Abiogenesis

Sorry Rob but Message 73 you post just jabberwocky.Science deals with natural forces. That is all that science can deal with. Asserting that Goddidit tells us nothing. It is irrelevant and immaterial to this topic.Personal beliefs are also irrelevant and immaterial.The facts are that at one time there was no life on Earth.We now observe life.Abiogenesis happened.That is a given.Science can only study natural forces.To create a Theory of Abiogenesis the only tool we have available is Science.While I might believe that GOD did it, that is not something that can be tested, confirmed or refuted.Therefore it is immaterial and irrelevant to the search for a Model of Abiogenesis.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You do love redifining words."Artificial" and "forgery" are not synonyms.Brackets do not have magical powers.You cannot make cat mean dog by writing "cat (dog)".

No. The manufactured products of intelligence are artificial. I'm saying that they have a conventional meaning, and, kiddo, if you "reinterpret" them arbitrarily then you will be unable to communicate with English-speaking people. A point amply proven by this thread.

Websters Definition / Artificial 2 : not genuine : feignedDr.A.: Now that is precisely what I intend to find out in another thread.Ok Ok... seriously... I know this is geting very muddled and I apologize for the mess.You missed my point thanks to my poor conversion of word to concept. Let me try again.Dr.A.:Ok, so that which is unmanufactured is genuine?If so, does the convention manufacture artificial or genuine language with their so-called intelligence?Dr.A.:I disagree in kind.I may be unable to communicate with the convention, and crucified for standing up to its manufacturing of truth.I stand for the genuine article Himself.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

I assume there was aa Artificial 1 entry in the Websters dictionary. May be that`s the one everybody else in this thread is using. (A clear case of equivocation). Now, I find it really hard to believe you could be that desengenious, should I assume you are simply being facetious?

just what the heck does "articial" really have to do with abiogenesis, the topic?might I suggest you all staying on abiogenesis?

Fallacycop:No... If you go back you will see my listing of this definition previously.But I think Kuresus is right. This has gotten far away from the original topic. I don't even remember how we got to this point. I'll have to re-read.My apologies for any misunderstandings.

Kuresu:I agree...Even so, jar has already culminated the entire subject into a neat little package. It is better known as an A Priori assumption that since life is now here, we know abiogenesis happened.If you are looking for evidence, I am with you. I am waiting.

Rob, you don't ascribe to the Gen 2 version of creation?

rob, you're mixing up the fact with the theory. fact is, abiogenesis happened. trouble is, we don't know how, which is what the theory will explain.i'm looking for evidence for hypotheses about how abiogenesis happened. not whether it in fact happened (hint: we already have that evidence. And that is, the facts that life did not exist at one point, but now does. and no, that's not an a priori assumption)).

Kuresu:The A Priori assumption is that it happened and can be explaned in purely material terms.

Asgara:Please explain...

Simple question...do you or don't you believe the creation of man story in Gen 2?

I do!Proceed with your point...

you're dealing with science here. science assumes things can be explained in purely naturalistic terms.if they can't be explained, we either don't have enough knowledge about the subject or we're looking in the wrong direction.this does not make science atheistic, mind you. It could very well be that god(s) are using these methods to make the world go round.do you fault newton for thinking that gravity can be explained by natural methods? what about atomic theory? germ theory of disease? theory of heliocentrism? what gives? nice shift, man. before you said it was: you've shifted from saying that the fact is assumed to how the fact can be explained. very disengenious. too bad you didn't get away with it.anyhow, none of this has to deal with how abiogenensis happened(s). you know, the topic?