Spontaneous Generation

[Morat]

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.

Sorry. I got you confused with npeterly. My mistake and my apologies.

Admittedly, randman is getting on my nerves too. It takes a certain form of odd thinking to think that a quote from World Book is somehow both binding on all biologist and biochemists (one person said it, so all must agree. Not the brightest) in the first place, and it takes a form of stubborn idiocy to continue to hold this position after having been given the concepts the biochemists and biologists really hold.

Apparantly, randman has never dealt with children, limited space, or the sorts of simplifications used when talking to laymen about subjects unfamiliar to them.

However, as long as npeterly refuses to define "life", I'm going to point out he has no basis for which to discuss abiogenesis. After all, if the man can't say what is life and isn't (especially in the areas like virii, self-replicating RNA and such), then he's got no room to be muttering about "life from non-life".

 

[randman]

"Admittedly, randman is getting on my nerves too. It takes a certain form of odd thinking to think that a quote from World Book is somehow both binding on all biologist and biochemists (one person said it, so all must agree. Not the brightest) in the first place, and it takes a form of stubborn idiocy to continue to hold this position after having been given the concepts the biochemists and biologists really hold.

Apparantly, randman has never dealt with children, limited space, or the sorts of simplifications used when talking to laymen about subjects unfamiliar to them."

In the context of how evolutionists convince people, young children, to accept and believe in evolution so that by the time they are older, they have a strong bias built in, the article in WorldBook is extremely significant, more so than all of the peer-reviewed journals put together.

It is also relevant in the fact that regardless of what you may think abiogenesis is a form of spontaneous generation. Having a university of Chicago professor of evolution state that flat out is helpful to show any rational observer that this is the case, and all of your bluster about encyclopedias does not take away from that simple fact.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Still waiting for your definitions RandMan...

 

[Jerry Smith]

Just a suggestion: a compromise. I have admitted that randman is right - by the definition that both he and Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago use, most scientists do believe that spontaneous generation has occurred at least once. I have said so. If you will directly say so, and then go on to object to any application of this term intended to mislead people about exactly what KIND of spontaneous generation most scientists believe happened, and be sure to clarify that the fact that scientists believe it doesn't make it a part of the theories that are accepted, then we can probably move on to the more substantial discussion of what "life" and abiogenesis are..

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

Nope, you added the hamster. Abiogenises ends at B and that is where evolution picks up.

Right. So reword my statement to say "abiogenesis says that A -> B and evolution says B -> C, but it's still the same problem for spontaneous generation.

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

No, the biggest difference is that Abiogenesis has yet to be falsified. It may be or it may not be, but for now it is the best scientific explanation out there.

Creation has yet to be falsified, too. The fact that you're really an alien from the planet Squigglypooch has yet to be falsified. So what?

In addition, if creation is true, then the best scientific explanation for abiogenesis and/or evolution will be wrong. And there is no possible way to improve these explanations until they're true because they'll always be false no matter how much speculation you add to the picture to make them seem like the best natural explanations.

 

[Morat]

Creation has yet to be falsified, too.

Which version? Some have. The 10,000 year old, Noah's worldwide flood one certainly has.

Lots of versions have. The only ones that haven't are those that either agree quite a bit with evolution, or are worded such as to be untestable, and thus unscientific.

There might be some others I'm unaware of. Which one are you talking about? And, just to jump to the obvious next step, how would you test it? What would prove it wrong?

Falsifiability is required, you know.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat

Which version?

All of the interpretations of the Bible except those you specifically pick and choose because those are the ones you can say you've falsified. Subject closed. Now can you explain why abiogenesis is different than spontaneous generation?

 

[Morat]

All of the interpretations of the Bible except those you specifically pick and choose because those are the ones you can say you've falsified. Subject closed. Now can you explain why abiogenesis is different than spontaneous generation?
[/quopte]
I already have. I asked you several question to clarify. You didn't answer. Subject closed.