|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is not Abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1536 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
First, I will agree that you don't technically have to identify the Designer. However, you do have to give some sort of explanation as to how he/she/it/they did the Designing, and how we could clearly and legitimately distinguish things that emerge from this Design process from things that emerge through non-Design processes. The work in this area so far has been... unconvincing, to say the least. I don’t see why that explanation has to be given. The current scientific community doesn’t legitimately distinguish between the simplest forms of life and evolution, and as has been learned only recently, the simplest forms of life are very complex.
Second, as you have undoubtedly been told by evolutionists before, there are two separate phenomena representing two separate phases of the history of life: the origin of life, and its subsequent development/modification. As you can see by the two messages before yours (127 & 128)t he evolutionists have been very confusing about those two separate phenomena in this thread alone. I wonder if the threads starter will respond to that?
Obviously, no hypothesis should be required to explain both phases, since it is perfectly valid to propose that the two phases of life's history functioned on different principles. To that end, evolutionists don't demand that ID/creation models explain everything as a result of a Design process. For example, we don't expect you to explain antibiotic-resistant bacteria as the result of de novo creations of the Designer: we are perfectly happy to let you explain it through mutations and natural selection, if you want. Which people like Behe and Dembski readily do.
In contrast, you are requiring our model to explain both phenomena with one hypothesis, so much so that you refuse to accept our explanation for one phenomenon unless we have a similar explanation for the other phenomenon. This seems like a double standard to me. The study of ID accepts and works with the more basic claims of evolution, as do I as a religious person. (for example, I don't believe Noah's arc held hundreds of different breeds of dogs) Since most anti religious/ anti ID people believe in common descent, they're relying on the first single celled organism as a beginning for their belief in evolution. Since they're so faithful/committed to that organism, they should be more faithful/committed to its origin. ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member (Idle past 203 days) Posts: 4001 From: Adirondackia Joined: |
marc9000 writes: Yes it does — I appreciate your honesty. I don’t claim a major victory because you said it, it just shows that there is some disagreement among evolutionists about what ID is, how it is defined, how serious a threat it could be to current scientific studies. It could make a difference in future court cases, when ID is painted as strictly religious by only some evolutionists, not all. ![]() Thanks. I needed that. Since you appreciate honesty, perhaps you could demonstrate some. Could you explain how your two options--aliens and gods--do not boil down to gods? Where did those aliens originate? Were they designed? If so, who designed them? If their designers were designed, who designed them? If they were not designed, then what? Aliens evolved--but we didn't? Aliens are eternal? You are trapped in a god box, and you can't get out. We'll just wheel your carton into the courtroom and watch you try."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1536 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
Thanks. I needed that. Since you appreciate honesty, perhaps you could demonstrate some. Could you explain how your two options--aliens and gods--do not boil down to gods? Why sure, just as soon as you and all your theistic evolutionist companions explain how your common ancestor does not boil down to atheism.
Where did those aliens originate? Were they designed? If so, who designed them? If their designers were designed, who designed them? If they were not designed, then what? Aliens evolved--but we didn't? Aliens are eternal? "Eternal", you may have found the correct word!
You are trapped in a god box, and you can't get out. And you are trapped in an atheist box, you believe everything has to fit in one time, and three space dimensions. That all of reality has to fit within human understanding. That humans are tops in intelligence, that humans are gods.
We'll just wheel your carton into the courtroom and watch you try. Not all judges/juries are atheists, or ACLU bought and paid for theistic evolutionists. In future ID trials you could be disappointed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1795 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Why sure, just as soon as you and all your theistic evolutionist companions explain how your common ancestor does not boil down to atheism. Well, because "atheism" is the philosophical position that there's no such thing as God. It's not the position that all life is the evolutionary descendant of a single common ancestor.
That humans are tops in intelligence, that humans are gods. An atheist does not believe in gods, human or otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1536 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
To clarify;
marc9000 writes: Since most anti religious/ anti ID people believe in common descent, they're relying on the first single celled organism as a beginning for their belief in evolution. Since they're so faithful/committed to that organism, they should be more faithful/committed to its origin. Does that make sense? If a designer is so important to ID proponents that their studies of evidence for it can't be separated from it, isn't the common ancestor that is equally important to evolutionists so important to them that they can't be separated from it as well?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1536 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
Well, because "atheism" is the philosophical position that there's no such thing as God. It's not the position that all life is the evolutionary descendant of a single common ancestor. Atheists don't believe in a common ancestor? How else would they believe life started?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1795 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No. Why would that be the case?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1795 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Atheists don't believe in a common ancestor? Whoever said that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 3025 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes: Bluejay writes: First, I will agree that you don't technically have to identify the Designer. However, you do have to give some sort of explanation as to how he/she/it/they did the Designing, and how we could clearly and legitimately distinguish things that emerge from this Design process from things that emerge through non-Design processes. I don’t see why that explanation has to be given. Because explanation is the whole point of science. Look, if I saw a prehistoric spearhead, I would take it to an archaeologist and ask him where it came from. The archaeologist would tell me that a prehistoric human made it. Then, I would ask him how the prehistoric human made it. The archaeologist might then talk about a certain technique for flaking stone to make spearheads. If I asked, he would probably be able to point me to some evidence that shows why this is the way he thinks the prehistoric human used that technique. Archaeologists have legitimate scientific theories about intelligent design. You should model yours on theirs.
marc9000 writes: The current scientific community doesn’t legitimately distinguish between the simplest forms of life and evolution, and as has been learned only recently, the simplest forms of life are very complex. I'm making an honest effort to try to figure out what you're trying to say here, but I think I've so far failed. If you're just saying that we don't distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution, I am first obligated to scold you for simply repeated your unelaborated original point. Then, I present to you the opinions of people here that seem to disagree with you, and place the ball back in your court.
marc9000 writes: As you can see by the two messages before yours (127 & 128)t he evolutionists have been very confusing about those two separate phenomena in this thread alone. I wonder if the threads starter will respond to that? Taq is arguing that, if evolution and abiogenesis are so closely interrelated that the lack of evidence for one can cast doubt on the other, then it's only fair that the presence of evidence for one supports the other. Don't feel bad, though: lots of people have trouble keeping up with Taq.
marc9000 writes: Blue Jay writes: For example, we don't expect you to explain antibiotic-resistant bacteria as the result of de novo creations of the Designer: we are perfectly happy to let you explain it through mutations and natural selection, if you want. Which people like Behe and Dembski readily do. Marc, are you even reading what I'm saying? How on Earth is this helping your case? You just confirmed that you are okay with IDists using two very different theories to explain these two things, but refuse to allow our theories to be separate. Another double standard!
marc9000 writes: Since most anti religious/ anti ID people believe in common descent, they're relying on the first single celled organism as a beginning for their belief in evolution. Since they're so faithful/committed to that organism, they should be more faithful/committed to its origin. ![]() Let me see if I understand this. You're saying that, because evolutionists tend to accept common descent, that evolution and abiogenesis must be the same thing?-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 3025 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes: If a designer is so important to ID proponents that their studies of evidence for it can't be separated from it, isn't the common ancestor that is equally important to evolutionists so important to them that they can't be separated from it as well? Marc, you keep conflating all kinds of things. Evolution, abiogenesis, atheism and common descent are all different things. Abiogenesis is a hypothetical process by which a living organism emerged from non-living precursors. Common descent is the idea that all modern organisms are descended from a single organism that emerged through abiogenesis. Evolution is the theory that explains how organisms descended from prior organisms become different from their ancestors. Atheism is the belief that God had nothing to do with any of the preceding things, because He doesn't exist.-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1582 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Not really, because you don’t show enough knowledge of what ID actually is. Motivation of a designer isn’t formally involved. I have two different, but related, responses to this point. First, no, of course it's not formally involved, because ID is a religious movement trying to camouflage itself as science. We al know that the only designer that the ID movement has in mind is an Abrahamic god. For them to openly discuss motives would let the cat out of the bag. (Not that it's much of a secret, but at least they can pretend they're not talking about their god.) Second, the fact that motivation isn't now a part of ID doesn't mean that questions about the motivation of the designer shouldn't be part of a legitimate scientific investigation. If there isn't a consensus about the motivation or how to study it, that wouldn't really be unique or even unusual. Scientific consensus can be very hard to come by in the early stages of a new field of investigation. Not a problem.
IMO there would be far more diversity in this regard among ID scientists that there currently is in evolutionary scientists about atheism. Not really. They all think it's an Abrahamic god. Some think it's Yahweh, some think it's Christ, and some think it's Allah. There is demonstrably more diversity among scientists, because there are scientists who believe in all the same gods as the ID crowd, as well as scientists who believe in other gods and who believe in no gods. I'm not aware of any atheist IDers.
Some claims that are made about evolution can be more acceptable/factual than others. If by that you mean there is more evidentiary support from some parts of the Theory of Evolution than others, I agree.
As more and more conclusions are drawn about what evolution is, what it has done, more and more philosophy creeps in. I really have no idea what you mean here. Can you clarify or provide examples?Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1582 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
isn't the common ancestor that is equally important to evolutionists so important to them that they can't be separated from it as well? No. It's been said many times, but so long as you keep ignoring the point, someone needs to keep repeating it. How life developed is irrelevant to the ToE. Now, it is true that any good scientist is going to be interested in learning new things, solving mysteries of the natural world. And there are many scientists working on learning what they can about the "first life form." (I put that in quotation marks because there isn't any first life form. It's a continuum. Atoms joined together to form molecules. Molecules joined together to form more complex molecules. At some point, some of those molecules began self replicating. Later, additional characteristics of life emerged. We can put together a semi-arbitrary set of criteria that we call life and then call the first organism that met those criteria the first life form. But in actuality, it was like the spectrum of visible light. There's no line between red and orange where it's red on one side and orange on the other.) And for those scientists that are working in that field, those questions are important. However, the answers to those questions are not so important to biologists that they cannot separate them from their own work. Biologists can happily go about their business studying biology and learn a great deal of information without ever even giving a thought to the beginning of life. It's not relevant to how life evolved.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9639 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
marc9000 writes: ..... but it won’t make much difference to what I feel about evolution, or fundamental Christianity. Just because scientists finally figure out a way to create life doesn’t automatically mean life happened naturalistically. No I didn't think it would. Even though evolution itself is proven (in the layman sense) it hasn't stopped creationists believing in Adam and Eve and Floods etc. so a good working hypothesis plus man-made life isn't going to make much diference to them. Their minds can't be changed by facts, they will simply deny them.
quote: I would be genuinely excited - as I was when I first heard about ID. The whole of science would be. Why wouldn't they? Science doesn't/can't argue against real fact and proper science. All the ID guys have to do is produce some science, it really is that simple.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 4033 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
From the very first post in this thread comes the following quote.
Tangle writes: Consequently, the ToE is agnostic to the cause of life and works independently of that cause. You seem to be arguing that the ToE is utterly dependent on the mechanism which gave rise to the first life. Is it your case that the ToE only works if life arose from abiogenesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6196 Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
WartHog writes: It wasn’t the same. Those were simpler times, it didn’t have to face costly court battles to be accepted as science. It was hotly contested by a large percentage of the population to be sure, but it wasn’t kept from public scientific inquiry like ID is today. In year one and onwards, Darwins ToE was one of the most hotly contested theories around. It went through the same purge by fire that ID is having now. No scientific idea has to run any gauntlet of costly court battles. Because no scientific idea is trying to promote any kind of political or social agenda in which it tries to force itself into the public school classroom. Yet that is exactly what ID and creationism repeatedly try to do. You have expressed the desire to see ID research published. We are all also awaiting the exact same thing. OK, so whenever are we ever going to see such a thing? Is it the same thing as "creation science's" "mountains of evidences"? Forever promised to the faithful, but never ever delivered?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025