Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I ask a question about your belief, and you answer about what you 'know'. A non sequitur.
I answered with what I "know" based on the evidence I clearly presented. Explain to me how this is a non sequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
You simply presume that abiogenesis is false. No basis for this presumption. No indication that you are aware of the ongoing scientific research in that field. A non sequitur.
Based on all the scientific evidence I know of, it points to abiogenesis as false. I am aware of the money being wasted to try and "prove" abiogenesis. It is, after all, very important to the ToE, despite claims to the contrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
You seem to have no basis for your opinion about genetics and evolution. Blowing smoke. A non sequitur.
I provided plenty of reasons why I have this opinion. Call it what you want, but a non sequitur it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
So you thereby qualify for my IGNORE list.
I hope that you are not serious about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
You are officially deemed a smoke-blower. So God bless you. You might take the time to read the transcript of the recent Dover, Delaware court proceedings regarding the status of the theory of evolution and the reasons why Creationism is not science.
You may continue to call me names if that's your wish. It doesn't bother me any nor does it help your case. As for the Dover case, I have looked at it. A liberal judge without a scientific background ruled in favor of the status quo. No big surprise there. Of course, had the ruling gone the other way, I imagine that the evolutionists would be screaming from the mountaintops protesting how a judge should not be allowed make rulings about science. Ah but I digress...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
God bless you and your ilk, but you're not pushing your anachronistic, pseudo-rational religion down the public's throat.
You may continue to call me names if that's your wish. It doesn't bother me any nor does it help your case. As for the Dover case, I have looked at it. A liberal judge without a scientific background ruled in favor of the status quo. No big surprise there. Of course, had the ruling gone the other way, I imagine that the evolutionists would be screaming from the mountaintops protesting how a judge should not be allowed make rulings about science. Ah but I digress...
A liberal judge with a scientific background?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!???!?
I think not!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I suggest you do some research on the judge's history.
The thing is... do you think it will ever be solved scientifically, since for something to come from nothing, or life from dead matter, is completely against scientific laws? I guess that would leave me with more questions... That, to me, is way more important than how WE got here (evolution vs creation). What created life? Even tho they are separated in the world of science, yet they are very much related to each other. For instance, since I believe in God, I believe He created life and the universe. But if we don't believe in God, we can't assign a supernatural event preceding the evolutionary process... it has to happen "naturally". Very interesting... sorry for my muddled thoughts.
I don't know if it will ever be solved scientifically. I know that a tremendous amount of research is being done on it (which is why I say that it's not being overlooked). Of course the question "What created life?" is an important one to many people. However, I'm going to postulate an ID argument if the discovery that natural processes can occur to start life-
Just because it's been shown that life can start naturally doesn't mean that it did. - GCSTroop's Prediction of the ID argument should the discovery of abiogenesis become true
The thing is that there are many many many scientists who have a very deep faith in God but also understand and accept evolution. Richard Dawkins did a video recently where he was having a discussion with 3 other prominent atheists and he brought up a point.
He was talking about a very brilliant scientist in his field. The scientist had made some remarkable breakthroughs in evolutionary biology, was a brilliant man, etc.. etc.. Dawkins said that he asked him "Knowing what you know now, how could you STILL believe in God?" The man replied "Well, it's just faith". And you know, to that extent, I don't think you can take anything away from that.
Anyway, what I wanted to get at ultimately is that abiogenesis, the formation of life on earth, or panspermia take nothing away from the theory of evolution. As I said before, evolution deals with the origin of species not the origin of life. Evolution is what happens afterwards.
Do I think science will find an answer to the abiogenesis question? Well, I surely hope so. Do I think it will solve anything? Nope. How long? Hopefully in the next 10-15 years but it may not be in our lifetime either. Heck, it may not be in our century or millenia, but it doesn't mean the answer isn't there.
Just because it's been shown that life can start naturally doesn't mean that it did. - GCSTroop's Prediction of the ID argument should the discovery of abiogenesis become true
LOL! You seem to think that all ID'ers are intent on avoiding science! Some may appear that way, but not all.
I'm not sure if it could ever be shown that life could start naturally, because nature, untampered by man, does not suggest this. Any experiment would have to be carefully controlled, and even then, for "life" to arise.... what are we looking for? What is "life"? In a sense, it's happening all the time.. dead seed sprouts in the right environment, etc.
What are some findings in the research being done on abiogenesis?
Quote:
Anyway, what I wanted to get at ultimately is that abiogenesis, the formation of life on earth, or panspermia take nothing away from the theory of evolution. As I said before, evolution deals with the origin of species not the origin of life. Evolution is what happens afterwards.
LOL! You seem to think that all ID'ers are intent on avoiding science! Some may appear that way, but not all.
Die little thread... die....
It's not that they are intent on avoiding science, it's that they misrepresent it. It's not that they are discovering new things it's that they are misrepresenting theories to begin with (macroevolution is one of them- it's a Hovindism) and then citing evidences for why things don't happen that way. Well, of course it sounds believable.
I'll put it this way. If I told you there were three principles for flight and that they were lift, thrust, and gravity you would probably be inclined to believe me. You might also believe me when I told you that the way these forces interact don't necessitate flight. I could draw up this whole argument on why these three forces aren't the reasons why airplanes fly and you might be inclined to believe me. However, I would have also been deliberately mistating the theory of flight (because it has four principles- the fourth being drag). I would have effectively persuaded you that the theory of flight (my version of it) is not accurate. It's a straw man argument. It's an intentional misrepresentation, or possibly an ignorant one. That's what I see with ID, and the problem is that it takes someone well versed (I'm not trying to pat myself on the shoulder) to recognize the obvious flaws in the logic they are trying to pass off. Your typical average Joe would have no idea that there was a deliberate misrepresentation. I see it all the time. The first question always seems to be "Well how come monkeys aren't still turning into men?" Well, I have never met anyone who stated that this is the case except for ID'ers or Creationists. I've never heard a person who understands evolution claim this. Yet, people like Kent Hovind, and that Hamm guy seem to use arguments as ridiculous as this only until they 'meet their match' so to speak. It's actually quite ridiculous because if you can tell a common person that evolution says monkeys (like chimpanzees and apes) will turn into man given a long enough period of time than I would be apt to call those evolutionists nuts too! But, that's not what the theory states! It's not even close! But that's the misrepresentation that's given. And it goes on and on down the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cg81
I'm not sure if it could ever be shown that life could start naturally, because nature, untampered by man, does not suggest this. Any experiment would have to be carefully controlled, and even then, for "life" to arise.... what are we looking for? What is "life"? In a sense, it's happening all the time.. dead seed sprouts in the right environment, etc.
What are some findings in the research being done on abiogenesis?
Well, as you mentioned, what constitutes 'life'?? Is it a DNA strand? Is it one nucleotide of a DNA strand? That's going to be the hardest part is defining what exactly constitutes life (that's also one of the biggest arguments with abortion). Is it DNA? A Cell? What is life? I'm inclined to believe that in order to find the true answer we have to see if we can get a very simple DNA strand to form. It's not that I consider it life, it's that it's what constitutes the structure of everything. Even a single celled organism. If I'm not mistaken, there was a study done in the 1950's where a gentleman drove an electrical current through water and the basic building blocks of DNA started to 'form'. Now, I haven't read a lot on it, and I know it was a controversial study so I can't really say much about it.
However, here are some links as to studies done with abiogenesis. My molecular biology isn't all that fantastic so maybe neutrino may be able to help me out on this one.
It's not that they are intent on avoiding science, it's that they misrepresent it. It's not that they are discovering new things it's that they are misrepresenting theories to begin with (macroevolution is one of them- it's a Hovindism) and then citing evidences for why things don't happen that way. Well, of course it sounds believable.
I'll put it this way. If I told you there were three principles for flight and that they were lift, thrust, and gravity you would probably be inclined to believe me. You might also believe me when I told you that the way these forces interact don't necessitate flight. I could draw up this whole argument on why these three forces aren't the reasons why airplanes fly and you might be inclined to believe me. However, I would have also been deliberately mistating the theory of flight (because it has four principles- the fourth being drag). I would have effectively persuaded you that the theory of flight (my version of it) is not accurate. It's a straw man argument. It's an intentional misrepresentation, or possibly an ignorant one. That's what I see with ID, and the problem is that it takes someone well versed (I'm not trying to pat myself on the shoulder) to recognize the obvious flaws in the logic they are trying to pass off. Your typical average Joe would have no idea that there was a deliberate misrepresentation. I see it all the time. The first question always seems to be "Well how come monkeys aren't still turning into men?" Well, I have never met anyone who stated that this is the case except for ID'ers or Creationists. I've never heard a person who understands evolution claim this. Yet, people like Kent Hovind, and that Hamm guy seem to use arguments as ridiculous as this only until they 'meet their match' so to speak. It's actually quite ridiculous because if you can tell a common person that evolution says monkeys (like chimpanzees and apes) will turn into man given a long enough period of time than I would be apt to call those evolutionists nuts too! But, that's not what the theory states! It's not even close! But that's the misrepresentation that's given. And it goes on and on down the line.
I agree with you that misrepresenting or consistantly ignoring someone's point does more harm than good, especially when ego is involved. But I'm sure you see it go both ways! (But that doesn't give ID'ers or Creationists any excuse.)
Quote:
Well, as you mentioned, what constitutes 'life'?? Is it a DNA strand? Is it one nucleotide of a DNA strand? That's going to be the hardest part is defining what exactly constitutes life (that's also one of the biggest arguments with abortion). Is it DNA? A Cell? What is life? I'm inclined to believe that in order to find the true answer we have to see if we can get a very simple DNA strand to form. It's not that I consider it life, it's that it's what constitutes the structure of everything. Even a single celled organism. If I'm not mistaken, there was a study done in the 1950's where a gentleman drove an electrical current through water and the basic building blocks of DNA started to 'form'. Now, I haven't read a lot on it, and I know it was a controversial study so I can't really say much about it.
Interesting..
Quote:
Matter
OK... that's what I was getting at. The statements that prompted my question was this:
Quote:
Anyway, what I wanted to get at ultimately is that abiogenesis, the formation of life on earth, or panspermia take nothing away from the theory of evolution. As I said before, evolution deals with the origin of species not the origin of life. Evolution is what happens afterwards.
I'm not sure if I can get my thoughts together but here goes..
OK, you have matter (what kind of matter... gas?) So gas has always been... and where you would say "gas" I might say "God", but I'd rather have God than have gas, wouldn't you? But I'm wandering off topic..
Start over...
OK, you have matter.. and then "something happens" that causes "life".
This was only a one-time event (altho it is a completely natural thing)??
If we don't completely understand this event, how can we accurately study evolution? For instance, how do we know that after this "happening" everything has progressed at the same rate.. it could be that for a short (or long) time afterwards things were in fast-forward (in relation to today) or it could be that this force is still at work.
How can we truly disassociate it from the evolutionary process? Because, as I mentioned earlier, first you have "A", matter. Then something happens and you have "B", living matter. Another question is, what was different about the state of matter before and after? Did it not have the same properties?
OK, you have matter.. and then "something happens" that causes "life".
This was only a one-time event (altho it is a completely natural thing)??
If we don't completely understand this event, how can we accurately study evolution? For instance, how do we know that after this "happening" everything has progressed at the same rate.. it could be that for a short (or long) time afterwards things were in fast-forward (in relation to today) or it could be that this force is still at work.
How can we truly disassociate it from the evolutionary process? Because, as I mentioned earlier, first you have "A", matter. Then something happens and you have "B", living matter. Another question is, what was different about the state of matter before and after? Did it not have the same properties?
As far as what happens with life forming, now you are talking about chemicals bonding. Chemicals of course that make up the building blocks of life-cells, but to me, more importantly the things that make up the cells (the DNA). As I said, some studies have shown that by having certain chemical elements in a 'soup' and running a current through them have shown that they bond in a similar way to DNA. It's not really hard to figure out that that could mean lightning striking water and doing this.
As far as why we disassociate it from the evolutionary process... The second that that first cell was on Earth it was in a natural environment. It had to survive. It didn't have predators (except perhaps nature itself), but it had to replicate. It was from the very get go that natural selection and survival of the fittest were aparrent. However, I feel that the cell was merely a product of natural selection as well. Yes, the cell is a building block of life, but what is 99% of a cell? What is 98% of a cell? And so on and so forth. I think people are often under the impression that abiogenesis means that a cell just 'popped' up. It's the "Climbing Mount Improbable" argument on a miniature level. You wouldn't think that a complex being of any sort was 'poofed' into existence. Well, I wouldn't and I don't suspect many evolutionists would. Well, a cell is very complex and so to me it must be the result of a process of many different random mutations in and of itself. That's just my opinion. I don't have a lot of scientific data to back it up and if I did I'd probably be a gazillionaire. Unfortunately, I'm not so I'll stick to being billionaire status for now
Ok, sorry I'm going on my second round of 16 hour shifts with about 3 hours sleep so forgive me if I'm a little quacky right now.
Unfortunately, I'm not so I'll stick to being billionaire status for now
Well, you gotta be over a billion if you want to make Forbes' list!
Quote:
Ok, sorry I'm going on my second round of 16 hour shifts with about 3 hours sleep so forgive me if I'm a little quacky right now.
That's ok. My excuse is that I've had an absolutely head-splitting eye-ball pounding headache the last two days. And this subject isn't helping.
P.S. The more I hear about abiogenesis etc, the more I think you better start using more capital letters in your posts! (eg. the Lightning came and hit the soup, etc, etc.)
From "A" to "Z", there are steps. There have to be, if you believe in evolution. Well, if "A" is nothing, dead, it would have to go thru a process or step which would bring it to "B" - something with life. Since it's all something that happens naturally, I see no reason why we would exclude this step from the evolutionary process. In fact, it would be the most important evolutionary step ever, yet appears largely ignored!
Because evolution is defined as starting at B, not A.
Abiogenesis is highly important, but so is gravity. This doesn't mean that either have to be included within the theory of evolution.
P.S. The more I hear about abiogenesis etc, the more I think you better start using more capital letters in your posts! (eg. the Lightning came and hit the soup, etc, etc.)
Thanks for your time!
Personally, I think that's how a lot of scientists who believe in God feel. At least, it's how they reconcile their belief in God knowing what they know. That's just a guess and I suppose each person has their own belief on the matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
