Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 56 of 140 (568393)
07-05-2010 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Peg
07-04-2010 9:51 PM


Chapter 1
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
what do you think a creationist will think if they pick up richard dawkins 'the selfish gene' and get to page 15?
they will be reading about how life began...abiogenesis...that amazing process that nobody saw and nobody can replicate but yet 'must have happened'
If you can sit there and say that they are ignorant for linking abiogenesis with evolution after picking up Dawkins book, then you are not being very honest.
The first chapter of a well-written non-fiction book will often be about background information that leads up to the topic you want to discuss.
As a parallel exercise, go find any book you want about the Atonement, and read chapter one. In fact, read chapter one of every book you can find about the Atonement, and report to me the topics discussed.
I am fairly certain that virtually every first chapter will be about either the Fall or the Creation of Man.
But, why is this so? These books are not about the Fall or the Creation: they are about the Atonement.
Why can’t they just start by saying that man is sinful?
Why must they go into the reasons why man is sinful? These reasons are not the topic of their book, so surely they’re only confusing their readers by talking about the Garden of Eden when what they really want to talk about is the Atonement.
Do you ever hear of any evolutionist or non-Christian who cannot tell that the Fall and the Atonement are two different (even if related) subjects?
Why then do you think you have a leg to stand on when you say it’s our fault that creationists can’t tell that abiogenesis and evolution are two different (even if related) subjects?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:51 PM Peg has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 121 of 140 (569311)
07-21-2010 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by marc9000
07-20-2010 8:51 PM


Similar vs Same
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
So there are similarities [between abiogenesis and evolution].
And there are also similarities between my wife and one of my co-workers. Would you advocate my treating them as the same woman?
Listing similarities, no matter how many there are, does nothing to overcome the presence of even one little difference. Abiogenesis details the transition to life from non-life. Evolution details the transition to life from other life. This is at least one difference. Therefore, abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. End of story.
Your arguments have so far amounted to nothing but an attempt to partition the universe of ideas into two groups: (1) Christianity and (2) Everything Else.
You may classify things this way, if you please. But this does not make it valid to say that everything in the Everything Else column is the same thing.
-----
marc9000 writes:
The reason they've only recently seen attempts to separate [abiogenesis and evolution] is political...
We see attempts to separate them from the instant the term abiogenesis was coined. The very fact that Huxley made a term for this that wasn’t evolution should have been a clue to you that he didn’t think it was the same thing as the subject that already occupied the term evolution.
Ponder on that for awhile.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by marc9000, posted 07-20-2010 8:51 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2010 8:05 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 122 of 140 (569369)
07-21-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by marc9000
07-18-2010 5:47 PM


Classification systems
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
Because ANY origin of life is being called "abiogenesis" throughout this thread, as if there was no other way for life to originate. There really is another way.
That’s the point of abiogenesis! If life had an origin at all, it was an abiogenetic origin: otherwise, all life must have come from pre-existing life, and, by extension, there must never have been a first life form. That was the dichotomy Huxley was attempting to set up in your favorite quote:
quote:
And thus the hypothesis that living matter always arises by the agency of pre-existing living matter, took definite shape... I shall call it the hypothesis of Biogenesis; and I shall term the contrary doctrine—that living matter may be produced by not living matter—the hypothesis of Abiogenesis.
It is quite true that naturalistic abiogenesis and special creation are different things, but this doesn’t give you the right to suppress all terminology that highlights the similarities between them.
-----
marc9000 writes:
Abiogenesis is much more related to evolution than it is to supernatural creation.
There is more than one way to validly classify things, Marc. When discussing different aspects of the same subject, it becomes useful to switch between systems of classification as a pedagogical device.
Since the evolutionists here are trying to explain the differences between evolution and abiogenesis, it makes sense to use a system that highlights the similarities between naturalistic abiogenesis and special creation. This system nicely illustrates the point that abiogenesis---like special creation---is about the beginning of life, and evolution is about what has happened since then.
Furthermore, since naturalism/supernaturalism is not the dichotomy being discussed in the OP, system that uses naturalism/supernaturalism to classify things isn’t really helpful in discussing the topic of the OP.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 5:47 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2010 8:12 PM Blue Jay 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