28 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's laughable when someone says the study of evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis, when clearly the question has nothing to do with a study of evolution after an assumed fact of abiogenesis. The question that still remains unanswered is how was abiogenesis accomplished?
Odd, because that is clearly not what you implied when you said you were laughing the first time. You implication was you saw something wrong with the logic that us being here implies abiogenesis. Now you are saying that evolution must imply abiogenesis or immaculate conception and you find the latter a laughable possibility (despite clearly believing in ...[text shortened]...
I think your laughter is actually your embarrassment at the ridiculousness of your position.
Saying a study of is simply a trick of semantics to redefine the question in such a way to fool the asker into thinking his question was answered.
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon lime🙂 You'd think they were made of straw or something?
It's laughable when someone says the study of evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis, when clearly the question has nothing to do with a study of evolution after an assumed fact of abiogenesis. The question that still remains unanswered is how was abiogenesis accomplished?
Saying a study of is simply a trick of semantics ...[text shortened]... redefine the question in such a way to fool the asker into thinking his question was answered.
KJ
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeLike mentioned in this thread many times, evolution does not assume abiogenesis. Rather, it assumes life exists, which seems a reasonable assumption to me.
It's laughable when someone says the study of evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis, when clearly the question has nothing to do with a study of evolution after an assumed fact of abiogenesis. The question that still remains unanswered is how was abiogenesis accomplished?
Saying a study of is simply a trick of semantics ...[text shortened]... redefine the question in such a way to fool the asker into thinking his question was answered.
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo what are you saying I see life so evolution is true, because it does not
Like mentioned in this thread many times, evolution does not assume abiogenesis. Rather, it assumes life exists, which seems a reasonable assumption to me.
matter how it started?
Kelly
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHow do you assume life got here millions or billions of years ago so that evilution can just take over.?
Like mentioned in this thread many times, evolution does not assume abiogenesis. Rather, it assumes life exists, which seems a reasonable assumption to me.
Here are some more questions on evilution:
The Instructor
29 Jun 13
17 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, we know that evolution is true because of the evidence (although there is also logical reasons to think it SHOULD happen given certain conditions/facts that nobody disputes are true).
So what are you saying I see life so evolution is true, because it does not
matter how it started?
Kelly
Evolution is true regardless of how life got started -even if it never did start!
Extremely hypothetically, if abiogenesis never happened, and lets say we discovered irrefutable proof of that (somehow -difficult to see how), logically, all that would mean is that life never got started which, given the fact we can observe that life exists today, can only mean life was always existing and time never began and that evolution must have been happening for all that time albeit with punctuated equilibrium. This would not in anyway contradict the basic theory of evolution -it would only mean we would have to drastically revise and rethink some of the significant details of some of our theories of its history BUT, the basic theory of evolution itself, including macroevolution, would remain totally unshaken as a proven scientific fact by the vast mountain of evidence simply because evolution is not a theory of the origins of the first life and is not a theory that says there was a first life!
Personally, the only thing I would claim from the mere fact that life exists today is that either abiogenesis happened or it didn't and, if it didn't, then complex life made of molecules and matter always existed and time never began.
I would not say that the mere fact that life exists would alone prove evolution but, nevertheless, the vast mountain of irrefutable physical evidence proves evolution and, obviously, that vast mountain consists of vastly more than just merely noting that life exists.
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyYou are getting desperate now, for that is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard from a a persom claiming to know how science works. It has already been proven that the universe had a beginning and that the earth had a beginning and that living things on the earth also had a beginning. Those are the accepted facts by the scientist of today.
No, we know that evolution is true because of the evidence (although there is also logical reasons to think it SHOULD happen given certain conditions/facts that nobody disputes are true).
Evolution is true regardless of how life got started [b]-even if it never did start!
Extremely hypothetically, if abiogenesis never happened, and lets say we discovere ...[text shortened]... bviously, that vast mountain consists of vastly more than just merely noting that life exists.[/b]
What has not been proven is how long ago all these things began. All we have is educated guesses that are based on our beliefs and worldviews. It is true that scientists attempt to use science knowledge to determine these unknowns, but in their attempt they use assumptions that have not been proven. So we can only get a pretty good estimate of the minimum age of things that we do not have all the facts about. However, most scientist of today that are interested in this topic are speculating on discovering the maximum age of these unknowns.
The Instructor
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAll we have is educated guesses that are based on our beliefs and worldviews.
You are getting desperate now, for that is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard from a a persom claiming to know how science works. It has already been proven that the universe had a beginning and that the earth had a beginning and that living things on the earth also had a beginning. Those are the accepted facts by the scientist of today.
Wha ...[text shortened]... n this topic are speculating on discovering the maximum age of these unknowns.
The Instructor
No. They are based on our understanding of the natural world through the use of the scientific method.
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeCorrect, I don't think anybody knows exactly how abiogenesis happened, nor do I know if we will ever know the details. Nevertheless, laughing does not constitute and argument, and you are yet to give an actual argument, suggesting your laughter is due to a distinct lack of argument.
The question that still remains unanswered is how was abiogenesis accomplished?
Do you agree with me that:
1. Life started at some point during the history of the universe.
2. It started via either a natural form of abiogenesis or immaculate conception.
3. Once it started, by whatever means, evolution took place.
If you disagree with any of these, explain which and why and what alternative possibilities you see. If for example you dispute common descent, are you therefore not committed to multiple abiogenesis or immaculate conceptions?
So far in this thread, most of your argument seems to consist of 'there are lots of unanswered questions, therefore it must all be wrong'. This seems to me to be flawed logic.
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you are saying that you believe in abiogenesis, although you can't show that it happened by the Scientific Method. In other words, you admit that you simply have faith that abiogenesis is how life came into existance.
Correct, I don't think anybody knows exactly how abiogenesis happened, nor do I know if we will ever know the details. Nevertheless, laughing does not constitute and argument, and you are yet to give an actual argument, suggesting your laughter is due to a distinct lack of argument.
Do you agree with me that:
1. Life started at some point during the his ...[text shortened]... f unanswered questions, therefore it must all be wrong'. This seems to me to be flawed logic.
29 Jun 13
6 edits
Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying that you believe in abiogenesis, although you can't show that it happened by the Scientific Method. In other words, you admit that you simply have faith that abiogenesis is how life came into existance.
So you are saying that you believe in abiogenesis, although you can't show that it happened by the Scientific Method.
Couldn't the use of just applying flawless logic on some trivial observations not be scientific method?
It is just a trivial observation that life exists and physically exists today.
Therefore, given that life exists, it must either have a beginning or it had no beginning in which case it must have always existed for an infinite amount of time in the past in which case time had no beginning and life always existed for all time.
If life had a beginning then logically it must have come from no life else that would not be the beginning of life. So, if there was a first life then that life must have come from non-life and, since the only non-life that we know certainly exists which is made of the same building blocks of life that we call atoms is non-living matter, using Occam’s razor, the default assumption should rationally be that life came from non-living matter and that conversion process is, by definition, abiogenesis. Therefore, if life had a beginning, the default assumption should be it must have happened by abiogenesis.
But if life had no beginning because time never started and life has always existed for that infinite time, then there shouldn't be any life in our universe today because during the big bang conditions where too harsh for life to exist then and, in addition, it is hard to see how life could have existed before the birth of the first stars and planets and I hope you would agree that stars and planets all have a finite age So, regardless of whether time had a beginning, our universe should have been sterilized of life a few billion years ago even if life as we know it existed for an instant back then. We have irrefutable evidence of the big bang (for starters, we have detected its echo in the microwave background radiation) so if there was no life then, then it must have either restarted after the big bang, in which case abiogenesis happened, or it must have come from outside this universe. Since we have never observed anything outside this universe that could explain how it could have come from outside this universe, using Occam’s razor, the default assumption should rationally be it didn't but rather started from within our universe -so we should still rationally assume that abiogenesis happened.
So regardless of whether you assume life had a beginning or not, either way, you should rationally assume abiogenesis must have happened. So, No blind faith is need whatsoever to believe abiogenesis happened -just some trivial observations and then flawless logical deduction. Observation plus flawless logic is NEVER faith by the definition of faith!