ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[Vision in Verse]

Ahhh... I see now..... Pasteur's experiment only proved spontaneous generation didn't happen on meat! How could I have been so stupid???? :doh:

Maybe life spontaneously generates on peanut butter? :think: Pizza? :think: Twinkies? :think: Chicken? :think: Pork? :think: Dirty kitchen sponges? :think: Toilet bowls? :think:

How silly Pasteur was for not testing other items. :doh:

He expected maggots to form because maggots usually hatch in rotting meat.

Tell me Vision in Verse, what is it about meat that is detrimental to spontaneous generation??? Why are underwater volcano's or puddle's of water more suitable for forming life than rotten meat? :idunno: Why are underwater volcano's or puddle's of water more suitable for forming life than controlled experiments in a laboratory with all the necessary ingredients?
But then again.... maybe meat does spontaneously generate life after all?
Maybe Pasteur's experiment (which is accepted by all of science) was insufficient in some way? Maybe you know better than all of science? Do tell.

I do. First thing you have to do is realize that The idea that the origin of all life on earth came from a supernatural cause is an assumption.

 

[Woodbine]

:shocked:

This thread corroborates the excerpt you quoted. Many in this very thread are still clinging to the idea "that life could spontaneously arise from non-life (abiogenesis)" and "disregard[ing] the scientific evidence" to the contrary.

You are among them.

How exactly does me saying "I've no idea" suddenly turn into "Yes, I believe".?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

If, indeed, they are mistakes. Alot of creationists (bob b, Chuck Missler, etc.) know that the theory does not address this, but they keep making the same "mistake".

The theory of evolution is certainly tied to a limited framework of bio-genesis theories.

 

[Johnny]

The theory of evolution is certainly tied to a limited framework of bio-genesis theories.

The limit being that somehow a first organism appeared.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

He expected maggots to form because maggots usually hatch in rotting meat.

Wow.

I mean.... wow. :rotfl:

Louis Pasteur's law of abiogenesis clearly needs to be relabeled for modern day "meat-heads", maybe something like.... The Law of No-maggots-on-da-meatus or possibly lifecangeneratefromanythingbutmeateosous.

Yes, science takes a GIANT leap backwards thanks to fine folks like Vision in Verse , SUTG, Johnny and the likes.

Vision in Verse, in 1620 Jan Baptista van Helmont published a report that stated mice can generate from sweaty stinky underwear.

"for if you press a piece of underwear soiled with sweat together with some wheat in an open mouth jar, after about 21 days the odor changes and the ferment coming out of the underwear and penetrating through the husks of the wheat, changes the wheat into mice. But what is more remarkable is that mice of both sexes emerge (from the wheat) and these mice successfully reproduce with mice born naturally from parents? But what is even more remarkable is that the mice which came out were not small mice? but fully grown."​

While this theory wasn't wildly accepted by his peers it also wasn't completely debunked until Louis Pasteur came around. Based on your position on this thread can you argue against such a theory? :think:


Better check your drawers Viv, there might be mice in them! :shocked:

 

[kame]

Oh noes, the Xians are throwing faith in our faces! Actually, I was waiting for this.

Alright folks, the idea that readily available organic compounds can self-assemble into crude replicators on which natural selection can act upon is many orders of magnitude more possible than the idea that an all knowing, all seeing deity arising in one big pop.

Yes, abiogenesis requires a leap faith since it has not been empirically proven. But here's an analogy for you SAT types in here: ___________ is to stepping over a crack, as ___ is to jumping over the grand canyon, blindfolded and with one leg.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Oh noes, the Xians are throwing faith in our faces! Actually, I was waiting for this.

His name is Christ.

:wave2:

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Alright folks, the idea that readily available organic compounds can self-assemble into crude replicators on which natural selection can act upon is many orders of magnitude more possible than the idea that an all knowing, all seeing deity arising in one big pop.

Since we have no way of measuring the statistical probability of a deity your statement is just hot air and fudged facts. We do have a way of measuring the statistical probability of a bio-genesis solution. Evolution runs afoul of mathematics in many areas. This is just one.

 

[Vision in Verse]

Wow.
I mean.... wow. :rotfl:
Louis Pasteur's law of abiogenesis clearly needs to be relabeled for modern day "meat-heads", maybe something like.... The Law of No-maggots-on-da-meatus or possibly lifecangeneratefromanythingbutmeateosous.
Yes, science takes a GIANT leap backwards thanks to fine folks like Vision in Verse , SUTG, Johnny and the likes.
Vision in Verse, in 1620 Jan Baptista van Helmont published a report that stated mice can generate from sweaty stinky underwear.

"for if you press a piece of underwear soiled with sweat together with some wheat in an open mouth jar, after about 21 days the odor changes and the ferment coming out of the underwear and penetrating through the husks of the wheat, changes the wheat into mice. But what is more remarkable is that mice of both sexes emerge (from the wheat) and these mice successfully reproduce with mice born naturally from parents? But what is even more remarkable is that the mice which came out were not small mice? but fully grown."​

While this theory wasn't wildly accepted by his peers it also wasn't completely debunked until Louis Pasteur came around. Based on your position on this thread can you argue against such a theory? :think:
Better check your drawers Viv, there might be mice in them! :shocked:

Pasteur's experiments had absolutely no bearing on the origin of all life on earth around 3 billion years ago. He wasn't testing for protocells, organic compounds, or anything to do with the first replicating organic matter. Jean Baptista van Helmont's experiment is thoroughly ridiculous and flawed in a modern context.

Are you or are you not going to explain your stance? Why is thinking that the origin of life on earth came from a supernatural cause not an assumption? I am pretty sure it is. Tell me why you think otherwise. Please cooperate Knight, you're evading questions again.

 

[Johnny]

Yes, science takes a GIANT leap backwards thanks to fine folks like Vision in Verse , SUTG, Johnny and the likes.

Please understand the extreme irony of a creationist making this statement. I don't feel anyone has indicated that science should take a giant leap backwards.

Now as to the law of biogenesis, you've shot your own leg by using this argument. First, the chain of biogenesis had to be broken somewhere -- supernaturally or not. I can formulate two other inductive laws of science which would be just as inductively and logically sound as the law of biogenesis and that would exclude a supernatural creation. But you would still maintain a supernatural creation, so either you don't put much stock in these arguments, or you only put stock in them when they work to your advantage.

The first is The Law of Organic Genesis -- All organic life comes from organic life.
The second is The Law of Naturalism -- All measured phenomenon have naturalistic explanations.

These two laws are as inductively sound as the Law of Biogenesis. The former is based on the fact that we have never observed life to come from something other than organic life. The latter is based on the fact that we have never observed a phenomenon which cannot be studied from a naturalist standpoint. Now, you will counter that the act of creation was a supernatural event as you did before. But a supernatural creation event still violates both of these laws. To get around this you must assume that these laws do not extend over and above God's creative ability. But in doing so, you agree that these laws are not absolute laws of logic, because even God cannot violate absolute logic. Now, to be fair, many Christians do assume that God can violate absolute logic. But from what I have seen of you, you are not one of these Christians. Please correct me if I am wrong.

So you see, you and I both must admit that inductive laws are simply explanations of trends, and that at some point in the past these trends were violated. You break the trend when you invoke God, and I break the trend when I invoke chemical evolution. But there is no pretending that you, I, or even an atheist are sailing in different boats. We are all three in the same boat. Thus, while you go along thinking you're poking holes in the inflatable life-boats of atheists and naturalists, you haven't taken the time to notice that everybody is in the same boat.

One other minor thing that needs to be addressed. I feel like you keep arguing that Pasteur's experiment argued that chemical evolution was false. This is not possible as the experiment was set up to test the idea of spontaneous generation, not the idea of chemical evolution. Are you arguing that Pasteur's experiments tested the modern ideas of chemical evolution?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hey Johnny it ain't 1620 anymore.

Get out of the stone age.... and embrace science!

 

[Vision in Verse]

Another evasion perhaps?

 

[Johnny]

You guys are wasting all of our time! If you can't even discuss the issues with me your value on TOL is completely diminished.

...so I can focus my efforts on people who are actually interested in honest dialog.

Please understand the extreme irony of a creationist making this statement. I don't feel anyone has indicated that science should take a giant leap backwards.

Now as to the law of biogenesis, you've shot your own leg by using this argument. First, the chain of biogenesis had to be broken somewhere -- supernaturally or not. I can formulate two other inductive laws of science which would be just as inductively and logically sound as the law of biogenesis and that would exclude a supernatural creation. But you would still maintain a supernatural creation, so either you don't put much stock in these arguments, or you only put stock in them when they work to your advantage.

The first is The Law of Organic Genesis -- All organic life comes from organic life.
The second is The Law of Naturalism -- All measured phenomenon have naturalistic explanations.

These two laws are as inductively sound as the Law of Biogenesis. The former is based on the fact that we have never observed life to come from something other than organic life. The latter is based on the fact that we have never observed a phenomenon which cannot be studied from a naturalist standpoint. Now, you will counter that the act of creation was a supernatural event as you did before. But a supernatural creation event still violates both of these laws. To get around this you must assume that these laws do not extend over and above God's creative ability. But in doing so, you agree that these laws are not absolute laws of logic, because even God cannot violate absolute logic. Now, to be fair, many Christians do assume that God can violate absolute logic. But from what I have seen of you, you are not one of these Christians. Please correct me if I am wrong.

So you see, you and I both must admit that inductive laws are simply explanations of trends, and that at some point in the past these trends were violated. You break the trend when you invoke God, and I break the trend when I invoke chemical evolution. But there is no pretending that you, I, or even an atheist are sailing in different boats. We are all three in the same boat. Thus, while you go along thinking you're poking holes in the inflatable life-boats of atheists and naturalists, you haven't taken the time to notice that everybody is in the same boat.

One other minor thing that needs to be addressed. I feel like you keep arguing that Pasteur's experiment argued that chemical evolution was false. This is not possible as the experiment was set up to test the idea of spontaneous generation, not the idea of chemical evolution. Are you arguing that Pasteur's experiments tested the modern ideas of chemical evolution?

Hey Johnny it ain't 1620 anymore.

Get out of the stone age.... and embrace science!

Is that the honest dialog aharvey wasn't giving you? Is that "discussing the issues" like you say ThePhy refused to do? What happened to "If you can't even discuss the issues with me your value on TOL is completely diminished."?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Is that the honest dialog aharvey wasn't giving you? Is that "discussing the issues" like you say ThePhy refused to do? What happened to "If you can't even discuss the issues with me your value on TOL is completely diminished."?

It's a great discussion.

I haven't banned you have I?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Now, you will counter that the act of creation was a supernatural event as you did before. But a supernatural creation event still violates both of these laws. To get around this you must assume that these laws do not extend over and above God's creative ability. But in doing so, you agree that these laws are not absolute laws of logic, because even God cannot violate absolute logic. Now, to be fair, many Christians do assume that God can violate absolute logic. But from what I have seen of you, you are not one of these Christians. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Johnny.... that is the most lame argument and I have already addressed it earlier on this thread but lets put it to bed shall we? (I realize you probably use it at parties and sound really smart in front of your friends)

Lets see if you can follow this simple set of statements....

- God is SUPERnatural (i.e., He is above/outside the natural laws).
- God is logical (i.e., He is not outside of logic).

I don't know of anyone who claims that God is outside of logic. I know I certainly don't.

Therefore your objection fails before it begins.

 

[Vision in Verse]

I am ignored yet again... does anyone else with an objection to abiogenesis wish to further this discussion?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I am ignored yet again... does anyone else with an objection to abiogenesis wish to further this discussion?

Yeah... yeah... yeah... we get it. You want to take us back to the stone-age where people think life springs from non-living matter. :blabla:

You keep saying we are ignoring you yet it is you who has failed to give any reasoning why a puddle of water should be more successful at generating life from non-living matter than thousands of scientists with all the benefits of knowledge and experimentation.

Why should we believe that a puddle of water can do what time-tested science cannot?

The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Vision in Verse]

Yeah... yeah... yeah... we get it. You want to take us back to the stone-age where people think life springs from non-living matter. :blabla:
You keep saying we are ignoring you yet it is you who has failed to give any reasoning why a puddle of water should be more successful at generating life from non-living matter than thousands of scientists with all the benefits of knowledge and experimentation.
Why should we believe that a puddle of water can do what time-tested science cannot?
The burden of proof is on you.

What we? You and you alone are ignoring the question. You think that it is not possible because of an assumption, an assumption based on a lack of an observation. I will show you how this assumption can be changed and avoided only if you admit that it is an assumption. We both know it is, everybody knows it is, why won't you say so?

 

[Vision in Verse]

Why should we believe that a puddle of water can do what time-tested science cannot?

Science is not a fool-proof method of getting capital T Truth. It is incomplete. We are not talking about a simple puddle of water, we're talking about the entire Earth.

 

[zoo22]

Johnny.... that is the most lame argument and I have already addressed it earlier on this thread but lets put it to bed shall we? (I realize you probably use it at parties and sound really smart in front of your friends)

Lets see if you can follow this simple set of statements....

- God is SUPERnatural (i.e., He is above/outside the natural laws).
- God is logical (i.e., He is not outside of logic).

I don't know of anyone who claims that God is outside of logic. I know I certainly don't.

Therefore your objection fails before it begins.

I'm putting the peanut butter aside for a sec. (!)

IMO, while obviously necessary, logic, in part, plays as a problem with both creationist and evolutionist arguments. Particularly when you put both together.

Logic shifts with knowledge. It's based on what we know. There's so much we don't know; so much to learn, so much to unlearn.

A child finds logic in things that we know through our more advanced knowledge and reasoning is not logical. Similarly, a child finds things illogical that we "know" are logical through our advanced knowledge and reasoning.

We're childish in our knowledge. What we know as logical will change with knowledge.

It was logical that the Earth was flat.

Of course, this isn't to say that we shouldn't use logic, or search for the truth, or debate these things.

Back to the peanut butter. I'm now trying to tackle Knight's "making a mountain out of a molehill" problem. But instead of a molehill, I'm using peanut butter (I couldn't find a molehill). This is a very hands-on experiment.