Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 8:27 PM
17 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (3 members, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 226 of 312 (477644)
08-05-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by AlphaOmegakid
08-05-2008 2:28 PM


Re: You really seem to be going off topic with these religious posts
AOKid writes:

So?.....


So you just quote mined Clarke to make it seem he believes that cutting edge science is the equivalent of faith in a supernatural creator.

Then Catholic scientist points out how you attempt to misconstrue the wiki article I sited to conform with your belief on viruses.

You are a dishonest person AOKid. Shame on you. Jesus weeps.

Do you want to address any other evidence presented or do you concede that you cannot argue with it and your semantics is all you have to cling to?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-05-2008 2:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2008 3:53 PM dokukaeru has responded
 Message 228 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 4:03 PM dokukaeru has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 312 (477645)
08-05-2008 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by dokukaeru
08-05-2008 3:32 PM


Re: You really seem to be going off topic with these religious posts
Do you want to address any other evidence presented or do you concede that you cannot argue with it and your semantics is all you have to cling to?

We all know that he'll cling to the semantics and refuse to argue the evidence presented, because, well.... that's what trolls do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 3:32 PM dokukaeru has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 4:19 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 228 of 312 (477647)
08-05-2008 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by dokukaeru
08-05-2008 3:32 PM


Evidence is mounting AO....time to start shoveling or pedaling......
AOKid in message 53 writes:

The best debate tactic is supportive evidence. Arguments are just that, nothing more than words.. ..Try presenting some factual data to support your arguments, and they will grow stronger.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/20112/?a=f

Synthesizing a Genome from Scratch
Scientists say the results represent a new stage in synthetic biology.

Friday, January 25, 2008 By Emily Singer

Singer writes:

We consider this a second and significant step in a three-step process of our attempt to create the first synthetic organism

Singer writes:

The researchers' next step will be to show that the synthetic genome functions as it should.

Singer writes:

"It really is groundbreaking that you can synthetically build a genome for a bacterium," says Chris Voigt, a synthetic biologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the project. "It's bigger by orders of magnitude than what's been done before."

So in 5 years we have gone from a virus that is 7741 base pairs to a bacteria that is 582,970 base pairs. Is this Abiogenesis?

Edited by dokukaeru, : Added Article Link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 3:32 PM dokukaeru has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by NosyNed, posted 08-05-2008 4:08 PM dokukaeru has not yet responded
 Message 231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2008 4:17 PM dokukaeru has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8839
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 229 of 312 (477649)
08-05-2008 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by dokukaeru
08-05-2008 4:03 PM


Re: Evidence is mounting AO....time to start shoveling or pedaling......
But this has little or nothing to do with Abiogenesis, doku. The video that was sited to AOKid days and days ago supplies the kind of evidence that is available.

He has never referred to it. One suspects he hasn't watched it (or hasn't understood it).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 4:03 PM dokukaeru has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2008 4:16 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 312 (477650)
08-05-2008 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by NosyNed
08-05-2008 4:08 PM


Re: Evidence is mounting AO....time to start shoveling or pedaling......
The video that was sited to AOKid days and days ago supplies the kind of evidence that is available.

He has never referred to it.

He did in Message 102

quote:
I did. Did you? I laughed about 3/4's of the way through. At the beginning the author makes an emphatic statement that "abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution". They are two separate theories. Then he developes a new definition of life. And then he invokes evolution and natural selection.

What a joke! You see abiogenesis in any form doesn't work without evolution. Because it uses imaginary mystical life forms.

I believe in angels. You believe in "primordial life". You just read a different Bible than me. It's all philosophical faith. This video is especially.


A pretty shitty reply that avoids the point.

We also have Message 107 where he calls the video a strawman :laugh:

quote:
Why would I want to argue a strawman argument. No scientific laws prevent anything. Scientific laws describe how nature works. That's what the law of biogenesis is. It is the reality of where life comes from. It says nothing about whether or not abiogenesis is possible. It only says that since we've been observing life, all life comes from life. That's science. We use it everyday to save lives on this earth. Let's teach it.

Abiogenesis is quite imaginative and is not falsifiable. The envioronment is unknown, the chemical reactions are unknown, and the organization of the chemicals is unknown. It is a philosophical faith. It is quite interesting, but not science, and should therefore be removed from the classrooms.


What 'tard this troll is!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by NosyNed, posted 08-05-2008 4:08 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 312 (477651)
08-05-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by dokukaeru
08-05-2008 4:03 PM


Re: Evidence is mounting AO....time to start shoveling or pedaling......
Good reference, dokukaeru...

But I can see the reply now:

quote:
See! It does take an intellegent designer for abiogenesis.

:rolleyes:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 4:03 PM dokukaeru has not yet responded

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 232 of 312 (477652)
08-05-2008 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by New Cat's Eye
08-05-2008 3:53 PM


Re: You really seem to be going off topic with these religious posts
Catholic Scientist writes:

We all know that he'll cling to the semantics and refuse to argue the evidence presented, because, well.... that's what trolls do.

:D :D :D "AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM"...Ignore Evidence.....Hand Waving......"Act of Faith".....Ignore Evidence......"STRAWMAN STRAWMAN"....Ignore Evidence......Backpedal....Ignore Evidence....."AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM"..... :D :D :D

Im begining to see a pattern here.

I think every scientist here would abandon abiogenesis in a heartbeat if the evidence showed otherwise.

I guess the next step here would be to compile a list of what has been presented to AOKid and see if he will respond to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2008 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2008 4:34 PM dokukaeru has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 312 (477653)
08-05-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by dokukaeru
08-05-2008 4:19 PM


Re: You really seem to be going off topic with these religious posts
Your argument ad absurtum is a red herring strawman that relies on faith and shouldn't be taught in schools!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by dokukaeru, posted 08-05-2008 4:19 PM dokukaeru has not yet responded

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3580 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 234 of 312 (477677)
08-06-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by AlphaOmegakid
08-05-2008 12:06 PM


Re: Didn't God make water?
AOkid writes:

I personally believe in the God of the Bible.


Then you must agree that science is a godly act. God created man, and man created science to learn more about the creative grace of God and His wonderful methods. The God of the Bible put men and women on Earth to do exactly that, because He made us "in His own image":

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

—Genesis 1:27


"In his own image" AOkid. Rejoice in that! (It's a good thing God didn't make spiders in His own image!)

"To deny the goodness of science is to deny the grace of God." —Fig Newton

—HM


If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-05-2008 12:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 235 of 312 (477687)
08-06-2008 1:28 PM


Answers in Genesis
Here's the Answers in Genesis version of AlphaOmegakid's attempt to attack a natural explanation for the natural phenomenon of life. There's one major theological difference. AiG do not attempt to pretend that their God is natural, and refer to the supernatural creation of life.

Like AOkid, they attempt to use the law of biogenesis to refer to all life that has ever existed, rather than all existing life forms, or all known life forms. It's hilarious, and I expect that we'll soon see this transferred to their "arguments that creationists should not use" page. (Incidentally, AOkid, natural selection being a tautology is already on that page for very good reasons :)).

I'm going to write in and point out that if they want to use the law of biogenesis to attack abiogenesis, they can only do it by attacking all origins of life beliefs, including their own, and arguing for the eternal existence of life.

They really do treat their readers like children.

quote:

The Law of Life (Biogenesis)

There is one well-known law of life: the law of biogenesis. This law states simply that life always comes from life. This is what observational science tells us: organisms reproduce other organisms after their own kind. Historically, Louis Pasteur disproved one alleged case of spontaneous generation; he showed that life comes from previous life. Since then, we have seen that this law is universal—with no known exceptions. This is, of course, exactly what we would expect from the Bible. According to Genesis 1, God supernaturally created the first diverse kinds of life on earth and made them to reproduce after their kind. Notice that molecules-to-man evolution violates the law of biogenesis. Evolutionists believe that life (at least once) spontaneously formed from nonliving chemicals. But this is inconsistent with the law of biogenesis. Real science confirms the Bible.


AiG page here

The author gets in trouble with his tenses. The description of the law of biogenesis as stating that all life comes from life is, in a sense, correct. He then says "evolutionists believe that life (at least once) spontaneously formed from non-living chemicals" and says that that contradicts the law. In "comes" and "formed" we have different tenses, and therefore no contradiction.

The "eternal life" law would have to state "life comes and always came from life".

There's no such law and never has been, and this AiG quote, along with this thread, is a very good example of creationists clutching at straws.


AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 956 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 236 of 312 (477690)
08-06-2008 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Rahvin
08-05-2008 12:32 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Rahvin writes:

Fine. How about this one?

Well I think the hypothesis that Redi proposed that "all living matter has sprung from pre-existing living matter" is a very well known fact. It can be observed very easily, and it is observed all the time. These facts were considered by the scientific community some years later to have such a universal application that Thomas Huxley declared this theory as an "established law of nature."

Huxley's address can be found Here

Now scientific laws or laws of nature decribe how nature works. Usually these laws do create boundaries. The law of biogenesis certainly establishes a barrier. However, nothing in science is absolute, so I can agree with you there.

You claim directly here that the law of biogenesis creates a boundary that eliminates abiogenesis as a possibility.

So how exactly did I create a strawman? The bit about a Creator and God is a simple extrapolation, but feel free to ignore that bit if you'd like - we all know that's what your argument eventually boils down to anyway.

No I claim directly that the LoB creates a boundary that current abiogenesis hypotheses must overcome. A Law is a boundary. Any law in any construct can be broken. Don’t you understand the difference between a boundary and impossibility. Maybe you think that it is impossible to drive 66mph when the law says 65mph. I don’t see what is so difficult to understand. When you drive 66mph you are in jeopardy, because you have broken the law. In science, natural law, indicates the improbability of breaking the law. But with laws like Newton’s gravitational law we have see how they can be broken or bounded by a different set of rules.

The probability of abiogenesis is very low and maybe close to zero according to LoB. But your magic of millions of years can diminish that probability. It just can’t be tested.

Rahvin writes:

What claim of yours, or what refutation of mine, did I ignore? Please be specific.

See message 192. I cited seven quotes from me where I specifically addressed the issue of the “impossibility” of abiogenesis. In each case I argued that abiogenesis may be possible. But you ignored my words and continued to claim that I was contradicting myself. That verges on lunacy Rahvin. You have continued to argue the strawman that I am saying that abiogenesis is impossible. I never had, and while you are challenging for concessions, you need to concede, that I have never argued the impossibility of abiogenesis.

Rahvin writes:

And yet you still have it wrong. As has been explained to you, a few times even by actual biologists, the Law of Biogenesis has nothing to do with the origin of life. It refers to observations regarding extant life, like maggots and bacteria. Fully-formed modern organsims do not spring from the ether, but rather come from pre-existing life. This has nothing to do with where life itself comes from, and in no way can a lack of observation prove that something is impossible. That would be proving a negative.

This argument is ridiculous. Biogenesis and abiogenesis both have always had to do with the origin of life. Biogenesis means “life beginnings” or the “origin of life”. The conclusion is that Life comes from pre-existing life. Your claim that this has nothing to do with the origin of life is factually and historically false. You claim that it just had to do with observations of extant life like maggots coming from rotting flesh. You don’t even realize that 100% of all the molecular “building blocks” of life are present in rotting flesh. There are all 20 amino acids, there are proteins, there are cellular membranes, there is DNA, and there is RNA. All of the enzymes and catalysts are present. That’s one organic chemical soup, but life doesn’t come from it. Bales of hay are another example where the plant tissue has all the building blocks of life in them. But they don’t produce mice. And chemical soups with yeast have all the building blocks of life, but they don’t produce life if there is no life there.

You can’t name one example from the past where the building blocks of life were not present. Yet you want to teach a hypothesis about a mystical environment where the “building blocks” of life self assembled to create life. Keep it out of the schools.

Rahvin writes:

So now you've shifted the goalposts from "life" to "cellular life?" How convenient. I'm sure that's what you'll say was your definition of life all along, but it's not a reasonable definition of life at all. Obviously, the first cell could not possibly have originated from a pre-existing cell, unless you believe life has always existed, and we know it has not. It also excludes viruses which have many of the properties of living things, and it excludes the possibility of non-cellular life that may or may not exist elsewhere in the Universe.

No, let’s let Rahvin define life for us….

The cell is the smallest known form of life. That fact was established well before my birth. If you think viruses are alive, then cite one virus that can reproduce or grow without a host cell.

Rahvin writes:

AOK, you aren't comprehending anything anyone has said to you. The Law of Biogenesis refers to the spontaneous generation of living microbes and other modern forms of life from nonliving matter, like maggots spontaneously forming on a loaf of bread. It has to do with the origins of individual modern life forms, not the origin of life itself.

Yes it is hard to comprehend your illogical statements and fallacies. Bio=Life, Genesis=Beginning. I know this is hard for you to comprehend. It’s just words. But words do have meanings!

Rahvin writes:

The bolded statements directly contradict one another. Your entire argument in this thread has been that the Law of Biogenesis falsifies abiogenesis, and the bolded statements (well, one of them) confirms that you are making this assertion. The other statement of course says that the Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute...meaning it doesn't actually falsify anything, and so your argument defeats itself.

I know this is hard for you to comprehend the concept of falsification. A hypothesis that has been falsified has been done so through direct observation. We now have a “gazillion” observations that refute that life can come from non-living chemicals. It is falsified.

YEC is also falsified. There are direct observational measurements that refute that the earth is young. But many still believe that the earth is young, and they are pursuing science that hopefully will contradict the falsification. It will take science to refute the falsification. They are pursuing this quest as a matter of philosophical faith, because there is no direct observation that the earth is young. They are starting with the conclusion, and then searching for evidence.

Abiogenesis is exactly the same thing. There is no direct observation that life can come from non living matter. But people believe it is so based on philosophical faith. They have accepted the conclusion, and are pursuing evidence on faith and hope that they can overcome the falsification.

Rahvin writes:

Abiogenesis is based on solid research and valid observations, and has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. It is not a complete theory, but it does have supporting evidence. Note that supporting evidence is not the same as proof, which is the way you seem to be using the term.

Fine, then according to your argument YECism is just as valid.

Rahvin writes:

Except that life didn't always exist, and now it does. That means that somewhere along the way, life came from an environment where life did not exist.

Of course, you can get around this by invoking imaginary deities, but you've already established that you don't like it when I extrapolate your real argument from your basic statements, so I won't go there.

And what you don’t realize is what you just argued is that abiogenesis is on the same level as creationism. Both are philosophical faiths. See, I knew, even you could figure this out.

Rahvin writes:

In what way? be specific. If there was no life at one point, and there is life today, does that not mean that abiogenesis must have occurred? Is that not suppoting evidence, if not specific proof regarding the exact chain of events that occurred? What alternative explanation do you offer? A deity? You likely already know my responses to that one, so please do think of another.

See above comments. You are beginning to figure this out. If there was no life at one point, and then there is life today that means that Biogenesis must have occurred in the past. That is equally a valid conclusion. And it is much more scientific than abiogenesis.

Why are you so angry about invoking a deity. Science is silent on deities isn’t it? But you don’t really care about science, you care about your deity. Nature. She will solve your origin of life problem, because she is the creator of heaven and dearth. She is omnipresent. She is all powerful. She is all knowing. She is omni-benevolent. You believe in her, don’t you? You do believe that she created life don’t you?

Rahvin writes:

Don't quible over semantics, AOK. Abiogenesis requires specific chemicals to be able to self-assemble in a natural environemnt, without the artificial conditions of a chemistry lab like specific heating and cooling, ctalysts, etc. The right pre-biotic organic compounds must exist naturally.

Of course, we observe many of these abiotic organic compounds on Titan today, so we know they can and do exist without life around to make them.

Yes, and they exist in environments without any sign of life. Those same molecules are available in rotting flesh, bales of hay, and yeast soups. Big deal. Direct observation says that none of these produce life, including Titan.

Rahvin writes:

It sounds like you don't know anything about the chemistry of abiogenesis. The chemical pathways proposed begin with the conditions of teh early Earth as suggested by the observations of geologists and places like Titan. Those observations would be evidence, AOK, not imaginings, unless you'd care to assert that geology and direct observation of Titan are somehow "imaginations of faith?"

The hypothesis of abiogenesis was falsified with all these building blocks of life available. Why don’t you put rotting flesh into a M-U apparatus and maybe we could spark it to life in the early atmosphere. Maybe we could sink some down to those thermal vents. Wait, I think nature does that all the time. Sorry.

Rahvin writes:

This statement is confusing. You seem to be saying that all of the proposed pathways should result in life, and none of them should result in dead ends. That's not consistent with what we expect from abiogenesis - there may be multiple possible pathways, but we certainly don't expect all of them to work.

I guess you can’t see the expectation of faith in your statements.

rahvin writes:

rahvin writes:

Your claim that there is no evidence for abiogenesis is simply wrong, AOK. It may not be a complete theory, and it certainly needs more research to determine its accuracy, but so far the results match what we observe. (another tautology) Apparently for you, a hypothesis has "zero" evidence until it is a compelte and accepted theory. But that's not the case, that's not what evidence is. A fingerprint alone does not complete a detective's murder investigation, but it is one piece of evidence. We may not have the smoking gun yet with abiogenesis, but we have multiple fingerprints, a lot of circumstantial evidence, and the DNA testing is running as we speak.

Aokid writes:

...except that life did not exist, and now it does, and self-replicating RNA dna lipid bilayers are necessary steps towards abiogenesis. Those would be evidence that it's plausible, not faith. Again, you seem to be using "evidence" to mean "proof," and that;s not the way it works. nobody is saying "we have determined with absolute certainty that abiogenesis happened." We're saying it's the only natural explanation we can think of, and there is a large amount of supporting evidence that suggests it may be a valid explanation.

Again, you are starting with the conclusion and working backwards to find the evidence. According to your evidentiary criteria then there is a universe full of evidence that God exists and that He is the intelligent designer of life. I can show you the complexity of cellular life, the anthropic priciples and on and on. But you would say that’s religious faith. I and Thomas Huxley recognize the same about abiogenesis. And you are beginning to realize this as well as cited above.

Rahvin writes:

So, in other words, you're crying becasue I paraphrased you a few times rather than making direct quotes, and therefore my argument is false?

If I get your point wrong in paraphrasing, feel free to correct me by clearly restating your position. My arguments are against your position, not against your semantics.

No you are crying because you’ve been called out for strawman arguments and lame arguments. Correctly so. I have corrected your wording of my arguments many times now and you still continue to restate my position. It’s a fallacious approach.

Rahvin writes:

Look above. You did claim that the Law of Biogenesis makes abiogenesis impossible. You contradicted yourself in teh very next sentence, but you did. Here, I'll quote it again:

Now scientific laws or laws of nature decribe how nature works. Usually these laws do create boundaries. The law of biogenesis certainly establishes a barrier. However, nothing in science is absolute, so I can agree with you there.

You say that the Law of Biogenesis creates a barrier, referring to abiogenesis. That's a direct claim that the Law of Biogenesis makes abiogenesis impossible. You;ve done this elsewhere as well. Then you immediately backpedal and say that the Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute...meaning no actual barrier is established. That's where you stop even making sense, let alone constructing rational arguments.

Rahvin, with all due respect, my words are opposite of what you are saying. It’s in blue and white for you to read, but it is obvious that you are totally dishonest, or totally illogical, or you just can’t read and comprehend. That’s the scientific evidence that I have, when you quote me directly, and then totally reverse my argument. Way to go sit on your strawman.

Rahvin writes:

Now you expect me to provide evidence that doesn't exist yet? Abiogenesis is incomplete, AOK, and we've never claimed otherwise. How could I possibly show you an example of a pre-cellular organism if we haven't gotten that far yet?

Like I’ve said, all along. There is no evidence that suggests the hypothesis. The hypothesis is suggested on the philosophical faith that there is a natural solution. That still is a philosophical faith. The faith preceded any evidence other than the triviality that life exists, which in no way shape or form suggests abiogenesis except under the philosophy of naturalism. That philosophy doesn’t negate faith.

Rahvin writes:

You're expecting abiogenesis to be a complete theory, and it's not - neither have any of us pretended otherwise. It's a good hypothesis based on strong evidence, but if we had gotten so far as to show pre-cellular life, abiogenesis would be virtually proven and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

No, I’m expecting evidence that suggests that there are such things as “pre-cellular” life. Do you gave any direct evidence? Do you have any geological/fossil evidence? What we do have is chemicals doing chemical things. That’s all. The suggestion of abiogenesis comes from the interpretation of these chemical reactions which is based on the philosophical faith. This faith is fine. I am not against it in any way, but it is not something that should be taught as opposed to other faiths. Once you have some evidence that actually suggests abiogenesis, then I think the argument changes. But by your own admission, you don’t have any.

Rahvin writes:

But as an example, viruses are non-ceullular and yet have most of the properties of life. Not quite all, as they require a living host cell to hyjack so that they can reproduce, but they are some excellent evidence that the properties we identify as life are not so much of a black/white, alive/not-alive binary, but are rather part of a spectrum with inert matter on one side and life on the other, and a lot of gray area in between.

Yes, let’s equivocate. Then we can confuse everyone, and prove our science. Science based on equivocating “gray” areas is illogical and fallacious. Biology is the only science that does this. If you choose this path then I will call it what it is . Equivocation. Life is highly recognized, identifiable and defined. Viruses are not alive. Gasoline has many properties similar to water. Not quite all, but gasoline is excellent evidence that the properties that we identify as water are not so much as black/white, water/gasoline binary, but rather a spectrum of gasoline on one side and water on the other, and a lot of gray area in between. This argument is just silly.

Rahvin writes:

Abiogenesis research explores the gray area, and so far it looks like that view may be correct, and that given the correct environment and enough time, cellular life can eventually develop from inert matter.

This statement is clear evidence of the faith. You believe in pre-cellular organisms that you have zero evidence for. The evidence you do have is nothing more than equivocating definitions by trying to blurr the line between life an non-life. LoB establishes that line. That is science. Abiogenesis must hurdle that line. It hasn’t even jumped yet.

Rahvin writes:

That's not faith. Faith is a belief that is not based on evidence...like your faith in god, and your belief that god is the initial lifeform that spawned all other life. And don't try to say I'm strawmanning you again - for f**s sake, I quoted you saying exactly that a few paragraphs above.

You don’t understand faith. Faith is a belief that is based on evidence. It is basically trust. That trust is always based on some evidence. Not all evidence is empirical. Much evidence is testimonial or experiential.

wiki faith writes:

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven.

wiki faith writes:

It is sometimes argued that even scientific knowledge is dependent on 'faith' - for example, faith that the researcher responsible for an empirical conclusion is competent, and honest. Indeed, distinguished chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi argued that scientific discovery begins with a scientist's faith that an unknown discovery is possible. Scientific discovery thus requires a passionate commitment to a result that is unknowable at the outset. Polanyi argued that the scientific method is not an objective method removed from man's passion. On the contrary, scientific progress depends primarily on the unique capability of free man to notice and investigate patterns and connections, and on the individual scientist's willingness to commit time and resources to such investigation, which usually must begin before the truth is known or the benefits of the discovery are imagined, let alone understood fully. It could then be argued that until one possesses all knowledge in totality, one will need faith in order to believe an understanding to be correct or incorrect in total affirmation.
Again, scientific faith is not dogmatic. While the scientist must make presuppositions in order to get the enterprise under way, almost everything (according to some thinkers, such as Quine, literally everything) is revisable and discardable. In conclusion faith is trust.

However, you and every one else in this forum is arguing dogmatically that abiogenesis is the only solution to the question of the origin of life. That’s why it is dogmatic philosophical faith and should not be taught.

Rahvin writes:

There may be additional dimentions in our Universe, and still more outside of it. But that's irelevant - we're talking about biology here. If you believe other dimensions may have an influence on biology, feel free to present evidence ofsuch an extraordinary claim, because we've never observed life being influenced by any dimension other than the four we know of. Argumentum ad ignoratium I won't hold my breath.

You don’t even realize when you use these fallacious arguments. That is why I’m smart enough to avoid this trap about the impossibility of abiogenesis. Just because we’ve never seen evidence of something doesn’t mean it cannot be true. I could have used the same argument regarding abiogenesis, but my mind doesn’t work fallaciously like yours. So I didn’t use this argument, even though you have fallaciously claimed that I have ad infinitum.

Rahvin writes:

Present the falsification of abiogenesis or concede. Once again, a falsification cannot consist of a lack of observation, because you cannot prove a negative. Further, a falsification cannot involve observations that are irrelevant to the hypothesis - that is, observations that all forms of existing life spring from pre-existing life are irrelavnet when discussing the initial form of life, partcularly when the environment would be compeltely different.

Abiogenesis has been falsified and is well documented since Pasteur. Just because it has been repackaged in a different form does not overcome the falsification. All life comes from pre-existing life. This is not lack of observation, this is overwhelming observational evidence that is direct and directly refutes abiogenesis. Just because it is a different environment that you or anyone else cannot define is irrelevant. Life has been generated in innumerable environments including anaerobic environments without oxygen. As a matter of fact, we have witnessed anaerobic life in great abundance in nature, created in a prebiotic soup deplete of oxygen, but rich in all the building blocks of life. Yet we can barely sustain anaerobic microbes in a laboratory environment. Direct evidence provides the falsification Rahvin. No negative needs to be disproved.

Rahvin writes:

There's a reason it's not called that. The evidence used to formulate the Law of biogenesis had literally nothing to do with life's origins. It has to do with the origins of individual, extant life forms. The genesis of maggots and bacteria comes from pre-existing life; the genesis of life itself is entirely different.

And once again, you don’t understand the history of this debate. Biogenesis and abiogenesis have always been about the origin of life. It’s in their names. But you can believe as your faith teaches you.

Rahvin writes:

You've claimed in this very post that the LoB refutes abiogenesis, which it can only do if the LoB is an absolute.

Well I guess by this criteria The Theory of Evolution is absolutely refuted by the evidence of the Cambrian explosion and the zero evidence of any transitionals in the Precambrian. Great, I’m glad you agree that it has been absolutely refuted, and is impossible.

Rahvin writes:

If it's not an absolute, then it cannot refute abiogenesis.

Great, then old rocks don’t refute YEC, because their age is not absolute. BBT doesn’t refute creationism, because it is not absolute. ToE doesn’t refute creationism, because ToE is not absolute. And on and on.

Please cite for me one thing in the physical sciences that is absolute. Please do.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

But please don’t quit replying, I’m having a lot of fun. You are making about as much scientific sense as a not fully formed pre cellular organism can.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Rahvin, posted 08-05-2008 12:32 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by dokukaeru, posted 08-06-2008 3:10 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 238 by Blue Jay, posted 08-06-2008 5:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 237 of 312 (477697)
08-06-2008 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by AlphaOmegakid
08-06-2008 2:08 PM


You are still ignoring the evidence presented...do you concede?
AOKid writes:

However, you and every one else in this forum is arguing dogmatically that abiogenesis is the only solution to the question of the origin of life. That’s why it is dogmatic philosophical faith and should not be taught.

NO ONE.... I repeat NO ONE here is arguing that abiogenesis is the only solution to the question. We are arguing it is the only solution presented that fits the evidence.
As I just said in message 232 that we would abadon abiogenesis if the evidence showed otherwise.

You have failed to respond to the evidence presented.
You have failed to explain your ignorance(dishonesty) that I pointed out in microbiology.
You continue to argue semantics in spite of even posting that the best debate tactic is supportive evidence.

Could you please respond to the evidence?
Pretty please? We all really want to know what (exactly what...be specific) is the problem with the video presented in message 101.

Edited by dokukaeru, : Changed message number from 51 to 101

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link to message 101.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-06-2008 2:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-06-2008 10:42 PM dokukaeru has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 238 of 312 (477705)
08-06-2008 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by AlphaOmegakid
08-06-2008 2:08 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Hi, AOkid.

Since you're not going to respond to me anyway, I think I'll just say whatever I feel like from now on.

You have so many messed-up ideas about science that I'm surprised you even made it to forty-six. I can tell that you pattern your "science" after your scripture study, because you seem to have it built in to your thick head that wording is absolute and holy.

For instance,

AlphaOmegakid writes:

The cell is the smallest known form of life. That fact was established well before my birth. If you think viruses are alive, then cite one virus that can reproduce or grow without a host cell.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Bio=Life, Genesis=Beginning. I know this is hard for you to comprehend. It’s just words. But words do have meanings!

AlphaOmegakid writes:

I have corrected your wording of my arguments many times now and you still continue to restate my position.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Equivocation. Life is highly recognized, identifiable and defined. Viruses are not alive.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

The evidence you do have is nothing more than equivocating definitions by trying to blur the line between life and non-life. LoB establishes that line.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Biogenesis and abiogenesis have always been about the origin of life. It’s in their names.

First, did you know that the scientific name for the ostrich (Struthio camelus) means “camel sparrow?” Would it therefore be your argument that the ostrich must be some sort of hybrid/chimera of a camel and a sparrow? If not, then please stop trying to make the argument that, because “Biogenesis” means “beginning of life,” it therefore must refer to the primal source of all life.

Technically, “genesis” doesn’t mean “beginning,” anyway: it means “creation.”

Second, definitions in science are only used to make the data more convenient for scientists to analyze. Definitions do not wield any sort of influence over the way the universe functions. So, just because viruses have been denied the title of "life," it does not mean that they are to be automatically dismissed when we discuss things that we do call "life."

Consider: viruses are made of the much of the same stuff as life (nucleic acids and proteins) and they evolve by natural selection and mutation, just like life does. The only thing missing is the ability to independently reproduce. In fact, when you look at all the theories that have been erected about how life behaves (e.g. predator-prey cycles, carrying capacity, mutation/genetic drift, etc.), it seems that viruses follow them all. So, why shouldn’t viruses be considered when looking for the origin of life? They behave a lot like life, but they’re simpler than life, and, if life evolved from non-life, shouldn’t it have gone through a phase that is something like a virus?

Granted, that’s all speculation, but it’s not unfounded speculation, is it? In fact, you could call it a decent hypothesis.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

I know this is hard for you to comprehend the concept of falsification.

There’s only one person on this entire website who doesn’t know what “falsify” means. ICANT even knows how to use it.

You claim that the failure of M-U is “falsification” of abiogenesis. So, how many times did Edison “falsify” the lightbulb concept before he actually made one? No doubt you would have said, in 1878, that the concept of the lightbulb should not be taught in science classes because it had been “falsified.” Then, one year later, you’d be the biggest jackass in all of the scientific community.

Given what I said above, can you give me any reason why “falsified,” of your usage, should be given any sort of respect by a scientist? What difference does it make whether an idea is falsified, if falsification can be reversed? Your usage of the term is utterly, irreconcilably, incomprehensibly wrong.

But, wait: there is a proper usage of “falsified” in the Edison context. He falsified the X thousand hypotheses that each of the X thousand things he tried would actually produce a sustainable electric light. So, applying this across fields, what did the M-U experiment falsify? It falsified the hypothesis that electricity, ammonia, CO2 and some other stuff in a flask would create life. Did it falsify the hypothesis that non-life could turn into life?

No. So stop saying that it did.


Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-06-2008 2:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-06-2008 5:40 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded
 Message 240 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-06-2008 10:38 PM Blue Jay has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 312 (477707)
08-06-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Blue Jay
08-06-2008 5:32 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
I think the kid thinks that the observation of living organisms comming from other living organisms somehow falsifies abiogenesis. I don't think he was refering to the M-U experiment.

I'm not for sure though. And either way, he's a complete 'tard for saying that abiogenesis has been falsified.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Blue Jay, posted 08-06-2008 5:32 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 956 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 240 of 312 (477721)
08-06-2008 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Blue Jay
08-06-2008 5:32 PM


Re: Everyone's right but AlphaOmegakid!
Bluejay writes:

Since you're not going to respond to me anyway, I think I'll just say whatever I feel like from now on.

Now, Now, let's not get nasty. The only reason I haven't responded to you is for lack of time. That's all.

Bluejay writes:

First, did you know that the scientific name for the ostrich (Struthio camelus) means “camel sparrow?” Would it therefore be your argument that the ostrich must be some sort of hybrid/chimera of a camel and a sparrow? If not, then please stop trying to make the argument that, because “Biogenesis” means “beginning of life,” it therefore must refer to the primal source of all life.

It is really amazing at how much this law of nature bothers people. Having your faith challenged is tough, I know. Unfortunately for you, not only does Biogenesis mean the origin or beginnng of life, the law also addresses all life. That would seem to me from both the statement of the theory and the title of the theory that the law applies to primal, extinct, and extant.

Bluejay writes:

Technically, “genesis” doesn’t mean “beginning,” anyway: it means “creation.”

from webster: the origin or coming into being of something

bluejay writes:

Second, definitions in science are only used to make the data more convenient for scientists to analyze. Definitions do not wield any sort of influence over the way the universe functions. So, just because viruses have been denied the title of "life," it does not mean that they are to be automatically dismissed when we discuss things that we do call "life."

Consider: viruses are made of the much of the same stuff as life (nucleic acids and proteins) and they evolve by natural selection and mutation, just like life does. The only thing missing is the ability to independently reproduce. In fact, when you look at all the theories that have been erected about how life behaves (e.g. predator-prey cycles, carrying capacity, mutation/genetic drift, etc.), it seems that viruses follow them all. So, why shouldn’t viruses be considered when looking for the origin of life? They behave a lot like life, but they’re simpler than life, and, if life evolved from non-life, shouldn’t it have gone through a phase that is something like a virus?

Granted, that’s all speculation, but it’s not unfounded speculation, is it? In fact, you could call it a decent hypothesis.

Yes, speculation. Have you ever considered that none of the current hypotheses within the field of abiogenesis propose viruses? Maybe you ought to be the "wise" bird and propose one. But maybe not, I think there a valid reasons as I have earlier stated why scientists don't propose viruses as an early form of life.

And finally definitions are crutial for logic. Without clearly defined things in science, people start to use the logical fallacies of equivocation. We wouldn't want to do that in science would we?

Bluejay writes:

You claim that the failure of M-U is “falsification” of abiogenesis. So, how many times did Edison “falsify” the lightbulb concept before he actually made one? No doubt you would have said, in 1878, that the concept of the lightbulb should not be taught in science classes because it had been “falsified.” Then, one year later, you’d be the biggest jackass in all of the scientific community.

I guess birds of a feather flock together. So are you perched with Rahvin now?. Please cite where I claimed that the failure of M-U is "falsification" for abiogenesis. I hope you enjoy sitting on a new strawman for a change.

Bluejay writes:

Given what I said above, can you give me any reason why “falsified,” of your usage, should be given any sort of respect by a scientist? What difference does it make whether an idea is falsified, if falsification can be reversed? Your usage of the term is utterly, irreconcilably, incomprehensibly wrong.

But, wait: there is a proper usage of “falsified” in the Edison context. He falsified the X thousand hypotheses that each of the X thousand things he tried would actually produce a sustainable electric light. So, applying this across fields, what did the M-U experiment falsify? It falsified the hypothesis that electricity, ammonia, CO2 and some other stuff in a flask would create life. Did it falsify the hypothesis that non-life could turn into life?

I wouldn't brag about your knowledge of falsification. You claim that "because pigs fly over China", that that falsifies the God portrayed in Genesis. Please explan how that is a falsification of anything?

The theory of Biogenesis did falsify the theory that life could come from non-life. But that's OK with me that you want to pursue abiogenesis. Just don't teach it. It is bad science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Blue Jay, posted 08-06-2008 5:32 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Granny Magda, posted 08-06-2008 11:25 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 243 by bluegenes, posted 08-07-2008 4:31 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 246 by Blue Jay, posted 08-07-2008 3:09 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019