[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And now your getting definitions and vocabulary confused. Spontaneous generation was the idea that everything just poofed into existence. Nothing really transforming into anything, just that it happened.
Abiogenesis as opposed to biogenesis is the idea that first life came from the inorganic. It’s not as much a stretch of the imagination if you look at the evolution of the cosmos. You did get the biogenesis definition right at least. Scientifically, spontaneous generation of life has been disproven again and again. Abiogenesis is being tested using the scientific methods of biology and chemistry and perhaps other fields. [/quote]
I haven’t got anything confused. I was pointing out that the faith placed in finding an answer to abiogenesis is contrary to our observations. It is blind faith.[/quote]
Also not true, because there is an answer.
We might never find one but there is one, guaranteed and there is no faith involved with that.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Scientifically, spontaneous generation of life has been disproven again and again. [/quote]
Not even once.
Specific ways might have been. [/quote]
There’s an easy way to test this. And this is induction so it’s impossible to disprove %100 if that’s what you’re getting at. Take too raw 1/2 lb pieces of beef. Place one in a tightly sealed container and the other open. Let sit outside for a few days (equal time each sample). See if they both have maggots.
You’re right, this is very interesting. Unfortunately for you this does nothing to strengthen an argument for evolution and it seriously undermines any sort of argument for a spontaneous origin of life by demonstrating the high complexity of “simple” life forms. If anything, this is evidence for intelligent design…[/quote]
Read the entire dialogue. I never indicated that I was putting it forth as evidence.
It is not evidence for intelligent design, even if things appear to be designed, that in no way indicates that God did it.
[/quote]
I did read the entire dialogue, it was only 2 posts. In fact I’ll quote it.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MattyG-
I would think if single celled organisms were spontaneously forming that would be taught in basic science course as part of the cell theory. [/quote]
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Scientifically, spontaneous generation of life has been disproven again and again. [/quote]
Not even once.
Specific ways might have been. [/quote]
There’s an easy way to test this. And this is induction so it’s impossible to disprove %100 if that’s what you’re getting at. Take too raw 1/2 lb pieces of beef. Place one in a tightly sealed container and the other open. Let sit outside for a few days (equal time each sample). See if they both have maggots.
That’s one example of many that has been tested. [/quote]
Well, thats just stupid.
We would be looking for a very simple replicating, um, thing, that crosses the threshold to “living”.
A maggot is the 2012 version, that would be like comparing an F-16 to a stone axe.
And a stone axe is generous.
No creature of such complexity is ever going to poof into existence.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And now your getting definitions and vocabulary confused. Spontaneous generation was the idea that everything just poofed into existence. Nothing really transforming into anything, just that it happened.
Abiogenesis as opposed to biogenesis is the idea that first life came from the inorganic. It’s not as much a stretch of the imagination if you look at the evolution of the cosmos. You did get the biogenesis definition right at least. Scientifically, spontaneous generation of life has been disproven again and again. Abiogenesis is being tested using the scientific methods of biology and chemistry and perhaps other fields. [/quote]
I haven’t got anything confused. I was pointing out that the faith placed in finding an answer to abiogenesis is contrary to our observations. It is blind faith.[/quote]
Also not true, because there is an answer.
We might never find one but there is one, guaranteed and there is no faith involved with that.[/quote]
Obviously there is an answer, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this debate!! But the answer you’re looking for contradicts all of the evidence that we have. Hence the faith element.
As I have said already, any scientific investigation relies on the faith that physical existence is knowable, rational, and observable. So yes there is faith. But this is a very different method because of those axioms than what religion or other types of philosophies are using. I think that’s what the point is.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And now your getting definitions and vocabulary confused. Spontaneous generation was the idea that everything just poofed into existence. Nothing really transforming into anything, just that it happened.
Abiogenesis as opposed to biogenesis is the idea that first life came from the inorganic. It’s not as much a stretch of the imagination if you look at the evolution of the cosmos. You did get the biogenesis definition right at least. Scientifically, spontaneous generation of life has been disproven again and again. Abiogenesis is being tested using the scientific methods of biology and chemistry and perhaps other fields. [/quote]
I haven’t got anything confused. I was pointing out that the faith placed in finding an answer to abiogenesis is contrary to our observations. It is blind faith.[/quote]
Also not true, because there is an answer.
We might never find one but there is one, guaranteed and there is no faith involved with that.[/quote]
Obviously there is an answer, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this debate!! But the answer you’re looking for contradicts all of the evidence that we have. Hence the faith element.
[/quote]
I am not looking for a specific answer.
Whatever the answer is it should fit the evidence.
Still does have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
You’re right, this is very interesting. Unfortunately for you this does nothing to strengthen an argument for evolution and it seriously undermines any sort of argument for a spontaneous origin of life by demonstrating the high complexity of “simple” life forms. If anything, this is evidence for intelligent design…[/quote]
Read the entire dialogue. I never indicated that I was putting it forth as evidence.
It is not evidence for intelligent design, even if things appear to be designed, that in no way indicates that God did it.
[/quote]
I did read the entire dialogue, it was only 2 posts. In fact I’ll quote it.
quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MattyG-
I would think if single celled organisms were spontaneously forming that would be taught in basic science course as part of the cell theory. [/quote]
I’ve decided to break up my response to you in sections so that I don’t post walls of text as I’ve found that to inhibit further conversation.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< Why don’t you help me get it, and why don’t you go read Hindu texts to see what they have to say with respect to matters of God theory. >>>[/quote]I once owned the Bahgvad Gita and the vedic hymns (spelling?) dude.
[/quote]
Okay, what evidence did you find in those documents that shows that Hinduism falls short and Christianity doesn’t?
I;m firmly in the “I don’t know” camp. Evolution seems likely, so that probably happened. As for an omnipotent being who can’t be seen or heard, we can’t know and therefore I don’t. I’m not saying a god doesn’t exist, I’m just saying I don’t know.
…Evolution also is observable and has been observed.[/quote]
Define the evolution you speak of.
Then define the evolution of which you do not speak.
Don’t fail to make the distinction between the two. If you are unsuccessful in your attempt to make the requisite distinction you will have a serious credibility problem on your hands.[/quote]
The evolution I speak of is
[quote]Descent with modification; the idea that living species are descendants of ancestral
species that were diffcrent from the present-day ones; also defined more narrowly as the change in the genetic composition of a population from generation to generation.[/quote]
from Reece biology.
I can’t define what the evolution I don’t speak of is, as it could be an infinite amount of things.[/quote]
I believe he’s talking about micro and macro evolution.
…Evolution also is observable and has been observed.[/quote]
Define the evolution you speak of.
Then define the evolution of which you do not speak.
Don’t fail to make the distinction between the two. If you are unsuccessful in your attempt to make the requisite distinction you will have a serious credibility problem on your hands.[/quote]
The evolution I speak of is
[quote]Descent with modification; the idea that living species are descendants of ancestral
species that were diffcrent from the present-day ones; also defined more narrowly as the change in the genetic composition of a population from generation to generation.[/quote]
from Reece biology.
I can’t define what the evolution I don’t speak of is, as it could be an infinite amount of things.[/quote]
I believe he’s talking about micro and macro evolution.
[/quote]
That may be, so I’ll just have to ask push to specify his specifications more specifically, if he cares to.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< Why don’t you help me get it, and why don’t you go read Hindu texts to see what they have to say with respect to matters of God theory. >>>[/quote]I once owned the Bahgvad Gita and the vedic hymns (spelling?) dude. [quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< There’s 1 billion Hindus you know. >>>[/quote]Yes… I know. [quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< Also, again, why don’t you watch those Sapolsky videos that I keep having to post, and you keep willfully ignoring.
Your purposeful ignoring of the content of my responses to you is no way to maintain a dialogue.[/quote]Also, again, why don’t you read those threads or that document that I keep having to post (not just to you), and you keep willfully ignoring. Your purposeful ignoring of the content of my responses to you is no way to maintain a dialogue. I will watch your videos, you have my word, if you will go to this thread The Secret History of Money - Politics and World Issues - Forums - T Nation and tell me why you are certain that 2+2=4. (yes again guys, it works every time) I’ll even go first. If you agree? I promise you will know in short order just how abysmally shallow your thinking has been your entire life. Not because I’m the deepest most profound thinker who ever lived. Not at all. You’ve just never had anybody challenge you where it counts most. Absolutely NOTHING I know originated with me.
Headhunter has seen this dialog. That’s why he WILL NOT bite even when I use cheap ego bashing tactics on him. He knows he CANNOT win. On his declared basis and yours, a tautological stalemate, in other words uncertainty, is the best you can hope for. If you decide to step up here? Read that document http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/dox/Brother_Greg_refromed_apologetic.pdf It will give you a fair head start if you read it carefully and assume nothing except that I may actually not be an imbecile. I expect that you’ll be intractably arrogant, dogmatic and dismissive. Just like you’ll say I am. I’m used to it.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< There’s 1 billion Hindus you know. >>>[/quote]Yes… I know. [quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< Also, again, why don’t you watch those Sapolsky videos that I keep having to post, and you keep willfully ignoring.
Your purposeful ignoring of the content of my responses to you is no way to maintain a dialogue.[/quote]Also, again, why don’t you read those threads or that document that I keep having to post (not just to you), and you keep willfully ignoring. Your purposeful ignoring of the content of my responses to you is no way to maintain a dialogue. I will watch your videos, you have my word, if you will go to this thread The Secret History of Money - Politics and World Issues - Forums - T Nation and tell me why you are certain that 2+2=4. (yes again guys, it works every time) I’ll even go first. If you agree? I promise you will know in short order just how abysmally shallow your thinking has been your entire life. Not because I’m the deepest most profound thinker who ever lived. Not at all. You’ve just never had anybody challenge you where it counts most. Absolutely NOTHING I know originated with me. [/quote]
While that thread(Epistemology: The Key to Everything) does take me beyond the bounds of my past experience and knowledge, it seems that incapable of not dancing around people’s questions from the presupposition of your own correctness, specifically one from ephrem
[quote]ephrem wrote(02-17-2012, 05:38 PM)
You are playing games here T. If this is how you were lured into your delusions then your mind must’ve been feeble to begin with.
You create confusion and propose there’s depth in a shallow pool. I can imagine, I really do, how it must feel to be hounded and questioned on PWI, cementing your delusions with every post.
Don’t dodge, just prove your unprovable principle.
You consistently avoided answering his question, and every time you try to give the appearance of an answer you avoid directly answering the question and constantly show an inability to be concise in your statements.
What I am about to say may result in me being looked down as a simpleton but the words in which you choose to use, which do show what an impressive vocabulary you possess, fail in conveying any meaning to me. In other words, we have a fail to communicate.
You also admit to be a follower to a mass murderer, John Calvin, which pushharder rightfully called you out on numberous accounts.
I like this post by ephrem as it sums up my feelings fairly well
[quote]ephrem wrote(02-18-2012, 08:57 AM):
In an earlier post I told you I don’t know if a god exists, but that doesn’t mean we can’t know anything for certain.
You know you’d fall to your death if you jump off a tall building without a parachute or safety net, don’t you?
Similarly, if you have a single item and then you’re given another single item, there are two items in your possession. You really don’t need to make this complicated, because it is not complicated. That’s why I say you try to confuse things.
Either there is an absolute principle or everything is meaningless.
Therefore, there is only two consistent positions : absolute faith and total nihilism.
Make another choice and you will have some inconsistencies between your thoughts and your acts.
He “choosed” absolute faith.
Me too.
The only differences between us :
-I don’t believe that the “absolute intellect” is a person. nor three persons.
-He is quite lyrical. And i’m not.
[/quote]
Everything is inherently meaningless. Everything is without meaning in an indifferent universe.
A respons to that might be nihilism, but it’s not the default position.
The default position is that we don’t know.
[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote(02-27-2012, 03:55 PM):
I worded that wrong. I didn’t mean to imply that you deny the existence of matter. Sorry. I actually meant that part in contrast to what you seem to be saying. I was talking mainly about the idea of our reality being the thoughts of a universal mind. And their denial of evil and pain stemming from this mind. In their view those don’t exist at all except in the illusions of those not redeemed(enlightened) enough to think beyond them. In a nutshell. Been a long time.
We have a lot to talk about in the rest, but I am at work and my rushing through posts has already gotten me in to trouble. [/quote]
This is written much more concisely as others noted.
[quote]ephrem wrote (03-18-2012, 12:22 PM):
So many words, so little substance[/quote]
Then Raj does as well
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The bibles tells me that the reason is because we have been designed and created by a God of infinite infallible logic who has imputed to us a derivative finite version of his infinite mind. His image. It is He alone to whom “nothing is contingent or uncertain”. [/quote]
How do you know this? You’re working off a presupposition.
This is nothing but special pleading. [/quote]
Neuromancer makes a good point
[quote]Neuromancer wrote (03-20-2012, 05:31 PM):
Catholics have as much basis as Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, scientists, atheists ,pastafarians or any other structure or foundation. If we stick to the original line of inquiry of this thread, the logic is irrefutable. We are either circularists or nihilists. After that starting point, all bets are off. But prior to that, any system that believes in a prime cause or unmoved mover has a right to its position. We cannot refute or confirm that belief or position.[/quote]
and so does Raj again
[quote]therajraj wrote(03-20-2012, 06:07 PM):
There isn’t one definition of faith that can encompass every way it is used. If we are talking about religious faith then it is belief in something without a good reason.
By the way I don’t think you or anyone else is an I’mbecile for having faith in a god. I do however think you either haven’t had the atheist position presented properly to you or you have a hang up in questioning your beliefs. [/quote]
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Scientifically, spontaneous generation of life has been disproven again and again. [/quote]
Not even once.
Specific ways might have been. [/quote]
There’s an easy way to test this. And this is induction so it’s impossible to disprove %100 if that’s what you’re getting at. Take too raw 1/2 lb pieces of beef. Place one in a tightly sealed container and the other open. Let sit outside for a few days (equal time each sample). See if they both have maggots.
That’s one example of many that has been tested. [/quote]
Well, thats just stupid.
We would be looking for a very simple replicating, um, thing, that crosses the threshold to “living”.
A maggot is the 2012 version, that would be like comparing an F-16 to a stone axe.
And a stone axe is generous.
No creature of such complexity is ever going to poof into existence.
[/quote]
That’s the spontaneous generation that I’ve heard of that I just described and it really did used to be what was believed by the masses well after the middle ages. This is not at all related to abiogenesis or first life.
And really, the threshold is rather nebulous and perhaps even arbitrary. Simply as has been mentioned in the thread earlier you need to start with self replicating molecules that eventually lead to a cell membrane and a self replicating encoding system. There’s your proto-cell. And the theory is that were steps before that.