I can remember the original series of "Cosmos" in my country, being shown in 12 parts on consecutive Sunday morning. Not exactly prime time TV, and sometimes rather difficult for a young bloke [which I was then] waking up on a Sunday morning to watch, particularly after a late Saturday night out drinking! Still, I never missed an episode. Carl Sagan was in my opinion, the greatest educator of our time.
Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Not at all. I addressed your post, not your person (an example you might choose to follow, in the future, eh?)
I implied, somewhat obliquely (without quite "calling" anything anything) that your response to my post, your argument - that post, that you posted here - was an example of standard creationist bs.
It was. It did not, to be specific, point out any visible "leaps of logic" in my post, but instead invented some stuff not present in my post and prefaced it with the standard creationist bullshit "if". And this kind of misrepresentation in defense, followed by personal insult rather than argument, is yet more along that same line.
So, apparently, are Q's videos. He's not a creationist either, see, or fundie of any kind, ask him - he just happens to post what appear to be boilerplate creationist videos made by unaccountable fundies - without argument, without transcript, without accountability, without abstract or introduction or summary, and accompanied by misrepresentation + insult directed at anyone who objects to this discourteous imposition on the forum.
Then everyone else is supposed to do all the work of ferreting out whatever is buried in them, tracking and organizing the arguments, typing up in transcript any quotes etc that are needed for response, searching for references and so forth, and all while showing deference for the claimed credentials and supposed expertise of these video intellectuals who can't be bothered to do any of this themselves.
So we have an event - abiogenesis - and a working, sufficient, well-understood, applicable theory of known relevance that seems to present a likely framework for research into how this event(s) actually happened (Darwinian Evolution). That's an interesting start. Let's start there.
While certainly posting this thread [as I did on another forum] was not intended to attract the standard creationist/IDer bs [I would have used long hand
] I may have been somewhat gullible in ever believing that.Again, [in short hand] the thread is simply an application of science on a science forum, stating the painfully obvious that Life has emerged from non life, and that we collectively call the various possible pathways of that Abiogenesis, and that in reality, it is the only scientific theory that gives a scientific answer to that fact.
Nice post by the way.
OK wegs. I answered a question you asked of me earlier. Here's one back. You expressed belief in a personal God here: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3586952/
I'd like to think there was one supreme being of goodness and omniscience too but recognize there are many possibilities re higher intelligence(s). Anyway, your response re inevitability of purely naturalistic abiogenesis (paddoboy carefully omitted the word naturalistic but that was the intent obviously) as per quote above, begs a question. What kind of God do you believe in, that cannot have been the IDer for abiogenesis? Since you agreed wholeheartedly with the purely natural, totally unguided position?
Last edited:
Need I repeat? Your purely assertive style doesn't work on me. Actually show, in some detail, where Tour or Peltzer make significant errors or misrepresent the issues facing naturalistic abiogenesis, or butt out.
Hi Q -
Oh, I agreed with paddoboy saying that abiogenesis is the only ''scientific'' answer, but I can still believe that a higher power was behind it all. Sorry if my answer seemed hazy to that end. At the risk of derailing the thread into a spiritual discussion, does that brief response help?
Now that you have carefully qualified and clarified - yes!
lol why the rolling eyes emoji, then?Now that you have carefully qualified and clarified - yes!
I'll leave that one as kind of a mystery to be contemplated at length.lol why the rolling eyes emoji, then?
That's OK wegs, and entirely your concern, but as described previously that is simply inserting your preferred "god of the gaps" and the gap for your preferred god or any deity is getting smaller all the time.
Assertive!!!! Oh brother! there's that pot calling the kettle black again! No, your usual conspiracy nonsense is still nonsense q-reeus. I did not carefully omit anything. My statement stands. Life arose from non life obviously and we all agree with that [except you sadly] and we call that process Abiogenesis. and it is factually the only scientific answer to the question of the emergence of life, while of course encompassing some variable methodologies and pathways. For the umpteenth and one time, any deity, any supernatural or paranormal myth, is by definition, unscientific.The 101 [or thereabouts
] articles and papers I have submitted all support that simple observation. "Once there was no life, then there was"Give it up coward. You dodged responding to my #295 at all, let alone objectively and responsibly, as expected.
It's a well known fact I believe at this stage of the game q-reeus, in the field of Abiogenesis, GR, 9/11 nonsense and UFO's...many many times.A fool such as you never learns. Yazata, exchemist, James R and iirc others have all corrected you on that. Abiogenesis as a framework term is strictly neutral as to causative agency. Unless you precede it with either 'theistic' or 'naturalistic'. Which, despite said attempts to emphasize the distinction, you continually fail to apply it here. What's new?
The 101 [or thereabouts
As with the other pedant and semantics, and as per the 101 articles and papers I have listed, and as per the far more professional experts elsewhere where you are banned, The framework of the theory of Abiogenesis is the only scientific theory that tells us how life emerged from non life, with just one silly dissenter.
The many pathways encompassed by Abiogenesis, all come under that banner.
Hope that helps.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It is also the religious framework.
Abiogenesis is a neutral term and does not answer to specific discipline, IMO.
But I get your point that science is the only "active" study of Abiogenesis, because religion has "settled" the question.
Last edited:
Religious/supernatural/paranormal myths are unscientific, as opposed to scientific reasoning and modelling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth."