Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9207 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Fyre1212
Post Volume: Total: 919,412 Year: 6,669/9,624 Month: 9/238 Week: 9/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Top Ten Signs You're a Foolish Atheist
Taq
Member
Posts: 10293
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 316 of 365 (652879)
02-16-2012 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by crashfrog
02-16-2012 4:21 PM


Re: Paulk, Tangle, Hooah
If aliens seeded the Earth with life, where did they get it?
Let's say that they designed life from non-living chemicals using technology similar to what we use to create DNA oligomers. Let's say that they created a simple RNA replicator from non-living chemicals and inserted the replicator into a lipid envelope also derived from non-living chemicals. According to Buzsaw, if this happened then evolution could not occur because evolution requires abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2012 4:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2012 4:38 PM Taq has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1715 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 317 of 365 (652880)
02-16-2012 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by dwise1
02-16-2012 2:58 PM


Re: Paulk, Tangle, Hooah
The problem that we are having is that we have asked Buz to please explain his position that evolution depends on one and only one particular idea for how life started.
He's not talking about any particular scientific model of the origin of life, because let's be honest - he doesn't know any of the scientific models of the origins of life. He doesn't know that there are specifics about the models to know.
He's not being deceptive, he's just incredibly confused as always.
Does Buz ever have any idea what he's saying?
If "abiogenesis" and "biogenesis" are meant to refer to clearly-defined opposing concepts, that's news to me and I suspect to a lot of other people. It's worth pointing out that these are philosophical/theological terms, not scientific ones, and I think most people just assume that they both are meant to refer to "the origin of life, whatever that was."
Trying to pin Buz down on specific usage seems really, really stupid, since these words aren't used specifically, they're just used to refer to the "event" that was the origin of life on Earth - whatever it was.
Bottom line is that the prerequisite for evolution is life. Buz disagrees persistently and insistently.
How do you figure he's disagreeing? And bottom line, life doesn't exist in the universe without an origin, because the universe itself is not infinite into the past. So there can't always have been life, therefore life has an origin, therefore the origin of life is a prerequisite for the evolution of life. I don't see that Buz is anything but correct, in his usual completely confused and backwards way. And I still for the life of me don't see what the four or five of you are so determinedly arguing about. If these hairs get split any finer they're going to completely disappear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by dwise1, posted 02-16-2012 2:58 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Taq, posted 02-16-2012 5:15 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 322 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2012 5:17 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1715 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 318 of 365 (652881)
02-16-2012 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Taq
02-16-2012 4:31 PM


Re: Paulk, Tangle, Hooah
According to Buzsaw, if this happened then evolution could not occur because evolution requires abiogenesis.
But the aliens designing life from non-living chemicals would have been "abiogenesis."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Taq, posted 02-16-2012 4:31 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Taq, posted 02-16-2012 5:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3954 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 319 of 365 (652885)
02-16-2012 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by crashfrog
02-16-2012 4:29 PM


Re: Paulk, Tangle, Hooah
crashfrog writes:
Yeah, but he's being wry (or thinks he is) so he's using "primordial soup" not to refer to any specific biochemical model of the origin of life, but to refer to all scientific models of the origin of life.
If that's the case why did he then go on to deny ever having said that the primordial soup is a prerequisite for evolution? If, in this denial he's denying what you think he's denying, then he's denying that life is a prerequisite for evolution (sorry for all the denyings ).
His position has been completely inconsistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2012 4:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10293
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 320 of 365 (652890)
02-16-2012 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by crashfrog
02-16-2012 4:38 PM


Re: Paulk, Tangle, Hooah
But the aliens designing life from non-living chemicals would have been "abiogenesis."
It would not have been life from the primoridial soup (aka cosmic slime) which Buzsaw has stated many times is a pre-requisite for evolution.
"I would say that the primordial soup was a prerequisite to the ToE. No premodial soup; no evolution."--Buzsaw, message 142 of this thread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2012 4:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2012 11:15 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10293
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 321 of 365 (652891)
02-16-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by crashfrog
02-16-2012 4:35 PM


Re: Paulk, Tangle, Hooah
If "abiogenesis" and "biogenesis" are meant to refer to clearly-defined opposing concepts, that's news to me and I suspect to a lot of other people.
"Biogenesis is the belief that living things come only from other living things, . . . "
Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia
"Abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life would arise from inorganic matter through natural processes."
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
They sound like opposing ideas to me.
So there can't always have been life, therefore life has an origin, therefore the origin of life is a prerequisite for the evolution of life.
To reiterate once more, Buzsaw's position (at least in one post) is that if life did not originate through abiogenesis (i.e. primordial soup) then no evolution. What we are arguing is that evolution could occur even if life did not originate through abiogenesis (i.e. through natural means from inorganic matter) contrary to Buzsaw's claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2012 4:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2012 11:19 AM Taq has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 322 of 365 (652894)
02-16-2012 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by crashfrog
02-16-2012 4:35 PM


Re: Paulk, Tangle, Hooah
Crashfrog writes:
If these hairs get split any finer they're going to completely disappear
Normally I'd agree with that, there must be an internet law somewhere that says that any online debate will eventually result in at least one party defending a position he doesn't hold. If there isn't a law, then I'm naming it.
But in this case i do think it matters that this distinction is made. This is what Answers in Genesis are telling their readers. It's a wedge. They think that evolution falls apart because science can't yet explain how life started.
If they just stuck to saying that science doesn't know how life started and never will, they'd have a powerful and honest point to make, but they have to extend it into the lie.
What We Really Know about the Origin of Life
Research on how life first arose from inanimate matter is an example of historical science at its worst. There is absolutely no way to verify any hypothesis that attempts to explain how the very first living thing came about in a purely naturalistic way. Some evolutionary biologists try to separate the origin of life issue from evolutionary biology. The problem with this is that evolutionary scientists have a commitment to naturalismall phenomena must be explained using only natural laws. Since the appearance of life on earth is a phenomenon that occurred, it must be explained. Naturalists must follow an evolutionary chain from the organisms living today back to the beginning of the universe. For them, complex animals came from simple animals which came from simpler organisms which came from chemicals which came from stardust. If one of these pieces is missing, evolutionary thinking loses its foundation.
The Origin of Life | Answers in Genesis

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2012 4:35 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Perdition, posted 02-16-2012 6:12 PM Tangle has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17906
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


(3)
Message 323 of 365 (652898)
02-16-2012 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by crashfrog
02-16-2012 4:29 PM


Re: Paulk, Tangle, Hooah
quote:
And, look, you can hardly propose a Godless evolution happening as a result of a Godful creation. A naturalistic evolution of life certainly implies a naturalistic origin of life, that's why scientists are trying to develop one.
Well this is the first argument to actually support Buz's claim but it is still pretty badly wrong. And it says a lot about Buz that he couldn't even manage to do that well.
Firstly, why exclude lesser supernatural entities from the table ? Surely any non-natural origin of life is outside of what Buz thinks of as the "primordial soup" ?
Secondly God is supposed to be ineffable, so what makes you think you can tell that no possible God would ever create evolving life ?
Thirdly, creationism and evolution aren't complete contraries. Even most YECs accept some evolution. So it is certainly wrong to insist that evolution requires abiogenesis without a lot of qualification.
Fourthly, what about Behe's idea of God occasionally intervening in evolution by a little genetic engineering ? That's a LOT closer to purely naturalistic evolution than it is to creationism. Where does that fit ?
Fifthly, the definition of life is not clear-cut. It's certainly possible to argue that evolution started before life existed, by defining life to exclude early replicators. AND THE DEFINITION OF "BIOPOESIS" THAT BUZ QUOTED TO "SUPPORT" HIS ASSERTION TAKES EXACTLY THAT VIEW. Now you might insist that Buz disagrees - but it's still pretty hopeless to quote a definition that contradicts him as support for his claims !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2012 4:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3486 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 324 of 365 (652906)
02-16-2012 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Tangle
02-16-2012 5:17 PM


Re: Paulk, Tangle, Hooah
Normally I'd agree with that, there must be an internet law somewhere that says that any online debate will eventually result in at least one party defending a position he doesn't hold. If there isn't a law, then I'm naming it.
The Tangle Law?
Law of Tangledness?
It actually seems to fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2012 5:17 PM Tangle has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 325 of 365 (652908)
02-16-2012 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by crashfrog
02-16-2012 4:21 PM


Re: Paulk, Tangle, Hooah
HUH?
Buz has never said that life is necessary for evolution to happen.
Buz defined biogenesis very precisely back in Message 289 as "(chemistry),(biology) the formation of life from self-replicating, but not living molecules ".
A magician making dust figures and blowing life into them or a magician speaking life into existence is not the same as "(chemistry),(biology) the formation of life from self-replicating, but not living molecules ".
You bring up yet another possibility "that life is a phenomenon of infinite duration into the past" at least into the past of this universe.
But Buz has never said "life is necessary for evolution to happen", had he said that then the most that might have been said is "No shit."

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2012 4:21 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 326 of 365 (652913)
02-16-2012 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Buzsaw
02-16-2012 2:22 PM


Re: Paulk, Tangle, Hooah
No, I'm not conflating biogenesis with evolution.
Just a cotton pickin' minute..... Why (and when) did you all of a sudden change to talking about biogenesis? You realize that the A in Abiogensis makes a distinct difference in the word, right?

"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2012 2:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2012 8:40 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 327 of 365 (652923)
02-16-2012 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by hooah212002
02-16-2012 7:01 PM


Re: Paulk, Tangle, Hooah
hooah writes:
Why (and when) did you all of a sudden change to talking about biogenesis? You realize that the A in Abiogensis makes a distinct difference in the word, right?
I've used it two or three times recently, not realizing the difference. This is how we all learn both sides of the topics by debating.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by hooah212002, posted 02-16-2012 7:01 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by hooah212002, posted 02-16-2012 8:49 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 328 of 365 (652924)
02-16-2012 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Buzsaw
02-16-2012 8:40 PM


Re: Paulk, Tangle, Hooah
Would you like to take this time to clarify your position on the matter?

"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2012 8:40 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2012 10:36 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 329 of 365 (652934)
02-16-2012 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by hooah212002
02-16-2012 8:49 PM


Re: Clarification
Hooah see Message 307 add by edit for clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by hooah212002, posted 02-16-2012 8:49 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by hooah212002, posted 02-16-2012 10:42 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 330 of 365 (652936)
02-16-2012 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Buzsaw
02-16-2012 10:36 PM


Re: Clarification
So your position is that abiogenesis IS a prerequesite for biological evolution and without abiogenesis, biological evolution is not possible? Is that correct?

"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2012 10:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024