Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 151 of 251 (654311)
02-29-2012 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Trixie
02-29-2012 4:11 AM


Re: Analogies
Trixie writes:
You seem to be arguing that the ToE is utterly dependent on the mechanism which gave rise to the first life. Is it your case that the ToE only works if life arose from abiogenesis?
No, I'm saying - or trying to say - that the ToE doesn't care what the first cause was, it works the same regardless of how first life started.
Edited by Tangle, : bloody quotes...

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Trixie, posted 02-29-2012 4:11 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Trixie, posted 02-29-2012 5:50 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 152 of 251 (654312)
02-29-2012 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Tangle
02-29-2012 5:46 AM


Re: Analogies
Sorry Tangle, my question was addressed to marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Tangle, posted 02-29-2012 5:46 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 153 of 251 (654341)
02-29-2012 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by marc9000
02-28-2012 10:33 PM


Re: Marc9000's Box
Atheists don't believe in a common ancestor? How else would they believe life started?
So I can't believe that my siblings and I share a common ancestor in our parents without first figuring out how life originated? Really?
Do you even think these things through?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 10:33 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 154 of 251 (654342)
02-29-2012 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by marc9000
02-28-2012 10:31 PM


Re: Analogies
If a designer is so important to ID proponents that their studies of evidence for it can't be separated from it, isn't the common ancestor that is equally important to evolutionists so important to them that they can't be separated from it as well?
In ID, design and origin are one in the same. In evolution, they are not. According to evolution, the design we see in organisms today came about through mechanisms that acted on life that was already here. For ID, there was no life, and the design we see in life was put there at their origin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 10:31 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 155 of 251 (654343)
02-29-2012 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by marc9000
02-28-2012 10:31 PM


Re: Analogies
If a designer is so important to ID proponents that their studies of evidence for it can't be separated from it, isn't the common ancestor that is equally important to evolutionists so important to them that they can't be separated from it as well?
For evolution, it doesn't matter how that first life came about. We are following the EVIDENCE which leads to the conclusion that all life shares a common ancestral pool of genes. That is simply what the evidence shows. Nothing in atheism requires a single common ancestral pool. In fact, someone could find a rare species in some deep ocean vent that does not share the same genetic features as all other life and it would fit just fine with atheism. It would also fit just fine with evolution in that evolution does not require a single common ancestor for all life.
Another thing that you and other theists seem to be misunderstanding is that gods and designers can exist in the atheist worldview. All we need is evidence for these gods and designers, and then we will accept that they exist. Magical poofing as a mechansim for the first life is also allowed in the atheistic worldview, as long as there is evidence for it. We are following the evidence Marc, no more no less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 10:31 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:35 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 156 of 251 (654344)
02-29-2012 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by marc9000
02-28-2012 8:53 PM


Re: Analogies
Haha, I really have no opinion on it. I'm wondering what this threads opening poster thinks about your link!
Would you accept the papers I have linked as evidence for abiogenesis or not? It is a simple yes or no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 8:53 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:38 PM Taq has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 157 of 251 (654366)
02-29-2012 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by marc9000
02-28-2012 10:26 PM


Re: Marc9000's Box
I won't quote most of your response, since you merely dodge the questions I asked. I'm already familiar with how creationists do that. I especially enjoy the maneuver of, okay, answer my question--oh dear, run away!
So I'll simply note that you cannot refute my logical demonstration that all forms of ID are furtive creationism, and that it continues to amuse me to see how, in your view, God depends on sneaky lies.
But I suppose I should give you a back-handed compliment for this soupcon of honesty:
marc9000 writes:
Not all judges/juries are atheists, or ACLU bought and paid for theistic evolutionists. In future ID trials you could be disappointed.
Creationism's courtroom hopes depend on a religiously biased judge or jury.
We know, Marc, we know.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 10:26 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 02-29-2012 6:25 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 158 of 251 (654367)
02-29-2012 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Omnivorous
02-29-2012 6:21 PM


Re: Marc9000's Box
That quote really pissed me off. As a Christian Evolutionist I've never been bought or even rented (well, maybe by a few young ladies once) and I could really use the money.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Omnivorous, posted 02-29-2012 6:21 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Omnivorous, posted 02-29-2012 6:28 PM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 169 by marc9000, posted 03-02-2012 8:40 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 159 of 251 (654368)
02-29-2012 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by jar
02-29-2012 6:25 PM


Re: Marc9000's Box
Every day I check the mail for my ACLU check.
Boy are they in arrears.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 02-29-2012 6:25 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 160 of 251 (654677)
03-02-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Blue Jay
02-28-2012 11:00 PM


Re: Analogies
Because explanation is the whole point of science.
Look, if I saw a prehistoric spearhead, I would take it to an archaeologist and ask him where it came from. The archaeologist would tell me that a prehistoric human made it.
Then, I would ask him how the prehistoric human made it. The archaeologist might then talk about a certain technique for flaking stone to make spearheads. If I asked, he would probably be able to point me to some evidence that shows why this is the way he thinks the prehistoric human used that technique.
Archaeologists have legitimate scientific theories about intelligent design. You should model yours on theirs.
The attempt to do just that is made by ID’s top theorists. But there is a difference in what we can understand about the supernatural v what we can understand about prehistoric humans. There’s nothing wrong, or religious, about disregarding technique or intent of the supernatural, and focusing on only the design itself, or maybe a time sequence of the design.
marc9000 writes:
The current scientific community doesn't legitimately distinguish between the simplest forms of life and evolution, and as has been learned only recently, the simplest forms of life are very complex.
I'm making an honest effort to try to figure out what you're trying to say here, but I think I've so far failed.
From Darwin’s time through the mid 20th century, evolution’s starting point, the simplest forms of life, were thought to be pretty simple. Today, we know they’re not simple. They consist of information, complexity, order. As the scientific community tries to come up with some kind of hypothesis/theory for the development of the common ancestor that they claim all life on earth shares, they look for it to develop gradually, slowly, change over time, just like evolution. That’s what I mean when I say they don’t legitimately try to distinguish between the two, between evolution and abiogenesis. But as we see by this thread, it flip flops according to the argument. This thread’s intention was to show that they’re not related. In response to me, Taq says they are. Lucky for evolutionists that all this isn’t taken to court and examined and hammered on like ID was at Dover.
If you're just saying that we don't distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution, I am first obligated to scold you for simply repeated your unelaborated original point.
Taq elaborated it for me.
marc9000 writes:
As you can see by the two messages before yours (127 & 128)t he evolutionists have been very confusing about those two separate phenomena in this thread alone. I wonder if the threads starter will respond to that?
Taq is arguing that, if evolution and abiogenesis are so closely interrelated that the lack of evidence for one can cast doubt on the other, then it's only fair that the presence of evidence for one supports the other.
Well that’s pretty cool, if only ID were allowed to do changeable switchables like that!
marc9000 writes:
bluejay writes:
For example, we don't expect you to explain antibiotic-resistant bacteria as the result of de novo creations of the Designer: we are perfectly happy to let you explain it through mutations and natural selection, if you want.
Which people like Behe and Dembski readily do.
Marc, are you even reading what I'm saying? How on Earth is this helping your case?
ID is so often accused of wishing to explain all of biology with supernatural action. I read your paragraph to contain two messages; 1) it could have been an acceptance that ID can accept some of the more non controversial aspects of evolution, or 2)it could have been sarcasm that ID refuses to do that. I covered them both with that simple statement. The fact is, ID does accept a LOT about evolution. It just doesn’t automatically accept naturalism when naturalism doesn’t seem capable of doing mathematically impossible things, mainly concerning the origins of life.
You just confirmed that you are okay with IDists using two very different theories to explain these two things, but refuse to allow our theories to be separate. Another double standard!
It's not always two very different theories at all - ID harmonizes with evolution in many instances. ID usually supplements evolution, it doesn’t always compete with it. The only thing it competes with is atheism. Evolutionists seldom see that, they're stopped short by their own impatience and anger.
marc9000 writes:
Since most anti religious/ anti ID people believe in common descent, they're relying on the first single celled organism as a beginning for their belief in evolution. Since they're so faithful/committed to that organism, they should be more faithful/committed to its origin. Does that make sense?
Let me see if I understand this. You're saying that, because evolutionists tend to accept common descent, that evolution and abiogenesis must be the same thing?
I’m saying the common ancestor that evolution claims all life on earth descended from is very important to evolutionists. Every bit as important as any designer would be to an ID proponent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Blue Jay, posted 02-28-2012 11:00 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 161 of 251 (654679)
03-02-2012 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Blue Jay
02-28-2012 11:21 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:
If a designer is so important to ID proponents that their studies of evidence for it can't be separated from it, isn't the common ancestor that is equally important to evolutionists so important to them that they can't be separated from it as well?
Marc, you keep conflating all kinds of things. Evolution, abiogenesis, atheism and common descent are all different things.
Abiogenesis is a hypothetical process by which a living organism emerged from non-living precursors.
Common descent is the idea that all modern organisms are descended from a single organism that emerged through abiogenesis.
Evolution is the theory that explains how organisms descended from prior organisms become different from their ancestors.
Atheism is the belief that God had nothing to do with any of the preceding things, because He doesn't exist.
You’re making it too complicated, it’s really quite simple. For ID, the designer is a big deal. For evolution, the common ancestor is a big deal. Both big deals can be shelved, and study about their existence (or actions) can be shelved. Both can, or neither can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Blue Jay, posted 02-28-2012 11:21 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2012 11:51 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 162 of 251 (654680)
03-02-2012 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by subbie
02-29-2012 12:20 AM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:
Not really, because you don’t show enough knowledge of what ID actually is. Motivation of a designer isn’t formally involved.
I have two different, but related, responses to this point.
First, no, of course it's not formally involved, because ID is a religious movement trying to camouflage itself as science. We al know that the only designer that the ID movement has in mind is an Abrahamic god. For them to openly discuss motives would let the cat out of the bag. (Not that it's much of a secret, but at least they can pretend they're not talking about their god.)
Just like we all know that the naturalism in evolution is atheism. All I ever hear is that the mere existence of theistic evolutionists disproves that. It doesn’t, especially since theistic evolutionists clearly agree with atheists on just about everything. A non active God is right next to a non existent God.
marc9000 writes:
As more and more conclusions are drawn about what evolution is, what it has done, more and more philosophy creeps in.
I really have no idea what you mean here. Can you clarify or provide examples?
It’s a reference to what you agreed with me on, when you said;
quote:
If by that you mean there is more evidentiary support from some parts of the Theory of Evolution than others, I agree.
The parts that are more lacking than others in the evidentiary support are there for a reason. They come up short on evidence, but someone (or group) WANTS them to be there. A conclusion is drawn first, then evidence is used to work backwards to that conclusion. Of course, IDists are accused of doing that, yet evolutionists do it too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by subbie, posted 02-29-2012 12:20 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by subbie, posted 03-02-2012 8:32 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 189 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 12:02 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 163 of 251 (654682)
03-02-2012 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Tangle
02-29-2012 3:29 AM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:
But your question goes both ways, would what you feel about religion or evolution change if ID proponents get on a roll with a lot of peer reviewed papers? If the scientific peer reviewers had no choice but to take them seriously, or risk an obvious exposure of being biased?
I would be genuinely excited - as I was when I first heard about ID. The whole of science would be. Why wouldn't they? Science doesn't/can't argue against real fact and proper science.
All the ID guys have to do is produce some science, it really is that simple.
The whole of science has clearly proven that when it’s presented with something from ID that is completely non religious, it does not get excited, it gets ANGRY. Because that’s exactly what it did when the book ‘Darwin’s Black Box’ came out. Evolution being challenged by a new thought concept called irreducible complexity did nothing but make them angry.
Here's a list of some "nonexistant" peer reviewed publications by ID proponents. Were you not aware that any of this existed? I haven't noticed any excitement by anyone in the scientific community.
Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design | Center for Science and Culture

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Tangle, posted 02-29-2012 3:29 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Tangle, posted 03-03-2012 5:12 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 175 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2012 9:41 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 164 of 251 (654683)
03-02-2012 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Trixie
02-29-2012 4:11 AM


Re: Analogies
You seem to be arguing that the ToE is utterly dependent on the mechanism which gave rise to the first life. Is it your case that the ToE only works if life arose from abiogenesis?
It only works depending on the real existence of the common ancestor that it claims all life on earth arose from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Trixie, posted 02-29-2012 4:11 AM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by subbie, posted 03-02-2012 8:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 165 of 251 (654684)
03-02-2012 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by dwise1
02-29-2012 4:57 AM


Re: persecution issues again?
You have expressed the desire to see ID research published. We are all also awaiting the exact same thing. OK, so whenever are we ever going to see such a thing? Is it the same thing as "creation science's" "mountains of evidences"? Forever promised to the faithful, but never ever delivered?
I’ll be glad to let William Dembski answer you on that one, I’m glad to give him the credit;
quote:
Critics of Intelligent design who want to maintain that the number of articles in the peer reviewed biological literature that support intelligent design is ZERO are playing a losing hand. That fiction is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. Even so, I expect it to be maintained for a time. The problem is that to get work that supports intelligent design published in the peer-reviewed biological literature, biologists who are design theorists have to play their cards very close to the vest. As Michael Behe pointed out in an interview with the Harvard Political Review, for a biologist to question Darwinism endangers one’s career. There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.
By the way, Behe was not in the movie expelled. I suspect he got offers for a prominent part in it. He probably figured he's already had enough discrimination to last him a lifetime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by dwise1, posted 02-29-2012 4:57 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024