Spontaneous Generation

[Sauron]

Originally posted by npetreley
Funny how "science" refuses to consider supernatural causes,

Science does not consider supernatural causes, because there is no evidence for any supernatural causes.

yet "science" somehow supernaturally has this ability to equate things or not equate things.

It's not a supernatural ability. Things are either equal, or they are not.

The reason "science" (evolutionists) does not equate abiogenesis with spontaneous generation is because to do so would be to expose just how ridiculous it is to think abiogenesis happened. Which is exactly what I said.

No, the reason that science doesn't equate the two is because the concept of spontaneous generation (as understood in the 1700s and 1800s) is not the same as abiogenesis. It's just that simple.

What is ridiculous is your attempt to equate the two concepts, when no one is science does so. The bottom line here is: you are attempting to connect two unrelated concepts.

1. Why are you doing that?
2. Why should anyone care, once you've been warned that it's a bogus connection?

"Spontaneous generation" is life from lifeless matter. "Abiogenesis" is life that spontaneously emerges from lifeless matter.

Wrong. But don't let the facts get in your way; clearly you think you are on a roll, baby!

[
The fact that people who believed in spontaneous generation thought sugar could turn into worms only highlights how ridiculous the concept is.

Yep. And for that reason, as well as others, spontaneous generation was abandoned centuries ago.

Fortunately for modern science, however, spontaneous generation != abiogenesis.

It doesn't give abiogenesis any more credibility to say that a bunch of chemicals turned into a living cell. It's still life that spontaneously emerges from lifeless matter.

Wrong as usual. A state that you should be used to, by now.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

Wow, even in space like conditions.

http://www.seti.org/general/press_release/amino_acids_form_in_space_03_26_02.html

Wow - I really love this paragraph in that article.

"The infall of these materials [amino acide] on the early Earth may have facilitated the origin of life on our planet," said Dr. Jason Dworkin of the SETI Institute and Ames. "Furthermore, since new stars and planets are formed within the same clouds in which new amino acids are being created, this probably increases the odds that life has evolved elsewhere."

Talk about your leaps in logic!!

Let me add that the infall of materials like nickel in meteorites may have facilitated the origin of the automobile, since automobiles contain metals that include nickel. Furthermore, since new heavenly bodies are formed with different metals and different combinations, this probably increases the odds that automobiles have evolved naturally with no intelligent intervention elsewhere, just like they did on earth.

 

[npetreley]

Wow - can I play like you do, too?

Originally posted by Sauron

Science does not consider supernatural causes, because there is no evidence for any supernatural causes.

Wrong. It's just that simple.

It's not a supernatural ability. Things are either equal, or they are not.

Wrong. And you would know that, too, if you understood mathematics.

No, the reason that science doesn't equate the two is because the concept of spontaneous generation (as understood in the 1700s and 1800s) is not the same as abiogenesis. It's just that simple.

Wrong. The concept is exactly the same.

What is ridiculous is your attempt to equate the two concepts, when no one is science does so. The bottom line here is: you are attempting to connect two unrelated concepts.

1. Why are you doing that?
2. Why should anyone care, once you've been warned that it's a bogus connection?

Wrong. Don't let the facts get in your way. The concepts are not only related, they are identical. Only the idea that spontaneous generation could be observed has changed. But you are on a roll, baby!

Yep. And for that reason, as well as others, spontaneous generation was abandoned centuries ago.

In favor of the term abiogenesis, which sounds more scientific and sheds the well deserved reputation that "spontaneous generation" had.

Fortunately for modern science, however, spontaneous generation != abiogenesis.

Unfortunately for modern scientists, any half-wit can tell that they're the same. And when abiogenesis is commonly known amoung half-and-full-wits as ridiculous. even more modern scientists will undoubtedly invent another term for it to hide behind.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by npetreley
Wow - can I play like you do, too?

Unlikely. Creationists can't play "like me", because they aren't in full possession of the data.

Wrong. It's just that simple.

Creationism? I agree.

Wrong. And you would know that, too, if you understood mathematics.

Which:
1. you have not demonstrated that you understand at all; and
2. you have not shown any connection between mathematics and your preposterous claims.

So remind me....You brought up mathematics.....why?

Wrong. The concept is exactly the same.

Flatly incorrect. The difference between the two has already been posted.

Your inability to refute that difference demonstrates the emptiness of your position.

Wrong. Don't let the facts get in your way. The concepts are not only related, they are identical.

No. They are not. The differences have already been posted. Several times.

The fact that you put your fingers in your ears and ignore the differences does not make those differences go away.

Only the idea that spontaneous generation could be observed has changed. But you are on a roll, baby!

Anyone rebutting you would be "on a roll".

In favor of the term abiogenesis, which sounds more scientific and sheds the well deserved reputation that "spontaneous generation" had.

Except that abiogenesis != spontaneous generation. But hey - that's just a pesky fact. Feel free to ignore it; it wouldn't be the first time.

Unfortunately for modern scientists, any half-wit can tell that they're the same.

Actually, the only people who think they are the same are those selfsame half-wits.

And when abiogenesis is commonly known amoung half-and-full-wits as ridiculous. even more modern scientists will undoubtedly invent another term for it to hide behind.

The only people who equate abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are you, randman, and a handful of creationists.

If you feel like referring to that group of people as "half-wits", well; be my guest. Far be it from *me* to stop you....

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by npetreley


http://www.seti.org/general/press_release/amino_acids_form_in_space_03_26_02.html

Wow - I really love this paragraph in that article.



Talk about your leaps in logic!!

Let me add that the infall of materials like nickel in meteorites may have facilitated the origin of the automobile, since automobiles contain metals that include nickel. Furthermore, since new heavenly bodies are formed with different metals and different combinations, this probably increases the odds that automobiles have evolved naturally with no intelligent intervention elsewhere, just like they did on earth.

It is only a large leap for you Nick. It was a large leap for some that the silicon chip would ever replace the tube. But it did. It was a leap to think that man could develop flying machines, but we did. History is filled with these leaps.

Why do you put God in such a small box of what He can and can't do. Why could God have not set up everything so all He had to do was get the ball rolling (like the big bang or even setting up multipul universes. One wave of a hand instead of a constant tinkering like a backyard mechanic like you seem to think.

 

[Morat]

Wrong. The concept is exactly the same.

You have been corrected on this point several times by several people.

They have pointed out that sponteanous generation is the term used in the 1700s and 1800s to explain where already existing life came from.

That is, to explain the origins of things like maggots since no one could see maggots laying eggs or giving birth. It was, in fact, an attempt to explain reproduction, as even a cursory analysis of it's usuage in the 1700s would show you.

Abiogenesis, however, deals with the origins of life itself. Not reproduction. And modern theories start with basic chemistry and biochemistry and work from there.

By attempting to equate the two, you are stating that your ignorance of abiogenesis research is such that you think researchers feel cells just "popped" into being from a protein slurry.

So my question for you is simple: Having been corrected, and contradicted by both history and those working in the field, why do you persist in repeating your incorrect statement?

You have offered nothing beyond a childish "is so!" in response to critcism.

That being the case, I can only conclude that you're deliberatly lying. And doing so in a particularly childish and obnoxious way.

That's not how to convince people. At least not adults.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

Why do you put God in such a small box of what He can and can't do. Why could God have not set up everything so all He had to do was get the ball rolling (like the big bang or even setting up multipul universes. One wave of a hand instead of a constant tinkering like a backyard mechanic like you seem to think.

ROFL!! So God can create a cell and watch it evolve, but he's incapable of creating all life? Who is putting God in a box and saying what he can and cannot do?!?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


ROFL!! So God can create a cell and watch it evolve, but he's incapable of creating all life? Who is putting God in a box and saying what he can and cannot do?!?

Who said God couldn't create all life. There are some who believe that not only is He capable, but also that He did, and even many who believe (because of the evidence from His creation) that he did it by the method of evolution!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat

They have pointed out that sponteanous generation is the term used in the 1700s and 1800s to explain where already existing life came from.

And evolution is the term people use in the 20th and 21st century to explain where already existing life came from. OK, I'm with you so far.

Abiogenesis, however, deals with the origins of life itself. Not reproduction. And modern theories start with basic chemistry and biochemistry and work from there.

It's still the same thing. It is life that spontaneously emerges from lifeless matter. Just because you can imagine that it's more logical to go from proteins to cells than going from sugar to maggots doesn't mean the concept isn't any less silly.

It's still life from lifeless matter. One minute it's sugar, the next minute it's a maggot. One minute it's chemicals, the next minute it's a living, replicating self-sufficient cell (as in not a parasite, which requires pre-existing life).

That's spontaneous generation.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


Who said God couldn't create all life. There are some who believe that not only is He capable, but also that He did, and even many who believe (because of the evidence from His creation) that he did it by the method of evolution!

And there are some of us who take Him at His word. And there are some of us who worship another god who requires them to write off the plain meaning of the text as allegory. I'm comfy with that.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


And there are some of us who take Him at His word. And there are some of us who worship another god who requires them to write off the plain meaning of the text as allegory. I'm comfy with that.

When did He tell you that his Creation was not accomplished by evolution? Where does the "plain meaning" of the text say that? Remember, until it was discovered that the Earth is a ball, it was believed that the "plain meaning" of the text was that the Earth was flat...

 

[Morat]

It's still the same thing. It is life that spontaneously emerges from lifeless matter. Just because you can imagine that it's more logical to go from proteins to cells than going from sugar to maggots doesn't mean the concept isn't any less silly.

It's still life from lifeless matter. One minute it's sugar, the next minute it's a maggot. One minute it's chemicals, the next minute it's a living, replicating self-sufficient cell (as in not a parasite, which requires pre-existing life).

That's spontaneous generation.

What's "life"? What's "lifeless matter"? Hmm?

What would you consider a virus? Self-replicating strands of RNA? Self-replicating molecules? Amino acids? Simple proteins?

Well? Which are "alive" and which aren't?

Is a single strand of replicating RNA alive? What if we encase in in a protein coat? What if we do the same, but use DNA?

You think they're the same because you are rampantly ignorant of the subject. Which is no crime. Most people know nothing of biology, much less biochemistry.

Oh, to randman:
World Book? That's pretty lame, randman. I mean, I've seen people go to desperate measures to defend their pet points of view, I've seen them grasp at any straw offered, but World Book?

You're trying to argue science using World Book? What next? Claim that all the evidence for evolution exists in whatever dictionary you have around the house?

That's pretty pathetic, randman. It has the feel of extreme desperation.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat

You think they're the same because you are rampantly ignorant of the subject.

Oh, rite, I fergot. We Crischuns hoo beeleeve in kreeashun is jes so gul dern unedeekated, weez two stoopid tah no whut laf iz. I jes go bek tah mah droolin now, n yooz edykated foke kin karry on witcher edykated diskusshin.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Oh, rite, I fergot. We Crischuns hoo beeleeve in kreeashun is jes so gul dern unedeekated, weez two stoopid tah no whut laf iz. I jes go bek tah mah droolin now, n yooz edykated foke kin karry on witcher edykated diskusshin.

I don't think the assessment has anything to do with you faith, but rather your constant non-subtantive bluster, and the fact that it reveals no understanding of the subject matter.

 

[Morat]

Oh, rite, I fergot. We Crischuns hoo beeleeve in kreeashun is jes so gul dern unedeekated, weez two stoopid tah no whut laf iz. I jes go bek tah mah droolin now, n yooz edykated foke kin karry on witcher edykated diskusshin.

So you don't have an answer to the questions?

Didn't think so. Let me know when you're willing to answer them.

Just to help, here they are again:

What's "life"? What's "lifeless matter"? Hmm?

What would you consider a virus? Self-replicating strands of RNA? Self-replicating molecules? Amino acids? Simple proteins?

Well? Which are "alive" and which aren't?

Is a single strand of replicating RNA alive? What if we encase in in a protein coat? What if we do the same, but use DNA?

 

[ArtistEd]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth


No, that chemical reactions can, both in and out of a lab. What part of chemical reactions do you have a problem with?



How about amino acids...

http://www.seti.org/general/press_release/amino_acids_form_in_space_03_26_02.html

Wow, even in space like conditions.

Large protien masses

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_340000/340345.stm

Nucleic acids like TNA

http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/engl...2001/san_francisco/newsid_1181000/1181710.stm

You should read the TNA artical in full.

We are even getting close to making a virus...

http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/engl...2001/san_francisco/newsid_1181000/1181710.stm


Are those good enough?

This is the most important part of the article on the virus.



"Most researchers would not regard a virus as being "alive", as it depends on the machinery of a living, host cell to replicate."

The problem is of course, is that entity called "life" that makes us alive is supernatural and therefore out of the realm of science.

Ed

 

[Morat]

The problem is of course, is that entity called "life" that makes us alive is supernatural and therefore out of the realm of science.

If "life" is supernatural, then how do you tell the difference between "life" and "not-life"?

As I asked before (not that he'll answer. He's big on talk, short on action), are viruses alive?

Is self-replicating RNA or DNA alive? How can you talk about things being alive or not if you don't have a working definition?

 

[ArtistEd]

Originally posted by Morat

As I asked before (not that he'll answer. He's big on talk, short on action), are viruses alive?

I wasn't responding to your post in the first place and in the second place it was my first post on this subject period. So I'm assuming you're actually responding to someone else even though you quoted me.

Ed

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by ArtistEd



I wasn't responding to your post in the first place and in the second place it was my first post on this subject period. So I'm assuming you're actually responding to someone else in such a childish way even though you quoted me.

Ed

I shouldn't attempt to speak for him, but he probably thought yours was posted by another individual... if so, it would explain the tone of his reply. The individual in question is fairly notorious for making absurd claims, and then disappearing when the inevitable "discussion" period comes. It does get aggravating, and I've been known to lose my temper more than once with this particular individual. It isn't merely the vacuous posts and the empty rhetoric - it is the arrogance with which he pronounces his stunning "indictments" of science, his "unsolvable problems", and his "unanswerable questions," that provoke such a vitriolic reaction. Morat, as far as I can tell, is a fairly easy-going person and wouldn't just lash out at anybody that way. I imagine he was confused about who you were.

 

[randman]

"The only people who equate abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are you, randman, and a handful of creationists."

The professor of evolution and ecology at the university of Chicago feels abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same thing and wrote thatg down specifically.

Too bad. You lose.

"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."

Jerry A. Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, taken from the 1994 edition of the WorldBook Encyclopedia under the section "Spontaeous generation."