested scientifically and hence is a valid part of the fabric of science. Astrology has also been scientifically tested and disproven (mostly - there's a couple disquieting correlations). As is often said, unsuccessful experiments can be just as significant as successful ones.

In the context of ID Behe's position is that ID is scientific and that it's still gathering sufficient evidence to persuade the broader scientific community. Compared to the aether and astrology it's still early days for ID. The true scientific tests of its validity haven't happened yet, but it's still valid science, or so Behe believes.

The origin and construction of a scientific theory is a messy and convoluted process that we like to pretend is actually logical and straightforward. ID is consistent with this characterization, and while its roots in religion make it highly questionable as a scientific theory, it can still be tested just like any other set of assertions about the natural world. Unfortunately for ID, it doesn't seem interested in making any pre-facto predictions, and as long as that continues it will never be tested. Of course, one could argue that IDists don't want it tested because they actually prefer the untested and untestable assertions of religion, the realm where they are truly comfortable.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-24-2010 2:20 AM Otto Tellick has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 297 (551819)
03-24-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Iblis
03-23-2010 6:21 PM


Re: abioGENESIS
Oh, I misunderstood you and the joke went over my head. I thought you were saying that the whales were not brought forth. Thanks for expounding.

I don't see anything to disagree with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Iblis, posted 03-23-2010 6:21 PM Iblis has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019