Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 113 of 140 (569204)
07-20-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by crashfrog
07-19-2010 11:12 PM


Re: intuitive linking
I'm sorry, I'm trying to explain that "abiogenesis" is a fairly non-specific term. Yes, I'm aware that God's supposed creation of life is not chemical.
It’s only recently been transformed into a non-specific term, as I’ve been saying, and showing evidence and the political reasons for. You and no one else here has been able to refute it. I’d expect to see writings from Huxley or his followers, or Miller-Urey and their followers, references to abiogenesis that included supernatural creation somewhere on the net. I asked for examples back in my message 65 — no one has provided them. We don’t see any evidence of them in the following paragraph from Huxley himself either, do we?
quote:
These experiments seem almost childishly simple, and one wonders how it was that no one ever thought of them before. Simple as they are, however, they are worthy of the most careful study, for every piece of experimental work since done, in regard to this subject, has been shaped upon the model furnished by the Italian philosopher. As the results of his experiments were the same, however varied the nature of the materials he used, it is not wonderful that there arose in Redi's mind a presumption, that, in all such cases of the seeming production of life from dead matter, the real explanation was the introduction of living germs from without into that dead matter.4 [236] And thus the hypothesis that living matter always arises by the agency of pre-existing living matter, took definite shape; and had, henceforward, a right to be considered and a claim to be refuted, in each particular case, before the production of living matter in any other way could be admitted by careful reasoners. It will be necessary for me to refer to this hypothesis so frequently, that, to save circumlocution, 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.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE8/B-Ab.html
He was talking about nothing but scientific experimentation. My assertion is that until only the last few decades, the word actually meant something descriptive, a belief that life could arise from non-living chemicals by gradual, naturalistic processes on an early earth.
It's best not to get too hung up on what "abiogenesis" is supposed to mean. Regardless, the scientific explanation for the origin of life is a fundamentally chemical one.
That would be true, if atheists weren’t hysterically hung up on what the term Intelligent Design" means. They’ve spent millions of dollars to block it from the public scientific realm. It's a major hang-up of theirs.
marc9000 writes:
Science can’t prove that there is no such thing as a realm of reality that humans can’t understand.
Science doesn't have to.
I think it does, if it attempts to trump other realms with only the one realm that it understands. That’s a big part of the entire issue — of the entire religion/naturalism controversy.
If science doesn’t have to prove that there is no realm of reality that’s beyond human understanding, then it should respect the possibilities that there are by keeping it’s speculation that no other realm exists out of publicly funded scientific study.
Abiogenesis is trivially a fact; life did not exist on Earth at one point, and at another point, it did. However that happened - God or chemistry - we could refer to that as "abiogenesis", if we chose to.
Nobody chose to, until only the past few decades. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Something had to be done with the word, because of over a hundred years of constant failure to put together a coherent, systematic scientific study on it. The scientific study on it today is fragmented and incomplete, with promisory notes for the future. Promisory notes are not science. They're not permitted for ID.
I appreciate that that's confusing, and we're not saying it to trick you into accepting the chemical origins of life.
Then the word should be used the way it was used in Huxley's day, in Miller-Urey's day. It worked then. Creation was called "creation". It worked well. I’m not worried about myself being tricked, I’m worried about young public school students, not yet old enough to form a positive worldview, being tricked. And I’m worried about their sleeping parents being tricked.
But the point of this thread is to point out that evolution is not a theory of abiogenesis at all. They're two different subjects. Abiogenesis, in science, is a topic of chemistry, since the origins of life were chemical. Evolution is a theory of biology that explains how species change and develop over time.
They're studied the same way, with the same type of scientific methods, by the same people, in the same buildings. They're both about naturalistic change over long periods of time. They both involve chemicals and they both involve biology. The worldviews of the people who study them both seek to cheapen Christianity. So there are similarities. The reason they've only recently seen attempts to separate them is political, the failures of naturalistic abiogenesis to meet the criteria recently set for Intelligent Design. (Naturalistic) abiogenesis has to kept low key, or atheists fear it could be turned upside down on them if it was ever hauled into court like Intelligent Design was.
But we have observed the aftermath of the Big Bang, and you can, too.
I can observe the aftermath of God's creation. I can also scale down planet sizes and light years - have you ever done that? I can't observe or imagine an explosion of that magnitude that would result in the order that we see.
Because it was controversial and revolutionary. And the first edition was limited to only 1170 copies. It wouldn't take that long to sell out.
1170 copies in one day, back in 1859, was probably far better than just about any other book of that time. So it was controversial and revolutionary, we can agree on that. Why do you suppose it's important to so many posters here to try to show numbers suggesting that it wasn't? Because the reason it sold out was obvious - it didn't appeal as science, it appealed as atheism
Perhaps, but that's hardly evidence that disproves his theories. Darwin had produced the first plausible explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth besides "God made it that way." He'd single-handedly made biology a science instead of just stamp-collecting. Why wouldn't people be interested in that? Why would it disprove his theories that they were interested in it?
I never said that it disproves his theories. But what it does do is put naturalistic/atheistic studies on the same order as religion. It lead to a lot of atheist philosophy. That philosophy hasn’t remained philosophy, it’s become science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2010 11:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2010 9:24 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 121 by Blue Jay, posted 07-21-2010 11:04 AM marc9000 has replied

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


Message 114 of 140 (569205)
07-20-2010 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by crashfrog
07-20-2010 8:47 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Do you know what a "bubble chamber" is? Basically - if you take a charged particle, like a proton, and accelerate it to an appreciable percentage of the speed of light, then collide it with something - it breaks up, as you might expect, but it breaks up into pieces that add up to more mass than the original particle, but moving at much, much less speed. A "bubble chamber" is used to track the motion and charge of these subsequent particles, and produces the image you see above.
That's profound, but it still had to start with something. Not good enough for the origin of matter.
[I'm about out of time tonight - I'll have to skip along some, maybe I'll address more of this post in the coming evenings]
Of course. But empiricism, and its more formal descendant science, have built-in protection against the personal biases of human beings. They're the most resistant to it, because they have a system of rigor that allows conjectures to be determined to be false. Religion doesn't have that. Intuition doesn't have that. Imagination doesn't have that.
The sun is a really bright thing, the earth is something like 10 or so light-minutes away from it. Suppose science found a new way to measure, completely overcoming that brightness, so that we could actually measure the distance of the sun to the earth in feet, or even inches? Then suppose some unfortunate scientist overcame personal biases, and proclaimed some bad news "guess what Darwinists, it's not possible that earth has gone around the sun millions, or billions of times. It would have been drawn in (or drifted away) after 30 or 40 thousand times, tops. Do you think he would continue to live? Would the scientific community gladly accept becoming a laughingstock, in the interest of truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2010 8:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 07-20-2010 9:18 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2010 9:25 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 118 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2010 9:30 PM marc9000 has replied

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


Message 123 of 140 (569425)
07-21-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by crashfrog
07-20-2010 8:47 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Look, under most circumstances - for instance, all chemical interactions - the Law of Conservation of Matter holds true. Chemical reactions don't create or destroy matter, they just re-arrange it. Conservation of Matter states that the total mass of the products of a chemical reaction will be equivalent to the total mass of the reactants.
Major accomplishment here — I just got an evolutionist to use the term rearrangement! And yes, I have no argument with any of that.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "motivation."
A motivation in the scientific community to fervently study some things, and completely ignore others, in the interest of supporting one worldview. The study of things like abiogenesis that border on not even being science, while ignoring work associated with ID, like detailed study on recent discoveries of complexity in biology, including paths of information and the time sequences that could be critical in determining successes and failures in naturalistic processes.
I'll have to take your word for that, I guess, since I don't entirely understand what you're getting at. The US Constitution is a legal document, not a work of political philosophy.
I don’t agree, but that’s another subject. It was political philosophy, it’s worked amazingly well, and it’s philosophy was Biblically based.
Of course. But empiricism, and its more formal descendant science, have built-in protection against the personal biases of human beings. They're the most resistant to it, because they have a system of rigor that allows conjectures to be determined to be false. Religion doesn't have that. Intuition doesn't have that. Imagination doesn't have that.
Science is loaded with the personal biases of human beings, and makes some conjectures that are not falsifiable. It has become a religion. Somewhere between 85% and 95% of the National Academy of Science members are atheists. Have you ever heard of the book A Jealous God by Pamela Winnick? A description from Amazon;
quote:
The age-old war between religion and science has taken a new twist. Once the dedicated scientist-martyr fought heroically against rigid religionists. But now the tables have turned, and it is established science crusading against religion, pushing atheistic agendas in the classroom, in textbooks, and in the media. This book shows how science has now become a religion of its own-an often fanatical one at that-furiously preaching atheism, punishing dissenters, dictating how and what we should think, and subtly inserting its worldviews in everything from education to entertainment. And, with stunning clarity, it proves that, with billions of dollars up for grabs in the race for stem cell research, intellectual integrity has been replaced with good old-fashioned greed. With sharp insight and completely original reporting, this book defiantly shows the extent to which science is beating down religion and how this systematic tyranny is unmistakably weakening culture and society.
You’re a good poster, but forums such as these, with the ganging up sport of shouting down creationists and causing them to pack up and leave as quickly as possible does go along well with the documented points that this book makes.
marc9000 writes:
Hypothesizing and experimentation is done by following pathways.
I don't know what you mean by "pathway".
Think of a clearing in the middle of the woods. Two narrow paths go winding through the trees in opposite directions. One is the religious path, and the other is the atheist path. Things like billions of years, random mutation, natural selection, abiogenesis, scaffolding, claims and study of religion defect genes and all the study related to that — these all don’t happen at equal distances from the clearing. They often follow one another, build on one another, and the path is long. If something goes wrong, (a big Christian tree gets in the way) it doesn’t instantly offer a two step retreat back to the clearing. It’s easier to dance around that big Christian tree, and continue along the atheist path. Little school children, about to enter science class for the first time, are standing in the clearing. A science teacher (a member of the National Academy of Sciences) is standing 50 ft down the atheist path, calling; come on kiddies, you can’t go down that other path since church and state have been separated! There’s no 10 commandments signposts along this path anyway!
Of course I understand that the Christian path works the same way. A Darwinist tree can get in the way, and be a problem, and Christians can tend to dance around it and continue on the Christian path. But the continuance on the same ‘worldview’ path is comparable, evolutionists are as guilty as religious people in making their study arrive at a conclusion that they’ve already reached.
Remember that the line of the debate isn't creationism vs. atheism, it's creationism vs. the science of evolution. Evolution is not equivalent to atheism. Atheism is a position about the non-existence of God. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the history and diversity of life on Earth.
They're two very different subjects.
Atheism is the conclusion and evolution is the pathway. Just like religion can be a conclusion, and Intelligent design can be a pathway. Either both are true, or both are false. Atheists want to disconnect evolution and atheism, and combine ID and religion. It’s a double standard.
I think you'll find instead that evolutionists are very much acquainted with the claims of "Darwin's Black Box", and have scientifically refuted the ones that aren't themselves nonsensical from the get-go. (Behe's concept of "specified complexity" gives zero indication of how we're supposed to actually detect it in nature; he just points to examples that he insists are too complex to evolve, even though it's been demonstrated how they did.)
Your demonstrations have been atheist dogma, they have not been completely empirical science. In William Dembski’s words;
quote:
Mathematicians have not muscled into the biologists domain. Rather biologists have uncovered certain facts to which mathematics applies. The application of mathematics to these facts has been unsettling for some biologists. Even so, the proper response of biologists is to meet this challenge of mathematics head on. The wrong response is to keep oneself uninformed about mathematics, assert that mathematics is largely irrelevant to the biological enterprise and continue business as usual. Disdain for mathematics does nothing to foster scientific inquiry. Mathematics does indeed elucidate biological complexity. It is ignorance or dogmatism to claim otherwise.
(From his book, "Intelligent Design", p271)
(My response to message 117)
Dr. Adequate writes:
Sane people will note an amusing consequence of marc's paranoid fantasies. The fact that to date no creationist clown has been rubbed out by Evil-utionist ninjas must imply that so far not one of them has come up with a single good argument.
Henry Morris is dead. IT WAS YOU! IT WAS YOU!
(My response to message 116)
marc9000 writes:
It’s only recently been transformed into a non-specific term, as I’ve been saying, and showing evidence and the political reasons for.
You haven't shown me any evidence that it hasn't been used in precisely the way I describe.
I have, you’re just too far down the atheist path. When little kids in the clearing hear abiogenisis is a fact, religion is cleverly erased from their minds. Go ahead and dance around the tree, but it’s there in your path. Go ahead and cut it down.
But that's exactly how Huxley is using it - he's describing any conjecture that proposes life arising from lifelessness.
Any conjecture that involves naturalism. No supernatural conjecture, you won’t find it anywhere on that page. Your saw is getting dull.
But that's exactly backwards. Huxley coined the term to describe any conjecture by which life could have arisen from lifelessness. Nowadays it's more likely to refer to a scientific model of the origin of life, because it's a "science-sounding" word, and creationists frequently use it in opposition to their own position of special creation.
Huxley was ignoring the supernatural, and talkorigins nowadays links it to the supernatural. Still can’t link me to anything from Huxley’s day, or 50 or 75 years after that, showing a clear reference to abiogenesis being supernatural, can you?
You've got the history of the word precisely backwards. It means "life from lifelessness." That's what you believe and it's what I believe. Nowadays it more frequently refers to scientific models of the origin of life, but scientists don't really use the term, because it's irritatingly nonspecific and useless when you're debating how life arose from lifelessness.
They’re afraid of the term, because they’re studying it in the public realm, and it’s not science anymore than ID is.
What other realms?
Supernatural realms. Ones where creation can happen without complex rearrangement. Ones where there is more than one time dimension, ones where there are more than three space dimensions. Just because humans can't understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.
marc9000 writes:
I’m worried about young public school students, not yet old enough to form a positive worldview, being tricked.
Being "tricked" into what, exactly?
Into a godless, purposeless and pointless worldview, which can easily lead to an if it feels good, do it mentality, which leads to liberal political point of view, which re-writes the actual history of the United States.
Into believing that evolution is a highly-supported scientific explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth?
Yes, that leads to a belief that Genesis is false. That leads to a belief that Exodus is false. That the whole Bible is nothing but fairy tales. That Christ wasn’t much of a Christian. That there is no such thing as sin. That if it feels good, knock up the girlfriend — taxpayers will pay for the abortion. That God might be a she. It can lead to a lot of things. Like a $13 trillion national debt, that didn’t exist before an activist court separated church and state in 1947.
Into believing that Christians are able to simultaneously hold religious faith and accept the scientific theory of evolution? That's true as well. I'm just not clear on what this great "trick" is supposed to be. And you're honestly the first person I've ever met who even thought this was some kind of issue, and I've debated hundreds of creationists at this board over seven years.
Good creationists have better things to do than enter these atheist playgrounds. They’re too intimidated — too polite. They can’t handle implications that they’re the only one on the planet with Christian conservative views. Or when a "Christian" claims that God is a she, or that "Christ wasn't much of a Christisn". ~I~ would have thrown up my hands and left after a few of jar's comments if I wasn't experienced at this. Current popular literature and the airwaves are loaded with people with views identical to mine. Have you ever heard of David Horowitz? He documents the relationship of atheist, liberal professors with Marxism. If you, and most other atheist like you are not like that, that’s great. But you should show more concern about those high profile people who are. Ever hear of Ward Churchill?
marc9000 writes:
They're studied the same way, with the same type of scientific methods, by the same people, in the same buildings.
No, they're not. Here at UNL for instance origin-of-life chemistry is done in Hamilton and evolutionary biology is done in the Beadle Center.
Well, I stand corrected on that! If they were done in the same building, abiogenesis study could be more likely to find itself in court, facing the same 1st amendment establishment clause that Intelligent Design did at Dover!
Come on. Now you're impugning the motives of people like myself, and more importantly my wife, who does actually study the evolutionary relationships of insects.
Do you honestly think her motivation is to "cheapen Christianity"? I can tell you that it is not - her motivation is to feed people, by determining effective ways to control crop pests. Sure, we're atheists. If you think we sit around all day thinking of how to "cheapen" your religion, you're suffering from paranoid delusions.
I know there are a lot of decent atheist people, I have atheist friends. It’s your leaders that I’m worried about. I’ve read Horowitz’s book The Professors. And I’m noting the actions of our socialist president, the likes of which this country has never seen before.
And what about my wife's Christian colleagues? She's literally the only atheist in her entire department, but the work she does is hardly different than the work they do. Are Christians trying to "cheapen Christianity"?
It’s possible to do the here-and-now work that she does without applying worldviews. I know that it’s claimed work like controlling crop pests wouldn’t be possible without a deep application of evolution (Darwinism), but I think that can be exaggerated. I had another poster on other forums tell me that without a belief in a billions of year old earth, we couldn’t purify and distribute drinking water. It gets to be quite a stretch sometimes.
Don't you think there's anybody in the life sciences who is actually interested in how life works? That's the motivation of literally everyone in the life sciences I've ever met. It's certainly my motivation. It's insulting of you to insinuate otherwise.
Sure, I believe you. It’s the leaders, the prominent people in science that Pamela Winnick described in her book A jealous god that shows the publicly funded political action by the scientific community to promote itself, and oppose the traditional form of government and morality in the US.
We have the internet, you know. For instance, Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was published the year before "On the Origin of Species"; it sold nearly 300,000 copies. Dickens' "The Tale of Two Cities" was published serially; each new issue sold well over 100,000 copies. "The Tale of Two Cities" remains one of the English language's most printed books, at over 200 million copies made.
In one day?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2010 8:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 07-21-2010 7:55 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 8:35 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 132 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2010 8:48 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 11:09 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 125 of 140 (569433)
07-21-2010 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by crashfrog
07-20-2010 9:30 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Now you're just moving the goalposts.
I knew it! I knew it! It was me who gave you the idea to say that.
"Live"? Ok, let me try to get your precise meaning.
You're saying that if a creationist asserted that there was some kind of gravitational evidence that the Earth's orbit around the Sun isn't stable over a timeframe of 4 billions years, scientists would kill him?
People have died for a lot less. The scientific community simply isn’t going to allow any evidence for a young earth to see the light of day. It would be the biggest political upset in the history of the world.
Seriously? You think that's the reason that creationism has no scientific traction? Because its prominent proponents are mysteriously murdered by a scientific hit squad?
Even if Dr Adequate wouldn’t have wasted Morris, prominent creationists are just as effectively silenced as death, when they’re shouted down by the peer review process at today’s ivory towers. The movie Expelled demonstrated it clearly.
Is that really what you're saying? Can you point to even a single prominent creationist, or ID proponent, who has been murdered in service of an "evolutionist conspiracy"? Michael Behe is even allowed to keep publishing biochemistry papers. I just linked you to one. How is that even possible if there's this vast conspiracy of evolutionists?
Murder isn’t necessary (yet) So far, academic discrimination and bought courts seem to be working well for the scientific community. But I’ll bet Behe has some pretty elaborate alarm systems on his house.
Did you ever even stop to consider that the reason the scientific community is so monolithic in their support for evolution is because it really is good, sound science?
Micro evolution, yes, Darwinism, no. If it were as sound as you say, the entire creation/evolution debate would be different. The anger from the evolutionist camp wouldn't be near as pronounced. Evolutionists wouldn't be so afraid of Intelligent Design, for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2010 9:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2010 8:03 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 8:43 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 127 of 140 (569436)
07-21-2010 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Blue Jay
07-21-2010 11:04 AM


Re: Similar vs Same
Hi Mr Bluejay
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.
Religion is the belief in and current presence of a supernatural being. Intelligent Design is the study of empirical evidence of design in nature. They are two different things. End of story. Or do you have a double standard?
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.
That is what I observe in how these debates go. I believe people of all those beliefs should be able to get along in a society without any one of them being publicly established. One of the everything else group, evolutionism, has been publicly established.
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.
It’s just that no two positions in the everything else column ever seem to debate each other on forums such as these, about anything. . Everything individually, or combined, in the everything else column always opposes Christianity. That’s the reason I classify things that way.
-----
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.
Just like the term Intelligent Design was coined to separate it from religion? It depends on who is doing the coining, doesn’t it? Lovers of Darwin are in, religious people are out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Blue Jay, posted 07-21-2010 11:04 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 8:44 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 128 of 140 (569438)
07-21-2010 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Blue Jay
07-21-2010 3:37 PM


Re: Classification systems
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.
Then why are all my opponents here suppressing all terminology that highlights the similarities between evolution and abiogenesis?
Chemical Evolution - The primitive Earth - Atmosphere, Life, Water, and Molecules - JRank Articles
quote:
Chemical evolution describes chemical changes on the primitive Earth that gave rise to the first forms of life.
Please describe the differences between abiogenesis and chemical evolution.
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.
But creationists aren’t allowed to do that are they? Intelligent Design is always religion, isn’t it?
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.
But the topic of chemical evolution is really helpful in discussing the topic of the OP, isn’t it? Thanks for inspiring me to find it. It seems to be all over the net.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Blue Jay, posted 07-21-2010 3:37 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