Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
76 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,114 Year: 4,226/6,534 Month: 440/900 Week: 146/150 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biogenesis
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 46 of 312 (473160)
06-27-2008 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Granny Magda
06-27-2008 11:40 AM


Re: Your Own Source Disagrees withYou
granny writes:

Most strikingly, the very source you cite disagrees with you as to the all-encompassing remit of the LoB. You say that it means "all life comes from preexisting living matter", but in your cited article, Huxley says;

quote:
But though I cannot express this conviction of mine too strongly, I must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend to suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis ever has taken [256] place in the past, or ever will take place in the future. With organic chemistry, molecular physics, and physiology yet in their infancy, and every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the height of presumption for any man to say that the conditions under which matter assumes the properties we call "vital" may not, some day, be artificially brought together. All I feel justified in affirming is, that I see no reason for believing that the feat has been performed yet.

And looking back through the prodigious vista of the past, I find no record of the commencement of life, and therefore I am devoid of any means of forming a definite conclusion as to the conditions of its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be using words in a wrong sense. But expectation is permissible where belief is not; and if it were given me to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions, which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter.


This has already been pointed out to you by other members, so I am somewhat perplexed as to why you are continuing with this line of argument. It has been refuted. The article makes clear over and over again that the LoB as Huxley understands it is referring to spontaneous generation, not the first origins of life as a whole, which he regards as an open question, one to which he judges that the likely answer is abiogenesis, in the modern sense.

The reason you are so perplexed is probably, because your not doing a very good job of reading my posts or Huxley's address. I quoted this entire passage in post #12. However interestingly you chose to ignore what Huxley actually said, and you quoted him out of context to mislead the readers of this forum.

I hope Taz reads this, because this is a perfect example of quotemining. I will repeat Huxley's agument in its entirety....

quote:
And looking back through the prodigious vista of the past, I find no record of the commencement of life, and therefore I am devoid of any means of forming a definite conclusion as to the conditions of its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be using words in a wrong sense. But expectation is permissible where belief is not; and if it were given me to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions, which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter. I should expect to see it appear under [257] forms of great simplicity, endowed, like existing fungi, with the power of determining the formation of new protoplasm from such matters as ammonium carbonates, oxalates and tartrates, alkaline and earthy phosphates, and water, without the aid of light. That is the expectation to which analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith.

Do you see those words in yellow? They contradict your entire argument. But you chose to exclude them on purpose. Why is that? Again, I think I am gathering more evidence as to why the law of biogenesis is not taught and abiogenesis is.

Abiogenesis today is the same gradual process that Huxley imagined. But he had no evidence to support it. We still don't. At least Huxley was intellectually honest enough to admit his philosophical faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Granny Magda, posted 06-27-2008 11:40 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 12:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 48 by Granny Magda, posted 06-27-2008 12:56 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 312 (473161)
06-27-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 12:12 PM


Re: Your Own Source Disagrees withYou
Abiogenesis today is the same gradual process that Huxley imagined. But he had no evidence to support it. We still don't.

That's where you're wrong. There is evidence to support abiogenesis.

Did you even click on the link to the thread that I provided in Message 38?

ABE:

Here is was this thread.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : had wrong message number

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : added link to thread


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 12:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-28-2008 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 66 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 48 of 312 (473163)
06-27-2008 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 12:12 PM


Re: Your Own Source Disagrees withYou
Do you see those words in yellow? They contradict your entire argument.

No, they are the very essence of my argument. Huxley was not a stupid man, therefore he was aware that no-one can commit to a universal negative statement. An example of such a statement would be "life cannot derive from non-life", which is the exact sort of statement that you seem to be insisting upon. That he was willing to consider exceptions to the LoB proves that he never intended it to be an absolute, binding across all time and space.

Just because you are unaware of evidence to support abiogenesis doesn't mean that there is none. That is another fallacy. You have repeatedly ignored CS's invitation to examine such evidence. No-one here is saying that abiogenesis can be described in every detail, indeed it is still highly tentative, but that is very far from a complete lack of evidence. Just Google "evidence for abiogenesis" and you will find a wealth of links to pages, both pro and anti, discussing this evidence.

Furthermore, I fail to see how the phrase "I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith." refutes my point that Huxley's comments are nearly 140 years out of date and do not constitute a fair representation of the modern scientific consensus. Nor does it refute my point that Huxley's opinion is not holy writ, indeed it supports it, given that Huxley did not insist that his opinion was law.

By the way, I strongly suggest that you drop your condescending tone. It belittles you.


Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 12:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 193 days)
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 49 of 312 (473168)
06-27-2008 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid
06-26-2008 6:06 PM


quote:
Rahvin writes:

First, the so-called "law of biogenesis" actually states that "all modern, cellular life comes from pre-existing life." Note the bolded terms. It is true that a living bacterium will never spontaneously form from non-living matter; it is not necessarily true that no life may arise spontaneously.


Actually that's not what the law of biogenesis states.

Yes, it is. I supplied my link to Wikipedia lower in my post.

But you can rewrite history if you want to.

You're the one failing to comprehend basic biological principles, AOkid, not me.

Let's just remove the equivocating language about "modern" and "bacteria" and "mice" and "maggots".

No, let's not, because that would make the statement inaccurate. Pasteur's experiments were the basis for what you refer to as the "law of biogenesis" (and which is no longer typically referred to as such in the scientific community), and it most definitely did only apply to modern, cellular life. Maggots do not spontaneously form in bread, but rather they are spawned from flies. This experiment, and the "law of biogenesis" based upon it, has nothing whatsoever to do with the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis.

All life is made up of cells. A cell is the smallest known form of life.

Strictly speaking, that's not entirely true. There is great debate over whether to consider viruses as "alive" or not; they certainly aren't inanimate like rocks, and yet they aren't capable of self-replication on their own, either. They're a very interesting example of the gray area between "alive" and "not alive." But they're certainly not cells, and they're orders of magnitude smaller.

Abiogenesis posits that life arose from non-living substances in a gradual form - meaning a much more in-depth exploration of that gray area between the living and the inanimate. In exactly the same way that evolution does not state that a chimpanzee gave birth to a human being, abiogenesis does not posit that life suddenly appeared from a primordial soup; rather, in both cases we are talking about extremely gradual processes, and at no point could you look at a single example in the chain of iterations and clearly say "that's where life started" or "this is the first human."

Let's use biological terms, and clarify the law of biogenesis. It states that all cells come from pre-existing cells.

Stop right there - for the most part, we agree with that statement. But the "law of biogenesis" does not falsify abiogenesis; it simply provides strong evidence against the possibility of a bacterial cell or maggot suddenly appearing on its own. As our knowledge has expanded and we've come to understand how living things reproduce, we know why neither of those things will ever happen.

But abiogenesis has not been falsified. It certainly hasn't been proven in a laboratory, but that's why we're still researching it - it's an unanswered question. There is absolutely nothing in Pasteur's experiments, or any other scientific theory, that falsifies the principle of abiogenesis.

If you believe the "law of biogenesis" falsifies abiogenesis, immediately produce the objective evidence that falsifies any possibility of life arising from non-life. Remember that a lack of evidence is not falsification - you need a positive observation that directly contradicts the concept of life in any form ever arising from non-living substances.

And the contrary would be that no cell has arisen from any non-cellular chemical arrangement. I think this would be a more accurate clarification of the theory. Part of this has made its way into what is called "Cell Theory".

And yet it's not an absolute. Saying "this has never been observed" is a long way from saying "this is impossible, and could never happen." Remember, the conditions of Earth today are wildly different from the conditions present before life existed on the planet. We wouldn't expect to observe abiogenesis as it's hypothesized happening today - the conditions are nowhere near correct or favorable.

So, once again, you fail to understand what Pasteur proved and the limitations of the "law of biogenesis." You fail to understand what abiogenesis involves. You fail to understand what life is, and that life is not always necessarily cellular life.

You're taking the falsification of spontaneous generation and making an unfounded logical leap to apply that falsification to abiogenesis, which while related in one sense, is completely different in the specifics, and which is not falsified by the same evidence that disproved spontaneous generation.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Second, since Louis Pasteur's time (Pasteur being the best-known originator behind biogenesis), we've added a lot to our library of biological knowledge. It is now known that there is nothing fundamentally different between "living" and "non-living" matter - that is, the water you drink is not "alive," and yet becomes part of your living cells. It would be impossible to differentiate between an water molecule in the ocean and a water molecule in your body given no context. It's awfully hard to make statements like "life can only arise from life" when we know that there really isn't anything separating living matter from non-living matter beyond participation in a series of complex chemical reactions.


You are correct that we have learned much since Pasteur's time. But we haven't learned that "life" is nothing but a bunch of complex chemicals. What we have learned is that cellular life is made up of vastly complex molecular machines.

Thank you for restating what I said. "Complex molecular machines" are still nothing more than complex chemical processes. You basically said "no, it's not green, it's green!"

The fact is, what we call "life" really is nothing more than a series of complex chemical interactions. "Living matter" is defined as matter participating in those interactions. There is nothing whatsoever "special" about living matter, except that it happens to be participating in the chemical processes we identify as "life." This includes self-replication (and you're correct to say that not all cells and molecules replicate themselves, but they are all replicated from other cells) and metabolization. These processes, while complex, are not "special," but rather are inevitable given the chemical compounds present due to the simple laws of chemistry. Oxygen binds to hemoglobin, as an example, and this is an inevitable chemical process given hemoglobin and oxygen.

The fact is, "nonliving material" is turned into "living material" constantly in your body. There's nothing special whatsoever about "living material" that suddenly makes it stop being a complex series of chemical interactions. You seem to be ascribing some "special" quality to life based on the complexity of the chemical interactions - this is an argument from personal incredulity, and thus is logically unsound.

The fact is, there is no barrier that prevents nonliving compounds from beginning the chemical process we identify as life. There is absolutely nothing in any scientific theory or any direct observation that falsifies the concept of non-living organic compounds spontaneously forming into more complex compounds which then self-replicate using the same compounds present in the environment, and metabolize those compounds for energy to perform such a process. A falsification of abiogenesis would require some such barrier. An example of something that would falsify abiogenesis would be a chemical reaction absolutely necessary for self-replication to begin but which is impossible given any reasonable environment for the other compounds necessary for the pre-cell to form in. Such a barrier has never been shown, and Pasteur's experiments (and thus your "law of biogenesis") do not falsify abiogenesis.

These machines are like the Eveready Rabbit. They keep going and going, and they keep having more and more rabbits. Someday they run down and die (then they are just chemicals). The cell is a factory of molecules, not just a bunch of molecules. And a cell is a factory building factory.

Once again - life is a series of chemical interactions and nothing more. While you insist that you disagree, you in fact have repeated it back to us. A "factory of molecules" is a fancy way of saying "a complex chemical process that produces other chemical compounds."

quote:
Rahvin writes:

The problem is that you've simply interpreted the actual principle of biogenesis to mean something far broader in scope than what scientists currently agree on. Basically, you've constructed a strawman.


Actually you are the one mis-interpreting the law of biogenesis. I provided the citation of it's wording, and a complete historical record of it's acceptace as being a well established law of nature. You haven't cited anything but your thoughts. If this is what is coming from your education, then that is the subject of my concern.

I cited Wikipedia, and the actual biologists on this very forum agree with me. Further, I have made mention of the specific basis for the "law of biogenesis," that being Louis Pasteur's experiments with spontaneous generation. I have shown that those experiments do not falsify the concept of abiogenesis in any way. I have also shown that your argument is logically unsound as a logical leap. Your position is a farce, AlphaOmegakid. You were defeated before you began becasue you misunderstand the principles behind abiogenesis, the "law of biogenesis," and the chemical nature of life.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

This is simply an inaccurate statement, AlphaOmegakid. Abiogenesis is not taught as a factual explanation for the origin of life on Earth. When it is taught at all, it is approached as one possibility being explored. Further, there is no faith involved in abiogenesis - rather, the entire field consists of questions, with the evidence so far pointing towards "maybe."


Well I beg to differ on this. Most textbooks say something like this...

Scientists believe that life started on earth about 3.8 billion years ago....

We are not sure how it started, but we have several theories...
M/U experiment is discussed. Thermal vents are discussed. Clay and mica sheets may be discussed. RNA replicating molecules may be discussed....

In every book there are mystical undefined things mentioned like "primordial life", "the building blocks of life", and "pre-biotic life". None of these terms are defined, but the books are full of them.

You are correct that no claims are presented that life actually arose from chemicals, but is is presented as a "must be" scientific process.

It is presented as the evidence we have at hand, and it truly is all of the evidence we have available. We have no real evidence of panspermia (though that is mentioned in classrooms as well), no evidence of its cousin, aliens seeding Earth with life, and we have no evidence of any deity's involvement. We do have plausable hypotheses regarding abiogenesis, and evidence regarding the early Earth that supports such ideas. They are not approached as "proven," simply as the options being explored for which there is at least some evidence.

All the while, the truth is that this is all philosophical faith, and there is no mention that all life comes from pre-existing life. Why is that?

It has nothign whatsoever to do with philosophy or faith. Faith is any belief not based upon objective evidence, while abiogenesis involves nothing of the sort. It involves a question being answered. The act of asking "is this possible?" does not imply any faith that it is possible. Further, abiogenesis research has shown that the hypothesis is tentatively very promising. Organic compounds thought to be necessary for the formation of a precell have been directly observed to spontaneusly self-assemble given conditions thought to mimic the early Earth. This means that saying "abiogenesis is a possible explanation for the origin of life on Earth, and could even be considered the most likely explanation given the evidence available" is not a statement of philosophy or faith, but rather is simply an honest and accurate statement.

It is well-known that all observed, modern life comes from other pre-existing life. This is taught in classrooms. Your statemnt that it is not mentioned is blatantly false - you simply take issue with abiogenesis being alluded to at all because it conflicts with your personal beliefs. Unfortunately, logic and evidence are unaffected by your subjective beliefs, and so your arguments fall flat.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Certainly you don't think that any and all hypotheses undergoing rigorous experimentation and testing are based on faith, do you?


Certainly not, but hypotheses that are falsified form the start are based on philosophical faith.

I agree. But abiogenesis has not been falsified, and you have failed to show that it has. Provide direct evidence that refutes abiogenesis or concede, AlphaOmegakid. Note that if you bring up your tired argument that "since we've never seen it happen, it's impossible even given wildly different conditions" again, I'll stop being poilte and will openly mock you.

Don't you believe that the young earth theory has been falsified? Yet YECers have a philosophical faith that the earth is young. That's why abiogenesis should not be taught in schools!

Except that abiogenesis has not been falsified, and is not taught in schools as a certainty, or anything beyond "this is a possible explanation that is currently the focus of significant investigation to determine its viability."

Again, your argument falls flat. In your response, provide some evidence to support your position that abiogenesis has been falsified, or concede that your argument is false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-26-2008 6:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-28-2008 12:55 PM Rahvin has taken no action

Alasdair
Member (Idle past 4981 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 50 of 312 (473171)
06-27-2008 1:34 PM


Don't you hate when college kids first learn one or two logical fallacies and then feel the need to whip them out to every argument regardless of whether it applies or not?

that's a strawman!

that's ad hominem!

I was going to write something more substantial, but I don't think I can do a better job than Rahvin's last post. Have at you!


Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 4:21 PM Alasdair has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 51 of 312 (473190)
06-27-2008 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Alasdair
06-27-2008 1:34 PM


Yeah, and you are the college kid, and I am a 46 year old President of a small company. I know debate logic very well, you may want to educate youself beyond your school/college education some day.

The best debate tactic is supportive evidence. Arguments are just that, nothing more than words. Science is about evidence. Courtrooms are about evidence. Merely spouting out diatribes that I don't understand what the law of biogenesis says or means is just words. They only carry weight in your mind and other like minded people. Try presenting some factual data to support your arguments, and they will grow stronger.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Alasdair, posted 06-27-2008 1:34 PM Alasdair has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Alasdair, posted 06-27-2008 4:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 4:57 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 06-27-2008 6:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action
 Message 70 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2008 1:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

Alasdair
Member (Idle past 4981 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 52 of 312 (473192)
06-27-2008 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 4:21 PM


I doubt that you "know debate logic very well" if you can't even grasp what an ad hominem is, one of the simplest of fallacies to understand and point out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 4:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 312 (473196)
06-27-2008 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 4:21 PM


Try presenting some factual data to support your arguments, and they will grow stronger.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

OMFG! I cannot believe you just wrote that.

That is what we have been screaming at you.

Where the evidence that life cannot gradually arise from non-living material?

The Law of Biogenesis states that fully formed life doesn't come from non-living material, and it isn't even meant to be an antithesis to abiogenesis.

So when are you going to stop talking about it and start being about it?

Please don't become a hypocrite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 4:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 5:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 54 of 312 (473200)
06-27-2008 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
06-27-2008 10:52 AM


Re: The "point" of life
Catholic Scientist writes:

Wrong. Abiogenesis is a gradual process. Life doesn't emerge at some "point". Organic molecules gradually combine in the formation of life.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

You contradict yourself in two sentences. Ask yourself when is this gradual formation process identifiable as life. If it is not then you don't have a hypothesis, because it isn't falsifiable. It's nothing but a equivocation game. Your whole statement doesn't make any sense.

But you asked for it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 10:52 AM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Alasdair, posted 06-27-2008 5:54 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Alasdair
Member (Idle past 4981 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 55 of 312 (473202)
06-27-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 5:32 PM


Re: The "point" of life
That would be all well and good if there were black and white easily defined categories of "life" and "not life" to put things into.

Problem is, that's not the case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 5:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 6:12 PM Alasdair has taken no action

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 56 of 312 (473203)
06-27-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by New Cat's Eye
06-27-2008 4:57 PM


CS writes:

That is what we have been screaming at you.
Where the evidence that life cannot gradually arise from non-living material?

I assume you may believe in Dawinian evolution which supposedly started with one common ancestor some 3.8 or so billion years ago. Since that suposed time, we have seen evidence all over the world that life begets life. There has been no evidenc of life since that suposed time that has gradually arisen from non-living chemicals. That's 3.8 billion years worth of evidence, and countless demonstrations in the labs.

Now to the contrary, present evidence that life can gradually arise from non- living chemical. Go ahead, let's see what you have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 4:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-28-2008 5:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 193 days)
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 57 of 312 (473205)
06-27-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 4:21 PM


Yeah, and you are the college kid, and I am a 46 year old President of a small company. I know debate logic very well, you may want to educate yourself beyond your school/college education some day.

You understand debating and logic so well, in fact, that you've used the Internet PhD argument.

Your identity and position are irrelevant. Your argument is all that matters, and it's so riddled with logical fallacies and false premises that even a High School student could demolish you. I don't care if you're Albert Einstein, if you own half of the country, or if you have a dozen PhDs - your argument is still fallacious.

The best debate tactic is supportive evidence.

Only when that evidence is used to support a logically valid argument, which is where you fail.

Arguments are just that, nothing more than words. Science is about evidence. Courtrooms are about evidence. Merely spouting out diatribes that I don't understand what the law of biogenesis says or means is just words.

Except when it is shown, directly, that your statements do not bear any resemblance to what is accepted in modern scientific circles, and when your arguments are shown to be logically invalid.

They only carry weight in your mind and other like minded people. Try presenting some factual data to support your arguments, and they will grow stronger.

You should try to actually listen to what other people are saying, and re-examine your own ideas in light of what others are telling you. Perhaps, when everyone disagrees with you and points out flaws in your argument, it's not really a conspiracy after all as you insinuated, but rather a case of you actually being wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 4:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has taken no action

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 2673 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 58 of 312 (473206)
06-27-2008 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by AlphaOmegakid
06-27-2008 10:43 AM


Re: The "point" of life
quote:
If there is no "point" where life comes into play, then there is no abiogenesis.

At what "point" did you change from a child into an adult?
On exactly what day at what time?

You can't say?
Therefore according to your argument, children never become adults.

Complete nonsense.

Iasion


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 10:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 06-27-2008 6:17 PM Kapyong has taken no action

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 59 of 312 (473208)
06-27-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Alasdair
06-27-2008 5:54 PM


Re: The "point" of life
Alasdair writes:

That would be all well and good if there were black and white easily defined categories of "life" and "not life" to put things into.
Problem is, that's not the case.

That is only a problem from the standpoint of logic. You see logic is one of the pillars of science. If you have equivocation on definitions, which is quite common in Biology, then the logic based on those equivocations is quite fallacious.

Actually life is pretty well defined, and has been for some time. It is only abiogenesists who want to equivocate on the definition.

And yes, before you go there, viruses and prions are not alive by any definition. Only by fallacious argumentation. It's always been amazing to me how people can rationalize agents of death as being forms of life. But go figure, you meet all types.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Alasdair, posted 06-27-2008 5:54 PM Alasdair has taken no action

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 60 of 312 (473210)
06-27-2008 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Kapyong
06-27-2008 6:01 PM


Re: The "point" of life
Iasion writes:

At what "point" did you change from a child into an adult?
On exactly what day at what time?

You can't say?
Therefore according to your argument, children never become adults.

Complete nonsense.

Your red herring argument is complete nonsense relative to this discussion.

Oh I get it. Your hypothesis is that molecules grow up into cells! Let's put that one into the textbooks!:laugh:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Kapyong, posted 06-27-2008 6:01 PM Kapyong has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022