Australopithecines aren't "just" apes

[Smidlee]

Abiogenesis is about life from non-life
biogenesis at life comes from life. Even though it normally refers to life from the same kind still creation is not life comes from non-life but life comes from the Living God.
Even in a silly example of Star Trek 2 movie the project was called the "Genesis project" and not the "Abiogenesis Project". ( as living man creating life)
Still anyone who read anything from someone like Robert Shapiro knows abiogenesis is about how life came about without God or any other intelligent agent.

 

[lucaspa]

Abiogenesis is about life from non-life
biogenesis at life comes from life. Even though it normally refers to life from the same kind still creation is not life comes from non-life but life comes from the Living God.

But how does that life come from God. Does God have to "poof" it into existence? IOW, does God have to invoke miracle to get life from non-life?

Still anyone who read anything from someone like Robert Shapiro knows abiogenesis is about how life came about without God or any other intelligent agent.

Shapiro is an atheistic evolutionist. You need to separate his atheism from the science. Shapiro, as an atheist, has the creed that "natural" = without God.

The irony here, Smidlee, is that you seem to have the same belief! But let's ask ourselves something: according to Christian theology, is "natural" = without God? Of course not! Everything in the universe depends on the will of God. This includes all the "natural" processes. They don't happen unless God wills it. If you take hydrogen and oxygen and add a spark, the hydrogen and oxygen burns to form water. This depends on the will of God. Christians believe God always wills this to happen. So Christians believe that abiogenesis cannot happen without God. God sustains the chemical reactions that make life from non-living chemicals. But God does not directly make life from non-living chemicals.

Shapiro has mistaken this "not directly" for God not being involved at all. But you should not make the same mistake.

As it happens, there is one easy way to get life from non-living chemicals. All that is required is a solution of amino acids. Dry heat that solution (as in a tidal pool), or heat at a hydrothermal vent, and the amino acids will react to form proteins. Then add water, or go to cooler water at a hydrothermal vent, and the proteins spontaneously form cells. Those cells are alive. The direct, material cause is chemistry. But just as in the formation of water, Christians believe God must will the chemical reactions to take place. Shapiro has no scientific basis for saying "without God".

 

[lucaspa]

To what are you referring?

Start here http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/ and also look at the previous post to Smidlee for a very simplistic summary.

We can go into this in as much detail as you want.

 

[Mallon]

Inferred? Is that the same as wishful thinking?

Not according to the dictionary.

 

[brinny]

Not according to the dictionary.

a similar word would be "assumed" would it not? why isn't a more definitive word used...there's all kinds of loopholes in the word "inferred"...got another word?

 

[Mallon]

Ok my last reponse to you and apologies for calling you dude if you are in fact female.God made animals according to their kind,thats why you see similarities within classes.Ive explained this.Ive explained common descent is true only to an extent.

Again, this doesn't explain the hierarchical pattern we see in nature. If you want to believe that God created separate kinds, then fine. But don't pretend that it actually accounts for what we see in nature. I've shown here that it doesn't. Your explanation doesn't explain why all mammals are vertebrates, but not all vertebrates are mammals. It doesn't explain why all vertebrates are bilateral, but not all bilaterians are vertebrates. Evolution does.

Why?Whats this got to do with australopithicus?.Lets just say i dont need to read a few textbooks and be brainwashed by professors to claim some sort of superiority.

I'm sorry to see that you devalue education to the point of calling it "brainwashing". If I were brainwashed, though, I wouldn't be able to support my position with reference to evidence. I can. You can't.

You ignored again my question regarding lucys intelligence and how on earth you can tell how intelligent she was?

I answered this question already earlier. We infer intelligence from the Encephalization Quotient. Regardless, this doesn't relate to the OP. You're side-tracking the issue.

 

[Mallon]

a similar word would be "assumed" would it not? why isn't a more definitive word used...there's all kinds of loopholes in the word "inferred"...got another word?

Inference has a specific meaning. It means to draw a conclusion from specific data. Assumptions are not derived from data... that's why they are assumptions. As assumption is NOT the same thing as an inference. Assumptions come before the data; inferences come after the data.
Read:
Inference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chesterton]

Start here http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/ and also look at the previous post to Smidlee for a very simplistic summary.

We can go into this in as much detail as you want.

All that boils down to is you're saying "Goddidit" (and I agree with you), and the naturalists say "natural processes did it". Not really much to go into.

 

[brinny]

Inference has a specific meaning. It means to draw a conclusion from specific data. Assumptions are not derived from data... that's why they are assumptions. As assumption is NOT the same thing as an inference. Assumptions come before the data; inferences come after the data.
Read:
Inference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why isn't a more definitive word used....that's kinda loopy, still. What more definitive word could be used? Is there one?

 

[Mallon]

why isn't a more definitive word used....that's kinda loopy, still. What more definitive word could be used? Is there one?

Inference is a definitive word. It has a specific meaning. You just appear to be trying to cast doubt on evolution where none is due.

 

[brinny]

Inference is a definitive word. It has a specific meaning. You just appear to be trying to cast doubt on evolution where none is due.

no it's not. it's gray, which means it's not black or white, it's somewhere in-between, because a more definitive word cannot be used, can it?

 

[gluadys]

why isn't a more definitive word used....that's kinda loopy, still. What more definitive word could be used? Is there one?

What is not definitive about "inference"? And how can anything as logical as a valid inference be characterized as "loopy"?

 

[Mallon]

no it's not. it's gray, which means it's not black or white, it's somewhere in-between, because a more definitive word cannot be used, can it?

You're just being childish now, brinny. "Inference" carries a specific meaning in the philosophy of science, and it's not "to assume". If you won't accept that, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

 

[brinny]

You're just being childish now, brinny. "Inference" carries a specific meaning in the philosophy of science, and it's not "to assume". If you won't accept that, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

still don't have another word other than inference?

 

[brinny]

from Wikipedia:

Inference is the process of drawing a conclusion by applying clues (of logic, statistics etc.) to observations or hypotheses; or by interpolating the next logical step in an intuited pattern. The conclusion drawn is also called an inference.

This is not 100%. That's why science uses the word inference...it sorta means "close enough"

 

[troodon]

still don't have another word other than inference?

To deduce or derive a conclusion.

 

[brinny]

To deduce or derive a conclusion.

well that's not exact either, is it?

 

[troodon]

well that's not exact either, is it?

No, it is.

I have evidence, from that I infer a conclusion.

I have evidence, from that I deduce a conclusion.

I have evidence, from that I derive a conclusion.

I have no evidence but I infer a conclusion, does not work.

I have no evidence but I deduce a conclusion, does not work.

I have no evidence but I derive a conclusion, does not work.

All of these synonyms require something to base a conclusion on in order for them to work linguistically.

I have no evidence but I assume a conclusion, this does work, so assume is not a synonym for infer. An assumption is based on something other than the evidence at hand.

 

[brinny]

No, it is.

I have evidence, from that I infer a conclusion.

I have evidence, from that I deduce a conclusion.

I have evidence, from that I derive a conclusion.

I have no evidence but I infer a conclusion, does not work.

I have no evidence but I deduce a conclusion, does not work.

I have no evidence but I derive a conclusion, does not work.

All of these synonyms require something to base a conclusion on in order for them to work linguistically.

I have no evidence but I assume a conclusion does work, so assume is not a synonym for infer.

yet, i could be wrong in my inference...that's why there are changes in science views and conclusions...since the beginning of history it has been so...and it continues to this day...it's like science says "Oops, i guess our "inference" was wrong on that one.

That's why a more definitive, exact word is not used. It gives that latest inference an "out", a loophole, if you will.

 

[lucaspa]

no it's not. it's gray, which means it's not black or white, it's somewhere in-between, because a more definitive word cannot be used, can it?

"inference" is very definitive in this context: "a : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former"

For instance, the mosaic features of A. afarensis infer that the species is in transition from the common ancestor to H. sapiens.