Re: Fact or SpinŽ

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:23:59 -0700 (PDT), All-seeing-I
<apc57@xxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

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.

There is a world of difference.

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.

But one deals with an event that we know occurred about 4 billion
years ago, the other deals with an event we know cannot occur.

[snip more Mudbrain stupidity.]



Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-

That 3.5% actually means 25%...

That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...

That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...

That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...

To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...

To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...

That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]

And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...

That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.

Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.

Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.


Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.

--
Bob.

.

Quantcast