Abiogenesis and Evolution

[The Galatian]

Here, BTW, is an interesting site, showing the difficulty YE creationists have agreeing with each other on the "humaness" of various hominid skulls:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

 

[Meatros]

Here's a bronto transitional that was found recentally.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Francis Crick "tried" to stick with the mythologies of evolutionism regarding the origins of life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meatros said --
Which would be abiogenesis. Please distinguish between the two, they are two separate theories and invalidating one doesn't invalidate the other.

Notice the "unceasing efforts" that evolutionism must make to distance ITSELF from the MOST testable CLAIMS that it must make to put forth its mythology.

The "success" of evolutionism to date is measured by its ability to "avoid verification" of the salient points of Difference between the YEC (young earth creationist) model and the distinctives of evolutionism.

But in Abiogenesis the Evol model is “closest to actual Testability” (hence the unceasing efforts to distance itself from "the test").


A common assertion of evolutionists is of the form –


I did not “believed in” evolutionism until the “overwhelming scientific evidence” “proving” the distinctive differences of evolutionism (the key salient points of evolutionism) convinced me otherwise.


But this is QUICKLY combined with the futile claim



abiogenesis. Please distinguish between the two (evolutionism and abiogenesis), they are (hopefully) two separate theories and invalidating one doesn't invalidate the other.


We would applaud that rational position – if it were true. But in Abiogenesis the Evol model is “closest to actual Testability” (hence the unceasing efforts to distance itself from "the test").

So we must respond to the assertion above …

And now - abiogenesis?
And now - the "overwhelming evidence" that LIFE does "spontaneously exist" from non-living environments? (New age – alchemy and spontaneous generation)
And now - the compelling empirical data?

And now the "SALIENT" point of biological evolution that is MOST testable, that is MOST verifiable - abiogenesis?

Clearly it does Not take billions of years in the lab experiment to
#1. “observe” a sample of amino acids forming life-building proteins
#2. and then to “observe” the proteins assemble themselves into cell structures
#3. and then to “observe” the cell structures assemble themselves into a living functioning viable cell – capable of all functions including reproduction WITHOUT the addition of other living cells into the environment.

In “fact” ALL of that must happen “quickly” for the event to happen at all, because getting the 100% Levro solution of amino acids is as tenuous a condition as EVERY OTHER step needed in that sequence. Not sustainable over years, millennia etc.

Hence – this I the Most Immediate – and Most Testable claim of the entire system of evolutionism. The most testable salient point of its argument.

And hence - "most likely to be avoided by evolutionists"

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Oops! Did I get this thread BACK on the topic of Abiogenesis again??

Sorry about that my evolutionist friends. I know you wanted to change the subject. But rules are rules. We really should get back on this topic since it is the subject of the thread.

I hope you don't mind too much.

Bob

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Oops! Did I get this thread BACK on the topic of Abiogenesis again??

Sorry about that my evolutionist friends. I know you wanted to change the subject. But rules are rules. We really should get back on this topic since it is the subject of the thread.

I hope you don't mind too much.

Bob

I'll say this again; abiogenesis, whether valid or not, has no effect on the validity of evolution.

You do know that right?

 

[BobRyan]

Meatros - what? No attempt to deal with the "details" of the topic?

How surprising!

Let me guess "My faith in evolutionism is right because I always say it is right"

Surely you are ready to discuss this point - finally.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Maybe we can get an evoltionist to "respond" to the details of abiogenesis on this thread - OR to the summary points below.

The Key strategy of Evolutionism.

The "success" of evolutionism to date is measured by its ability to "avoid verification" of the salient points of Difference between the YEC (young earth creationist) model and the distinctives of evolutionism.

But in Abiogenesis the Evol model is “closest to actual Testability” (hence the unceasing efforts to distance itself from "the test").


A common assertion of evolutionists is of the form –


I did not “believed in” evolutionism until the “overwhelming scientific evidence” “proving” the distinctive differences of evolutionism (the key salient points of evolutionism) convinced me otherwise.


But this is QUICKLY combined with the futile claim



abiogenesis. Please distinguish between the two (evolutionism and abiogenesis), they are (hopefully) two separate theories and invalidating one doesn't invalidate the other.


We would applaud that rational position – if it were true. But in Abiogenesis the Evol model is “closest to actual Testability” (hence the unceasing efforts to distance itself from "the test").

THE SAME “salient” principle (self organization) that evolutionism relies upon for the modes “descent with modification” to result in “INCREASED information” injected into the genome and organization “creating” of higher order species is supposedly in play for the self-organizing gas that forms the solar system – as well as the self-organizing environment that forms the first living cell. The “self organizing” principle is “indispensable” to the key-salient arguments in evolutionism’s Distinctives from Creationism. though flatly denied by all the hard sciences.

So we must respond to the assertion above …

And now - abiogenesis?
And now - the "overwhelming evidence" that LIFE does "spontaneously exist" from non-living environments? (New age – alchemy and spontaneous generation)
And now - the compelling empirical data?

And now the "SALIENT" point of biological evolution that is MOST testable, that is MOST verifiable - abiogenesis?

Clearly it does Not take billions of years in the lab experiment to
#1. “observe” a sample of amino acids forming life-building proteins
#2. and then to “observe” the proteins assemble themselves into cell structures
#3. and then to “observe” the cell structures assemble themselves into a living functioning viable cell – capable of all functions including reproduction WITHOUT the addition of other living cells into the environment.

In “fact” ALL of that must happen “quickly” for the event to happen at all, because getting the 100% Levro solution of amino acids is as tenuous a condition as EVERY OTHER step needed in that sequence. Not sustainable over years, millennia etc.

Hence – this I the Most Immediate – and Most Testable claim of the entire system of evolutionism. The most testable salient point of its argument.

And hence - "most likely to be avoided by evolutionists"

Or "maybe" they will continue to duck the point - by ignoring the "details".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BTW - I (by contrast to the Evolutionist hopefulls on this thread) have found the "details" to be worth saving - ESPECIALLY given Galation's responses and attempts to squirm out of the difficulty presented.

I also find it "quite affirming" that we see "Added to this" Meatros' efforts to "distance himself" from Abiogensis - the MOST TESTABLE form of the mythologies of evolutionism.

Bravo to ALL for your participation in that regard. You each represented the validity of your respective views very well!

Thanks.

Bob

 

[Meatros]

Meatros - what? No attempt to deal with the "details" of the topic?

How surprising!

Let me guess "My faith in evolutionism is right because I always say it is right"

Surely you are ready to discuss this point - finally.

I don't have "faith" in evolution, you're trying to water down the idea of religion so badly that *anything* could be considered a religion. It's a pathetic attempt to divert the issues.

In any event, I've seen evolution work and I'm willing to bet you have to-You've had immunization shots haven't you?

Maybe we can get an evoltionist to "respond" to the details of abiogenesis on this thread - OR to the summary points below.

The Key strategy of Evolutionism.

What does abiogenesis have to do with evolution, bob? You either seem to have read a completely fabricated biology book or your are trying, ever so desperately, to conclude that without abiogenesis, evolution falls apart too.

Science doesn't work that way. Let's say for example this: Abiogenesis is thoroughly discredited.

Guess what bob?? Evolution is still as valid as ever.

I also find it "quite affirming" that we see "Added to this" Meatros' efforts to "distance himself" from Abiogensis - the MOST TESTABLE form of the mythologies of evolutionism.

I'm not trying to distance myself from abiogenesis-I'm trying to get you to be intellectually honest and to stop spreading your ignorant ideas about evolution and abiogenesis. I suggest you read up on both topics before you spread this ignorance to other people.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe we can get an evoltionist to "respond" to the details of abiogenesis on this thread - OR to the summary points below.

The Key strategy of Evolutionism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meatros --
What does abiogenesis have to do with evolution, bob? You either seem to have read a completely fabricated biology book or your are trying, ever so desperately, to conclude that without abiogenesis, evolution falls apart too.

Science doesn't work that way. Let's say for example this: Abiogenesis is thoroughly discredited.

Guess what bob?? Evolution is still as valid as ever.

Hmmm - let's think "really hard".

HOW could the idea of LIFE evolving on this planet from NON-Life SUPPORT the idea that superheated hot gas and plasma made its way to our local area - and then cooled (as entropy demands) but then in some magical self-organizing way - "created" a complex solar SYSTEM with a non-Living Planet - EARTH that EVOLVED life given enough "TIME". And life CONTINUED to evolve under that "self-organizing" principle so that "descent with modification" went BEYOND random mutation WITHIN the genome of a cell - and ADVANCED up the chain to a human brain building a space shuttle.

hmmm. Now this is "really hard" to imagine how that entire SYSTEM would NEED to have LIFE "self-organize" out of a non-living system AND then CONTINUE to self-organize from simple one celled life up to the human mind.

I have a BETTER idea -

"SHOW" how life could "NEVER START" but STILL evolve!

SHOW that NO start is actually "needed".

(You know, keeping on topic with this thread and all).

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

By the way - I agree that showing how abiogenesis is utterly discredited - leaves us with mythologies in evolutionism that have no more credit today than they ever did.

But I appreciate the deafening silence that ANYONE has posted FOR abiogenesis on this thread in the face of all that has been posted here SHOWING its utter failure.

I also appreciate the fact that Abiogenesis is the MOST TESTABLE point of evolutionism's requirement for a "self-organizing" principle - in magic play.

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

As someone once remarked, you have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. Simply putting your fingers in your ears and denying the evidence isn't doing you any good.

And denying the obvious fact that evolutionary theory is not about the origin of life probably doesn't do you much good here, either.

Most creationists accept that fact. If you want to argue against a theory, you have to argue against what it says, not against what you wish it said.

 

[Travelsong]

There are a ton of Christians who mistakenly link abiogenesis with evolution. I'm fairly sure it's common in fact.

 

[BobRyan]

Fine "SHOW" your point rather than simply claiming "I have another one".

SHOW - how your self-organizing views of Evolution of LIFE CAN exist WITHOUT Life "starting".

Or SHOW that evolution apeals to instantaneous divine fiat to instantly CREATE the World AND the first living cells - but then STOP.

The "organizing principle of life" that Evolutionism demands - REQUIRES that LIFE starts and requires the self organizing principle to be part of the environment itself OR it opens the door to divine - instantaneous creation of ALL the earth INCLUDING the biosphere of FIRST life.

Shocking for most evolutionists - but you "seem to be arguing for it" as you argue AGAINST life STARTING. As if evolution does not need LIFE to START in the SAME context of self-organization as Living systems evolving.

Bob

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Hmmm - let's think "really hard".

HOW could the idea of LIFE evolving on this planet from NON-Life SUPPORT the idea that superheated hot gas and plasma made its way to our local area - and then cooled (as entropy demands) but then in some magical self-organizing way - "created" a complex solar SYSTEM with a non-Living Planet - EARTH that EVOLVED life given enough "TIME". And life CONTINUED to evolve under that "self-organizing" principle so that "descent with modification" went BEYOND random mutation WITHIN the genome of a cell - and ADVANCED up the chain to a human brain building a space shuttle.

hmmm. Now this is "really hard" to imagine how that entire SYSTEM would NEED to have LIFE "self-organize" out of a non-living system AND then CONTINUE to self-organize from simple one celled life up to the human mind.

I have a BETTER idea -

"SHOW" how life could "NEVER START" but STILL evolve!

SHOW that NO start is actually "needed".

(You know, keeping on topic with this thread and all).

Bob

You fail to get it bob. Utterly fail. Your comprehension skills are sad.

Do you get immunity shots bob? IF you do, then you've already conceded to accepting evolution.

So the question is, bob, do you get immunity shots?

 

[BobRyan]

The sad truth for our evolutionist friends is that "your own literature" confesses that Evolutionists sometimes palm their theories off as "micromutation" calling it "microevolution" and then claiming "IF Parents have children with any diversity in eye color then evolution is True".

But the fact is that MICROevolution is NOT the salient point of distinction between Evolutionism and the Bible model of creation.

RATHER (as even our evolutionist sources show) BOTH groups accept micro-mutation - its just that evolutionists like calling it "microevolution" so it might "appear" that evidence exists for evolutionism.

Our evolutionist sources admit that MACROevolution is the REAL point of distinction between evolutionism and Biblical creationism and it is THIS that is "not observable".

So - yes - I do get immunization shots.

Bob

 

[Steven O. Sawyer]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
There are a ton of Christians who mistakenly link abiogenesis with evolution. I'm fairly sure it's common in fact.

Yes... here's one "Christian" authority you might find interresting:

The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.

Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. ...

I like that... "every stage is understood" - sure we know the outline, we just need to fill in the details... ALL the meaningful details ESPECIALLY when it comes to abiogenesis.

Oh, yeah, the quote... can you guess which poor misguided "Christian" said essentially that Darwinism actually began with the origin of the Earth? Actually the person making that quote would be very offended if he were called a Christian. The quote was made during a PBS interview of dogmatic Darwinian atheist Richard Dawkins! You can find the quote in this link to the transcript:
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html

 

[Edgeo]

Originally posted by Steven O. Sawyer:

Yes... here's one "Christian" authority you might find interresting:

(quote snipped)


I like that... "every stage is understood" - sure we know the outline, we just need to fill in the details... ALL the meaningful details ESPECIALLY when it comes to abiogenesis.

Well, obviously it is adequate for the person speaking. Do you read more into it than that? I don't.

Oh, yeah, the quote... can you guess which poor misguided "Christian" said essentially that Darwinism actually began with the origin of the Earth? Actually the person making that quote would be very offended if he were called a Christian.

Then why do you do so? I'm getting confused here as to who is a Christian or a "Christian".

The quote was made during a PBS interview of dogmatic Darwinian atheist Richard Dawkins! You can find the quote in this link to the transcript:
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html [/QB]

Why is he a "Christian?" Does he call himself such? Oh wait, you said he wouldn't call himself a Christian... Just what is your purpose in calling him such? Not sure just what your point is here.

 

[Steven O. Sawyer]

Originally posted by Meatros:
I don't have "faith" in evolution, you're trying to water down the idea of religion so badly that *anything* could be considered a religion. It's a pathetic attempt to divert the issues.

You CANNOT PROVE macroevolution... you extrapolate Microevolution and BELIEVE in Macroevolution, but you cannot prove it... THAT IS FAITH whether you like it or not.

Belief systems which propose worldviews that deal with origin and destiny of man are ALL metaphysical, even atheism, and could be considered a form of religion. Atheism just worships the anti-god by deifying Nature.

[QB]What does abiogenesis have to do with evolution, bob? You either seem to have read a completely fabricated biology book or your are trying, ever so desperately, to conclude that without abiogenesis, evolution falls apart too.

Science doesn't work that way. Let's say for example this: Abiogenesis is thoroughly discredited.

Guess what bob?? Evolution is still as valid as ever.

Guess what? If Intelligent Design is a rational possiblity and the limitation of science to measure reality by natural means is rocked by the realization that a creator actually exists and can interact with his creation, then all the interpretations of all the data from a naturalistc perspective that were developed to deliberately exclude the interaction of the creator must be re-examined.

Christians (and those of other faiths) that hold to notions of "theistic" evolution even recognize that the evidence for a completely natural explanation for the appearance of all the diverse life forms from a simple life form is not very compelling... unless one completely ignores the implications of Intelligent Design and MUST account for everything in terms of natural processes. If a creator exists... if abiogenesis didn't happen... then naturalistic evolution is a metaphysical lie.

See:
http://www.theism.net/article/19 Faith and the Origin of Life by Steven Sawyer
&
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=98 The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by Stephen C. Meyer
&
http://www.theism.net/article/25
The Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific Realism by By Robert C. Koons

 

[Steven O. Sawyer]

Originally posted by Edgeo:
Why is he a "Christian?" Does he call himself such? Oh wait, you said he wouldn't call himself a Christian... Just what is your purpose in calling him such? Not sure just what your point is here.

Hello! Anybody home?

I began my statement by quoting the remark made by Travelsong:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Travelsong:
There are a ton of Christians who mistakenly link abiogenesis with evolution. I'm fairly sure it's common in fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The implication of the statement by Travelsong was that ONLY Christians are so misguided as to say that abiogenesis and evolution were linked... therefore, I used quotes around the term Christian as it refered to the author of the quote which indicated that Darwinism began with earth's origin. The problem for Travelsong was that the author was supposed to be a Christian, but in fact, he wasn't. So I DID NOT CALL RICHARD DAWKINS A CHRISTIAN, I put the term in quotes to refer back to Travelsong's misguided stereotyping and completely incorrect statement.

[ July 13, 2003, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: Steven O. Sawyer ]