Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abiogenesis - Essential Darwinism
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 55 (254480)
10-24-2005 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu
10-24-2005 1:45 AM


Hello, Mirabile_Auditu, and welcome. Let me add to the Moose's point, if I may.
quote:
Contemporary Darwinism has quite enough difficulties, thank you, just trying to explain the descent (or if you wish, ascent) of man without adding to the impossible burden the greater impossibility of abiogenesis. For this reason, Darwin's apologists are extremely eager to dissociate themselves from abiogenesis. They claim, very nervously, no doubt, that "evolution does not include abiogenesis."
Abiogenesis is a very interesting subject, and is worth discussing for its own sake. However it is true that abiogenesis is separate subject than the (biological) theory of evolution.
As an analogy, let us take my family history. We know that a certain branch of my family started in Ohio and ended in Oregon by way of Kansas. We have a pretty good idea that this occurred, and rough estimates of the dates, because we can locate birth and death certificates and marriage liscences.
However, we do not know how my European ancestors first came to North America, or when. We have only some vague ideas, but nothing definite. But it doesn't matter in regards to the subject of the long journey that took my ancestors from Ohio to Kansas, and the on to Oregon. My family might have come to this country after the Civil War, they may have arrived during the British colonial period, or they may have miraculously appeared at some point. We do have definite evidence, though, that at some point they were in Ohio and then moved to Kansas and then to Oregon.
In the same way, we have very good detailed evidence of the history of life on earth, and that all current species have evolved from a very few (perhaps only a single) ancestral species. We do not need to know how life originally arose (although that is, indeed, an interesting question). Life may have arisen from entirely naturalistic means on the surface of the earth; it may have come from interstellar space; it may have been miraculously created ex nihilo by a deity three and a half billion years ago. But it doesn't matter how it came about (as much as we'd like to know), because whatever the origin of life is, the evidence that evolution has occurred over the past several billion years is pretty much indisputable and unambiguous.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-24-2005 1:45 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 55 (254683)
10-25-2005 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mirabile_Auditu
10-24-2005 10:45 PM


Mirabile_Auditu: The topic is abiogenesis.
Mirabile_Auditu,
Although you attributed it to Modulous, you were actually quoting my post. Nothing in your response or in the subsequent responses really addresses the points I was making.
Your OP seems to make the following two points:
1) That current science shows that abiogenesis is impossible (or at least very unlikely), and
2) that evolutionists are disingenuous in saying that problems with abiogenesis are problems for the theory of evolution.
If these are not your points then please correct us.
Point (1) is false, but my response did not address this, and there are others here who are already attempting to address this.
I responded that point (2) is also false -- the theory of evolution relies on evidence that has nothing to do with the origin of life whatsoever. It does not matter how life originated or whether we will ever know how life originated. If you wish to discuss why the origin of life is relevant to the validity of the theory of evolution, then please explain why, and respond to the points in my post. Otherwise, concede that abiogenesis is largely irrelevant to the theory of evolution and we might be able to move on to the other points you wish to discuss.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-24-2005 10:45 PM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 55 (254795)
10-25-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
10-25-2005 5:41 PM


Re: John? John Jaeger is that you?

Do not respond to this post

quote:
How are your daughters, dude?
Expecting him to respond lustfully?
Suddenly I'm interested.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 10-25-2005 06:43 PM

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2005 5:41 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 55 (254813)
10-25-2005 8:35 PM


Back to topic.
Quite right. We shouldn't hijack the thread to talk about the personal, um, attributes of other members.
So, I will invite Mirabile_Auditu to discuss the points in the opening post.
In particular, I would like to verify that his points were:
(1) that science has proven that abiogenesis is impossible or very unlikely, and
(2) that evolutionists are disengenuous in refusing to link abiogenesis to the theory of evolution.
I would especially like him to comment on my response to the second point.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by mick, posted 10-26-2005 7:00 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 55 (255776)
10-31-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu
10-24-2005 1:45 AM


Hello, Mirabile_Auditu.
I see that you have recently returned and posted to this board.
May I ask that you respond to my reply to this thread? It is rude to have started a thread and not to respond to the comments of others.
Also, there is another conversation that we are engaged in that you have left hanging. And, again, this is a thread that you have started but seem to have no intention of continuing.
I am looking forward to your replies.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-24-2005 1:45 AM Mirabile_Auditu 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