Thread: The Scoreboard

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

and yet Abiogenesis is still an assumption without any scientific evidence to support it.

Truth hurts don't it?

We've already adequately covered how this is just a stupid red herring that stupid creationists throw out there in the hopes that other people are as stupid as them.

Biological evolution assumes and depends upon a pre-existing set of replicating entities. Everything about biological evolution is geared towards explaining that situation. The question of what physical processes would cause a set of self-replicating molecules to arise is still an open question. If you want to believe that god did it, fine. As there is not a conclusive and valid scientific theory about abiogenesis, I would be unable to fairly and legitimately call you ignorant for doing so. The funny thing is that this is one of the things that we can cook up in the lab and when it does occur, you will be one of the first ones to be claiming that it is a separate issue and in no way confirms biological evolution.

And by the way,

Originally Posted by Yo-yo

The General Theory of Evolution you say is a scientific fact? Support that claim with credible resources to back up that fallacious statement.

I never claimed that "The General Theory of Evolution" is true and I wouldn't because "The General Theory of Evolution" is just another stupid creationist strawman that is taken to encompass everything that any bible-thumping fundamentalist anywhere in the world cares to deny. You know that damn well and that was a skeezy move. As is your posturing about how I failed to provide references when the only thing that I couldn't back up with citations was the one sentence that didn't make behe look like an ignorant surrender monkey. Again, skeezy.

I said it once, but I'll say it again:

Originally Posted by me

Fucking pathetic if you ask me. You have nothing to depend upon for your backwards beliefs but lies, misinformation and distortion.

You're a smart person yo-yo. It really is ashame that your religion has warped your brain to the point where you are going to lie and pull purposefully manipulative maneuvers to obscure truth. You could have been a good scientist. It just makes me loathe the judeo-christian-islamic cult that much more.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

1. I said science +1, not science -1. Don't quote me incorrectly please.

Oh I didn't misquote you, I took that point away as you didn't deserve to have it with that rubbish you posted about religion being 'faith' driven with no evidence. So I countered you with a factual statement Abiogenesis is 'faith' driven without any evidence whatsoever. Hence, point deducted and given to it's rightful owners Religion +1

Originally Posted by Dream4free

2. How does this bring us back where we started? I did not even bring up Darwin in my analytical brainstorm.

You didn't have to I brought it up for you. You can thank me later.

Originally Posted by Dream4free

Regardless I have a lot more respect for him than I do for organized, conformist religions. He actually developed his theory upon facts and evidence, rather than hoping that heaven exists for obvious commensurate gain without said verifications, he posited with logical rationale.

Where is the evidence for the millions of missing transitional forms? Since the types of changes evolution requires to give rise to the various animal kinds over millions of years you'd think it would be expected to provide ample examples in virtually every layer of the geologic record. However this is not the case and Darwinism is left with millions of gaps. Random Mutation has not been proven to change one species to another, Genetic Drift has not been proven to change one species to another, Natural selection has not been proven to change one species to another. So what do you have in the end? 'Faith' and 'Hope' that Darwin was right, because you have no evidence and thats the bottom line.

Originally Posted by Dream4free

3. About Abiogenesis.... its another hypothetical study of life, a posited guess for a reason based off of scientific rationality, a principle religion lacks, as to how the universe originated.

What exactly is scientifically rational about life arising in the past from a 'primordial soup', and evolved to its present state of complexity over billions of years. I thought Scientific evidence was based off facts that can clearly been seen. We never see evidence for anything like a 'primordial soup', nor any life arising spontaneously. We only see living things reproducing after their own kinds with variation, even 'speciation' possible within each kind.

This however does shed some irony to the issue. Especially when you consider that many sceptical scientists and people like you demand that God show Himself to their measuring instruments before they will believe, yet you accept the unproven, unscientific idea of 'abiogenesis' without a qualm.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

Here is where religion whips up the "God" concept. Which is somehow more logical than biologically lifeless matter spontaneously creating the universe

And how exactly does lifeless matter exist before the universe?

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

A omnipotent being, all loving and all merciful, who originated from what? Oh, I remember. God is special. He/She/It can be spontaneously created form lifeless matter or spontaneously arise from himself, which of course we be self refuting if you dismiss Abiogenesis as false. Interestingly now the universe can't have that nature. It first needs a spontaneously created maker to in turn create it from his omnipotent powers. Maybe if I was a poor farmer, uneducated and life sucked, I might justify this logic to myself In hopes for something better than making ends meat.

All I see is blah, blah, blah lifeless matter, blah, blah blah, Hate God.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

4. You trying to deduce the words speculation and hypothesis as simply "assumption" is going to prove both of our inoculative measures as false.
The subtle differences in the meanings of the words are there to help broaden our understanding of what we are trying to convey. Over simplifying these subtle differences will create ambiguity in our messages and be rather unproductive. Religion is not a hypothesis because it conveys a meaning for life, which philosophically pertains nothing to objectivity of science. Religion is not a theory because you can't test God through observation, his nature is metaphysical, not scientific. Religion does provide many assumptions, i.e.. the existence of "God" and "Jesus". We take these assumptions for granted as yes, and back in the day if you objected to these principles you got killed. That is a wonderful form of advertising.....not. We have matured in our intelligence and reformed religion so much it fits everyone now. Making it much more profitable and comfortable neoteric for our simpletons; inquisitive about his "meaning" in life.

That was actually pretty insightful as well as informative. Thanks for sharing

Originally Posted by Dream4free

All on all man, I need verification and truth upon its surmises in all of its conjectures to logically conform to something.

Well thats a huge contridiction as there is absolutely no truth that has been identified with Abiogenesis nor Darwinisim yet you conform to both of these without any 'real' verification. In the end of it all you still to deal with the fact that the idea of an accidental origin of simple life billions of years ago is not a testable scientific idea and any evidence involving historical science, one-time events that cannot be retested, is subject to interpretational bias on the part of the scientist.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Biological evolution assumes and depends upon a pre-existing set of replicating entities. Everything about biological evolution is geared towards explaining that situation. The question of what physical processes would cause a set of self-replicating molecules to arise is still an open question. If you want to believe that god did it, fine. As there is not a conclusive and valid scientific theory about abiogenesis, I would be unable to fairly and legitimately call you ignorant for doing so. The funny thing is that this is one of the things that we can cook up in the lab and when it does occur, you will be one of the first ones to be claiming that it is a separate issue and in no way confirms biological evolution.

Abiogenesis is not biological evolution.

Originally Posted by THisPhilospherisStoned

I never claimed that "The General Theory of Evolution" is true and I wouldn't because "The General Theory of Evolution" is just another stupid creationist strawman that is taken to encompass everything that any bible-thumping fundamentalist anywhere in the world cares to deny. You know that damn well and that was a skeezy move. As is your posturing about how I failed to provide references when the only thing that I couldn't back up with citations was the one sentence that didn't make behe look like an ignorant surrender monkey. Again, skeezy.

People still use the word Skeezy?

Originally Posted by THisPhilospherisStoned

You're a smart person Ne-yo.

Thank you. Touche'

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Oh I didn't misquote you, I took that point away as you didn't deserve to have it with that rubbish you posted about religion being 'faith' driven with no evidence. So I countered you with a factual statement Abiogenesis is 'faith' driven without any evidence whatsoever. Hence, point deducted and given to it's rightful owners Religion +1



You didn't have to I brought it up for you. You can thank me later.



Where is the evidence for the millions of missing transitional forms? Since the types of changes evolution requires to give rise to the various animal kinds over millions of years you'd think it would be expected to provide ample examples in virtually every layer of the geologic record. However this is not the case and Darwinism is left with millions of gaps. Random Mutation has not been proven to change one species to another, Genetic Drift has not been proven to change one species to another, Natural selection has not been proven to change one species to another. So what do you have in the end? 'Faith' and 'Hope' that Darwin was right, because you have no evidence and thats the bottom line.




What exactly is scientifically rational about life arising in the past from a 'primordial soup', and evolved to its present state of complexity over billions of years. I thought Scientific evidence was based off facts that can clearly been seen. We never see evidence for anything like a 'primordial soup', nor any life arising spontaneously. We only see living things reproducing after their own kinds with variation, even 'speciation' possible within each kind.

This however does shed some irony to the issue. Especially when you consider that many sceptical scientists and people like you demand that God show Himself to their measuring instruments before they will believe, yet you accept the unproven, unscientific idea of 'abiogenesis' without a qualm.



And how exactly does lifeless matter exist before the universe?



All I see is blah, blah, blah lifeless matter, blah, blah blah, Hate God.



That was actually pretty insightful as well as informative. Thanks for sharing



Well thats a huge contridiction as there is absolutely no truth that has been identified with Abiogenesis nor Darwinisim yet you conform to both of these without any 'real' verification. In the end of it all you still to deal with the fact that the idea of an accidental origin of simple life billions of years ago is not a testable scientific idea and any evidence involving historical science, one-time events that cannot be retested, is subject to interpretational bias on the part of the scientist.



Abiogenesis is not biological evolution.



People still use the word Skeezy?



Thank you. Touche'

"So I countered you with a factual statement Abiogenesis is 'faith' driven without any evidence whatsoever. "

You "countered", or for sake of this argument, refuted my philosophy by juxtaposing a study of life to a belief in life? I think you don't understand Abiogenesis for what it is. It is a study not a claim that if you do not take as true you will burn in hell. Religion does not go as "Well...God could be the reason for existence, and could have created the earth... and he could be all powerful", it goes "God is the reason for existence, created the earth, and is all powerful". See our difference between study and belief here? When there is ambiguity and uncertainty, we investigate it. Abiogenesis is not a cult or a religion, its simply one of the many universal theories that we pursue through science. By the way what do you think that this theory derived from, no evidence....

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

Notice how this is not a faith based claim. This is a research that can actually be tested, and therefore not only making in scientific, but a theory as well.

So you think religion is not faith based, lacking evidence?....



"Have faith my children!"


If you can give me some concrete evidence about God, I'll hope right on the train man. Where in the right mind would you claim there is evidence for organized religions. The whole episode has just become a suckers bet filled with people that don't want to.... dare I say, have to associate with this guy .

I've lost objectivity in our subject matter because your random assumptions and radical claims. I will just find myself repeating my other post if I continue to analytical break down what you said .

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

"So I countered you with a factual statement Abiogenesis is 'faith' driven without any evidence whatsoever. "

You "countered", or for sake of this argument, refuted my philosophy by juxtaposing a study of life to a belief in life?

So you're telling me that scientist do not 'believe' that the complexity of life as we see to day is a result of non-living matter? They are just studying it because for no apparent reason they 'assume' that this is what could have transpired? are you freaking serious man??

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

I think you don't understand Abiogenesis for what it is. It is a study not a claim that if you do not take as true you will burn in hell. Religion does not go as "Well...God could be the reason for existence, and could have created the earth... and he could be all powerful", it goes "God is the reason for existence, created the earth, and is all powerful". See our difference between study and belief here?

Explain to me how can you study something when you have no evidence or any type of observational information or data to support what you're studying? You're in denial, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that coincides with life originating from non-living matter. What we see is life reproducing from it's own kind. Study that, that's evidence, thats something you can observe, thats something you can sink your teeth into. You can try to fancy abiogenesis up all you want but you're still left with the same situation. No evidence that this has occurred and you're accepting it off FAITH, that my friend is the bottom line, no matter how you look at it.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

Abiogenesis is not a cult or a religion, its simply one of the many universal theories that we pursue through science. By the way what do you think that this theory derived from, no evidence....

If there is evidence for abiogenesis, then what the heck are they studying? If there is evidence why can't it be duplicated? What are the scientist doing in the labs? Lollygagging? If there is evidence that life originated from non-living material this is big news, and it will be all over the media.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

Notice how this is not a faith based claim. This is a research that can actually be tested, and therefore not only making in scientific, but a theory as well.

How can something be tested that has never been observed? I thought science was based off evidence observational evidence that can be tested. However abigenesis is not science, abiogenesis is Pseudoscience, it's the stuff that dreams are made out of.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

So you think religion is not faith based, lacking evidence?....

Not sure whats so funny I never said religion wasn't faith based lacking evidence. Im fully aware that I have no evidence to present for the existence of my God. However what Im trying to explain to you is this, you're in the same boat. You're belief in abiogenesis is lacking evidence and you believe off nothing but faith.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

If you can give me some concrete evidence about God, I'll hope right on the train man. Where in the right mind would you claim there is evidence for organized religions. The whole episode has just become a suckers bet filled with people that don't want to.... dare I say, have to associate with this guy .

You're an Atheist, why are you asking for evidence for God? If you don't believe he exist? I'm not asking you to hop aboard to Christianity, what you do with your life is on you. It's obvious that my beliefs are on faith, I'm not denying this, however its not up to me to produce anything regarding my beliefs because I can attest that they are strictly faith driven. You on the other hand must produce evidence to support that non-living material can create living material, you're claiming that you are not faith driven but you haven't proved anything, every last one of your post is nothing but blah blah blah hate religion blah blah blah Hate God. Where is the evidence that supports non-living matter creating living matter? I'm actually getting tired of asking you this.

Oh and I was curious about this question you avoided, want to try to explain this one to me?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

And how exactly does lifeless matter exist before the universe?

I put it in bold just in case you missed it previously.

So you're telling me that scientist do not 'believe' that the complexity of life as we see to day is a result of non-living matter? They are just studying it because for no apparent reason they 'assume' that this is what could have transpired? are you freaking serious man??

Well, considering that a) Life has not existed forever and that b) it did not start out complex and that c) it is made up of basic substances which are, in turn, made up of the known elements which are all found on earth, we can conclude that life, somehow, emerged from the universe and was not zapped into existence as-is.

Also, I have to point out a flaw in your argument against evolution: The environment is constantly changing, and as a result, many species may go extinct. How, if there are only a finite amount of species, has the earth maintained a population over its 4 billion year existence? Eventually life will die out then, since it can't change to suit its evironment according to you.

95 99% of all species that ever lived on earth have gone extinct. Does that put it into perspective?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So you're telling me that scientist do not 'believe' that the complexity of life as we see to day is a result of non-living matter? They are just studying it because for no apparent reason they 'assume' that this is what could have transpired? are you freaking serious man??



Explain to me how can you study something when you have no evidence or any type of observational information or data to support what you're studying? You're in denial, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that coincides with life originating from non-living matter. What we see is life reproducing from it's own kind. Study that, that's evidence, thats something you can observe, thats something you can sink your teeth into. You can try to fancy abiogenesis up all you want but you're still left with the same situation. No evidence that this has occurred and you're accepting it off FAITH, that my friend is the bottom line, no matter how you look at it.



If there is evidence for abiogenesis, then what the heck are they studying? If there is evidence why can't it be duplicated? What are the scientist doing in the labs? Lollygagging? If there is evidence that life originated from non-living material this is big news, and it will be all over the media.




How can something be tested that has never been observed? I thought science was based off evidence observational evidence that can be tested. However abigenesis is not science, abiogenesis is Pseudoscience, it's the stuff that dreams are made out of.



Not sure whats so funny I never said religion wasn't faith based lacking evidence. Im fully aware that I have no evidence to present for the existence of my God. However what Im trying to explain to you is this, you're in the same boat. You're belief in abiogenesis is lacking evidence and you believe off nothing but faith.



You're an Atheist, why are you asking for evidence for God? If you don't believe he exist? I'm not asking you to hop aboard to Christianity, what you do with your life is on you. It's obvious that my beliefs are on faith, I'm not denying this, however its not up to me to produce anything regarding my beliefs because I can attest that they are strictly faith driven. You on the other hand must produce evidence to support that non-living material can create living material, you're claiming that you are not faith driven but you haven't proved anything, every last one of your post is nothing but blah blah blah hate religion blah blah blah Hate God. Where is the evidence that supports non-living matter creating living matter? I'm actually getting tired of asking you this.

Oh and I was curious about this question you avoided, want to try to explain this one to me?



I put it in bold just in case you missed it previously.

Question: "How exactly does lifeless matter exist before the universe?"

The claim of abiogenesis would be that lifeless matter was at one point it's own universe. Then from this universe of building blocks, so to speak, it created another universe of essentially less complex matter, i.e subatomic particles, etc... then a long chain rule of spontaneous creation brings us to where we are. The evidence for the hypothesis of this has been preformed in many experiments of similar respect, for example some with amino acids; I will let you do the research for how this theory originated if you have a vested interest, good question. Of course we are coming closer to experiments with a closer respect to this theory as science continues, a positive look at this huge photon accelerator may yield some viable information .

If you are even more interested about science of gensis oriented nature, watch the video that philsopherstoned put up, was a very healthy investment of time .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuRxR...layer_embedded