Summations Only

But if you had posted something that wasn't moronic we would have just sat silently nodding in agreement.An accurate post draws little attention.
If your post draws a lot of attention, then that gives us an indication of how wrong your post is.Your aim is to get as much attention as possible by being as wrong as possible.
Therefore you are just lying for jesus.It is a shame that god doesn't exist.
If he did then he could bitch-slap you for making him look like such a fuckwad.

Yes, but did it provoke debate? Did anybody learn anything?Or isn't it just 300 messages of Christians like you and Buz saying "dur, this is what atheists believe" and atheists saying "uh, no, trust us, it's not":10 PRINT "Is too!"
20 PRINT "Is not!"
30 GOTO 10If you can produce it with a BASIC script, here's a hint - it's not a debate.

Perhaps you can describe for us how much you enjoyed reading Buz where he accused me of blaming Christians for writing the list of Top Ten Signs You're a Foolish Christian.Threads in which Buz participates always draw many responses because obvious errors tend to draw a lot of attention, and then the corrections drag on because Buz misunderstands most of what he reads. You are young, grasshopper, and still have not learned to research before typing. Click on my name and look at my list of Fav Forums. Coffee House is 2nd on the list. We responded because we assumed you thought it was true, and its many errors explains why it drew so much attention. But if you only posted it because you thought it was funny then just say so - we thought you believed it.--Percy

The biological term, biopoesis appears to support the contention that bio-genesis is a prerequisite to life, which, of course would be a prerequisite to evolution.Again: Definition of prerequisite: Free Online Dictionary:

quote:

---

Required or necessary as a prior condition: Competence is prerequisite to promotion.
n.
Something that is prerequisite, as a course that is required prior to taking an advanced course

---

Definition of biopoesis; all-words.com (This definition concurrs with Wictionary.

quote:

---

(chemistry),(biology) the formation of life from self-replicating, but not living molecules

---

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The biological term, biopoesis appears to support the contention that bio-genesis is a prerequisite to life, which, of course would be a prerequisite to evolution

---

How ? There is certainly nothing in the definition to suggest that at all.(In fact the definition you give suggests that life is a product of evolution - that is the point of specifying self-replicating chemicals, chemicals that reproduce. Evolution is descent with modification - life would be a modified descendant of these non-living precursors).

No....It is synonymous with abiogenesis which has zilch to do with evolution other than being a possibility for how life arose on earth. Try again. Might I suggest reading about the subject as opposed to copying and pasting the definition of words? That way you will get a working knowledge of how these words are used as opposed to parroting the definition and still not understanding them.

It's not a hard concept to grasp Buz, so I guess you're either pretending or really incapable of understanding it. Despite the evidence, let's hope you're just pretending.Evolution works on life. Without life there is no evolution. So life IS a precursor to evolution.But life needn't have come out of your 'soup' (abiogenesis). It could have been put there by your god, been brought in by comets from another planet, planted by aliens or whatever else you can think of. It doesn't matter were it comes from, as soon as it arrives, evolution can get working on it.

Copy and paste the definition of prerequisite and analyze it in depth to support your allegation that it that biopoesis in not a prerequisite to evolution.

You ignore my point made earlier that your examples apply to a small minority, if any of renouned biological scientists. For all purposes, they are straw examples. Again, not Buz who trolls threads)

Hey Son Goku. A penny for your thoughts on all of this? Cavediver, et al?

Here's the analysis.To be a prerequisite it must be REQUIRED - absolutely necessary.The definition of biopoesis that you quoted implies that the formation life is the RESULT of evolution (as explained in my previous message), therefore it cannot be required.Therefore the definition of biopoesis contradicts the notion that abiogenesis is a prerequisite for evolution.OK Buz, your turn. You explain why you think that the definition of biopoesis supports your point instead of evading the question. (in one of those time wasting posts that you blame other people for)

What are you guys trying to argue with Buz, exactly? I can't follow it. His position seems to be that since evolution is the explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth, it sort of relies on life actually existing, and therefore that implies to some degree various scientific proposals for the origin of life.I mean I don't think any biologist or biochemist thinks that the origin of life is just something we can ignore and say "nope, doesn't matter, no reason to even look into it." Do they? Who on Earth would find that a more satisfying answer than "well, we don't know yet, but we're looking"?I'd like to see a lot more in your posts about what Buz is actually wrong about, why he's wrong, and a lot less "oh you need to go back to school, lol, you're so dumb." If you want him to read something - present it, or tell him where to find it. If you want him to know something, tell it to him.As it is I just can't understand what the three of you are on about.

"Biogenesis" is not the same as "abiogenesis." Note the "a-" prefix, which means "not." You and I are examples of "biogenesis," we both were not alive and then became alive."Abiogenesis" specifically and exclusively refers to the genesis of life from non-living substances.You're arguing via definition when you don't have more than a surface understanding of the subject matter, and have some very serious misconceptions about evolution in general. It doesn't work so well.What's more entertaining, though, is that Buzsaw, the Creationist, appears to be arguing in favor of abiogenesis, though clumsily.Buz, the root of the matter here, aside from your persecution complex, is that evolution does not require abiogenesis. It only requires life. Life may or may not require abiogenesis - it certainly looks that way, it's the most probable explanation given the evidence, but it's still conceptually possible that you are closer to the truth, that a deity magic-ed life into existence. But in either case, the Theory of Evolution doesn't particularly care - it describes the mechanism by which existing species change over time and eventually give rise to new species. That mechanism and that change has been directly observed, so we know that it happens with certainty similar to our knowledge that gravity binds us to the Earth.If life originated through a process of abiogenesis, whereby naturally occurring non-biological chemicals began to self-replicate by the simple and constant laws of chemistry with slight changes in each generation until eventually the first true life was formed, then evolution begins afterward and demonstrated how a singular life form can give rise to the diverse biology we see today. This seems pretty likely.If life instead originated by the direct action of your god, creating the first life forms from dust...well, then evolution kicks in afterward anyway, diversifying life on Earth beyond the original "creation."It does not matter how life originated.So long as life already exists, and resources necessary for life are limited, and organisms pass their traits on to subsequent generations with slight variation, then it is inevitable that the frequency of traits will change in a population over generations according to whether those traits are beneficial, harmful, or neutral in the surrounding environment. Those are the only requirements.So unless you're genuinely suggesting that life requires abiogenesis, that creation via a deity is impossible as a hypothetical origin for life on Earth, then you must concede that the veracity of the Theory of Evolution is not dependent on the veracity of the hypothesis that life arose on Earth through abiogenesis.

Look at it this way. The acquisition of lead is a necessary precursor to making a bullet. But where the lead comes from doesn't make any difference in doing a ballistics analysis to determine what gun fired the bullet.Life had to appear before evolution, since the ToE describes a process that only occurs in populations of organisms. However, there is no requirement that life begin in one particular way or another. The ToE would not change in any meaningful way depending on how life actually began. As such, no particular theory of the beginning of life is a prerequisite to the ToE.

Buzsaw seems to be arguing that in order for evolution to be true that life had to come about through abiogenesis. Therefore, by demonstrating the "impossibility" of abiogenesis one can falsify evolution. Buzsaw also seems to be arguing that the lack of any solid theory within abiogenesis also means that evolution is lacking support as well.