Re: What are the evolutionists hiding?
- From: "Ron O" <rokimoto@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 14 Aug 2005 12:20:38 -0700
r norman wrote:
> On 14 Aug 2005 09:27:37 -0700, "Ron O" <rokimoto@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >r norman wrote:
> >> On 14 Aug 2005 06:51:11 -0700, "Ron O" <rokimoto@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >r norman wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:14:02 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
> >> >> <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Logos wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Evolutionists would like for you to believe that life sprang spontaneously
> >> >> >> from non-life, almost by magic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Actually the ToE says nothing of the kind. It says life has become
> >> >> >modified over time since it originally apeared and it offers a theory as
> >> >> >to how that happens. ToE does not address the problem of abiogenisis.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The anti-evolutionists have trundled out this stinking carnard since
> >> >> >1859. It was false when Slippery Sam Wilberforce invoked it and it is
> >> >> >false now.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry, that answer simply doesn't work. What you say is technically
> >> >> true about how the "Theory of Evolution" is defined. However it is
> >> >> quite true that people who understand that evolution of life obeys
> >> >> natural laws as described by TOE also, in fact, almost universally
> >> >> believe that abiogenesis occurred by natural laws so that life did
> >> >> arise spontaneously from non-life. You can't get around that fact
> >> >> simply by arguing that the subject has a different name.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are far better ways to answer the query.
> >> >
> >> >That is just science. That isn't the theory of biological evolution.
> >> >What scientific field doesn't make such distinctions? Are theories of
> >> >stellar function and evolution suspect because we don't know everything
> >> >else? Is the Big Bang suspect because we don't know what happened
> >> >before the big bang?
> >> >
> >> >What part of the theory of biological evolution depends on our
> >> >understanding of abiogenesis? It is obvious that we can study the
> >> >evolution of life after abiogenesis without understanding abiogenesis.
> >> >Science tries to understand as many answers as it can come up with, but
> >> >it doesn't depend on knowing everything or we wouldn't call it science.
> >> > Scientists would be called librarians or theologians if they thought
> >> >that they had all the answers.
> >> >
> >>
> >> My point isn't that abiogenesis is not a separate discipline with
> >> separate concepts and ideas. Most people don't know exactly where
> >> evolution begins and ends. People who question the origin of life can
> >> be answered appropriately and not simply dismissed with the statement
> >> "that's not evolution!"
> >
> >You are basically wrong on this point. What is biological evolution?
> >It is the explanation of the diversity of life in the biosphere. It
> >says nothing about how life began. If it were not a separate disipline
> >why would it have its own name? You seem to miss the point that all
> >science is partitioned. Biological evolution is no different. There
> >may be a grand unifying theory somewhere in the future of physics, but
> >that doesn't mean that we can't understand gravity, and electro
> >magnetism. In the case of abiogenesis it is a very good thing that we
> >don't need to understand it to study biological evolution. Even if we
> >figure out the most probable means that life got started on this
> >planet, we have absolutely no means of determining if life didn't get
> >started by some less probable means. All that is required is that it
> >happened, and creationists and scientists agree that it must have
> >happened at some time somewhere in the universe.
> >
>
> The original post began: "Evolutionists would like for you to believe
> that life sprang spontaneously from non-life, almost by magic. Such a
> contention is so crazy I don't see how any common sense person could
> believe it." We all know that Logos, the poster, is either a crank or
> a troll (or both) and, from the entire style of the post, does not
> deserve a long, thoughtful response. However, it does NOT claim that
> "The Theory of evolution says that life sprang spontaneously." As I
> pointed out earlier, it is quite true that virtually all
> "evolutionists" would like for us all to believe that life sprang
> spontaneously from non-life. The magic part is another story.
>
> Let us assume that a naive but sincere person raises a question about
> the origin of life from non-life. That person should not be dismissed
> with the scornful "that is NOT evolution!". That person should be
> educated that there is a scientific study of the origin of life, a
> field rather distinct from the study of evolution, that there are
> hypotheses and proposals and ideas all consistent with natural
> processes that make such a transition quite reasonable.
>
> The name of this group is talk.origins, not talk.evolution. The
> origin of life is certainly a very appropriate subject for discussion
> here.
Then we aren't talking about the same thing and abiogenesis is still
not a part of the theory of biological evolution, so making such a
claim is still valid simply because it is true. Maybe the original
poster mis applied it, but against logos, not much could be a
misapplication. Just claiming that the sky is blue for no apparent
reason is better than just about anything he has come up with.
Ron Okimoto
.
- References:
- What are the evolutionists hiding?
- From: Logos
- Re: What are the evolutionists hiding?
- From: Robert J. Kolker
- Re: What are the evolutionists hiding?
- From: r norman
- Re: What are the evolutionists hiding?
- From: Ron O
- Re: What are the evolutionists hiding?
- From: r norman
- Re: What are the evolutionists hiding?
- From: Ron O
- Re: What are the evolutionists hiding?
- From: r norman
- What are the evolutionists hiding?
- Prev by Date: Re: What are the evolutionists hiding?
- Next by Date: Re: The "Chicken Littles" of Univ of Pitt apparently fear the Kindie-Gardners of the US
- Previous by thread: Re: What are the evolutionists hiding?
- Next by thread: Re: What are the evolutionists hiding?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
