ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[Nathon Detroit]

Lol. What dictionary are YOU using?

I am dying to know... are you still laughing at my dictionary definitions??? :think:

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.

 

[Woodbine]

He created a vacuum over the water's surface.

We never did cool stuff like this.

What happens in the experiment; what does it look like; is it just the surface that boils?

 

[fool]

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

All of them.
On that topic I would point out to you that physics dosen't make any sense.
Did you know that?
So much for the "Laws" of science you refer to.

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

No.

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

People are dropping like flys from this thread.

He created a vacuum over the water's surface.

Someone else already won but we'll get ya some rep just for playing. Fair?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

He is going past the point of confusing spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.

You mean like how the dictionary defines the word abiogenesis????? :doh:

 

[Woodbine]

He is making a POINT, that's all it is!

But the point he is making is completely untrue. From the video.....

Evolution teaches that energy such as lightning or heat plus matter can, occasionally, create new life....

It teaches nothing of the sort. Chuck and gang know this already but when you're attacking evolution anything goes, I suppose. Whether or not abiogenesis is possible or not, Chuck and the video makers are flat out wrong in their presentation.

Imagine a video presentation that began.....

Christianity teaches that there are four aspects to God. This is known as the Quadrunity.....

....and then proceeded from this faulty premise to demonstrate how silly it was by some bizarre peanut butter demonstration. You'd be rolling in the aisles. But when you consider that Chuck's video is just one more in a depressingly long history of deliberate and often politically motivated misrepresentations of evolution you have to temper the laughter with the knowledge that this material is being taken seriously in some quarters as being scientifically sound.

 

[fool]

We never did cool stuff like this.

What happens in the experiment; what does it look like; is it just the surface that boils?

The machine had a flat top with a rubber gasket, the chamber was pretty much a fish bowl that you put on upside down but it was like 1/2 in. thick. A vacum pump sucked the air out of a hole in the base plate.

For the water he placed a beaker in the chamber and as the vacum built up it began to boil just as if it was on a stove.

We put in a ballon that was just barely inflated and it expanded to fill the entire chamber.

He used it in the center of the room and made us all sit along the outside with safety glasses on in case the glass failed and imploded.

 

[Vision in Verse]

You mean like how the dictionary defines the word abiogenesis????? :doh:

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (ā'bī-ō-jěn'ĭ-sĭs)
n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.
There.

Tell me why this is impossible, if you can.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

....and then proceeded from this faulty premise to demonstrate how silly it was by some bizarre peanut butter demonstration. You'd be rolling in the aisles. But when you consider that Chuck's video is just one more in a depressingly long history of deliberate and often politically motivated misrepresentations of evolution you have to temper the laughter with the knowledge that this material is being taken seriously in some quarters as being scientifically sound.

Maybe so... but then there is the other side (your side) that seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (ā'bī-ō-jěn'ĭ-sĭs)
n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.
There.

That's the American Heritage definition.

Why did you leave off the last part of the definition? "Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation." :think:

 

[Vision in Verse]

That's the American Heritage definition.

Why did you leave off the last part of the definition? "Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation." :think:

Because is was irrelevant. I'm talking about when life first formed, not spontaneous generation now. Now, answer my question? Why do you think it's impossible?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Because is was irrelevant. I'm talking about when life first formed, not spontaneous generation now.

If life on earth formed without supernatural help you are describing a form of spontaneous generation.

Look up the words "spontaneous" and "generation" and then put them together.

You are describing the first living creature/organism/cell/whatever, that was not part of a generation or generated by a parent, yet was instead generated spontaneously (i.e., produced naturally) without external force or direction. I.e., spontaneous generation.

So, you can claim we are not discussing spontaneous generation if you want but..... in reality we are.

Now, answer my question? Why do you think it's impossible?

I think it's impossible for the same reason it would be impossible for a fully functional jet aircraft to form by itself in an abandoned junk yard.

You are free to think otherwise.

Remind me again who has the greater faith.

 

[zoo22]

Maybe so... but then there is the other side (your side) that seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

Oh man, I'm breaking my back all day conducting this experiment waiting for spontaneous life to form in a jar of peanut butter (no walk in the park, mind you; a very boring experiment)...

And now all of a sudden we're talking about making mountains out of molehills!?!

Honestly, I don't even know where to get a molehill.

Can we make the mountains with peanut butter instead? lain:

 

[mighty_duck]

If life on earth formed without supernatural help you are describing a form of spontaneous generation.

Look up the words "spontaneous" and "generation" and then put them together.

Regardless of the similarity of the terms used, do you think that Pasteur's experiments debunked abiogenesis as currently conceived? Do you have anything scientific to back up your notion that the modern definition is impossible (except for personal incredulity)?

I think it's impossible for the same reason it would be impossible for a fully functional jet aircraft to form by itself in an abandoned junk yard.

That's because you have a good idea of what a Jet looks like, and what a junkyard contains. How well do you know what the first primitive form of life looked like, and what conditions were present on Earth for about a billion years? (that is a VERY long time)?

Saying something is impossible (or giving it a probability) takes quite a bit of knowledge. Asserting that something is impossible based on ignorance takes quite a bit of faith.

Remind me again who has the greater faith.

You do.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That's because you have a good idea of what a Jet looks like, and what a junkyard contains.

Scientists that attempt to create life from non-living matter have a much larger advantage than that!

They know, what a living cell looks like, they know what a living cell is made of (in precise detail), they know what is detrimental to a living cell and they still cannot create anything close to a living organism from non-living matter.

Abiogenesis is a fairy tail.

 

[mighty_duck]

Scientists that attempt to create life from non-living matter have a much larger advantage than that!

They know, what a living cell looks like, they know what a living cell is made of (in precise detail), they know what is detrimental to a living cell and they still cannot create anything close to a living organism from non-living matter.

Abiogenesis is a fairy tail.

What scientists have are cells that have had 3.5 billion years to evolve, so they are understandedly complex. What they are still trying to figure out is what the simplest form of life could have looked like. If you know what that is, get your nobel acceptance speech ready

 

[SUTG]

If you know what that is, get your nobel acceptance speech ready

Too late!

bob b is going to get it for his work in the Cell Trends Too thread.

 

[kame]

Knight, you state it is silly to assume that simple life forms can arise from non-life. Why? I'd like to see your evidence.

 

[Vision in Verse]

If life on earth formed without supernatural help you are describing a form of spontaneous generation.
Look up the words "spontaneous" and "generation" and then put them together.

Fine. Semantically, I agree.

You are describing the first living creature/organism/cell/whatever, that was not part of a generation or generated by a parent, yet was instead generated spontaneously (i.e., produced naturally) without external force or direction. I.e., spontaneous generation.

Wrong. It was created by external force, but without direction. The input of energy from the sun is stored in organic chemicals. This has been done in lab tests.

I think it's impossible for the same reason it would be impossible for a fully functional jet aircraft to form by itself in an abandoned junk yard.
You are free to think otherwise.

That analogy is severely irrelevant.

Remind me again who has the greater faith.

Faith does not have size or weight. You can't trick me with your tricky questions..

 

[Vision in Verse]

Abiogenesis is a fairy tail.

I think you mean fairy tale. To you, it may be. But, we have to consider that humans are known to be wrong a lot of the time.

 

[GuySmiley]

Knight, you state it is silly to assume that simple life forms can arise from non-life. Why? I'd like to see your evidence.

Do you have evidence for not believing in God?