Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 369 of 415 (514570)
07-08-2009 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by Meddle
07-08-2009 12:20 PM


Re: Are you a droped out in logic?
Malcolm wrote:
But as has been explained to you many times, Pasteurs experiment is different from any potential experiments which could be conducted into abiogenesis. Look at Miller/Urey or any other experiment which has resulted in complex organic molecules similar to those found in living organisms. The usual reaction from creationists is that the early earths atmosphere is not know so it's been 'fixed' to promote the formation of these organic molecules. But now here you are holding up this one experiment as proof that abiogenesis could not occur, as if a flask of cooked meat broth open to the air is an accurate model of the early earth. Do you think it is a good model
I know Urey and Miller's experiment, that experiment rest on the assumption that the primative atmosphere was reducing, as Miller and his co workres put it " the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions." But current data today speak againts the idea of reducing atmosphere.
Of course if we repeated Pasteurs experiment and life did appear from the sterile broth you could quite legitimately say this wasn't evidence for abiogenesis on the early earth, and I would agree with you
But that still leave the possibilities that life might arose spontaneuosly. And you will say this is acceptable. But as we know Pasteur's expriment did not in favor of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Meddle, posted 07-08-2009 12:20 PM Meddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Son, posted 07-08-2009 11:55 PM traste has not replied
 Message 376 by dokukaeru, posted 07-09-2009 3:37 PM traste has replied
 Message 377 by onifre, posted 07-09-2009 4:45 PM traste has not replied
 Message 379 by Meddle, posted 07-09-2009 7:42 PM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 371 of 415 (514572)
07-08-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Huntard
07-08-2009 1:27 AM


Re: Are you a droped out in logic?
Huntard wrote:
Yes I did. My observation still stands though
Unfortunately it doesn't.
Spontaneous generation is about currently living organisms, and has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
It absolutely does my friend,unless you have prior conviction.
I did. My question stands. You haven't supplied any reason or evidence for your statement.
And your evidence is?? Have suplied intermidiate form of organism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Huntard, posted 07-08-2009 1:27 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Huntard, posted 07-09-2009 1:30 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 380 of 415 (514647)
07-09-2009 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Blue Jay
07-09-2009 4:53 PM


Re: Hypothetico-deductive logic and the new hypothesis
Bluejay wrote:
How is it pretentious to be confused by a self-contradictory statement?
Actually it is not self contradictory, I just read your rebuttal to cavediver's " Why The intelligent designer is so inept"[/qs]
You say that I believe in Intelligent Design, but am trying to disprove Christian creationism by appealing to evolution.
I don't understand what you mean!
Then let me explain. In another op I read that you still believe in a God, infact you counter cavediver's idea that the intelligent Designer is so inept. I think you are not a christian but a muslim, and trying to disprove creation account of christianity using evolution.
What gave you the impression that I believe in an Intelligent Designer?
Your rebuttal to cavediver's "why the intelligent designer is so inept."
Which of my beliefs does statement X challenge?
The belief that life originate from non-life.
You just told me above that I believe in an Intelligent Designer.
Yes, I told you.
Is this the belief you are speaking of?
Yes. I understand that you still believe in an designer that used Darwinian mechanism to produce organism. Your belief is like that of Asa D GRAY and Theodosius Dobhszanky. They are christian yet believe that God produced organism throuh Darwinian mechanism.
Or, are you admitting that you were wrong about me believing in an Intelligent Designer
I stand on my claimed.
No, this method is called induction, not deduction
You are right. I tried to change it, but as you see there is no edit. My grammar is sometimes inconsistent. I need your help. Where is the edit?
No, this method is called induction, not deduction.
Deductive reasoning goes like this:
All life comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
Flies are a kind of life.
Therefore, flies come from pre-existing flies.
Inductive reasoning goes like this:
Flies come from pre-existing flies.
Therefore, all other life forms come from pre-existing life forms.
This is now the third logical term you have misused in as many posts
Oh dear I know all of this, this is just elementary logic you dont need to repeat it again. A person of my status who now focusing on complex reasoning and retrogade reasoning know all of this things.
Science uses what is called a "hypothetico-deductive" system of reasoning. An idea derived from inductive logic is called a "hypothesis." A hypothesis is not considered authoritative, and cannot be used as evidence. It must go through deductive testing before it becomes authoritative
You did it well. Good Job!! This is however inconflict with your previous stand.
The testing of the "omne vivum ex ovo" hypothesis includes Miller-Urey and other studies like it. In fact, this testing is still going on, and what that testing is showing is that a lot of things that we thought couldn't self-assemble actually can. This means that chemical systems can gain in complexity over time
Information update: Miller currently have said that " the origin of life is much more difficult than other people and I envision"
One science writer in Technology review wrote: " scientist are having to re - think some of there assumption little evidence has emerged to support the notion of hydrogen rich highly reducing atmosphere bur some evidence speak againts it"
The scientific american reported that:" Over the past decades or so doubts have grown about Urey and Miller experiment" .I will continue later its already time. I still have to study my math lesson.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Blue Jay, posted 07-09-2009 4:53 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Perdition, posted 07-10-2009 10:34 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 382 of 415 (514651)
07-10-2009 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by dokukaeru
07-09-2009 3:37 PM


Re: Eternal Life
dokukaeru wrote:
Are you claiming that "life" is eternal?
I did not claimed that, my point is life has a beginning but it did not develop spontaneously. If you keep on talking abiogenesis, just take note that chemical interaction is spontaneous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by dokukaeru, posted 07-09-2009 3:37 PM dokukaeru has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by bluescat48, posted 07-10-2009 3:51 PM traste has not replied
 Message 385 by onifre, posted 07-10-2009 4:22 PM traste 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