dr.syntax Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 a theory is the highest level an explanation for something can rise to. gravity is a theory as well but you are not floating away. this is because it also fact. like evolution it has been observed. Reply: I thought there were cetain " LAWS " that outranked theories. Such as :law of gravity,Newton`s laws of motion,the laws of thermodynamics, things like that. Am I wrong about that ? ....Dr.Syntax
dunsapy Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 gravity is a theory as well but you are not floating away. this is because it also fact. like evolution it has been observed. I have always looked at gravity as a fact, it works for the Russians, it works for the Canadians, and it works for the Americans. So Gravity is a fact. How it works maybe still under question.
ydoaPs Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Am I wrong about that ? ....Dr.Syntax Yes. A law is one mathematical statement. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI have always looked at gravity as a fact, it works for the Russians, it works for the Canadians, and it works for the Americans. So Gravity is a fact. How it works maybe still under question. Evolution is a fact.
Mokele Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 The term species is a science derived term. It is not universal standard, and does it conform to the creation's word 'kinds'? Science themselves can not decide exactly what a species is. No one knows exactly how far 'kinds' goes when describing types of animals? So really what the question is, does all life as we see it, come from some single cell? That includes plants. So, your objection is that a term which is definable but has some wiggle room doesn't line up with an extremely nebulous and undefined term written by Bronze-Age goatherds who wouldn't know DNA from dirt? 1
bascule Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 No one knows exactly how far 'kinds' goes when describing types of animals? Creationists assume that all "kinds" have a common ancestor which originated at some arbitrary point in time, often 6000 years ago, which represents more or less the midpoint of Sumerian civilization. That said, the definition of "kind" used by creationists is rather elusive as creationists cannot even agree on when life began. So really what the question is, does all life as we see it, come from some single cell? That is what the multidisciplinary approaches to studying the evolution of life suggest, yes.
insane_alien Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 That is what the multidisciplinary approaches to studying the evolution of life suggest, yes. eh, i'd say that is open to debate. if current thoughts are on life coming from micelles that gained hereditary features then there was no single first organism and there were likely a few million of the 'first'. although it is probably impossible to determine exactly where they crossed the line from 'not alive' to 'alive'. 1
iNow Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Agreed. The question could be more precise, something like: "Does all life as we see it, come from some single cell type?"
dunsapy Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Yes, the very computer you are using is proof that Evolution works. If the mathematical processes that describe Evolution didn't work, then the mathematical processes that your computer uses to do anything would not work. If Evolution didn't work as described, then no computer would work either. Evolution is not a theory. It is an Algorithm. And yes, evolution has been implemented on computers and it is used in many industries from Air craft design to medicines to car design to computer design (and even in the design of canoes ). Evolution is no more a Myth than your Web browser. I always thought the computer I am using and the programing , were done with intelligence. Even my web browser, was written code. Does that mean your web broswer is myth? The fact that some said here that there are at least 6 possible ways that life could have started, tells me science does not really know anything about this. I mean in a real way. Lets leave creation out of this. Lets just talk about the science. On the start to life, what proof does science have that life can start on it's own? I mean real life, not just parts , not just chemicals, I mean life.
BhavinB Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 I thought this thread was about evolution (and specifically about natural selection)....not about abiogenesis. I hope dunsapy realizes the difference.
dunsapy Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 I thought this thread was about evolution (and specifically about natural selection)....not about abiogenesis. I hope dunsapy realizes the difference. Yes your right. Abiogenesis has been discredited anyway. I do know the difference. Where does evolution start then?
bascule Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Abiogenesis has been discredited anyway By who? Are you saying it's impossible for life to have arisen from inanimate matter?
Mr Skeptic Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 He's talking about the ancient discredited idea that maggots magically appear in rotting meat every time there is rotting meat, which was also called abiogenesis. I don't know whether he is intentionally confusing this with the modern usage to "gain points" or if it is an honest misunderstanding.
dunsapy Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 He's talking about the ancient discredited idea that maggots magically appear in rotting meat every time there is rotting meat, which was also called abiogenesis. I don't know whether he is intentionally confusing this with the modern usage to "gain points" or if it is an honest misunderstanding. a⋅bi⋅o⋅gen⋅e⋅sis /ˌeɪbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnəsɪs, ˌæbioʊ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-] Show IPA Use abiogenesis in a Sentence See web results for abiogenesis See images of abiogenesis –noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. If you don't want confusion , call it something else so people know which theory you are talking about. By who? Are you saying it's impossible for life to have arisen from inanimate matter? It is impossible , without creation. (With out intelligence to do it.) But the building blocks of life are here. This is just like making bread. Because someone gets all the ingredients and mixes them, and then bakes it. This doesn't show that it could happen on it's own. This only shows that a baker can make bread. So unless science just finds life happening, without their interference, they can't prove it. The other question is, why do you need the start to life and evolution to be separate. Shouldn't all of this all be part of the same theory, essentially the same process?
bascule Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 a⋅bi⋅o⋅gen⋅e⋅sis /ˌeɪbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnəsɪs, ˌæbioʊ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-] Show IPA Use abiogenesis in a Sentence See web results for abiogenesis See images of abiogenesis –noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. If you don't want confusion , call it something else so people know which theory you are talking about. Not sure where you're getting that definition from. When you paste something like that it's helpful to cite a source. As Mr Skeptic noted, the definition you're pasting is now generally referred to as "spontaneous generation" and has nothing to do with abiogenesis in a modern scientific context. It is impossible , without creation. (With out intelligence to do it.) Why? Do you have something more substantive than a metaphor? The other question is, why do you need the start to life and evolution to be separate. Shouldn't all of this all be part of the same theory, essentially the same process? Because one can be studied scientifically whereas the other cannot due to a lack of evidence. To reiterate, you may as well be asking why classical and quantum mechanics don't explain the origin of the universe.
iNow Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 It is impossible , without creation. I am unsure where the break down is in your understanding, but this is simply untrue, and the evidence shared with you in this thread demonstrates that. Simply repeating yourself does not make that evidence go away. The other question is, why do you need the start to life and evolution to be separate. Shouldn't all of this all be part of the same theory, essentially the same process? They ARE different. Do you also think we should discard the theory of electromagnetism because it doesn't explain gravity?
dunsapy Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Not sure where you're getting that definition from. When you paste something like that it's helpful to cite a source. As Mr Skeptic noted, the definition you're pasting is now generally referred to as "spontaneous generation" and has nothing to do with abiogenesis in a modern scientific context. Yes your right. Here's the link. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis Why? Do you have something more substantive than a metaphor? We have never seen it happen on it's own, we have never found it anywhere else. Science has researched and tries to create it, but so far have failed. So it is also evidence that much more knowledge is needed. There is design in the life we see. The only evidence we have therefore is that life comes from life. To think anything else is to go against the evidence. I am unsure where the break down is in your understanding, but this is simply untrue, and the evidence shared with you in this thread demonstrates that. Simply repeating yourself does not make that evidence go away. What evidence are you talking about. Please be specific. They ARE different. Do you also think we should discard the theory of electromagnetism because it doesn't explain gravity? Why are they different? This all has to do with life. Is not the beginning of life a process like evolution?
Moontanman Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) dunsapy, that is a Creationist site, all the answers are creation science answers. There is no such thing as creation science dunsapy. this is what you get when you click on the questions at the side of the page. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html But i would like to ask you a question, you keep saying things like we have never seen it happen or we have never found it anyplace else. If we find life on another planet does this mean abiogenisis is correct and you are wrong? Just wondering since we'll almost certainly have life on another planet in a few years or are you going to insist on another creation for Mars or Europa or Titan or any other planet where we find life? Oh yeah, do you really expect us to create the process of life when it almost certainly took a lab as big as the oceans of the earth millions of years to happen? How long are you will to sit and watch a test tube? for the rest of the life of the universe? what would take forever in a test tube could have happened quite quickly in a lab as big as all the oceans on the earth. Your entire premise is faulty, there is a huge amount of science having to do with the "evolution" of life from non living materials, just because you refuse to see doesn't make it impossible. Edited October 4, 2009 by Moontanman
bascule Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Yes your right. Here's the link. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis Perhaps you should try reading some of the other definitions listed on that page. We have never seen it happen on it's own, we have never found it anywhere else. Science has researched and tries to create it, but so far have failed. So it is also evidence that much more knowledge is needed. Correct. However... There is design in the life we see. This is what's called a non-sequitur, or more specifically an argument from ignorance Your argument goes a little bit like this: Premise 1. We have never seen life arise from non-living matter Premise 2. ??? Conclusion: GOD DID IT! The only evidence we have therefore is that life comes from life. To think anything else is to go against the evidence. We have no evidence of an "intelligent designer", so to introduce one as an explanation also goes against the evidence.
JillSwift Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess against a macaque. No matter how well you plan your game, study the masters of the art, and arrange your strategy, the most you can hope for is not to get hit with a thrown chess piece. 2
CharonY Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Where is Azure? I heard she is good with macaques.
dunsapy Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 If we find life on another planet does this mean abiogenisis is correct and you are wrong? Just wondering since we'll almost certainly have life on another planet in a few years or are you going to insist on another creation for Mars or Europa or Titan or any other planet where we find life? You would still have to prove, that life could happen on it's own. That it wasn't created. That doesn't change the science. This also shows the thinking of science that is not correct. Because there is a huge universe they say there has to be other life out there. But this is an assumption, that life started on it's own, and that it probably started elsewhere. But science has not figured it out here yet. So that wouldn't change the question about us. Something interesting about this is that science at one point was thinking that life came from somewhere else. And landed on the earth. But if you think about this , if life now started on Mars, could the Martians, say life started on it's own, or would they worship the Mars lander? But even there life comes from life. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedArguing with a creationist is like playing chess against a macaque. No matter how well you plan your game, study the masters of the art, and arrange your strategy, the most you can hope for is not to get hit with a thrown chess piece. Just use the evidence, that's all I do. 1
JillSwift Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Just use the evidence, that's all I do. *whap* Dang I didn't duck in time.
Moontanman Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 So in other words dunsapy what you are saying is no matter what we come up with you will not change your mind. No matter how much evidence we have you will not see it? You refuse to even consider it no matter what? Typical creationist behavior, god said it I believe it, that's final. Why do you bother to even discuss it?
bascule Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Just use the evidence, that's all I do. Hi, apparently you missed this: The only evidence we have therefore is that life comes from life. To think anything else is to go against the evidence. We have no evidence of an "intelligent designer", so to introduce one as an explanation also goes against the evidence.
dunsapy Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 This is what's called a non-sequitur, or more specifically an argument from ignorance Your argument goes a little bit like this: Premise 1. We have never seen life arise from non-living matter Premise 2. ??? Conclusion: GOD DID IT! I use the same evidence science uses. I use the same findings from science. I asked what was the first bit of life? How did it become life? And how do you know?
Recommended Posts