The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Except Evolution and the origin of life are not separate.

As I said in an earlier post:

=> The end result of the Abiogenesis process is the "existence of life",
=> The initial condition for the Evolutionary process is "existence of life"

The two can certainly be considered separately as fields of study. Of course evolution cannot happen if there is no life, and how life started is an interesting and rewarding field of study.

It is true that they are linked by the existential fact of life itself, but they are NOT THE SAME THING. There was clearly a sequence of events or states:

1: no life
2: something happened
3: life
4: evolution of life

We know for a certainty that these 4 events or states happened. It is intuitively obvious, "belief" does not enter into it, it is derived from observed fact and logical thought. Since that is so, why do you find it impossible that people can study the state number 4 "evolution of life" without understanding what number 2 is?

There is absolutely nothing in that 4 step sequence that could offend anyone of any religious persuasion except possibly a young Earth creationist - and in fact, YECs should not be offended either as far as I'm concerned.

The Bible actually describes each step in detail. The story of the Tower of Babel describes the migration across the world and the development of different languages. I consider this tacit acknowledgment of the evolution of mankind and by extension the animal and plant kingdom. Obviously the bronze age authors did not know of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, but they obviously understood that things don't stay the same forever.

Furthermore, even if the YEC's are correct, and the entire universe was created somewhere between 6000 and 10000 years ago, then the Creator went to a lot of effort to ensure that it LOOKED like it was created 14 billion years ago. If the Creator went to all that trouble just to 'trick' us, then why should be respect It?. On the other hand, if the Creator went to all that trouble in order to give us a purpose in life, that is to study and learn about his creation, why should we not follow through with that destiny? In fact God gives Adam that charge in almost the first thing It says to him:

KJV Genesis 2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

And from "Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary" we read:

Power over the creatures was given to man, and as a proof of this he named them all. It also shows his insight into the works of God.

And from "Gills Exposition of the Entire Bible" we read:

... and this was done to see what he would call them; what names he would give to them; which as it was a trial of the wisdom of man, so a token of his dominion over the creatures, it being an instance of great knowledge of them to give them apt and suitable names, so as to distinguish one from another, and point at something in them that was natural to them, and made them different from each other; for this does not suppose any want of knowledge in God, as if he did this to know what man would do, he knew what names man would give them before he did; but that it might appear he had made one superior to them all in wisdom and power, and for his pleasure, use, and service; and therefore brings them to him, to put them into his hands, and give him authority over them; and being his own, to call them by what names he pleased: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof; it was always afterwards called by it, by him and his posterity, until the confusion of languages...

So we see that God is actually challenging mankind to learn about Its creation. That we continue to do so should be no offense to any one, religious or not.

Finally, Step Number 2 (which Scientists call abiogenesis and which the Judeo/Christian tradition calls 'Genesis') might actually be 'God did it'; personally I doubt it, but it is possible. Whatever it is, it was a necessary precursor to Evolution.

Its like saying we know how a car runs but we know nothing about internal combustion engines...

Extremely bad analogy.

Much better analogy: Its like saying that we know how to DRIVE a car but we know nothing about internal combustion engines.

Excellent post.
One little detail though, in the story man is encouraged to examine life and nature. This was before sin entered into man.
Now we get nuclear bombs and genetic tampering from man's examinations. It is a double edged sword. Science has even determined extinction rates coincide with the onset of man and continued. Hardly examining the world to tend to it in positive ways, more like abuse it is what the data suggests. This coincides with what the bible calls sin.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The point here is not that "God did it," the point here is depending on what the origin of life is evolutionary theory could be total bull#. If nothing about evolutionary theory works with the way life originated then it falls apart. Saying evolution is fact means one simply believes whatever cause life to originate will be on par with evolutionary theory.

You ALMOST make a good point here.

However you have it completely backwards. Evolution Theory cannot 'fall apart' if some eventual "Theory of Abiogenesis" makes it impossible. It is the other way around: some eventual proposal for a "Theory of Abiogenesis" will be rejected completely if it fails to show how "Life As We Know It" (LAWKI) formed.

That is the constant known entity: "Life As We Know It".

Evolution will be unaffected either way - it is based on LAWKI already. A candidate "Theory of Abiogenisis" has to show how "LAWKI" was formed. It doesn't matter what form that theory takes as long as it results in "LAWKI"

a reply to: TinfoilTP

They are already scheming to remove the carbon in the atmosphere at the expense of the food supply. Why?

That is a disingenuous conclusion and an insult to your own intelligence.

The planet (or God if you prefer) has taken somewhere on the order of 3.5 Billion years to remove from the atmosphere the extreme excess carbon in order to make the planet livable for all modern plant and animal life.

Mankind has taken a mere 350 years to put enough carbon back into the atmosphere to endanger all modern plant and animal life.

Any 'scheming' being done is to restore the natural balance, not decrease the food supply. Allowing atmospheric (and oceanic) carbon to continue to increase is what is going to put the food supply at risk : witness the drought in California - no water, no food.

Your attitude here is not only wrong, it is positively dangerous and full of loathing for both yourself and the whole of mankind (and the entirety of 'Life on Earth' for that matter).

a reply to: Answer

The odds against our planet just having the conditions for molecular life are astronomical (pun intended).

NO. The odds against our planet just having the conditions for molecular life are ZERO.

It is an existential FACT that our planet has molecular life, so any discussion of odds against it are meaningless and deflective.

I know what you are trying to say, but I object to even acknowledging this stupid 'argument'.

The book "13 Things that Don't Make Sense"
Chapter 5

Life. This chapters describes efforts to define life and how it emerged from inanimate matter (Abiogenesis) and even recreate Artificial life including: the Miller–Urey experiment by chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago in 1953 to spark life into a mixture of chemicals by using an electrical charge; Steen Rasmussen's work at the Los Alamos National Laboratory to implant primitive DNA, Peptide nucleic acid, into soap molecules and heat them up; and the work of the Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter at the University of California.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

So trawling the creationist sites, and Wikipedia to try and dig up? Thus far you've not had an original thought or statement to make.

I am still waiting on you to show how we need to understand abiogenesis to under stand evolution. You've yet to show this to be the case. Please do so.

a reply to: Noinden

So trolling the creationist sites, and wikipedia

Nope, it's called researching.
And I don't need original stuff, the old stuff is plenty strong enough to throw a big question mark on the whole issue.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Not really, as "the old stuff" was debunked back then. You an ignore that all you like but it was. Oh wait, it can't be as it wasdone by god hating heathens like me (I like all gods even your little Jehovah)

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Not really, as "the old stuff" was debunked back then. You an ignore that all you like but it was. Oh wait, it can't be as it wasdone by god hating heathens like me (I like all gods even your little Jehovah)

I don't consider atheists to be god hating or heathens, just people who put their trust in science, above all else.

But I would be careful about how you use God's personal name, because he doesn't pay attention when you use "god" in a derogatory way because you could be talking about any of the many gods that are out there, they are all false and he doesn't care, but when you use his personal name like that ......

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

He's not my deity. Mine carries a title, An Morrigan also known as Danu, she has a sense of humor I in no way wish to interact with Jehovah, so we are all good

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: TinfoilTP

They are already scheming to remove the carbon in the atmosphere at the expense of the food supply. Why?

That is a disingenuous conclusion and an insult to your own intelligence.

The planet (or God if you prefer) has taken somewhere on the order of 3.5 Billion years to remove from the atmosphere the extreme excess carbon in order to make the planet livable for all modern plant and animal life.

Mankind has taken a mere 350 years to put enough carbon back into the atmosphere to endanger all modern plant and animal life.

Any 'scheming' being done is to restore the natural balance, not decrease the food supply. Allowing atmospheric (and oceanic) carbon to continue to increase is what is going to put the food supply at risk : witness the drought in California - no water, no food.

Your attitude here is not only wrong, it is positively dangerous and full of loathing for both yourself and the whole of mankind (and the entirety of 'Life on Earth' for that matter).

Mankind has taken a mere 350 years to put enough carbon back into the atmosphere to endanger all modern plant and animal life.

To continue from there, the same modern life that depends on modern plant life that is overabundant in protein from the inefficiency of photosynthesis. All this life coexists from going through the same time period of evolution.

Now here come the man Gods to muck it all up.

They are armed with only a few centuries of weather data and a new insight into changing the mechanisms of life at the molecular level. Woops there goes evolution right down the crapper. So much for science respecting evolution, they are going to tamper with it the first chance they get.

Their only possible argument is that their own species awareness is somehow a part of evolution so when they stick their fat fingers in and alter what evolution up to that point organized, they justify their own actions. Nowhere in evolutionary study is there an organism that abruptly reverses evolutionary processes for an entire kingdom of life.

Where else is there an intervention in evolution postulated that these same people despise?

Go create some life from scratch and play around with it, one that is isolated from the already evolved life on this planet. Oh that's right, science doesn't know how.

a reply to: Barcs

Hello Barcs,

Really Kenny? After everything we've gone back and forth on, you're going to go back to attacking science with BS like this? Why?

You know why! I have never changed my position on this, scientists are people, some people do good things some people behave badly. It is people I am criticising who just happen to be scientists. As in most walks of life the word integrity has been lost on science in favour of the word agenda. I think our disagreement on this is more a matter of perspective .

LMAO! So you insult the intellectual capability of atheists when the topic has nothing to do with atheism. Why equivocate atheism and evolution?

Now Barcs, you are either being extremely naive or you are not sensitive to the issues being raised by the topic of evolution. Again, a question of perspective.

When you in particular, talk about evolution, you do so with a degree of passion and also display a tolerance in your approach. Others however are very vocal in their disdain for a religious point of view and regularly devolve the conversation to that of atheists and believers.

There is a contingent who want to pick a fight. Most believers will rise to the bait I am afraid. I personally don’t attack atheists beyond pointing out that they are missing something they have no experience of and so are not qualified to make the statements they do, including yourself, I would point out it is not your fault, it is your incapacity, a missing faculty.

last time we did this, you posted numerous lies about science and claimed that you were following Pythagoras based belief system. Now you are posting as if you are a christian creationist. I think you are completely full of crap.

Tut tut, rather undignified, but I will answer you.
I haven’t changed my position on anything, I am posting as a intelligent design proponent. I have never lied about science ever, I may not explain or be able to explain to the satisfaction of a scientist where he is wrong, as that to me is inconsequential. I know what is correct and I know what is wrong. Science does get a lot right, but there are many fundamental issues that science is just plane wrong about.

Hylozoics is the truth unadulterated. It has no agenda it does not need further explanation, it is simply the truth of reality. Furthermore it ask for nothing, it does not try to convert or change anyone. It is just the plain simple truth. Once you understand the truth you do change, forever, no going back. If you come from the truth, you can never contradict yourself.

Evolution is true regardless of whether or not life was created. Why do you have trouble with this concept? It's not that complicated. Evolution doesn't require there to be no creator. Your arguments are futile.

You really do come across as a zealot here Barcs. Let me explain again! It is not the science so much as the implications that upset religious people and the implications are pointed out very clearly by atheists, people like Richard Dawkins relishes in this fact. So in a sense it is atheism picking a fight with believers of whatever ilk. From that point the gloves are off and the the distinction is highlighted between evolution theory and origin of life the real issue that will make evolution theory make sense to all of us.

Evolution theory to an ID’er or creationist is just fluff, it doesn’t really matter how biological organisms change over time because it just emphasises the complexity of creation. And this is where things get muddy, Creationists/ID’ers just see a bunch of people with an important faculty missing, thinking evolution theory somehow disproves the existence of God.

If evolutionists stopped implying that evolution theory was proof that life could exist without a designer, then I believe there would be little argument. Origin of life is everything, It is the big question that humanity as a whole cannot get its collective head around, The goal of studying evolution should be a means to an end to answer that question.

Creationist/Id’rs know, not think, feel, or have an inclination, they know with every fibre of their existence that there is a God or whatever you would like to call it. An all pervading intelligence, a force, a power a presence, unrecognised and undefined by science but as real as our very existence.

It is as incredulous to me as saying “do you see that tree that we all see”, and you say no,I don’t believe in trees, they don’t exist. Can you now see what you are up against. Atheists see us as delusional and we see atheist as insensitive to reality. Science will never be able to prove the existence of God because of this phenomena. Something fundamental in a scientific mind is incapable of accepting something illogical, but it is only illogical because it is beyond them.

The bible is a problem for intelligent people generally, and many would agree that some aspect seem untenable. It had its place in the past to moderate the behaviour of a population but it's credibility is causing issues with the thinking people of this day and age, including myself. large portions of the bible have been extracted from Gnostic Schools and so holds many truths but distorted with much omitted.

So now you are a christian apologist? I thought you were all about Hylozoics rather than biblical creationism. I guess you have been exposed. And it's funny how you call somebody that may not believe in god a god-hater. You do realize that you can't hate something you do not think is real, right?

Lets spell it out to avoid confusion, lets say, 'concept of God haters' and no, I am not a Christian apologist, as they have nothing to apologise for, nor may I add do atheists. Nobody should apologise for what they believe. hylozoics is reality not any particular religion although most religions are founded upon this reality. I could just as easily be accused of being biased towards Hinduism, Bhudism, Janisme or Taoism, but I am only interested in the truth.

I'd say that's just as fulfilling, if not moreso than claiming god poofed everything into existence.

You would say that because you don't know any better. Add an eternal life into the equation and see how that changes your outlook on your current life.

More lies. Evolution has taught us quite a bit about how humans became the dominant species on the planet and about the diversity of life in general. You seem to think that science doesn't matter because it can't answer the big question, but that doesn't make it invalid.

I never lie Barcs, I have no reason or inclination to do so, You are just bloody rude sometimes. I would be interested to hear, how you think that evolution theory has benefited humanity in any way.

Science knows very little I am afraid, and your defence of it is 'quaint' to put it politely. My apparent attack on science is based on my observation that the general population has been mislead into believing that science is close to understand the reality of life and is, in someway, able to make God like decisions, Science is blind to the truth and has lost its integrity. Would you ask a blind person you don't trust, to fly you to any destination?

a reply to: kennyb72

You never lie?.
Liar...every human being lies.

Jesus H. Christ!

Somebody pinch me, I'm not sure if this is real.

a reply to: kennyb72

Is there ever a post where you don't have a condescending arrogant superiority tone? Sorry to single you out. I am completely aware you aren't the only one. I just notice you more because you have this attitude in the same breath you call out other people for being rude. I find it hypocritical given your beliefs.

Meh.

Is this is how one treats others after learning the truth of all things?

Count me out.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

a reply to: kennyb72

Shall we call you a waaaambulance?.

a reply to: kennyb72

Yes, because if other people do it to you it makes it right. I don't agree with people being jerks, whoever they are. But you know, a lot of these guys are frustrated at dealing with the same uninformed arguments and people for months (at least). It's not an excuse for being rude, mind you.

You can call them thick bricks all you want.

None of them are claiming to just know something. Such as you claim. People come into these threads and attack the scientific method and acedemia. They replace it with new age mumbo jumbo they "just know" or thousands years old archaic beliefs.

Brilliant!!!

Not to broadbrush any one group.

Not everyone can be right though. How do we determine who is most likely correct if not through thorough study?

Not saying science is perfect or Godly or any other psuedo religious slant people want to attach to it, for the record.

Standards and quality of research and evidence goes a long way.

Anyway, peace guy.

Back to lurking in the background for me.

originally posted by: kennyb72.
Others however are very vocal in their disdain for a religious point of view and regularly devolve the conversation to that of atheists and believers.

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with intellectual dishonesty and shoddy debate tactics. A lot of religious folks pull out every single example of poor debate tactic that exists when trying to denounce accepted science. I don't care if you're religious or atheist, I'm going to display disdain for people who are deliberately intellectually dishonest.

There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

Now let's look at some of the examples of intellectually-dishonest debate tactics:

1. Name Calling
2. Changing the subject
3. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong.
4. Questioning the motives of the opponent.
5. Stereotyping
6. Citing irrelevant facts or logic
7. False premise
8. Hearsay
9. Unqualified expert opinion
10. Vagueness
11. Playing on widely held fantasies or fears
12. Scapegoating
13. Redefining words
14. Straw Man
15. Rejecting facts or logic as opinion
16. Badgering
17. Disagreeing with non-opinion statements
18. "You commit [insert dishonest debate tactic here] all the time"

We've seen examples of every single one of these tactics in this thread at least once, most of them multiple times and from the same posters (*cough* TinfoilTP *cough*).

I personally don’t attack atheists beyond pointing out that they are missing something they have no experience of and so are not qualified to make the statements they do, including yourself, I would point out it is not your fault, it is your incapacity, a missing faculty.

Except you've name-called atheists multiple times in this very thread. You're also guilty of stereotyping... I was educated in a Christian school and raised southern baptist. I have a very solid understanding of the Christian religion/faith. I was a Christian until I reached my teen years and started to question everything I was being taught. The indoctrination didn't work on me... logic and scientific fact won out over ancient superstition. Your opinion that atheists are simply not qualified or missing some sort of faculty is ridiculous.

Science knows very little I am afraid, and your defence of it is 'quaint' to put it politely. My apparent attack on science is based on my observation that the general population has been mislead into believing that science is close to understand the reality of life and is, in someway, able to make God like decisions, Science is blind to the truth and has lost its integrity. Would you ask a blind person you don't trust, to fly you to any destination?

Because of your religion-based opinion that "science knows very little", you claim intellectual superiority?

In the very same post you claim that you don't lie... amazing.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
When you guys have to pull out the bully tactics, your side is on the downward slope.

Bully tactics? You have been vigorously attacking atheism this entire thread, and expect no backlash at all?

Fact: the vast majority of your posts in this thread have been rants about atheism rather than evolution or abiogenesis.

Of course no mention on my arguments on the premise of this thread.

What arguments? Can you point out the argument where you addressed the science behind evolution or proved that evolution requires abiogenesis? Simply denying it isn't an argument and neither is insulting atheists when evolution is a scientific view, not an atheistic one.

Scientists using evolution to change the Earth's biosphere tampering with photosynthesis when they cannot demonstrate the origin of life proving they have command of the subject matter and are qualified technicians for this planet. Changing photosynthesis on the basis of evolutionary assumptions is no little thing. Next they will want to toss out the mitochondria for a more efficient artificial symbiosis.

How does not knowing the answer for how life originally emerged on earth, indicate that they know absolutely nothing about biology, photosynthesis or anything else? Your arguments are absolutely ridiculous and your agenda is obvious. That's like saying that you don't care if somebody is a nuclear fusion expert, because they don't know what caused the big bang. It's not an argument, it's a deflection. Knowing abiogenesis is not a prerequisite to understanding biology. You don't need absolute knowledge of the universe to be correct about certain facts that exist TODAY. It's not easy learning about a process that happened 3.8 billion years ago. You act like it should be easy, and that because we haven't learned yet, we never will.

Leave science alone. Thanks to science we have learned quite a bit, and it generally gets us where we want to go. Stop lumping it in with atheism, it is completely unrelated.

It is their rubber stamp of approval, their evolutionary studies are the basis for their conclusions that photosynthesis should be made more efficient. They are spending money and resources to do just that.

Their own data shows periods of population explosions, something protein mass comes in handy for but they want to do away with it.

It is easy to contend they are irresponsible with such power. They cannot be trusted to know all of the consequences unless they demonstrate a full working knowledge of the origin of life. They only understand bits and pieces but want to make grand changes and are indeed planning to.

Can you link this study for us? Something tells me it is not nearly as ominous as you are presenting.

Also evolution has nothing to do with what is chosen to run experiments on. I'm just wondering if you are going to argue the topic at some point without non sequiturs and deflection.

echanical marvels are not the same as changing an evolutionary process such as photosynthesis, the basis of which life depends on in the ecosystem. Apples to oranges.

Explain how photosynthesis is an evolutionary process. I don't think you know what you are even talking about. Does photosynthesis cause genetic mutations or natural selection? That is similar to saying that my hand is an evolutionary process. It may be a result of evolution, but that doesn't mean it's evolution every time I use them to raise my beer to my mouth.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: kennyb72.
Others however are very vocal in their disdain for a religious point of view and regularly devolve the conversation to that of atheists and believers.

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with intellectual dishonesty and shoddy debate tactics. A lot of religious folks pull out every single example of poor debate tactic that exists when trying to denounce accepted science. I don't care if you're religious or atheist, I'm going to display disdain for people who are deliberately intellectually dishonest.

There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

Now let's look at some of the examples of intellectually-dishonest debate tactics:

1. Name Calling
2. Changing the subject
3. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong.
4. Questioning the motives of the opponent.
5. Stereotyping
6. Citing irrelevant facts or logic
7. False premise
8. Hearsay
9. Unqualified expert opinion
10. Vagueness
11. Playing on widely held fantasies or fears
12. Scapegoating
13. Redefining words
14. Straw Man
15. Rejecting facts or logic as opinion
16. Badgering
17. Disagreeing with non-opinion statements
18. "You commit [insert dishonest debate tactic here] all the time"

We've seen examples of every single one of these tactics in this thread at least once, most of them multiple times and from the same posters (*cough* TinfoilTP *cough*).

I personally don’t attack atheists beyond pointing out that they are missing something they have no experience of and so are not qualified to make the statements they do, including yourself, I would point out it is not your fault, it is your incapacity, a missing faculty.

Except you've name-called atheists multiple times in this very thread. You're also guilty of stereotyping... I was educated in a Christian school and raised southern baptist. I have a very solid understanding of the Christian religion/faith. I was a Christian until I reached my teen years and started to question everything I was being taught. The indoctrination didn't work on me... logic and scientific fact won out over ancient superstition. Your opinion that atheists are simply not qualified or missing some sort of faculty is ridiculous.

Science knows very little I am afraid, and your defence of it is 'quaint' to put it politely. My apparent attack on science is based on my observation that the general population has been mislead into believing that science is close to understand the reality of life and is, in someway, able to make God like decisions, Science is blind to the truth and has lost its integrity. Would you ask a blind person you don't trust, to fly you to any destination?

Because of your religion-based opinion that "science knows very little", you claim intellectual superiority?

In the very same post you claim that you don't lie... amazing.

You just name dropped me then provided quotes from other posters immediately following that. You leave the distinct impression they were from me and they are not.

Put yourself at the top of the list of dishonest tactics.