evolutionist professor claims spontaneous generation

[chickenman]

the intelligent beings don't make the chemical reactions happen npetrely, they happen spontansously. All the intelligent beings do is create a set of conditions that they believe correspond to early earth, they don't manipulate chemical bonds to create organic molecules, it happens spontaneously.

 

[Jerry Smith]

randman & others on this thread:

"spontaneous" (of spontaneous generation) is a weasel-word. There is a defunct hypothesis that goes back to the 18th century that organisms form "spontaneously" from non-living matter. I don't know how that is different from saying they form from non-living matter (without the "spontaneous"), but the point is that the name of that defunct hypothesis seems to have been recycled by some.

Herein lies my admission of wrong. At least this one scientist (Coyne) has recycled the name to apply to the abiogenetic hypothesis.

I think this is an inappropriate term, since the abiogenetic hypotheses are not the same idea as was meant by the old notion of "Spontaneous generation".

The abiogenetic hypotheses that are current have cells evolving stepwise from chemical self-replicators, that are neither "living" nor "non-living" in any useful sense of the words, which, in turn, were created by normal chemical reactions from organic materials, which were non-living.

And no, before you jump on the word "evolving" in the above paragraph, the term refers to chemical evolution, not neo-Darwinian evolution. This chemical evolution has been observed, but not yet in a way that will account for the beginning of life on earth.

As far as the old-style spontaneous generation (which was believed to happen contiuously,) this is more similar to the creationist's idea: no life, then *poof* life. Only, to account for the fossil record, the creationsist must postulate hundreds of thousands of these *poofs* in the past, or resort to the falsified "hydrological sorting" model of the origin of the fossil record.

 

[randman]

Jerry, the way you spin really makes me laugh here.

I think just admitting you were wrong would have been better.

 

[Jerry Smith]

The point on which I was wrong was not very important compared to the point on which the dispute hinges. The 18th century notion of spontaneous generation is wrong and no-one believes it today.

To ridicule those who expect to find an abiogenetic answer on this point is absurd. It is so much rhetoric and "spin"... There's your spin - randman

 

[randman]

Jerry, you are the one being deceptive here. Abiogenesis is the same thing as spontaneous generation. It can be argued that the 19t h century view of evolutionn is wrong too, that it has changed. So what. Noone said evolutionists believe flies come from meat, but they do believe in spontaneous generation, and that is a clear undeniable fact which would be a fact regardless of what Coyne or anyone says. You can't just reinvent words in an attempt to obscure their meaning.

Well, actually, I guess you guys do that all the time (see "transitional').

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Jerry, you are the one being deceptive here. Abiogenesis is the same thing as spontaneous generation.

I have already explained why the two ideas are radically different. If you can still use the same word... that's fine.. just don't use it to try to convince people that others hold ideas they don't hold...

Further explanation:
I) "believe" is a subjective, not scientific term. Science has not accepted any particular abiogenetic hypothesis, or group of them, but RNA world is gaining acceptance. What people "believe" is their own busines..
II) Sponaneous generation was thought to be the answer to the question: "where do germs come from", not "where did the first living thing come from".
III) Spontaneous generation assumes the spontaneous assembly of non-living matter into living matter. Abiogenetic hypotheses do not postulate this as a spontaneous event - they postulate it as the culmination of a series of events, in which there are molecular chains that are neither living nor non-living by any broad definition of "living"

It can be argued that the 19t h century view of evolutionn is wrong too, that it has changed. So what. Noone said evolutionists believe flies come from meat, but they do believe in spontaneous generation, and that is a clear undeniable fact which would be a fact regardless of what Coyne or anyone says. You can't just reinvent words in an attempt to obscure their meaning.

You can't just use words with general meaning to confuse people about what others believe either.

Well, actually, I guess you guys do that all the time (see "transitional').

Oooh.. a term that randman for subjective reasons dislikes. You never have suggested an alternative word that we should be convincing scientists to use in place of "transitional"... Since transitional describes the morpohology, you haven't done a good job of criticizing this choice of words.

 

[randman]

"I) "believe" is a subjective, not scientific term. Science has not accepted any particular abiogenetic hypothesis, or group of them, but RNA world is gaining acceptance. What people "believe" is their own busines.."

Believe is used all the time be evolutionists and Coyne is a university professor of evolution. Take it up with them. Maybe you should e-mail Talkorigins that to state most scientists believe evolutionary theory to be factual is somehow wrong.

"II) Sponaneous generation was thought to be the answer to the question: "where do germs come from", not "where did the first living thing come from"."

And your point? Coyne clearly states as I did and anyone that evolutionists, actually he states scientists, beleive spontaneous generation occurs at least once. They discarded its wide application but clking to a more narrow one, typical by the way.

"III) Spontaneous generation assumes the spontaneous assembly of non-living matter into living matter. Abiogenetic hypotheses do not postulate this as a spontaneous event - they postulate it as the culmination of a series of events, in which there are molecular chains that are neither living nor non-living by any broad definition of "living" "

What a bunch of malarkey. First, noone knew how spontaneous generation occured in their minds. To say they didn't think there was a process is just BS. It's the same thing.

Jerry, you should have just admitted you were wrong a long time ago. Quite telling really.

 

[randman]

"I) "believe" is a subjective, not scientific term. Science has not accepted any particular abiogenetic hypothesis, or group of them, but RNA world is gaining acceptance. What people "believe" is their own busines.."

"Believe" is used all the time by evolutionists and Coyne is a university professor of evolution. Take it up with them. Maybe you should e-mail Talkorigins that to state most scientists believe evolutionary theory to be factual is somehow wrong.

"II) Sponaneous generation was thought to be the answer to the question: "where do germs come from", not "where did the first living thing come from"."

And your point? Coyne clearly states as I did and anyone that evolutionists, actually he states scientists, beleive spontaneous generation occurs at least once. They discarded its wide application but cling to a more narrow one, typical by the way.

"III) Spontaneous generation assumes the spontaneous assembly of non-living matter into living matter. Abiogenetic hypotheses do not postulate this as a spontaneous event - they postulate it as the culmination of a series of events, in which there are molecular chains that are neither living nor non-living by any broad definition of "living" "

What a bunch of malarkey. First, noone knew, in their minds, how spontaneous generation occured. To say they didn't think there was a process is just BS. It's the same thing.

Jerry, you should have just admitted you were wrong a long time ago. Quite telling really.










All times are GMT. The time now is 06:54 PM.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"I) "believe" is a subjective, not scientific term. Science has not accepted any particular abiogenetic hypothesis, or group of them, but RNA world is gaining acceptance. What people "believe" is their own busines.."

Believe is used all the time be evolutionists and Coyne is a university professor of evolution. Take it up with them. Maybe you should e-mail Talkorigins that to state most scientists believe evolutionary theory to be factual is somehow wrong.

It isn't wrong. But there are plenty of things that scientists believe that aren't accepted science, too. To confuse the two on purpose is what you call "spin".

"II) Sponaneous generation was thought to be the answer to the question: "where do germs come from", not "where did the first living thing come from"."

And your point? Coyne clearly states as I did and anyone that evolutionists, actually he states scientists, beleive spontaneous generation occurs at least once. They discarded its wide application but clking to a more narrow one, typical by the way.

The point is that Spontaneous Generation (as it was held in the 18th century) is disproven. It was falsified. Abiogenesis is not disproved and has not been falsified. It is only semantics that make us able to say that Spontaneous Generation is disproved AND not disproved. You and Nick were attempting to take advantage of that semantic ambiguity to suggest that evolutionists were stupid for believing in a falsified hypothesis. Which is dung.

"III) Spontaneous generation assumes the spontaneous assembly of non-living matter into living matter. Abiogenetic hypotheses do not postulate this as a spontaneous event - they postulate it as the culmination of a series of events, in which there are molecular chains that are neither living nor non-living by any broad definition of "living" "

What a bunch of malarkey. First, noone knew how spontaneous generation occured in their minds. To say they didn't think there was a process is just BS. It's the same thing.

People of the time had no idea about what the inside of a cell looked like. They had seen the formation of cell-like structures take place spontaneously from chemicals in the lab, and they presumed that life could form spontaneously in a single step. Because they presumed that life was simple. There's a big difference between belief in spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.

Jerry, you should have just admitted you were wrong a long time ago. Quite telling really.

If you will look back through this thread, I did actually already admit that I was wrong a long time ago. I still have a major bone of contention to discuss, and although it would be more comfortable for you to drop the subject at that point, I am pretty determined to hash out the issues. I don't like to see semantics, rhetoric, and spin used to try to make good, hard-working scientists look like morons. I especially don't like to see that done by people who don't know which end of a microscope is up.

 

[randman]

My point is not that abiogenesis has been falsified, but that it is illogical and unsupported by the facts and it is indeed spontaneous generation, a model of that theory, and yet held onto by evolutionists.

Why?

Mere prejudice in my view.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
My point is not that abiogenesis has been falsified,

Why, then did you not make that clear? Why did you replace "abiogenesis" with Spontaneous Generation in the first place? What were you trying to accomplish by this sleight of hand?

 

[Jerry Smith]

And... why don't you hold creationists, who very blatantly and obviously DO rely entirely on spin, rhetoric, propaganda, indoctrination, and falsehood - to the standard that forces you to reject evolution?

 

[randman]

"Why, then did you not make that clear? Why did you replace "abiogenesis" with Spontaneous Generation in the first place? What were you trying to accomplish by this sleight of hand?"

Sponteneous generation was a theory, or beleif, that was unsupported by the facts and illogical. In my view, abiogensis is not only the same thing, it is basically making the same underlying assumptions that the expanded version made. It is not a scientific or logical belief in my view, but is held onto for only one purpose, to deny the Creator. It is not based in facts.
It's relevance is to show the state of mind of evolutionist scientists, to show thier lack of objectivity.

"And... why don't you hold creationists, who very blatantly and obviously DO rely entirely on spin, rhetoric, propaganda, indoctrination, and falsehood - to the standard that forces you to reject evolution?"

First of all, I have not seen creationists make the same TYPES of mistakes evolutionists do. They don't appear to engage in the same propoganda techniques. That is not to say they don't make mistakes. They do at times, from what I can tell, make factual mistakes which is a sign of poor scholarship, but those appear to be honest mistakes however ignorant and unlearned they may be.

At the same time, evolutionists lowered the threashold so much before I ever read creationism by stating they basically did not do any scientific research, did not have degrees, etc,.and basically were a bunch of morons who were not worthy of mention really.

From that standard, creationists have appeared to immensely exceed the level the evolutionists set for them, and the result was I was quite impressed.

Maybe if side by side comparisons were included in textbooks, I would be harder on creationists, but overall, I have found them to raise many good points in a fair and even-handed way, and are conducting independent reseaech, and admit to areas they haven't proved yet, and that evolutionists have not been fair in their approach to the debate.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"Why, then did you not make that clear? Why did you replace "abiogenesis" with Spontaneous Generation in the first place? What were you trying to accomplish by this sleight of hand?"

Sponteneous generation was a theory, or beleif, that was unsupported by the facts and illogical. In my view, abiogensis is not only the same thing, it is basically making the same underlying assumptions that the expanded version made. It is not a scientific or logical belief in my view, but is held onto for only one purpose, to deny the Creator. It is not based in facts.
It's relevance is to show the state of mind of evolutionist scientists, to show thier lack of objectivity.

It is held on to as a research program. You can't have a research program on the Creator. You can on a naturalistic hypothesis. What about that is non-objective? What about expecting to find a natural cause for an event is non-objective?

"And... why don't you hold creationists, who very blatantly and obviously DO rely entirely on spin, rhetoric, propaganda, indoctrination, and falsehood - to the standard that forces you to reject evolution?"

First of all, I have not seen creationists make the same TYPES of mistakes evolutionists do. They don't appear to engage in the same propoganda techniques. That is not to say they don't make mistakes. They do at times, from what I can tell, make factual mistakes which is a sign of poor scholarship, but those appear to be honest mistakes however ignorant and unlearned they may be.

There are one or two creationists who you have correctly described here. I'm talking about the majority - and yourself... Is your hand-waving rhetoric and constant repitition of falsehoods, whether they come from sincere problems with perception or from dishonesty, is THAT not propaganda?

Telling people about the evidence that is out there, as a part of combating the otherwise unanswered false claims by creationists that there isn't any --- how is that propaganda? Stating the facts about evolution in a simple way that young people and non-scientists can understand --- how is that propaganda? You want to see propaganda, open the ICR web-site. Open drdino.com... Talk to Nick Petreley. Go to a seminar with Duane Gish.. These people are selling evolution-denial wholesale to the public at large - and they are taking advantage of the fact that the public at large don't hold PhD's in the subject to discredit good science. And right now you are helping him. YOU are the spin doctor. YOU are the propagandist. YOU are holding on to the RELIGION of "evolution-denial".

At the same time, evolutionists lowered the threashold so much before I ever read creationism by stating they basically did not do any scientific research, did not have degrees, etc,.and basically were a bunch of morons who were not worthy of mention really.

And by and large they are. They may not be morons - they may have just fallen for the slick lies of the Professionals among them, but the effect is about the same... I think you are referring to "poisoning the well" (a logical fallacy) instead of "lowering the threshhold". Nevertheless, it is creationists who have poisoned their own well. They took their propaganda to the streets, and we have been fighting them ever since. It is a hard fight, because they are a vocal group.

From that standard, creationists have appeared to immensely exceed the level the evolutionists set for them, and the result was I was quite impressed.

The revolution of lowered expectations... Yeah, we didn't think they could tie their shoes, but not only can they do it, they can even tie double knots. Wow.

Maybe if side by side comparisons were included in textbooks, I would be harder on creationists, but overall, I have found them to raise many good points in a fair and even-handed way, and are conducting independent reseaech, and admit to areas they haven't proved yet, and that evolutionists have not been fair in their approach to the debate.

They have tricked you. By and large, the "research" they do has little or no bearing on the debate, or is a mere attempt to muddy the waters with the appearance of formal rigor.

 

[findtbax]

[GLOW=skyblue]Fight! Fight![/GLOW]

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
the intelligent beings don't make the chemical reactions happen npetrely, they happen spontansously. All the intelligent beings do is create a set of conditions that they believe correspond to early earth, they don't manipulate chemical bonds to create organic molecules, it happens spontaneously.

1. The article about creating a virus from scratch had nothing to do with what you're talking about.

2. When people do attempt what you're talking about, they have no idea what the exact conditions would have been, so there's no way to recreate them accurately. Consequently, intelligent beings choose the starting parameters.

3. They wouldn't just sit there and watch things cook, they'd try to jump-start the process with heat, simulated lightning or anything else they think might have helped in their fantasy scenario of abiogenesis. No matter what they come up with (which IMO would be nothing that enyone except wishful thinking evolutionists could get excited about), it was generated based on the guesses and trials and errors of intelligent beings.

4. Funny you should use that word. "It happens spontaneously." You know. Like "spontaneous generation."

 

[chickenman]

wow, you've caught me out, I used the word spontanesously, what I meant was that the reactions are spontaneous, according to the Gibbs free energy equation. Not that life appears spontaneously in an instant. I'm using the chemical definition of spontaneity.

 

[carloagal]

Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are the same thing. Don't be afraid to say what you believe. Spontaneous generation is simply life stemming from non-living matter. It has never been life coming from nothing.

The posters here just don't like the term, but it is what most evolutionists believe as Coyne points out.

What about Eucharistic miracles?

 

[Shemjaza]

What about Eucharistic miracles?

Wow, serious thread necromancy!

This is even older than when I started posting.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Today, most scientists believe that spontaneous generation took place at least once - when certain chemicals came together to form the first simple living organisms more than three billion years ago."

Scientists will believe just about anything they can get their hands on.