>On Nov 4, 3:32=A0pm, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> >wrote: >> In >> <0221f36d-4787-4042-8669-1f953f7c9...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>> TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >Common sense and a light observation of the world around you will >> >clearly define a kind. We are all intelligent enough to get that >> >simple concept. To parse the word any further is to seek confusion in >> >simplicity.
>> Since this is so simple, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a >> comprehensive list of "kinds" that is agreed to by a large number of >> creationists. =A0And an equally simple method for deciding if two >> organisms are of the same kind. >> -- >> Usenet:http://xkcd.com/386/ >> Jack Dominey >> jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
>Yes. The dog kind. They are of that kind if they can interbreed.
You think that it is "common sense and a light observation of the world" that leads to your notion that two organisms are of the same kind if they can interbreed?
Why, then, is it that nobody ever thought of that for thousands of years? Nobody in those thousands of years had common sense? Nobody made "light observations"?
Why didn't the Bible, or any of the commentators on the Bible, make any mention of that?
I won't get into the problems that that criterion has, such as with living things that don't reproduce sexually (dandelions, whiptail lizards, bacteria). Let's just find out why it is common sense, but nobody thought of it for such a long time.
-- ---Tom S. the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly. Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
TheMac37 wrote: > On Nov 4, 3:32 pm, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> > wrote: >> In >> <0221f36d-4787-4042-8669-1f953f7c9...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>> TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Common sense and a light observation of the world around you will >>> clearly define a kind. We are all intelligent enough to get that >>> simple concept. To parse the word any further is to seek confusion >>> in simplicity.
>> Since this is so simple, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a >> comprehensive list of "kinds" that is agreed to by a large number of >> creationists. And an equally simple method for deciding if two >> organisms are of the same kind.
> Yes. The dog kind. They are of that kind if they can interbreed.
As comprehensive lists go, that leaves me feeling strangely unsatisfied.
>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:57:52 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> >enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>On Nov 3, 11:27=A0pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 3, 10:52 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Nov 3, 10:03 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > On Oct 31, 9:36 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct = >30, 8:23 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote: >>> > > <snip> >>> > > > It is when scientist >>> > > > try to make claims outside of the realms of science that I have = >a >>> > > > problem. Scientist can only observe and test the world around = >them in >>> > > > the present. All one can do is observe the natural world and = >make >>> > > > predictions about events that may come about.
>>> > > <snip>
>>> > > Your problem -- well, one of your problems -- is that you are >>> > > operating with a completely false picture of science. Your idea of= > the >>> > > scientific method is basically what you learned in 3rd grade. It = >is >>> > > not the method used by scientists, you know the people who = >actually DO >>> > > science. Your ideas of what constitutes evidence or how a = >hypothesis >>> > > is tested are not the ones scientists use. Whose definitions = >should >>> > > have precedence -- yours or the scientists who developed them over= > the >>> > > past several hundred years?
>>> > > How arrogant can you get?
>>> > > If you want to correct your ignorance -- and I'm not holding my = >breath >>> > > -- start out by reading the fairly short introduction in Wikipedia >>> > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
>>> > > Baron Bodissey >>> > > The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the >>> > > palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. >>> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =96 H. L. Mencken
>>> > It is interesting that you sent me this article on the scientific >>> > method. It is the VERY article that I use all the time to prove that >>> > scientist overstep their bounds with the origin of life and Neo- >>> > Darwinianism.
>>> You have not proved anything. =A0You can't prove anything in science. >>> When a real scientist says something is proved which is very very >>> seldom he is speaking in terms of the preponderance of evidence. = >=A0That >>> very same scientists will readily admit that science advancwes by >>> evidence not proof.
>>> Your use of it signifies pure ignorance of science. =A0You have no >>> preponderance of evidence that scientists overstep their bounds with >>> the origin of life or NeoDarwinian assumptions, research designs or >>> data interpretation. =A0 It is the factitiousness of your religiously >>> based ignorance that leads you to this falawed understandings of >>> science.
>>> Further there is nothing in the Wiki piece that allows you to assert >>> that scientists are overstepping the bounds of their disciplines. = >=A0it >>> is pure arrogance based on willfull ignorance taht you would deign to >>> assert such obvious to scientist stupidies
>>> >If you carefully read the wiki article, you can clearly >>> > see where scientist can no longer follow the steps on a historical >>> > analysis.
>>> This is absolute bull shit. =A0You repeat it like a religious mantra >>> when it is obvious you don't know what the hell you are talking >>> about.
>>> Prove me wrong (provide a preponderance of evidence) that scientists >>> can no longer follow the steps on a historical analysis. =A0Find any >>> three articles in the biology, geology, anthropology or physics peer >>> reviewed professional journals which employ a historical analysis and >>> show why it is flawed.
>>> Your argument assumes you are able to do this. =A0I think you are a >>> bloviating bull shitter who can't talk about substantive science >>> issues. =A0Embarrass me by taking me to task and produce something = >other >>> than the over simplified generalizations about what science can't do. >>> We know well it's weaknesses in theory, methods, strategies and data >>> analysis. =A0Show you know something or continue to demonstrate you = >are >>> an abject fool when it comes to science.
>>All the evidence I need is your stunning silence on any of the >>empirical evidence FOR a natural formation of life. You are critical >>of me...and of my understanding of science,=20
>As far as we can gather from your posts, you do not have an >understanding of science.
>>yet you do not bring any >>positive evidence for your position. Answer some of my questions. How >>do scientist disprove a Biblical point? What technique do scientist >>use to empirically prove that life can form from purely natural >>unaltered process? What can they show in the evidence to prove that it >>happened the way they say? Is abiogenesis repeatable, testable, >>observed...
>Well it is observed. Repeatable - yes, in time it will be repeated. >Remember that science has had a few labs and 60 years trying to repeat >it whereas the nature has the whole earth and half a billion years to >do it.
>>if so, where? What is the origin of the blood clotting?
>Evolution.
>>What happened before this evolved? What property of hydrogen >>eventually turns it into a banana, or you?
>It is more a property of carbon.
And the property that turns the elements into living things is known as metabolism. It was discovered in the 19th century that there is no barrier between inorganic and organic chemistry.
-- ---Tom S. the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly. Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:09:29 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >On Nov 4, 3:32 pm, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> > >wrote: > >> In > >> <0221f36d-4787-4042-8669-1f953f7c9...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >Common sense and a light observation of the world around you will > >> >clearly define a kind. We are all intelligent enough to get that > >> >simple concept. To parse the word any further is to seek confusion in > >> >simplicity.
> >> Since this is so simple, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a > >> comprehensive list of "kinds" that is agreed to by a large number of > >> creationists. And an equally simple method for deciding if two > >> organisms are of the same kind. > >> -- > >> Usenet:http://xkcd.com/386/ > >> Jack Dominey > >> jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
> >Yes. The dog kind. They are of that kind if they can interbreed.
> But not all dogs can interbreed.
> -- > Bob.
> You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than > continuing to make a fool of yourself.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I have seen the result of a Great Dane cross-bred with a dachshund (hopefully, the male was the small one). It looked like a Great Dane with coffee-table legs.
> On Nov 4, 3:32 pm, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> > wrote:
> > In > > <0221f36d-4787-4042-8669-1f953f7c9...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Common sense and a light observation of the world around you will > > >clearly define a kind. We are all intelligent enough to get that > > >simple concept. To parse the word any further is to seek confusion in > > >simplicity.
> > Since this is so simple, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a > > comprehensive list of "kinds" that is agreed to by a large number of > > creationists. And an equally simple method for deciding if two > > organisms are of the same kind. > > -- > > Usenet:http://xkcd.com/386/ > > Jack Dominey > > jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
> Yes. The dog kind. They are of that kind if they can interbreed.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Are they still the same 'kind' if they can interbreed but the off spring is sterile?
Reminder: You stsill haven't answered my question. Water or ground?
Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote: > On Nov 5, 2:57?am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:09:29 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> > > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> > >On Nov 4, 3:32?pm, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> > > >wrote: > > >> In > > >> <0221f36d-4787-4042-8669-1f953f7c9...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >Common sense and a light observation of the world around you will > > >> >clearly define a kind. We are all intelligent enough to get that > > >> >simple concept. To parse the word any further is to seek confusion in > > >> >simplicity.
> > >> Since this is so simple, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a > > >> comprehensive list of "kinds" that is agreed to by a large number of > > >> creationists. ?And an equally simple method for deciding if two > > >> organisms are of the same kind. > > >> -- > > >> Usenet:http://xkcd.com/386/ > > >> Jack Dominey > > >> jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
> > >Yes. The dog kind. They are of that kind if they can interbreed.
> > But not all dogs can interbreed.
> > -- > > Bob.
> > You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than > > continuing to make a fool of yourself.
> I have seen the result of a Great Dane cross-bred with a dachshund > (hopefully, the male was the small one). It looked like a Great Dane > with coffee-table legs.
TheMac37 wrote: > On Nov 2, 8:53 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: [SNIP] >> Why? Who are you to tell me that some old book is unquestionable. You >> have no evidence to support your claim.
> I do not tell you. The Bible tells you it is Truth. You have to answer > for your rejection of it yourself.
I'm just curious... Where does the bible tell us that it is the truth?
> In article > <b28ed1d0-1d33-4211-a08f-4681df80d...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Tim
> Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2:57?am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:09:29 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> > > > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> > > >On Nov 4, 3:32?pm, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> > > > >wrote: > > > >> In > > > >> <0221f36d-4787-4042-8669-1f953f7c9...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >> TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >Common sense and a light observation of the world around you will > > > >> >clearly define a kind. We are all intelligent enough to get that > > > >> >simple concept. To parse the word any further is to seek confusion in > > > >> >simplicity.
> > > >> Since this is so simple, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a > > > >> comprehensive list of "kinds" that is agreed to by a large number of > > > >> creationists. ?And an equally simple method for deciding if two > > > >> organisms are of the same kind. > > > >> -- > > > >> Usenet:http://xkcd.com/386/ > > > >> Jack Dominey > > > >> jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
> > > >Yes. The dog kind. They are of that kind if they can interbreed.
> > > But not all dogs can interbreed.
> > > -- > > > Bob.
> > > You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than > > > continuing to make a fool of yourself.
> > I have seen the result of a Great Dane cross-bred with a dachshund > > (hopefully, the male was the small one). It looked like a Great Dane > > with coffee-table legs.
In <fe88d209-47dd-49e1-9dcf-bf2c08f31...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: >All the evidence I need is your stunning silence on any of the >empirical evidence FOR a natural formation of life.
You've gotten quite a number of replies, some on this very topic. Your failure to respond is not "silence" on anyone else's part.
>You are critical >of me...and of my understanding of science, yet you do not bring any >positive evidence for your position.
Note that even if the latter were true, it has no bearing on the former.
>Answer some of my questions.
I (like several others that I've seen in this thread) am willing to engage in an honest dialogue if you are.
> How do scientist disprove a Biblical point?
That depends entirely on the point. If the point in question is supposed to describe the natural world, then it can be confirmed or disproved by looking at that aspect of the world. For example, in the early 1800's geologists Rev. William Buckland and Rev. Adam Sedgwick went looking for evidence of the Noachian Deluge, but did not find it.
>What technique do scientist >use to empirically prove that life can form from purely natural >unaltered process?
Your question seems to have a misunderstanding involved. As it is presently observed, life is a natural process (or a great many processes, if you prefer). In essence, it's chemistry. That in and of itself is very strong evidence that the origins of life are equally natural. The fact that we don't know the path(s) from the original state of the earth to the existence of early cells - although we have a number of interesting theories that are being debated and tested - simply means that we don't know. It doesn't justify saying some supernatural entity or process is involved.
>What can they show in the evidence to prove that it >happened the way they say? Is abiogenesis repeatable, testable, >observed...if so, where?
Any particular theory of abiogenesis has to have supporting evidence, and that evidence has to be observable, otherwise it will get rejected. Believe it or not, that's how science works. Someone proposes a theory, and other people familiar with that field generally try to tear it apart. It only gets accepted if it can withstand the attack.
Regarding current abiogenesis theory, I don't have a bibliography handy. Perhaps others will contribute.
>What is the origin of the blood clotting? >What happened before this evolved?
Please note that this article includes descriptions of experiments with mice bred without the abilty to clot. They don't automatically die and can survive skin cuts. Between blood platelets and other proteins that 'glob up' (none as well as fibrinogen), it's sufficient for survival.
>What property of hydrogen eventually turns it into a banana, or you?
None of them. The properties of nuclear physics allow hydrogen to be fused at extremely high temperatures and pressures into heavier elements. It's the resulting properties of those elements (i.e. chemistry) that allow the development of life. What life does after it develops involves even higher-level properties. In the case of myself and a given Cavendish banana, the properties of human interactions.
There. I've made an honest effort to reply seriously. I hope you'll do the same. -- Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/ Jack Dominey jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 4, 3:32 pm, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> >wrote: >> In >> <0221f36d-4787-4042-8669-1f953f7c9...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>> TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >Common sense and a light observation of the world around you will >> >clearly define a kind. We are all intelligent enough to get that >> >simple concept. To parse the word any further is to seek confusion in >> >simplicity.
>> Since this is so simple, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a >> comprehensive list of "kinds" that is agreed to by a large number of >> creationists. And an equally simple method for deciding if two >> organisms are of the same kind. >Yes. The dog kind.
An example is not a list. Go check the various creationist websites, run a Google or WolframAlpha search. Surely such a simple and fundamental concept as "kind" has been researched thoroughly, wouldn't you expect? Wouldn't you think some dedicated creationist researcher has already taken some large complex of species that are supposed (by conventional science) to be related and demonstrated that they are actually a set of unrelated kinds?
>They are of that kind if they can interbreed.
Your chosen method is interesting, but has problems. You can't use it for fossils or for anything that reproduces asexually. You can't directly test it for animals that are of very different size - Great Danes and Chihuahuas, for example. What about limited interbreeding, as in horses and donkeys? One kind or two? Why or why not? -- Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/ Jack Dominey jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
> In > <fe88d209-47dd-49e1-9dcf-bf2c08f31...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: > >All the evidence I need is your stunning silence on any of the > >empirical evidence FOR a natural formation of life.
> You've gotten quite a number of replies, some on this very topic. Your > failure to respond is not "silence" on anyone else's part.
> >You are critical > >of me...and of my understanding of science, yet you do not bring any > >positive evidence for your position.
> Note that even if the latter were true, it has no bearing on the > former.
> >Answer some of my questions.
> I (like several others that I've seen in this thread) am willing to > engage in an honest dialogue if you are.
> > How do scientist disprove a Biblical point?
> That depends entirely on the point. If the point in question is > supposed to describe the natural world, then it can be confirmed or > disproved by looking at that aspect of the world. For example, in the > early 1800's geologists Rev. William Buckland and Rev. Adam Sedgwick > went looking for evidence of the Noachian Deluge, but did not find it.
> >What technique do scientist > >use to empirically prove that life can form from purely natural > >unaltered process?
> Your question seems to have a misunderstanding involved. As it is > presently observed, life is a natural process (or a great many > processes, if you prefer). In essence, it's chemistry. That in and of > itself is very strong evidence that the origins of life are equally > natural. The fact that we don't know the path(s) from the original > state of the earth to the existence of early cells - although we have > a number of interesting theories that are being debated and tested - > simply means that we don't know. It doesn't justify saying some > supernatural entity or process is involved.
> >What can they show in the evidence to prove that it > >happened the way they say? Is abiogenesis repeatable, testable, > >observed...if so, where?
> Any particular theory of abiogenesis has to have supporting evidence, > and that evidence has to be observable, otherwise it will get > rejected. Believe it or not, that's how science works. Someone > proposes a theory, and other people familiar with that field generally > try to tear it apart. It only gets accepted if it can withstand the > attack.
> Regarding current abiogenesis theory, I don't have a bibliography > handy. Perhaps others will contribute.
> >What is the origin of the blood clotting? >What happened before this evolved?
> Please note that this article includes descriptions of experiments > with mice bred without the abilty to clot. They don't automatically > die and can survive skin cuts. Between blood platelets and other > proteins that 'glob up' (none as well as fibrinogen), it's sufficient > for survival.
> >What property of hydrogen eventually turns it into a banana, or you?
> None of them. The properties of nuclear physics allow hydrogen to be > fused at extremely high temperatures and pressures into heavier > elements. It's the resulting properties of those elements (i.e. > chemistry) that allow the development of life. What life does after > it develops involves even higher-level properties. In the case of > myself and a given Cavendish banana, the properties of human > interactions.
> There. I've made an honest effort to reply seriously. I hope you'll > do the same. > -- > Usenet:http://xkcd.com/386/ > Jack Dominey > jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
Excellent. Thank you. I apologize for my time gaps between post, I work somewhat long hours and try to post as often as possible but sometimes it may be a day or so. I do appreciate you honesty on matters. You seem to understand the limits of pseudoscientific dogma. You say that there are unknowns and admit when there is no good answer. I respect that. We can agree to disagree on the origin of life and perhaps the Christian worldview, but I think you understand that it is more a worldview problem than an evidence problem. I will use your last paragraph as an example. You said it is not a property of hydrogen to become a banana or you. This is correct. You also gave an interesting scenario that could explain the "evolution" of a hydrogen atom into heavier elements, and finally into life. I agree 100% with the progression of hydrogen through a stellar cycle into heavier elements. I disagree with the new elements (non living) becoming living matter by a natural law. There is no such law. If an animal dies, all of the chemistry is there for all kinds of other life. But the "law" of life is that it can only COME from life. This is the Law of biogenesis. It is observable, it is testable, it is repeatable. No one has ever taken water, air (of any kind), and rocks, and had life come of it. Amino acids, yes, but they are a far cry from even simple proteins. You have the issue of chirality, which has never been answered. Cells, never.
> On Nov 4, 6:09 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 3:32 pm, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> > > wrote:
> > > In > > > <0221f36d-4787-4042-8669-1f953f7c9...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >Common sense and a light observation of the world around you will > > > >clearly define a kind. We are all intelligent enough to get that > > > >simple concept. To parse the word any further is to seek confusion in > > > >simplicity.
> > > Since this is so simple, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a > > > comprehensive list of "kinds" that is agreed to by a large number of > > > creationists. And an equally simple method for deciding if two > > > organisms are of the same kind. > > > -- > > > Usenet:http://xkcd.com/386/ > > > Jack Dominey > > > jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
> > Yes. The dog kind. They are of that kind if they can interbreed.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Are they still the same 'kind' if they can interbreed but the off > spring is sterile?
> Reminder: You stsill haven't answered my question. Water or ground?
> Harry K
Yes, and the water was used to create the whales and water creatures as well as the birds of the air. Ground to form the creeping creatures. (In other words land critters)
> "On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:09:29 -0800 (PST), in article > <da5ebd38-40a9-49b4-9734-aa180aaa4...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, TheMac37 > stated..."
> >On Nov 4, 3:32=A0pm, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> > >wrote: > >> In > >> <0221f36d-4787-4042-8669-1f953f7c9...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >Common sense and a light observation of the world around you will > >> >clearly define a kind. We are all intelligent enough to get that > >> >simple concept. To parse the word any further is to seek confusion in > >> >simplicity.
> >> Since this is so simple, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a > >> comprehensive list of "kinds" that is agreed to by a large number of > >> creationists. =A0And an equally simple method for deciding if two > >> organisms are of the same kind. > >> -- > >> Usenet:http://xkcd.com/386/ > >> Jack Dominey > >> jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
> >Yes. The dog kind. They are of that kind if they can interbreed.
> You think that it is "common sense and a light observation of the > world" that leads to your notion that two organisms are of the > same kind if they can interbreed?
> Why, then, is it that nobody ever thought of that for thousands > of years? Nobody in those thousands of years had common sense? > Nobody made "light observations"?
> Why didn't the Bible, or any of the commentators on the Bible, > make any mention of that?
> I won't get into the problems that that criterion has, such as > with living things that don't reproduce sexually (dandelions, > whiptail lizards, bacteria). Let's just find out why it is > common sense, but nobody thought of it for such a long time.
> -- > ---Tom S. > the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to > the currant jelly. > Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
The Bible does make mention of it. It says, "after his kind." Sounds pretty simple to me. Oh.also it goes along with what we see in nature. Creatures reproduce after their kind. Squirrels make squirrels, cats make cats. There is variation, but still squirrels and cats. If you think about it, natural selection can`t "select" for something in the code that is not already there, like wings on a dog.
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:57:52 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >On Nov 3, 11:27 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 3, 10:52 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 3, 10:03 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Oct 31, 9:36 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 30, 8:23 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote: > >> > > <snip> > >> > > > It is when scientist > >> > > > try to make claims outside of the realms of science that I have a > >> > > > problem. Scientist can only observe and test the world around them in > >> > > > the present. All one can do is observe the natural world and make > >> > > > predictions about events that may come about.
> >> > > <snip>
> >> > > Your problem -- well, one of your problems -- is that you are > >> > > operating with a completely false picture of science. Your idea of the > >> > > scientific method is basically what you learned in 3rd grade. It is > >> > > not the method used by scientists, you know the people who actually DO > >> > > science. Your ideas of what constitutes evidence or how a hypothesis > >> > > is tested are not the ones scientists use. Whose definitions should > >> > > have precedence -- yours or the scientists who developed them over the > >> > > past several hundred years?
> >> > > How arrogant can you get?
> >> > > If you want to correct your ignorance -- and I'm not holding my breath > >> > > -- start out by reading the fairly short introduction in Wikipedia > >> > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
> >> > > Baron Bodissey > >> > > The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the > >> > > palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. > >> > > – H. L. Mencken
> >> > It is interesting that you sent me this article on the scientific > >> > method. It is the VERY article that I use all the time to prove that > >> > scientist overstep their bounds with the origin of life and Neo- > >> > Darwinianism.
> >> You have not proved anything. You can't prove anything in science. > >> When a real scientist says something is proved which is very very > >> seldom he is speaking in terms of the preponderance of evidence. That > >> very same scientists will readily admit that science advancwes by > >> evidence not proof.
> >> Your use of it signifies pure ignorance of science. You have no > >> preponderance of evidence that scientists overstep their bounds with > >> the origin of life or NeoDarwinian assumptions, research designs or > >> data interpretation. It is the factitiousness of your religiously > >> based ignorance that leads you to this falawed understandings of > >> science.
> >> Further there is nothing in the Wiki piece that allows you to assert > >> that scientists are overstepping the bounds of their disciplines. it > >> is pure arrogance based on willfull ignorance taht you would deign to > >> assert such obvious to scientist stupidies
> >> >If you carefully read the wiki article, you can clearly > >> > see where scientist can no longer follow the steps on a historical > >> > analysis.
> >> This is absolute bull shit. You repeat it like a religious mantra > >> when it is obvious you don't know what the hell you are talking > >> about.
> >> Prove me wrong (provide a preponderance of evidence) that scientists > >> can no longer follow the steps on a historical analysis. Find any > >> three articles in the biology, geology, anthropology or physics peer > >> reviewed professional journals which employ a historical analysis and > >> show why it is flawed.
> >> Your argument assumes you are able to do this. I think you are a > >> bloviating bull shitter who can't talk about substantive science > >> issues. Embarrass me by taking me to task and produce something other > >> than the over simplified generalizations about what science can't do. > >> We know well it's weaknesses in theory, methods, strategies and data > >> analysis. Show you know something or continue to demonstrate you are > >> an abject fool when it comes to science.
> >All the evidence I need is your stunning silence on any of the > >empirical evidence FOR a natural formation of life. You are critical > >of me...and of my understanding of science,
> As far as we can gather from your posts, you do not have an > understanding of science.
> >yet you do not bring any > >positive evidence for your position. Answer some of my questions. How > >do scientist disprove a Biblical point? What technique do scientist > >use to empirically prove that life can form from purely natural > >unaltered process? What can they show in the evidence to prove that it > >happened the way they say? Is abiogenesis repeatable, testable, > >observed...
> Well it is observed. Repeatable - yes, in time it will be repeated. > Remember that science has had a few labs and 60 years trying to repeat > it whereas the nature has the whole earth and half a billion years to > do it.
> >if so, where? What is the origin of the blood clotting?
> Evolution.
> >What happened before this evolved? What property of hydrogen > >eventually turns it into a banana, or you?
> It is more a property of carbon.
> -- > Bob.
> Have you ever wondered what your life would be like if you had had > enough oxygen at birth?
You can`t say I don`t understand science then prove my point by admitting that abiogenesis has not been observed or repeated. "Evolution" is not an answer for the source of blood clotting. If the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is correct, we are all a result of hydrogen. This must be explained naturally ......right.
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:09:29 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >On Nov 4, 3:32 pm, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> > >wrote: > >> In > >> <0221f36d-4787-4042-8669-1f953f7c9...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >Common sense and a light observation of the world around you will > >> >clearly define a kind. We are all intelligent enough to get that > >> >simple concept. To parse the word any further is to seek confusion in > >> >simplicity.
> >> Since this is so simple, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a > >> comprehensive list of "kinds" that is agreed to by a large number of > >> creationists. And an equally simple method for deciding if two > >> organisms are of the same kind. > >> -- > >> Usenet:http://xkcd.com/386/ > >> Jack Dominey > >> jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
> >Yes. The dog kind. They are of that kind if they can interbreed.
> But not all dogs can interbreed.
> -- > Bob.
> You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than > continuing to make a fool of yourself.
This is called speciation. But we know the ancestor and result are both...dogs. Some species are sterile, the mule for example. (Almost always). That brings up a good example, the horse, zebra, donkey, and mule. A kind.
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:41:26 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >On Nov 3, 11:12 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> > >wrote: > >> On 2009-11-04, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 3, 10:03 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 31, 9:36 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 30, 8:23 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote: > >> >> <snip> > >> >> > It is when scientist > >> >> > try to make claims outside of the realms of science that I have a > >> >> > problem. Scientist can only observe and test the world around them in > >> >> > the present. All one can do is observe the natural world and make > >> >> > predictions about events that may come about.
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> Your problem -- well, one of your problems -- is that you are > >> >> operating with a completely false picture of science. Your idea of the > >> >> scientific method is basically what you learned in 3rd grade. It is > >> >> not the method used by scientists, you know the people who actually DO > >> >> science. Your ideas of what constitutes evidence or how a hypothesis > >> >> is tested are not the ones scientists use. Whose definitions should > >> >> have precedence -- yours or the scientists who developed them over the > >> >> past several hundred years?
> >> >> How arrogant can you get?
> >> >> If you want to correct your ignorance -- and I'm not holding my breath > >> >> -- start out by reading the fairly short introduction in Wikipedia > >> >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
> >> >> Baron Bodissey > >> >> The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the > >> >> palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. > >> >> – H. L. Mencken
> >> > It is interesting that you sent me this article on the scientific > >> > method. It is the VERY article that I use all the time to prove that > >> > scientist overstep their bounds with the origin of life and Neo- > >> > Darwinianism. If you carefully read the wiki article, you can clearly > >> > see where scientist can no longer follow the steps on a historical > >> > analysis.
> >> I've got a skype meeting tomorrow morning with the biologists that I'm > >> collaborating with on our abiogeneis research. If you could draw up a brief > >> note about which bounds we're overstepping and how, we'd really appreciate > >> it. It would be most useful if you could address why you think chemical > >> reactions are different now than they were in the past.
> >> Thanks.
> >Id like you to show what properties of chemistry dictate the formation > >of life. Set up an experiment with the exact chemicals needed, the > >exact conditions (even though no one was there to measure them) and > >leave it alone. Lets see what we get. The world will await your > >results.
> You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than > continuing to make a fool of yourself.
The M-U experiment. Long blown out of the water. Amino acids are not proteins. Proteins are not even close to cells. There is the chirality problem. Etc...
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:18:12 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >On Nov 4, 7:05 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote: > >> On Nov 4, 4:03 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:08:52 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> > >> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >> > >If chemistry behaves in a particular manner, why is life not starting > >> > >all over the place all through time?
> >> > Because once life got started it changed things.
> >> Well, the chemical conditions have changed, existing lifeforms have > >> been responsible for some of those changes (oxygen atmosphere), and > >> then there is the competition with existing lifeforms. When life was > >> forming there was no competition and nothing out there to steal your > >> resources and eat you.
> >> > >Has chemistry changed?
> >> > Not the chemistry itself, but the material the chemistry has to work > >> > with does change.
> >> Basically the environment is different in some very drastic ways.
> >> > > Why do > >> > >scientist still have no idea what conditions "started " all of this?
> >> > Who said they have no idea?
> >> The point that should be made is that the study of abiogenesis is > >> among the weakest of sciences. These guys have to live with the fact > >> that even if they figure out the most probable way that life started, > >> that is only the most probable way. There are obviously going to be > >> less probable ways to get to the same thing. They can generate life > >> in the lab, but that doesn't mean that, that is the way it happened. > >> It only seems to have happened once. That said, they are so far ahead > >> of the creationist alternative that it is laughable to even make the > >> comparison. So you have a weak science that the creationists can't > >> even claim to be better than. Just ask the creationists what they > >> have going for their alternative. It is nothing. Really, what > >> mechanism do they have? They have hypotheses backed by real > >> evidence. Where are the creationists going to start? The abiogenesis > >> guys have real atoms and molecules to work with and the laws of > >> chemistry. What do the creationists have compared to that? Poofing > >> and magic are not scientific.
> >> The tragedy is that it is weak by comparison to say common descent or > >> evolugion via natural selection, but it is still so far ahead of the > >> creationist alternative that comparing them is a joke.
> >> > >The things you claim have been proven untrue...
> >> > I really don't know where you got that daft idea.
> >> What is he talking about?
> >> > >How are they proven > >> > >untrue? Who has proven them untrue? What method did they use to > >> > >disprove these Biblical points?
> >> > Well, disproving biblical stuff is usually very easy.
> >> > >One more question. Since it is unknown to scientist (by your own > >> > >admission), how does your sentence "I do reject the claims of those > >> > >who choose a supernatural influence when there is a perfectly clear > >> > >natural explanation. " fit in?
> >> > If there are two explanations, one that is natural and one that calls > >> > on the supernatural, then the natural explanation always wins.
> >> The natural explanation usually carries more weight on the issue, but > >> if it isn't testable and can't be verified it is basically in the same > >> category as the supernatural. In a sense the unexplainable that we > >> finally figure out was supernatural. It was outside what was expected > >> from what we knew about nature, but once we learned more it became > >> explainable. Supernatural explanations are in the basically worthless > >> category, "they aren't even wrong." Science doesn't use them for > >> anything except as targets to try to figure out if they are > >> interesting enough. Mac37 doesn't use any supernatural explanations > >> in his R&D job for the same reason that science can't use them. Beats > >> me why he expects science to have to deal with realty any differently > >> then he has to. Just think if he went to the president of his company > >> and claimed that he couldn't figure out how to make the product work, > >> but he was sure that the intelligent designer could do it so they > >> should make some junk and the intelligent designer would make it work > >> for them if they prayed really hard.
> >> That is the basic intelligent design argument and these guys just > >> don't get it. He just has to look it up. The basic arguments are "we > >> can't figure this out so the designer did it." How far would that > >> bogus type of analysis get him in his R&D job? It gets you no where > >> in science.
> >> Ron Okimoto
> >> > -- > >> > Bob.
> >> > You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than > >> > continuing to make a fool of yourself.
> >I think it is more accurate to say "there is no chemical or physical > >law that explains this" than We cant explain it".
> But we can explain it.
> >To believe the > >universe was created by God is to see it for what it is,
> Wrong. To even want to invoke the supernatural is accepting defeat. > There may still be some things we cannot fully explain, but science > has answered so many questions it is not unreasonable to expect it to > solve any we still have - given time.
> > not trying to > >squeeze and prod everything into a materialistic box.
> But everything is materialistic.
> > Its great > >watching you do everything you can to deny that one option of an > >intelligent Creator.
> Be cause there is no evidence for one, not the need for one.
> > I`ll get the popcorn.
> -- > Bob.
> If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
It is not true that everything is materialistic. You thoughts are real, yet not a property of material. Your great sense of humor is real. By the way, another good ending.
> On Nov 4, 8:57 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 11:27 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 10:52 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 10:03 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 31, 9:36 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 30, 8:23 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > It is when scientist > > > > > > try to make claims outside of the realms of science that I have a > > > > > > problem. Scientist can only observe and test the world around them in > > > > > > the present. All one can do is observe the natural world and make > > > > > > predictions about events that may come about.
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > Your problem -- well, one of your problems -- is that you are > > > > > operating with a completely false picture of science. Your idea of the > > > > > scientific method is basically what you learned in 3rd grade. It is > > > > > not the method used by scientists, you know the people who actually DO > > > > > science. Your ideas of what constitutes evidence or how a hypothesis > > > > > is tested are not the ones scientists use. Whose definitions should > > > > > have precedence -- yours or the scientists who developed them over the > > > > > past several hundred years?
> > > > > How arrogant can you get?
> > > > > If you want to correct your ignorance -- and I'm not holding my breath > > > > > -- start out by reading the fairly short introduction in Wikipedia > > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
> > > > > Baron Bodissey > > > > > The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the > > > > > palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. > > > > > – H. L. Mencken
> > > > It is interesting that you sent me this article on the scientific > > > > method. It is the VERY article that I use all the time to prove that > > > > scientist overstep their bounds with the origin of life and Neo- > > > > Darwinianism.
> > > You have not proved anything. You can't prove anything in science. > > > When a real scientist says something is proved which is very very > > > seldom he is speaking in terms of the preponderance of evidence. That > > > very same scientists will readily admit that science advancwes by > > > evidence not proof.
> > > Your use of it signifies pure ignorance of science. You have no > > > preponderance of evidence that scientists overstep their bounds with > > > the origin of life or NeoDarwinian assumptions, research designs or > > > data interpretation. It is the factitiousness of your religiously > > > based ignorance that leads you to this falawed understandings of > > > science.
> > > Further there is nothing in the Wiki piece that allows you to assert > > > that scientists are overstepping the bounds of their disciplines. it > > > is pure arrogance based on willfull ignorance taht you would deign to > > > assert such obvious to scientist stupidies
> > > >If you carefully read the wiki article, you can clearly > > > > see where scientist can no longer follow the steps on a historical > > > > analysis.
> > > This is absolute bull shit. You repeat it like a religious mantra > > > when it is obvious you don't know what the hell you are talking > > > about.
> > > Prove me wrong (provide a preponderance of evidence) that scientists > > > can no longer follow the steps on a historical analysis. Find any > > > three articles in the biology, geology, anthropology or physics peer > > > reviewed professional journals which employ a historical analysis and > > > show why it is flawed.
> > > Your argument assumes you are able to do this. I think you are a > > > bloviating bull shitter who can't talk about substantive science > > > issues. Embarrass me by taking me to task and produce something other > > > than the over simplified generalizations about what science can't do. > > > We know well it's weaknesses in theory, methods, strategies and data > > > analysis. Show you know something or continue to demonstrate you are > > > an abject fool when it comes to science.
> > All the evidence I need is your stunning silence on any of the > > empirical evidence FOR a natural formation of life.
> Let me get this straight I have to provide a preponderance of evidence > for abiogenesis. > About which I have almost no knowledge. My response to you was about > your claims about science not being able to do scientific research on > historical events. How did this require me (or anyone for that > matter) to provide evidence for abiogenesis. There are other > historical areas of scientific research. Abiogenesis is a legitimate, > relatively new scientific area of research and yet it must meet your > demands for convincing empirical evidence. (Indeed if it were done > you would then claim that this is clear evidence of design since if > man can do it God must really have done it due to our complexity.)
> Here I thought it was you who was coming here to inform us about real > science. Here you are on Oct 22 your second whole day of posting and > you say:
> "I will simply ask to begin with any specific questions you have. In > other words where do you want me to start? I am a lifelong Lutheran, > and have spent the last 7 years or so studying creationism and its > claims in particular. I have a scientific background by trade, and am > interested in the proper use of the scientific method to explain > nature and its laws. So, just let me know how you would like me to > explain my beliefs."
> I again note you said you have a scientific background. This is why I > called you a bloviating bull shitter. And I'm still correct in my > assessment. You said historical scientific analysis couldn't be done. > I said show me why. You declare you have the scientific background > then you should be able to do it. It is not my claim. it is yours > and you are supposed to support it with a critique of scientific > techniques, methods, strategies or theories that deal with historical > data and show me (and all of TO viewers why I am wrong) in a detailed > way from some extant professional peer reviewed article the flaws of > this historical overstepping. Again, It is not my job to answer a > your questions about abiogenesis for which I am clearly not > qualified.
> I also well know that bringing up abiogenesis is a distractor for your > abject scientific incompetence. I know that you can't deal with the > science in professional journals in a substantive way and I also know > that your historical claim is dead wrong. You will remain a > bloviating bull shitter until you provide this scientifically reasoned > and detailed analysis.
> > You are critical > > of me...and of my understanding of science, yet you do not bring any > > positive evidence for your position.
> You first.
> > Answer some of my questions. How > > do scientist disprove a Biblical point?
> That will come and has been done here many times. It is not disprove > but providing a preponderance of empirical evidence that reveals an > alternative hypothesis is clearly the best answer.
> > What technique do scientist > > use to empirically prove that life can form from purely natural > > unaltered process?
> You have got me. But if you were a scientist you would drop prove. > A colleague friend in the another department (Chemistry) studied under > Prigogine. He gave some lectures on Chemistry and self-organizing > phenomena and how creative Prigogine was even late in life. If your > are willing to learn there is a place to start.
> > What can they show in the evidence to prove that it > > happened the way they say?
> They again cannot prove anything unless it is mathematics and even > then it still has assumptions. All assumptions have limitations in > short there is no perfect set of assumptions. All science is > conditioned by evidence and more evidence and more evidence.
> > Is abiogenesis repeatable, testable, > > observed...if so, where?
> I know you really aren't interested in learning about abiogenesis or > you would have read some of the extant scientific literature and you > would be able to critic it in some cursory fashion around those very > issues.
> > What is the origin of the blood clotting? > > What happened before this evolved? What property of hydrogen > > eventually turns it into a banana, or you?
> These questions are further evidence that you want to avoid your > claims about how much science you know. They are not nearly as good > distractors as abiogenesis since it is a small general area of > biological research that gets more publicity than research monies.
> You are willfully ignorant of professional peer reviewed scientific > literature and educate your self in a sectarian aniti-science > literature that is fraught with distortions and errors. The real > issue remains however, you are a bloviating bull shitter motivated by > a reactionary dogmatic religious orientation that is septic to good > science education and public discourse.
So to summarize your points, ANYTHING other than a supernatural alternative is acceptable. It doesn`t matter how improbable it is as long as the "God" concept is not used. History has shown over and over again that the events of the Bible are real historical events, yet they weigh nothing toward the claims of supernatural events. Jesus said, "If you will not believe me about earthly things, how will you believe me about heavenly things." Its the fact that the inability to answer any of my questions doesn`t make you think that proves you are 100% set in natural materialism no matter where the evidence would lead. This is the flaw of some scientist in that they have blinders on to not follow the evidence wherever it leads.
> On Nov 4, 6:21 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 4:07 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:16:45 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> > > > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> > > >On Nov 2, 11:13 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 2, 5:16 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <massive snip of stuff that should have been snipped long ago>
> > > >I would claim that natural origin of live is so vastly improbable that > > > >it will one day be sen as the modern day flat earth theory.
> > > You are an idiot.
> > > -- > > > Bob.
> > > Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright > > > ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little > > > sign of breaking down in ...
> > > read more »
> > Bozone...that is great. I love it. I will use that from now on.
> Have an answer yet to my question? Ya know: where did the animals and > birds come from, water or ground?
> Excellent. Thank you. I apologize for my time gaps between post, I > work somewhat long hours and try to post as often as possible but > sometimes it may be a day or so. I do appreciate you honesty on > matters. You seem to understand the limits of pseudoscientific dogma. > You say that there are unknowns and admit when there is no good > answer. I respect that. We can agree to disagree on the origin of life > and perhaps the Christian worldview, but I think you understand that > it is more a worldview problem than an evidence problem. > I will use your last paragraph as an example. You said it is not a > property of hydrogen to become a banana or you. This is correct. You > also gave an interesting scenario that could explain the "evolution" > of a hydrogen atom into heavier elements, and finally into life. I > agree 100% with the progression of hydrogen through a stellar cycle > into heavier elements. I disagree with the new elements (non living) > becoming living matter by a natural law. There is no such law. If an > animal dies, all of the chemistry is there for all kinds of other > life. But the "law" of life is that it can only COME from life. This > is the Law of biogenesis.
This is why I hang out here. I'd never heard of the "Law of Biogenesis" before, and was pretty certain you had made it up. But I see 206 hits on scholar.google.com, so let's see what we can find out.
In 1896, the Fundamental Law of Biogenesis was used to argue for evolution:
<q> Fundamental Law of Biogenesis. --A fact that weights heavily in the balance in favor of the Descent Theory [evolution] is the fact that the structure and mode of development of animals is ruled by a conformity to a law which at this time can only be explained by the assumption of common ancestry. ..... Here is expressed a general phenomenon which Haeckel has stated in a general proposition under the name of ``the fundamental law of biogenesis'': ``The developmental history (ontogeny) of an individual animal briefly recapitulates the history of the race (phylogeny)...'' </q>
Richard Hertwig, _General Principles of Zoology_, 1896.
The follows indicates that there was an earlier meaning of the term, but this seems to have been driven extinct by "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
<q> This eminent author [Haeckel] has, indeed, given one of the most modern definitions of this law and has named it the 'law of biogenesis.' Haeckel's discoveries in embryology are sufficiently great without swelling the list with false entries, but it will probably be a long time before naturalists realize and acknowledge this error. Some of the most eminent embryologits in this country have adopted the Haeckelian nomenclature without sufficient critical examination of the term under discussion. The so-called Haeckelian ('law of biogenesis') is really Agassiz's law of embryological recapitulation restated in the terms of evolution.
It has surprised me that serious objections to the use of the word `biogenesis' in this connection have not been made. This word has been long employed in another sense as antithetical to `abiogenesis.' The latter has been for many years applied to the theory of the generation of living from inorganic matter, and the former to the theory asserting that living matter can originate only from living matter; the use of the phrase `law of biogenesis' is consequently inappropriate, since neither did Agassiz's nor Naeckel's discoveries cover so much ground. The former gave us a law for the correlations of the earlier stages of ontogeny with phylogeny. This cannot be called `the law of biogenesis,' since that has been long ago stated as the law of the origin and continuity of organism, or in other words, the genesis and continuity of life from and through living matter only. </q> Alpheus Hyatt, "Cycle in the life of the individual (ontogeny) and in the evolution of its own group (phylogeny)", Science, v5 n109, Jan 29, 1897.
Both senses of the word were still in use through 1908.
<q> --Biogenesis is a term used to express a fact of observation in regard to the present-day beginning of living organisms, that they arise from parents approximately like themselves, and in no other way. It is perhaps possible that they may arise in some other way, e.g. from not-living matter, or from parents quite different from themselves -- both of these hypotheses have their supporters, but as yet no exception to the fact of biogenesis has been proved. .... It is unnecessary to speak of this as `the law of biogenesis' fro the biologist who states that he does not know of any form of life arising except from a parent form of the same kind is not thereby denying the possibility of abiogenesis in the past, the present, or the future. .... The term `biogenesis' is sometimes used to mean individual development -- a usage which should not be encouraged. Thus Haeckel's `fundamental law of biogenesis' states that individual development (ontogeny) tends to recapitulate racial evolution (phylogeny). </q> James Hastings and Joh A. Selbie. _Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
Skipping ahead now to 1914 and J. Howard Moore's book _The Law of Biogenesis: Being two lessons on the origins of human nature_."
<q> And the Law of Biogenesis means a certain uniformity which exists in the beginning of life. That uniformity is this: "/Every organism in its individual development repeats the life history of the race to which it belongs/." </q> (Emphasis in the original. Mr. Moore taught ethics at the Crane Technical High School.)
The phrase dies out as Haeckel's theory is discareded until the creationists pick it and dust it off. 1970 is the earliest use I can find of this, but I haven't looked very hard:
<q> Spontaneous Generation Disproved. ..... The work of [Redi, Spallanazi and Pasteur] plus that of the pathologist Rudolf Virchow (1858), who showed that cells do not arise from amorphous exudate, but rather from preexisting cells, and the labors of countless scientists in all the various disciplines of biology since, have established the /law of biogenesis/ --- life springs from preexisting life.
Aside from proscribing the spontaneous formation of life, the law of biogenesis dictates that life will only perpetuate its own kind and type. This law was set forth many years ago, even before modern evolutionary thought was well established, and remains affirmed to this day. </q>
R. L. Wysong, _The Creation-Evolution Controversy_, p180-182.
I'll let Mark Isaak have the last word.
<q> Claim CB000: Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life. Source: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38. Response:
1. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules. </q> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html
> It is observable, it is testable, it is > repeatable.
Wrong on three counts, I think, but perhaps not obviously wrong.
> No one has ever taken water, air (of any kind), and rocks, > and had life come of it.
But before 1969, no human had ever set foot on the moon. You could have observed and tested as many humans as you like, and 100% of your samples would have come back negative.
Arguing that an observation cannot be made because an observation has not been made is a reliable way of looking silly.
> Amino acids, yes, but they are a far cry from > even simple proteins.
How far? Matthew W. Powner et al. "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions." Nature, v459, 14 May 2009.
> You have the issue of chirality, which has never > been answered.
S Pizzarello et al. "Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts", Science, v303, n5661, 20 Feb 2004
> Cells, never.
DA Brown et al. "Structure and origin of ordered lipid domains in biological membranes". v164, n2, July 1998.
On 2009-11-05, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> In ><fe88d209-47dd-49e1-9dcf-bf2c08f31...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> That depends entirely on the point. If the point in question is > supposed to describe the natural world, then it can be confirmed or > disproved by looking at that aspect of the world. For example, in the > early 1800's geologists Rev. William Buckland and Rev. Adam Sedgwick > went looking for evidence of the Noachian Deluge, but did not find it.
Do you know where I could find an annotated bibliography that covers this era in geology? From time to time I've looked for The Book that first announced "The Noachian flood cannot be correct due to thus and so", but either due to bad luck or not knowing the right google-foo I've not been able to locate it.
TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 5, 4:53 pm, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> > wrote: > > In > > <fe88d209-47dd-49e1-9dcf-bf2c08f31...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >All the evidence I need is your stunning silence on any of the > > >empirical evidence FOR a natural formation of life.
> > You've gotten quite a number of replies, some on this very topic. Your > > failure to respond is not "silence" on anyone else's part.
> > >You are critical > > >of me...and of my understanding of science, yet you do not bring any > > >positive evidence for your position.
> > Note that even if the latter were true, it has no bearing on the > > former.
> > >Answer some of my questions.
> > I (like several others that I've seen in this thread) am willing to > > engage in an honest dialogue if you are.
> > > How do scientist disprove a Biblical point?
> > That depends entirely on the point. If the point in question is > > supposed to describe the natural world, then it can be confirmed or > > disproved by looking at that aspect of the world. For example, in the > > early 1800's geologists Rev. William Buckland and Rev. Adam Sedgwick > > went looking for evidence of the Noachian Deluge, but did not find it.
> > >What technique do scientist > > >use to empirically prove that life can form from purely natural > > >unaltered process?
> > Your question seems to have a misunderstanding involved. As it is > > presently observed, life is a natural process (or a great many > > processes, if you prefer). In essence, it's chemistry. That in and of > > itself is very strong evidence that the origins of life are equally > > natural. The fact that we don't know the path(s) from the original > > state of the earth to the existence of early cells - although we have > > a number of interesting theories that are being debated and tested - > > simply means that we don't know. It doesn't justify saying some > > supernatural entity or process is involved.
> > >What can they show in the evidence to prove that it > > >happened the way they say? Is abiogenesis repeatable, testable, > > >observed...if so, where?
> > Any particular theory of abiogenesis has to have supporting evidence, > > and that evidence has to be observable, otherwise it will get > > rejected. Believe it or not, that's how science works. Someone > > proposes a theory, and other people familiar with that field generally > > try to tear it apart. It only gets accepted if it can withstand the > > attack.
> > Regarding current abiogenesis theory, I don't have a bibliography > > handy. Perhaps others will contribute.
> > >What is the origin of the blood clotting? >What happened before this > > >evolved?
> > Please note that this article includes descriptions of experiments > > with mice bred without the abilty to clot. They don't automatically > > die and can survive skin cuts. Between blood platelets and other > > proteins that 'glob up' (none as well as fibrinogen), it's sufficient > > for survival.
> > >What property of hydrogen eventually turns it into a banana, or you?
> > None of them. The properties of nuclear physics allow hydrogen to be > > fused at extremely high temperatures and pressures into heavier > > elements. It's the resulting properties of those elements (i.e. > > chemistry) that allow the development of life. What life does after > > it develops involves even higher-level properties. In the case of > > myself and a given Cavendish banana, the properties of human > > interactions.
> > There. I've made an honest effort to reply seriously. I hope you'll > > do the same. > > -- > > Usenet:http://xkcd.com/386/ > > Jack Dominey > > jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
> Excellent. Thank you. I apologize for my time gaps between post, I > work somewhat long hours and try to post as often as possible but > sometimes it may be a day or so. I do appreciate you honesty on > matters. You seem to understand the limits of pseudoscientific dogma. > You say that there are unknowns and admit when there is no good > answer. I respect that. We can agree to disagree on the origin of life > and perhaps the Christian worldview, but I think you understand that > it is more a worldview problem than an evidence problem. > I will use your last paragraph as an example. You said it is not a > property of hydrogen to become a banana or you. This is correct. You > also gave an interesting scenario that could explain the "evolution" > of a hydrogen atom into heavier elements, and finally into life. I > agree 100% with the progression of hydrogen through a stellar cycle > into heavier elements. I disagree with the new elements (non living) > becoming living matter by a natural law. There is no such law. If an > animal dies, all of the chemistry is there for all kinds of other > life. But the "law" of life is that it can only COME from life. This > is the Law of biogenesis. It is observable, it is testable, it is > repeatable.
As has been explained to you, the "law of biogenesis" is completely different than abiogenesis. Pasteur's experiments showed one thing, and one thing only, that maggots will not "poof" out of rotting meat, and that, kept under sterile conditions, beef broth will not spontaneously start growing bacteria. That has absolutely nothing to do with conditions on the ancient earth, where there was no life, the atmosphere was totally different, and chemicals had millions of years to form more and more complex molecules. That can't happen now, because any complex molecules that do form will be eaten by the life that already exists. You have been told this before, and you are being dishonest by trying to bring up Pasteur again. This is similar to the way you have tried to change the subject from evolution to abiogenesis.
> No one has ever taken water, air (of any kind), and rocks, > and had life come of it. Amino acids, yes, but they are a far cry from > even simple proteins. You have the issue of chirality, which has never > been answered. Cells, never.
As others have told you, the first life was not whole cells. More than likely, it was self-replicating molecules. Indeed, we have seen RNA molecules that have catalytic activity. And, molecular evolution had, literally millions of years to take place. You are talking about experiments that take a few years, at most.
> On Nov 5, 1:56 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:57:52 -0800 (PST), TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> >> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>> >On Nov 3, 11:27 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 3, 10:52 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Nov 3, 10:03 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > > On Oct 31, 9:36 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 30, 8:23 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote: >> >> > > <snip> >> >> > > > It is when scientist >> >> > > > try to make claims outside of the realms of science that I have a >> >> > > > problem. Scientist can only observe and test the world around them in >> >> > > > the present. All one can do is observe the natural world and make >> >> > > > predictions about events that may come about.
>> >> > > <snip>
>> >> > > Your problem -- well, one of your problems -- is that you are >> >> > > operating with a completely false picture of science. Your idea of the >> >> > > scientific method is basically what you learned in 3rd grade. It is >> >> > > not the method used by scientists, you know the people who actually DO >> >> > > science. Your ideas of what constitutes evidence or how a hypothesis >> >> > > is tested are not the ones scientists use. Whose definitions should >> >> > > have precedence -- yours or the scientists who developed them over the >> >> > > past several hundred years?
>> >> > > How arrogant can you get?
>> >> > > If you want to correct your ignorance -- and I'm not holding my breath >> >> > > -- start out by reading the fairly short introduction in Wikipedia >> >> > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
>> >> > > Baron Bodissey >> >> > > The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the >> >> > > palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. >> >> > > – H. L. Mencken
>> >> > It is interesting that you sent me this article on the scientific >> >> > method. It is the VERY article that I use all the time to prove that >> >> > scientist overstep their bounds with the origin of life and Neo- >> >> > Darwinianism.
>> >> You have not proved anything. You can't prove anything in science. >> >> When a real scientist says something is proved which is very very >> >> seldom he is speaking in terms of the preponderance of evidence. That >> >> very same scientists will readily admit that science advancwes by >> >> evidence not proof.
>> >> Your use of it signifies pure ignorance of science. You have no >> >> preponderance of evidence that scientists overstep their bounds with >> >> the origin of life or NeoDarwinian assumptions, research designs or >> >> data interpretation. It is the factitiousness of your religiously >> >> based ignorance that leads you to this falawed understandings of >> >> science.
>> >> Further there is nothing in the Wiki piece that allows you to assert >> >> that scientists are overstepping the bounds of their disciplines. it >> >> is pure arrogance based on willfull ignorance taht you would deign to >> >> assert such obvious to scientist stupidies
>> >> >If you carefully read the wiki article, you can clearly >> >> > see where scientist can no longer follow the steps on a historical >> >> > analysis.
>> >> This is absolute bull shit. You repeat it like a religious mantra >> >> when it is obvious you don't know what the hell you are talking >> >> about.
>> >> Prove me wrong (provide a preponderance of evidence) that scientists >> >> can no longer follow the steps on a historical analysis. Find any >> >> three articles in the biology, geology, anthropology or physics peer >> >> reviewed professional journals which employ a historical analysis and >> >> show why it is flawed.
>> >> Your argument assumes you are able to do this. I think you are a >> >> bloviating bull shitter who can't talk about substantive science >> >> issues. Embarrass me by taking me to task and produce something other >> >> than the over simplified generalizations about what science can't do. >> >> We know well it's weaknesses in theory, methods, strategies and data >> >> analysis. Show you know something or continue to demonstrate you are >> >> an abject fool when it comes to science.
>> >All the evidence I need is your stunning silence on any of the >> >empirical evidence FOR a natural formation of life. You are critical >> >of me...and of my understanding of science,
>> As far as we can gather from your posts, you do not have an >> understanding of science.
>> >yet you do not bring any >> >positive evidence for your position. Answer some of my questions. How >> >do scientist disprove a Biblical point? What technique do scientist >> >use to empirically prove that life can form from purely natural >> >unaltered process? What can they show in the evidence to prove that it >> >happened the way they say? Is abiogenesis repeatable, testable, >> >observed...
>> Well it is observed. Repeatable - yes, in time it will be repeated. >> Remember that science has had a few labs and 60 years trying to repeat >> it whereas the nature has the whole earth and half a billion years to >> do it.
>> >if so, where? What is the origin of the blood clotting?
>> Evolution.
>> >What happened before this evolved? What property of hydrogen >> >eventually turns it into a banana, or you?
>> It is more a property of carbon.
>> -- >> Bob.
>> Have you ever wondered what your life would be like if you had had >> enough oxygen at birth?
> You can`t say I don`t understand science then prove my point by > admitting that abiogenesis has not been observed or repeated. > "Evolution" is not an answer for the source of blood clotting. If the > Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is correct, we are all a > result of hydrogen. This must be explained naturally ......right.
This is formally know as the "argument from incredulity", although I've also heard it called the "argument from personal incapacity". It's a fallacy. For example: "If creationism is right, then the creator god who was smart enough to assemble the universe couldn't figure out how to have blood clotting occur naturally ......right." My personal incredulity does not make god disappear, nor does your personal incredulity make physics, chemistry and biology disappear.
> On Nov 4, 9:57 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 11:27 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 10:52 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 10:03 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 31, 9:36 pm, TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 30, 8:23 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > It is when scientist > > > > > > try to make claims outside of the realms of science that I have a > > > > > > problem. Scientist can only observe and test the world around them in > > > > > > the present. All one can do is observe the natural world and make > > > > > > predictions about events that may come about.
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > Your problem -- well, one of your problems -- is that you are > > > > > operating with a completely false picture of science. Your idea of the > > > > > scientific method is basically what you learned in 3rd grade. It is > > > > > not the method used by scientists, you know the people who actually DO > > > > > science. Your ideas of what constitutes evidence or how a hypothesis > > > > > is tested are not the ones scientists use. Whose definitions should > > > > > have precedence -- yours or the scientists who developed them over the > > > > > past several hundred years?
> > > > > How arrogant can you get?
> > > > > If you want to correct your ignorance -- and I'm not holding my breath > > > > > -- start out by reading the fairly short introduction in Wikipedia > > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
> > > > > Baron Bodissey > > > > > The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the > > > > > palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. > > > > > – H. L. Mencken
> > > > It is interesting that you sent me this article on the scientific > > > > method. It is the VERY article that I use all the time to prove that > > > > scientist overstep their bounds with the origin of life and Neo- > > > > Darwinianism.
> > > You have not proved anything. You can't prove anything in science. > > > When a real scientist says something is proved which is very very > > > seldom he is speaking in terms of the preponderance of evidence. That > > > very same scientists will readily admit that science advancwes by > > > evidence not proof.
> > > Your use of it signifies pure ignorance of science. You have no > > > preponderance of evidence that scientists overstep their bounds with > > > the origin of life or NeoDarwinian assumptions, research designs or > > > data interpretation. It is the factitiousness of your religiously > > > based ignorance that leads you to this falawed understandings of > > > science.
> > > Further there is nothing in the Wiki piece that allows you to assert > > > that scientists are overstepping the bounds of their disciplines. it > > > is pure arrogance based on willfull ignorance taht you would deign to > > > assert such obvious to scientist stupidies
> > > >If you carefully read the wiki article, you can clearly > > > > see where scientist can no longer follow the steps on a historical > > > > analysis.
> > > This is absolute bull shit. You repeat it like a religious mantra > > > when it is obvious you don't know what the hell you are talking > > > about.
> > > Prove me wrong (provide a preponderance of evidence) that scientists > > > can no longer follow the steps on a historical analysis. Find any > > > three articles in the biology, geology, anthropology or physics peer > > > reviewed professional journals which employ a historical analysis and > > > show why it is flawed.
> > > Your argument assumes you are able to do this. I think you are a > > > bloviating bull shitter who can't talk about substantive science > > > issues. Embarrass me by taking me to task and produce something other > > > than the over simplified generalizations about what science can't do. > > > We know well it's weaknesses in theory, methods, strategies and data > > > analysis. Show you know something or continue to demonstrate you are > > > an abject fool when it comes to science.
> > All the evidence I need is your stunning silence on any of the > > empirical evidence FOR a natural formation of life. You are critical > > of me...and of my understanding of science, yet you do not bring any > > positive evidence for your position. Answer some of my questions. How > > do scientist disprove a Biblical point? What technique do scientist > > use to empirically prove that life can form from purely natural > > unaltered process? What can they show in the evidence to prove that it > > happened the way they say? Is abiogenesis repeatable, testable, > > observed...if so, where? What is the origin of the blood clotting? > > What happened before this evolved? What property of hydrogen > > eventually turns it into a banana, or you?
> Dude, I hate to sound like a broken record but the answers to all your > questions are literally a click away. I understand that you do not > have a great record for reading comprehension (witness your complete > mangling of the scientific method), but if you would read the > Wikipedia article on abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Abiogenesis) you would have at least a minimal amount of knowledge > about the subject and especially, the different lines of evidence that > have led scientists to conclude that life began in a certain way.
> For example, follow: Scientists know what kinds of chemical effects > living things have on the earth; evidence of those effects show up in > the geological record relatively shortly after the earth was formed. > Note also that the early atmosphere was nothing like the atmosphere of > today, it was composed of things like methane, ammonia, and carbon > dioxide, with little or no free oxygen. It would been instantly lethal > to most of today's life. Nevertheless, it seems those conditions are > favorable for the formation of various organic compounds. How those > compounds combined and became self-replicating is the step that hasn't > been worked out yet.
> You asked in one post why isn't abiogenesis continuing to happen. The > answer is easy: The right conditions no longer exist; the origin of > life eventually destroyed (by changing the atmosphere) ) the > conditions that led to life.
> Read the article. Learn something. _Then_ argue.
> Baron Bodissey > Back off, man, I’m a scientist! > – Ghostbusters
Hmm, how is any of these claims testable? Was someone there to test the atmosphere before life? You are basing this on the necessity of these building blocks to have a low oxygen atmosphere to prevent oxidation. What about ozone? That seems important so our little amino acids dont get fried in the solar radiation.
|
