Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
583 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, Michael MD, nwr, Parasomnium, Percy (Admin) (7 members, 576 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,288 Year: 4,934/14,102 Month: 532/707 Week: 87/176 Day: 16/34 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 5 of 140 (567997)
07-03-2010 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
07-03-2010 8:46 AM


In Origin of the Species Darwin rejected the idea of 'special creation' outright.

Rejecting special creation outright is not the same as saying that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

For example, I reject special creation outright but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

He also held the view that all the life that existed descended from 'one primordial form' as opposed to many created forms ...

Holding the view that all the life that exists descends from 'one primordial form' is not the same as saying that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

For example, I hold the view that all the life that exists descends from 'one primordial form' but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

While its true he didnt specifically mention abiogenesis in 'origin of the species' he did consider it to be a very real possibility for the origin of life ...

Considering abiogenesis to be a very real possibility for the origin of life is not the same as saying that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

For example, I consider abiogenesis to be a very real possibility for the origin of life but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".

Darwin read critically Bastian’s 1872 book The Beginnings of Life. Although he was not convinced in full, he did accept the possibility of a natural origin of life from non-living matter ...

Accepting the possibility of a natural origin of life from non-living matter is not the same as saying that evolution and abiogensis are "one subject".

For example, I accept the possibility of a natural origin of life from non-living matter but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 8:46 AM Peg has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 140 (568147)
07-04-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
07-03-2010 9:14 PM


I am merely showing that the early evolutionists did in fact view abiogenesis as a part of evolution ...

FYI: No you're not.

evolutionists are still holding onto abiogenesis one way or another.

That and the multiplication table.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 9:14 PM Peg has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 140 (568148)
07-04-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peg
07-03-2010 11:51 PM


but clearly there are a lot of creationists who continue to deny evolution based on abiogenesis and that is due to evolutionists because they have failed to 'really' separate the two subjects

But not for want of the evolutionists explaining it to them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 11:51 PM Peg has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 140 (568150)
07-04-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:08 PM


but he point is that they were not simply studying how animals change over time...they were also looking at how the first living things got started on the planet and so in that sense they very much discussed both topics under the same subject.

Being interested in two different topics is not the same as "discussing both topics under the same subject", whatever that means.

For example, I am interested in the two different topics of abiogenesis and evolution. But I do not "discuss both topics under the same subject".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:08 PM Peg has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 140 (568152)
07-04-2010 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:00 PM


If it was simply the theory of how animals change over time then i dont think that anyone would argue with that...

Don't be silly. Of course they would.

its about how evolutionists believe life got here in the first place as you have just demonstrated.

Just because the same people believe in two different things doesn't make them the same thing.

For example, I believe both in aardvarks and in peanut butter. But this doesn't mean that they're the same thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:00 PM Peg has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 47 of 140 (568281)
07-05-2010 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:56 PM


Re: Breathed
darwin was a confused man

he didnt really know what he believed in regard to a creator...he was unsure and held to different views at different times.

You only need to look at the letters he wrote to different associates to see that.

Yeah, we do really live in different worlds, don't we.

In my world, a man should behave like a scientist, and when he has no evidence to enable him to choose between two hypotheses, he should consider them both and vacillate between them. And this is called "being honest".

In your world, a man should behave like a preacher, and when he has no evidence for his pet hypothesis, he should explain that he is absolutely right and that everyone who doesn't believe him is certainly damned. And this is called "not being confused".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:56 PM Peg has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 140 (568282)
07-05-2010 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:51 PM


what do you think a creationist will think if they pick up richard dawkins 'the selfish gene' and get to page 15?

they will be reading about how life began...abiogenesis...that amazing process that nobody saw and nobody can replicate but yet 'must have happened'

If you can sit there and say that they are ignorant for linking abiogenesis with evolution after picking up Dawkins book, then you are not being very honest.

Saying that abiogenesis must have happened and saying that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject" are not the same thing.

For example, I say that abiogenesis must have happened, but I do not say that evolution and abiogenesis are "one subject".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:51 PM Peg has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 140 (568283)
07-05-2010 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:37 PM


Re: intuitive linking
creationists hear that argument and object to that idea but they go one step further and reject all of evolution because they cannot separate the two. If they could separate the two then there should be no more debate.

You keep saying this. It's obviously wrong.

Assuming that by "abiogenesis" you mean the idea that the first life was produced by natural causes rather than by God doing magic --- do you really suppose that the single concession that the first proto-organism was produced by God-magic two billion years ago and that everything else evolved from it would satisfy your average creationist?

After all, since the origin of life and evolution are two separate subjects, as every evolutionist will willingly admit, every creationist could embrace evolution and still believe in a magical origin for the first organism.

But where is the creationist who actually does so?

Their rejection of evolution is not because of some imaginary logical inference from evolution to abiogenesis, but because evolution itself contradicts their religious dogma.

---

Let me ask you this. Will you be the first? You say that people reject evolution because it is tied to abiogenesis.

We, on the other hand, explain that it isn't and never has been.

Go on then. Accept evolution but reject abiogenesis. If abiogenesis is your real problem with evolution, then toss abiogenesis and believe in evolution. If you're telling the truth, then abiogenesis is your only real problem. Fine. Disbelieve it. Welcome to evolution.

Say out, loud and proud:

My name is Peg, and I believe that the first organism originated as an act of fiat creation by God, but that the history of life thereafter is well-explained by the theory of evolution.

No?

No. Because what you're saying about why creationists reject evolution is not even remotely true, even of yourself.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:37 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 07-05-2010 6:51 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 140 (568291)
07-05-2010 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
07-05-2010 6:51 AM


Re: intuitive linking
ok im going to stop right here because obviously you've missed the whole object of this thread.

You wrote, and I quote:

Peg writes:

creationists hear that argument and object to that idea but they go one step further and reject all of evolution because they cannot separate the two. If they could separate the two then there should be no more debate.

My bold. Your call.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 07-05-2010 6:51 AM Peg has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 140 (568788)
07-17-2010 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
07-14-2010 11:02 PM


Re: evolution & abio
I wonder what some of our evolutionist friends might have in response to the following exerpts from your link.

Derisive laughter.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 07-14-2010 11:02 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 72 of 140 (568792)
07-17-2010 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by marc9000
07-14-2010 9:52 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Evolution and abiogenesis were originally one subject – they both were (and still are) about naturalistic change over long periods of time, with no supernatural action involved.

Apples and oranges were originally one subject --- they are both fruit.

Wow, with logic like that, no wonder you're a creationist.

Incidentally, how did you find out how long abiogenesis took?

Recent scientific study of the past few decades that shows the complexity of the simplest forms of life, put into plain language largely by Michael Behe, has shown completely naturalistic, unguided abiogenesis to be nothing more than an atheist faith.

Now, if only you could convince biologists of this nonsense, rather than ignorant kids in Sunday school classes. Then you'd be getting somewhere.

This has been a tremendous source of frustration for the atheistic scientific community, this thread clearly displays it. Since it’s an atheist faith, it’s actually no more science than is Intelligent Design, yet they need to teach it in public schools, to support evolution. Their very recent attempt to alleviate their embarrassment, and allow themselves to teach abiogenesis in schools, has been to attempt to change the meaning of the word “abiogenesis” – to transform it to mean ANY beginning of life, including supernatural creation. Again, you can see the evidence of that throughout this thread. It seems to be working for them somewhat, they can easily switch the word back and forth – in and out of naturalism. Notice message 57, when the poster said, “you need the chemicals necessary for abiogenesis before you can have abiogenesis”! He was referring to it in a completely naturalistic way, and no one else in the thread 'corrected' him on it – explained the brand new definition to him. An atheist school teacher can now declare to his students “abiogenesis is a fact”, and if a concerned parent questions him about any separation of atheism and state, he can quickly say “Abiogenesis can be ANY beginning of life, including creation as described in Genesis. Then when the parent swallows that, he can go back to teaching the children about chemical reactions and random processes of naturalistic, atheistic abiogenesis.

Could I point out to you that in this very paragraph you yourself used the phrase "completely naturalistic, unguided abiogenesis"? Why the adjectives, eh?

Your paranoid fantasies as to why people use the same word for the same thing regardless of whether the supernatural was involved are ludicrous. Could I point out that this is a universal practice? We do not have one word for a rock (for example) which formed by natural processes and another for one which was poofed into existence by God.

The question is, is all of common-descent-evolution (Darwinism) riddled with the same kind of dishonesty?

I'm sure you can find imaginary dishonesty anywhere that suits you.

I hope you don't mind my recap of your point, now all the sputtering with rage can be directed at me rather than you. :)

Ah, you're one of those people.

Mockery is not a sign that you have made other people angry, but that you have made yourself ridiculous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by marc9000, posted 07-14-2010 9:52 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 9:16 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 140 (568850)
07-18-2010 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by marc9000
07-18-2010 9:16 AM


Re: intuitive linking
And they still are - nothing has changed about them.

And apples and oranges are not "one subject". They merely have one thing in common.

If you'll show me where I specified how long abiogenesis took, we'll discuss it.

You wrote that: "abiogenesis [is ...] about naturalistic change over long periods of time."

If militant atheist biologists refuse to acknowledge the complexity of the simplest forms of life ...

No biologist refuses to acknowledge that.

Whom do you hope to deceive by pretending that they do?

... and the utter failure of the scientific community to ever be able to address it using naturalism, I can't convince them, sorry

You don't have to apologize to me --- I don't want you to convince the world's biologists of your daydreams, so the regret must be all your own.

Because as we're seeing throughout this thread, evolutionists have only recently began to blend naturalistic abiogenesis with supernatual creation ...

They have never done so.

Again, I have to point out to you that identifying one thing that two things have in common does no make them into "the same subject", nor "blend them" or. If evolutionists call both apples and oranges "fruit" they are not "blending" apples and oranges.

And again, I wonder whom you hope to deceive.

... as if one word (abiogenesis) describes them both.

It describes what they have in common.

Adjectives are necessary when evolutionists are playing word games.

Adjectives are necessary to distinguish between two alternate versions of abiogenesis.

If you would prefer a whole different noun, please suggest one. What word would you like us to use to mean: "abiogenesis, but only if it happened by magical impossible processes rather than real natural processes"? I am not aware that such a word exists, nor am I sanguine of your ability to give it currency anywhere outside this thread. But feel free to come up with a suggestion.

Would you also like two different words for rocks that were made by magic and rocks formed by natural processes? How about trees? Fish? Clouds?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 9:16 AM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 5:20 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 90 of 140 (568906)
07-18-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by marc9000
07-18-2010 5:47 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Because ANY origin of life is being called "abiogenesis" throughout this thread, as if there was no other way for life to originate. There really is another way.

No. ANY origin of life is being called "abiogenesis", as though the word does not specific the way.

I read it in historical accounts (the Bible) by authorities that were authorized by the one who did it.

An assertion is not an argument.

That's good enough for me, just like atheists reading "Origin of Species" and accepting without question all the experimentation and theories of Darwin.

When you recite this absurd lie, whom do you hope to deceive?

Another question strikes me --- if you really think that you can't argue for your point of view without constantly spouting ridiculous falsehoods --- does that not suggest even to you that there must be something badly wrong with your point of view?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 5:47 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 91 of 140 (568907)
07-18-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by marc9000
07-18-2010 5:31 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Less than the original? This may be worthy of another thread, either a new one, or an existing one that I'm not aware of. Is the scientific community now claiming a human ability to create and destroy? It didn't when I went to school.

Alternatively, perhaps you weren't paying any attention in science class. That would explain a lot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 5:31 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 140 (568913)
07-18-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by marc9000
07-18-2010 5:20 PM


Re: intuitive linking
IT DOES IF THE SAME WORD IS USED TO DESCRIBE THEM. If both apples and oranges were called "apples" there would be a problem distinguishing them. If supernatural creation and naturalistic abiogenesis are both dishonestly called "abiogenesis" there is a problem distinguishing them! Atheist scientists wish to dishonestly confuse the issue, because they only have a fragmented, atheistic belief system to support abiogenesis, unable to meet the criteria they themselves have set for Intelligent Design.

Your lies and hysteria apart, what word would you like to use?

Adjectives are necessary to distinguish between two alternate versions of abiogenesis.

Then in message 72, why did you ask me why I used the adjectives?

Because it suggested that you agreed that we are distinguishing between two alternate versions of abiogenesis.

How about this one....."Creation"?

Too broad. Try again.

Creation means a lot of things. If we want to talk about the origin of life in particular, what we want is either:

(a) One word which means: the-process-by-or-event-in-which-life-originated-whether-or-not-it-happened-by-magic.

(b) Two words, one of which means a-process-by-or-event-in-which-life-originated-by-magic and one of which means the-process-by-or-event-in-which-life-originated-without-magic-being-involved.

You object to the word "abiogenesis" being used for term (a). You would like it to only mean the second term in (b). But then we need two other words: one for the first term in (b), and one for the concept described in (a).

Any suggestions?

No word is necessary for that. As soon as you say "abiogenesis" no further details are necessary. It means "life from non-life. Life could have originated WITHOUT being rearranged from non-life.

Well, if life was poofed out of nothingness, then I would point out that nothingness is not alive, and counts as non-life.

However, I would also point out that the Bible, like lots of other creation myths, has people being formed out of clay, which was then brought to life by magic, rather than people just being poofed out of nothing.

Atheists cannot prove that life was not instantly created, completely independent of a rearrangement process.

Well, I can point out that this is impossible. But then you tell us that you have an imaginary friend who can do impossible things, and who did this impossible thing. And you don't provide a shred of evidence for this. Which leaves me appealing to the laws of nature, which can be demonstrated, and creationists appealing to the unevidenced magic tricks of an unevidenced invisible magic man. Which leaves me in a rather stronger position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 5:20 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021