ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[Nathon Detroit]

Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are two completely different ideas that take place on vastly different timescales and in vastly different ways.

Either you are full of it... or the dictionary is.

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis –noun Biology.
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

 

[Vision in Verse]

Either you are full of it... or the dictionary is.

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis –noun Biology.
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

Lol. What dictionary are YOU using?

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (ā'bī-ō-jěn'ĭ-sĭs) Pronunciation Key
n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

They are not as related as you think. Spontaneous Generation relied on living matter that was decaying, whereas abiogenesis does not.

To address the statements you are quoting, I would first like to ask for citations on where they come from so that I can consider the source and insure you are not quoting them out of context, but I'll give you my thoughts beforehand.

The first is a definition, and the word 'classical' jumps out at me right away. What exactly are "classical notions" of abiogenesis, maggots from rotting meat? Without more information I cannot comment further, let alone agree or disagree.

The second is an oversimplification. Sure both theories describe the same thing, but the mechanisms are completely different, as I stated in a previous post. I will not repeat myself here.

The third is the one I really want to citation on. As I suspect it is either not addressing modern understanding of abiogenesis, or is a deliberate attempt to lump them both together in an effort to discredit current research.

Like others have said, please take the time to read the wiki entry on abiogenesis, it would probably help to clarify some of the misconceptions you have about it.

Would you disagree with the dictionary's definition?

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis –noun Biology.
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

 

[Johnny]

I did... and I also quoted the dictionary definition of the abiogenesis.

You only quoted half the wiki sentence. The other half is what sets it apart from modern ideas of abiogenesis.

Quote the whole sentence: "Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat." (wiki)

This sentence tells you everything you need to know. Classical [historical] abiogenesis is now more appropriately termed spontaneous generation. It is not the same thing as modern notions of pathogenesis.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Lol. What dictionary are YOU using?

http://dictionary.reference.com/

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis – noun Biology.
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

Is that OK with you???

How about Websters?

abio·gen·e·sis - noun
the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter.

How about American Heritage?

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

Are any of these good enough for you? :idunno:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You only quoted half the wiki sentence. The other half is what sets it apart from modern ideas of abiogenesis.

Quote the whole sentence: "Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat." (wiki)

This sentence tells you everything you need to know. Classical [historical] abiogenesis is now more appropriately termed spontaneous generation. It is not the same thing as modern notions of pathogenesis.

The sentence proves my point.... "Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation"

Abiogenesis is now more precisely known as spontaneous generation. My guess is that's why all the dictionaries define it that way.

 

[Johnny]

The sentence proves my point.... "Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation"

Abiogenesis is now more precisely known as spontaneous generation. My guess is that's why all the dictionaries define it that way.

So then surely you agree that the concept Pasteur tested -- the concept that living organisms arise from decaying organic material in a period of a few days, the concept that we test with peanut butter -- YOU AGREE that it is conceptually the same as a process that is hypothesized to have taken a billion+ years and to have formed from organic precursors rather than organic remnants? Conceptually, are these two ideas identical? Right?

Would you say the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis are the same as the classical notion of spontaneous generation that pasteur tested and that we test everytime we open a peanut butter jar? Yes or no?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I think you're missing the point here, Knight. I'll grant you that most dictionaries clump the two terms together, but you apparently don't understand that we're talking about two very different concepts. Do you not agree?

No, I don't agree. Ultimately what we are talking about is life springing from non-living matter. The where and how doesn't really change much.

Semantically, the dictionary may go ahead and clump them together. But if you read an encyclopedia you'll see that the concepts are very different from each other. This is what I was trying to tell you earlier, and despite the points that I made you keep going back to the dictionary and saying "look the dictionary says one means the other".

Stupid dictionary!!!! :madmad: :chuckle:

For the purpose of this thread the difference in the two terms is meaningless. The only reason you guys are bothering to debate me on this topic is it is distracting from the asinine position you are holding on to.

Would you say the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis are the same as the classical notion of spontaneous generation that pasteur tested and that we test everytime we open a peanut butter jar?

Who cares??????????????? That's irrelevant.

 

[Johnny]

Who cares??????????????? That's irrelevant.

I care. It's relevant because the author of the video is telling us that testing one idea scientifically is the same as testing the other. That's why it is relevant.

 

[Johnny]

Who cares??????????????? That's irrelevant.

I care. It's relevant because the author of the video is telling us that testing one idea scientifically is the same as testing the other. That's why it is relevant.

The only reason you guys are bothering to debate me on this topic is it is distracting from the asinine position you are holding on to.

Don't even talk to me about asinine positions when you are the one who won't answer any questions about the power of an inductive argument for fear of condemning your own position. You hold a logically weak position and you know it. That's the bottom line of this whole discussion.

I also reworked my post while you were responding, I apologize.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I care. It's relevant because the author of the video is telling us that testing one idea scientifically is the same as testing the other. That's why it is relevant.

He is merely making the point that life springing from non-life is silly!

Now some might argue.... who on earth would believe that life would spring from non-living matter????

To which I would respond.... read this thread and you will see plenty of idiots believe that garbage!!! :rotfl:

 

[fool]

Knight;
Would you say that it would be equally valid to expect to find life in a bottle of bleach?
Is all matter just as good for testing the "goo to you by way of the zoo" theory?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Don't even talk to me about asinine positions when you are the one who won't answer any questions about the power of an inductive argument for fear of condemning your own position. You hold a logically weak position and you know it. That's the bottom line of this whole discussion.

:blabla: Obfuscate all you want... I am not falling for your smokescreens and mumbo-jumbo.

I also reworked my post while you were responding, I apologize.

No worries. :up:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight;
Would you say that it would be equally valid to expect to find life in a bottle of bleach?
Is all matter just as good for testing the "goo to you by way of the zoo" theory?

No, I don't think all matter is "as good for testing". That's why I will afford you every advantage in removing detrimental matter and/or conditions in your quest to create life from non-living matter.

To be honest, I am not really sure I understood your question so I hope I answered it appropriately.

 

[SUTG]

I care. It's relevant because the author of the video is telling us that testing one idea scientifically is the same as testing the other. That's why it is relevant.

Actually, if you can believe it, what he is saying in the video is even more idiotic. He is going past the point of confusing spontaneous generation and abiogenesis to confusing the two of them with the theory of evolution. Listen to him say that if the theory of evolution were true, we should find new life spontaneously generate inside of sealed panut butter jars. :rotfl:

I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to fall for it, but I stand corrected.

 

[Johnny]

He is merely making the point that life springing from non-life is silly!

"You and I conduct, collectively, over a billion experiments every year, and we've done that for virtually a hundred years, and we never encounter new life. In fact, the entire food industry depends on the fact that evolution doesn't happen." To me, it seems he is saying that they are testing evolution [which he has confused with abiogenesis], by testing the classical concept of spontaneous generation. Not the case, the concepts are very different (even though the dictionary lumps the terminology together).

I need to leave this thread, I'm getting too worked up. Have a good day Knight.

 

[Jukia]

From, I think, the same on line dictionary he used:

"Knight: noun 1. a mounted soldier serving under a feudal superior in the Middle Ages."

Perhaps that explains his understanding of science.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

From, I think, the same on line dictionary he used:

"Knight: noun 1. a mounted soldier serving under a feudal superior in the Middle Ages."

Perhaps that explains his understanding of science.

:wave2: See ya retard!

 

[Turbo]

Some one once told me that water boiled at room temperature.
I said it was impossible.
A few moments later as I sat there watching water boil at room temperature a few things jelled in my mind.
This is illustrated by the "let's say you know half of everything. What's in the other half that you don't know?" axiom.
So yes, it might be possible for life to form in a jar of peanut butter.

Do you similarly doubt the validity of all known laws of science, or just the ones that threaten your worldview?

Can you cite a scientific law which you are confident is valid?

Do you know anything at all? If so, please give an example of something you know.

Rep for the first person who can tell the class how my 8th grade science teacher boiled water at room temperature.

He created a vacuum over the water's surface.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

"You and I conduct, collectively, over a billion experiments every year, and we've done that for virtually a hundred years, and we never encounter new life. In fact, the entire food industry depends on the fact that evolution doesn't happen." To me, it seems he is saying that they are testing evolution [which he has confused with abiogenesis], by testing the classical concept of spontaneous generation. Not the case, the concepts are very different (even though the dictionary lumps the terminology together).

Dude.... seriously.... do you really think Chuck Missler thinks opening jars of peanut butter are scientific experiments???

Do you REALLY Think that????

Come on man!

He is making a POINT, that's all it is! P.S. how is your nasty letter coming along?

I need to leave this thread, I'm getting too worked up. Have a good day Knight.

[English accent] Good day sir! [/English accent]