Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?


"ave1" <ave1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152852775.454775.327200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

bullpup wrote:
"ave1" <ave1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151878801.336085.253370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

bullpup wrote:
"ave1" <ave1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151796616.039938.268990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

bullpup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
ave1 wrote:
bullpup wrote:
"ave1" <ave1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1151038535.888594.284080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>


Unlike you, he realized that the popular idea of his day
was
utter
garbage-- that being spontaneous generation.

Yes. However, he had good reason to doubt it. Now, how
does
that
help your
IDiotic possition? I mean, other from argument from
incredulity
or
misrepresenting quotes from biologists who accept evolution?
<snip>

He had a good reason to doubt the spontaneous generation
because
he
knew that naturalistic processes don't "create" living things
from
that
which doesn't have life. I'm coming from the same territory.


No, you're not. "Spontanious Generation" in his context was
flies
and
magots. In the context of abiogenesis, it's a very basic self
replicating single celled (if it was even contained within a
cell)
"first life".

Let's look at your context claim. Redi showed that maggots don't
ever
show up on their own in nonliving matter. Wikipedia puts it this
way:
". . .he is most well-known for his experiment in 1668 which is
regarded as a one of the first steps in refuting "spontaneous
generation" - a theory also known as Aristotelian abiogenesis."

http://www.answers.com/topic/abiogenesis defines abiogenesis (in
the
context of how Aristotle would interpret it) as "non biological
origins". Go ahead and read it-- it's there. The opening
statements
at
this website also confirm this:
http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv4-39

<snip>

It's not the same context, or concept. To continue to claim it is
is
pure
dishonesty on your part.

Please try again when you learn to be intellectually honest.

Boikat.

So that's it? I guess this thread is done because you are refusing to
wrangle with the issues.

The issue is you continious equivocation of the concepts of "spontanious
generation" with abiogenesis.

Spontaneous generation is life coming from nonlife. Wikipedia sees it
this way. Answers.com sees it this way. Here's another source that
sees it this way: http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis

Now, of course, any abiogenesis proponent will argue that the word
"spontaneous" is to be replaced with "gradual" when it comes to
abiogenesis, but what they often forget is that in the gradual
abiogenesis process there'd be a point where something that doesn't
meet the criteria for being called a lifeform would cross a threshold
where it *would be* labelled as a lifeform. This crossing of the
threshold would likely be a sudden occurance for the
mutationally-created organism, and this is where the spontaneous
generation would have occured in the abiogenesis process.

Fine and dandy in thsi context. Are you through with trying to slip Redi's
experiments in out of the blue as an idiotic attempt to "disprove"
abiogenesis?


If refusing to accopt you constantly equating
the two is "refsuing to wrangle the issues", in your mind, then so be
it.

With regard to the whole spontaneous generation issue, I have
maintained honesty. I demonstrated-- with help of some persuasive
sources that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are one in the
same.

No, you presented quote mined segments which only served to confuse the
issue.

This bald assertion is becoming commonplace. You make the statement,
and everyone is just supposed to believe that what has been plainly
spoken really doesn't at all have the meaning which can be clearly
seen. You never have any good evidence-- just bluster and a whole lot
of handwaving.


Then why did you even bring up Redi?


You on the other hand have provided no persuasive sources to
show that I'm wrong (which I am not).

They are two different concepts. "Spontanious generation" was "Life
(such
as flies and maggots) "generating" from dead meat.

I addressed this tonight in my response to Steven J., so check that
out.

I did. More snivveling on your part.


Abiogenesis is "the
emergance of life from prebiotic conditions of the early earth" (No dead
meat). Are you getting a clue yet?

Are you getting a clue yet that Redi's experiment was the first in a
line of experiments to show that 'life coming from nonlife' is not a
reasonable postulate? There have been other experiments that have
furthered the work. Of course, you can keep holding out hope that
something that can replicate might show up in some "prebiotic
condition" arranged by scientists. . .

Let's put it this way: Are you claiming the prebiotic earth had piles of
dead meat laying around?



I'm not at all impressed with what's gone on here. Go ahead and run
away from the discussion, if that makes you feel like you won. Just
know that this is not over.

I'm not "running away", I'm just saying that until you can distinguish
the
difference between "spontanious generation (Life [flies and maggots]
from
dead meat)" and abiogenesis (life from prebiotic conditions of the early
earth), why should I think you know anything about what you what to
squink
about, other than how to move the quote mine shovel?

Boikat

Around and around we go. I still think you've shown yourself to be
clearly deluded about how spontaneous generation is somehow separated
from abiogenesis.

"spontanious generation" as in flies from piles of dead meat, or
"spontanious generation" from chemical processes on the pre-biotic earth?
Which definition are you using?

It most clearly is not separated.

Origin of life from piles of dead meat is a separate concept from origin of
life from pre-biotic chemical reactions.

It is needed to
occur at one point or another within the process of abiogenesis,
otherwise life would not arise from nonlife.

The bit about "life arising from non-life is the whole point. What does
that have to do with flies and piles of dead meat?


Boikat
--
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage, Mythbusters-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... he had good reason to doubt it. ... http://www.answers.com/topic/abiogenesis defines abiogenesis (in the ... Spontaneous generation is life coming from nonlife. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fact or SpinŽ
    ... Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. ... Evolution; ... Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life from a rock); ... Abiogenesis is a theme of hypotheses and theories. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... He had a good reason to doubt the spontaneous generation because ... Let's look at your context claim. ... http://www.answers.com/topic/abiogenesis defines abiogenesis (in the ... "Spontanious generation" was "Life (such ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... He had a good reason to doubt the spontaneous generation because he ... which doesn't have life. ... In the context of abiogenesis, ... When these kinds of questions began to be asked, scientists started ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... As far as *abiogenesis*, I accept that life probably emerged through ... so general) way-- maggots coming from dead meat or living bacteria ...
    (talk.origins)