Re: Fact or Spin®

On Oct 20, 11:01 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 20, 6:10 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The Origin of Life as explained by the T.O. web site makes the case
for Spontaneous Generation, which can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

(note in the URL that this is filed under FAQ, in the Abiogenesis FAQs
section)

Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation.







But over here we discover Spontaneous Generation was thought to be the
Origin of Life until the late 1850's. It wasn't until Frenchman Louis
Pasteur that this fallacy was finally disproved. In 1859,  Which can
be read about here:

http://www.allaboutscience.org/origin-of-life.htm

Now why would the TO web site putforth what appears to be presented as
fact and evidence of Spontaneous Generation that was refuted more then
a hundred fifty years ago by two well known scientists of their day?
Could this be a spin? Let's see:

***Bonus Material:

" From this work arose the modern evolutionary movement, which is now
thought to have occurred in six phases: (1) Cosmic Evolution (the
origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing); (2) Chemical
Evolution (the development of the higher elements from hydrogen); (3)
Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets); (4)
Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life from a rock); (5) Macro
Evolution (the origin of major kinds); and (6) Micro Evolution (the
variation within the kinds). Only the sixth phase has been observed
and documented. The first five are merely assumed. Interestingly, the
fourth assumption is the old doctrine of Spontaneous Generation -
organic life developing from inorganic matter (a rock). The sadly
comical result is that some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to
the work of Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in
disproving Spontaneous Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school
kids are taught that Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life."

Wow. The teachers do not notice the contradiction just a few chapters
latter? Well, I'm sure the students do.

Students can get an education. The notion of spontaneous
generation was a pre-science notion based in part on that part
of Genesis that refers to "let the earth bring for life" and goes
way back into Medieval times, if not earlier.

The Pasteur experiment was designed to disprove the notion that
there is some sort of "active principle" in the air that makes
bacteria arise spontaneously. Vitalism is the same belief that
creationists still share, in that they believe that somehow there
is some difference between "living chemicals" and "dead chemicals"
when, in fact chemistry is chemistry.

-John



It seems the body of work that disproves Spontaneous Generation was
what got the ball rolling for modern day evolutionary theory. But the
TO web site has Spontaneous Generation listed in it's FAQ as if it is
quite probable. It is not until the very end of the presentation, way
at the bottom it says:  " since much of the origin-of-life scenarios
is still hypothesis. Experimental models are needed.. " (would most
readers even make it that far before then moving on?)

Abiogenesis is a theme of hypotheses and theories. Nobody
claims that the problem of the origin of is solved, so you are
merely creating a straw man by cutting and pasting.



Let's review what a FAQ is:
Frequently asked questions, or FAQs are listed questions and answers,
all supposed to be frequently asked in some context, and pertaining to
a particular topic.

You seem like a fairly articulate fellow. It is a shame that you
have made such a mess of yourself.

-John

OK, I guess i will have to delve into this a bit further.

There is not much difference between Spontaneous Generation and
Abiogenesis. The similarities are plain to see. Both are theories
dealing with the generation of life from lifelessness. That is
blatantly obvious within the definations of the two words. So anything
beyond that is Semantics.

Let's take a look why I say that:

Abiogenesis, "the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from
inanimate matter". (chemical evolution)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Spontaneous Generation: "an obsolete theory regarding the origin of
life from inanimate matter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_Generation

As you can see, both deal with how life could have risen from
inanimate matter.

So a this point one would have to question the motive for why the
original theory is absolute. The older theory has a testable model.
The new theories do not. That was made plain on the TO web site. Tests
were needed for the newer theories that it spoke of.

IMHO the newer theories seem to seek a dovetail with the modern day
theory of evolution, the older theory does not and for obvious
reasons.

Once again we have two versions of the same story. This time it is two
different versions about how life could or could not have arisen from
inanimate matter.

Now, since Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur were driven by science and
a desire for real discovery, but, modern day science seems to
desperately want to prove the theory of evolution true, I will have
to side with the older theory as being the most reliable at this
point. The older theory is not agenda driven. Also, the newer theories
do not have test models while the older one does. For now the new
theories are just ideas. Call them wild fantasy if you will.

You seem like a smart fella John. I'm sure you can see the many
agendas we have in our society today. Because of that fact alone one
has to be careful of what information they swallow hook line and
sinker.

The TO slants the material on it's web site in many places. That is in
my humble opinion. Which was the premise of my OP. Clearly I have
shown that in this thread.

Now, I am not saying the TO web site is totally worthless. In fact, I
think the site itself is well run. But it is clear to anyone seeking
truth and doing some digging that the TO web site's overall theme is
geared toward the theory of evolution being the most viable
explanation for man's origins. I have shown there are those that
disagree with that and that their explanations are just as viable as
the TO website's explanations.


It really is THAT simple.
--
The all seeing I

.

Relevant Pages

  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Fact_or_Spin=AE?=
    ... Pasteur that this fallacy was finally disproved. ... fact and evidence of Spontaneous Generation that was refuted more then ... Evolution; ... Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life from a rock); ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... Pasteur showed that it is unreasonable to think that life comes from ... complex form from nonlife in nature; ... WAS MEANT TO DISMANTLE THE IDEA OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) ... The theory of evolution says nothing about biogenesis or abiogenesis. ... scientists would most certainly find cause ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fact_or_Spin=AE?=
    ... (note in the URL that this is filed under FAQ, ... But over here we discover Spontaneous Generation was thought to be the ... Origin of Life until the late 1850's. ... Evolution; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... Pasteur showed that it is unreasonable to think that life comes from ... complex form from nonlife in nature; ... or denying that spontaneous generation overall was impossible. ...
    (talk.origins)