Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

reply to post by chocise


Sooo you're just going to excuse yourself from participating in ignorant name calling and general ignorance? I mean, you're of the opinion that we still have some sort of reverence for Newtonian mechanics when I'll most likely live to see the centennial of its overthrow.

There is not a flaw in my thinking because, as others have pointed out, it's based in what we know, it's methodical, and it's rational.

You've just been spewing nonsense. Please, get out of this thread if you're not going to actually contribute anything but more name calling.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
We know quite a bit, so please don't use your personal ignorance as a contradiction of that.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
You've just been spewing nonsense. Please, get out of this thread if you're not going to actually contribute anything but more name calling.

Name calling? Pot - kettle I think.

'We know quite a bit', of course you do.

reply to post by rnaa


I get what you’re saying rnaa, the only thing I’m trying to clarify which is somehow (I don’t know why) difficult for evolutionists to admit is that:

Abiogenesis is the foundation of Organic Evolution Theory/Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

What is so hard with that concept?

What can’t you (or anybody) just say – in plain English somethin like this:

Life started through the process called “abiogenesis” then once life started – organic evolution took over?

Meaning, again – I hope this is crystal clear: Organic Evolution/ Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is founded on Abiogenesis (or Exogenesis).

What is so hard with that concept? Why the dance?

Dr. Sagan plainly explained it clearly – why are proponents of evolution here unable to agree with him?

Why so much dancing around a very simple question?

Might it be that noone (evolutionists) wanted to agree with the OP? That he is right?

Just askin…

Ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


As you seem to have problems with reading and understanding, let's make this easy, shall we?

Meaning, you need a VALID SPECIFIC TYPE of abiogensis theory in order to support/prop-up organic evolution theory.

NO!!!!

You might not agree, but the scientific community does...only pseudo-scientists and creationists believe differently, and I rather trust people with knowledge.

The theory of evolution would still be valid if a giant pink space turtle farted life into existence...evolution would still happen exactly the way the theory states.

Sorry if that goes against your BELIEF, maybe it's time you take a looooong objective look at your belief

What your'e doing is equal to saying "we're wrong on the laws of gravity because we can't explain how the universe started". That's complete and utter nonsense only shills like Hovind use, and you can't blame people for laughing at crazy statements like that

reply to post by MrXYZ

He (edmc2) doesn't understand the phrase "is founded on", which is throwing his brain in an infinite Do...While loop, with the routine "be stubborn" in the middle

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

He (edmc2) doesn't understand the phrase "is founded on", which is throwing his brain in an infinite Do...While loop, with the routine "be stubborn" in the middle

The entire discussion is incredibly dumb tbh. We KNOW how electricity works for example, and although the universe is the foundation (gasp) for electricity and definitely required for it, we don't need to know how the universe came into existence to know our theories related to electricity are sound.

And all that because believers are slowly realizing that their house of cards is slowly falling apart because their scriptures suddenly can't be correct anymore if you interpret them literally. Which shouldn't come at a surprise given that the people who wrote them didn't even have 1% of the scientific knowledge we have today.

Yet they chose to believe the literal word of people who lived 2000+ years ago rather than common sense, rationality, logic, and modern science. It's really quite sad, almost as if they lived in a time bubble that doesn't allow them to live in reality and the present

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

He (edmc2) doesn't understand the phrase "is founded on", which is throwing his brain in an infinite Do...While loop, with the routine "be stubborn" in the middle

Here's your sign

found 1 (found)
tr.v. found·ed, found·ing, founds
1. To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence: The college was founded in 1872.
2. To establish the foundation or basis of; base: found a theory on firm evidence.

www.thefreedictionary.com...


ciao,
edmc2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

As you seem to have problems with reading and understanding, let's make this easy, shall we?

Meaning, you need a VALID SPECIFIC TYPE of abiogensis theory in order to support/prop-up organic evolution theory.

NO!!!!

You might not agree, but the scientific community does...only pseudo-scientists and creationists believe differently, and I rather trust people with knowledge.

The theory of evolution would still be valid if a giant pink space turtle farted life into existence...evolution would still happen exactly the way the theory states.

Sorry if that goes against your BELIEF, maybe it's time you take a looooong objective look at your belief

What your'e doing is equal to saying "we're wrong on the laws of gravity because we can't explain how the universe started". That's complete and utter nonsense only shills like Hovind use, and you can't blame people for laughing at crazy statements like that

edit on 28-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

More dancing, faster than James Brown's happy feet - why can't you just agree that:

Abiogenesis preceded Organic Evolution? Or if you prefer Abiogenesis is the foundation of Organic Evolution?

simple.

ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


Of course it preceded it...but like we've told you a thousand times, it has no effect whatsoever on the validity of the theory of evolution

He (edmc2) doesn't understand how to interpret definitions in a dictionary, and also doesn't understand the phrase "is founded on."

The theory of evolution "is founded on" many things:

genetic code
divergence of species
drive to reproduce
competition for resources
sexual selection
genetic mutations
reciprocal altruism
parasites/diseases
climate
geography
metabolic trade-offs
bio-mechanical limits
allele frequency

The origin of life plays no part

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

He (edmc2) doesn't understand the phrase "is founded on", which is throwing his brain in an infinite Do...While loop, with the routine "be stubborn" in the middle

So uva3021 – with your super duper intellect and clear understanding of the phrase “is founded on”. Can you please educate me with your master’s degree/phud in evolution science? I need to know if my statement below is accurate.

MrXYZ is almost there but not quite, but since you’re intellect is higher than everyone else here, I need your confirmation please. OK?

Here’s my statement (I’ll bold it so as not misstate it):

Abiogenesis is the foundation of Organic Evolution/ Modern Evolutionary Synthesis

Btw, just in case you were wondering if I have any idea whatsoever of the meaning of the phrase “is founded on” --

Here’s my reference:

found 1 (found)
tr.v. found•ed, found•ing, founds
1. To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence: The college was founded in 1872.
2. To establish the foundation or basis of; base: found a theory on firm evidence.

Source:
www.thefreedictionary.com...

Are the definitions above correct?

So what say you? I’m counting on your super intellect.

ciao,
edmc2

Yes, you need "life" for the theory of evolution to work...but where that life comes from, or how it came to be is completely irrelevant as the theory of evolution doesn't require that knowledge to be a valid theory. I really don't know what's so hard to understand???

All the theory requires is life to exist, and we can confirm that beyond reasonable doubt

You need the universe for electricity to work, yet we have theories related to electricity...and they don't require us to know how the universe came to be to be valid. The same goes for evolution, like it or not, that's how it is

What's your point???

Originally posted by uva3021
He (edmc2) doesn't understand how to interpret definitions in a dictionary, and also doesn't understand the phrase "is founded on."

The theory of evolution "is founded on" many things:

genetic code
divergence of species
drive to reproduce
competition for resources
sexual selection
genetic mutations
reciprocal altruism
parasites/diseases
climate
geography
metabolic trade-offs
bio-mechanical limits
allele frequency

The origin of life plays no part

Sure - according to the theory the things listed above are part of it or you can say foundation - but let's see how honest you are.

Can you also say that "abiogenesis" is one of it's foundation - if not the main foundation?

ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by MrXYZ

I doubt a PhD is scarcely the qualifications needed to acquire an understanding of the phrase "is founded on", though even a small amount of tertiary, or even compulsory education, evidently, is hardly enough for one such as yourself to figure out how to interpret the definitions in a dictionary.

Would not be surprised one bit if your handle is an abbreviation for "E != mc^2"

reply to post by edmc^2


Its as much of a foundation for your left shoe than it is for evolutionary theory

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I doubt a PhD is scarcely the qualifications needed to acquire an understanding of the phrase "is founded on", though even a small amount of tertiary, or even compulsory education, evidently, is hardly enough for one such as yourself to figure out how to interpret the definitions in a dictionary.

Would not be surprised one bit if your handle is an abbreviation for "E != mc^2"

Einstein is one of favorite scientist/theoretical physicist - and I like the way he explained the secrets of the universe n such - u know - E=mc^2.

and btw, thanks for letting me know that I need more eduction - cuz education is good, u know. can't get enuff of dat.

I humbly bow to your higher intellect!

ciao,
edmc2

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Its as much of a foundation for your left shoe than it is for evolutionary theory

man this is turning out to be quite an education.

btw - I can sum up and explain the entire "Creation" in just 10 words - that even a first grader can understand it.

if ur interested.

ciao,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Its as much of a foundation for your left shoe than it is for evolutionary theory

man this is turning out to be quite an education.

btw - I can sum up and explain the entire "Creation" in just 10 words - that even a first grader can understand it.

if ur interested.

ciao,
edmc2

Yeah, I'm sure it's a good idea and correct to dumb down something as complex as life into 10 words

That alone should tell you that your belief is probably just that...a belief not based on any rationality/logic or common sense. It's pure guesswork and speculation

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

He (edmc2) doesn't understand the phrase "is founded on", which is throwing his brain in an infinite Do...While loop, with the routine "be stubborn" in the middle

Loop? ... a pleasant change from your previous 'masturbatory' comment

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Over and over and over people who believe in evolution keep saying they are completely separate topics of biology, this has developed in more recent years simply because it is an easier position to defend. However the two are intricately bound, without that first single cell prokaryotes, evolution is not possible, and evolutionists, sidestep that entire discussion by saying well it's a different field of biology, this is weak, very weak, and intellectual honesty must acknowledge that. To disregard the Abiogenesis as part of the foundation of evolution sidesteps and conveniently avoids a major issue that confronts a person that life came from nothing. It's just too easy. It's really intellectually dishonest.

I'd agree with that.

I can't see how ET can be considered nonexclusive to abiogenesis either. They aren't mutually exclusive: that you can have ET without an account for abiogenesis is a logical fallacy. Job done.

reply to post by MrXYZ


No just to show that what I believe is so simple and elegant that even a child can understand it.

Now comparing it to the Theory of ..............confusion. I guess one will need your caliber and intellect in order to understand and even attempt to explain it.

Why even a simple question as "foundation" takes so many pages for you, et al to explain.

a simple phrase like "is founded on" is questioned to the tee.

So I guess a simple farmer in a remote area has no chance of understanding it let alone a child.

op is correct.

ciao,
edmc2

later...