Abiogenesis

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: cobalt
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
noun

The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

People please don't confuse evolution with abiogenesis. Mods can this maybe be a sticky?

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Not sticky worthy.

 

[glenn1]

This is something both sides innately know, but it doesn't matter. The Creationists don't have the scientific background to know it's an issue (or be able to articulate it) and the Evolutionists purposely avoid it because they know it's by far the weakest link in their entire line of argument. And since for many of Evolutionist backers, their whole rationale is try to make evolution an all-encompassing denial of God's existence, it would be pretty mortifying for them to admit the starting premise for their entire worldview is a crock of scientifically unprovable sh!t.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: glenn1
This is something both sides innately know, but it doesn't matter. The Creationists don't have the scientific background to know it's an issue (or be able to articulate it) and the Evolutionists purposely avoid it because they know it's by far the weakest link in their entire line of argument. And since for many of Evolutionist backers, their whole rationale is try to make evolution an all-encompassing denial of God's existence, it would be pretty mortifying for them to admit the starting premise for their entire worldview is a crock of scientifically unprovable sh!t.

whoa whoa, so much heat from you

watch out it'll burn your strawman

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: glenn1
This is something both sides innately know, but it doesn't matter. The Creationists don't have the scientific background to know it's an issue (or be able to articulate it) and the Evolutionists purposely avoid it because they know it's by far the weakest link in their entire line of argument. And since for many of Evolutionist backers, their whole rationale is try to make evolution an all-encompassing denial of God's existence, it would be pretty mortifying for them to admit the starting premise for their entire worldview is a crock of scientifically unprovable sh!t.

I think you are living in a paranoid fantasy world. A lot of great scientists have also believed in God - perhaps just not the retarded way a lot of other people choose to do it.

And Abiogenesis isn't "unprovable." It just hasn't been proved to be correct or incorrect yet. It's not a bad hypothesis.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: glenn1
This is something both sides innately know, but it doesn't matter. The Creationists don't have the scientific background to know it's an issue (or be able to articulate it) and the Evolutionists purposely avoid it because they know it's by far the weakest link in their entire line of argument. And since for many of Evolutionist backers, their whole rationale is try to make evolution an all-encompassing denial of God's existence, it would be pretty mortifying for them to admit the starting premise for their entire worldview is a crock of scientifically unprovable sh!t.

I think you are living in a paranoid fantasy world. A lot of great scientists have also believed in God - perhaps just not the retarded way a lot of other people choose to do it.

And Abiogenesis isn't "unprovable." It just hasn't been proved to be correct or incorrect yet. It's not a bad hypothesis.

It doesn't matter here in the purpose of this thread if it is provable. Evolution is being used as a name for abiogenesis trying to say that life came out of no where which many zealots seem to believe that is what evolution is saying. Some also believe that evolution is also the big bang, I reference that from a previous post in a thread where someone said evolution is how the universe came to be. That is bs. People if you want to have an intelligent discussion about something, I think that we must know what it is we are talking about.

Evolution != abiogenesis != Big Bang theory.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: glenn1
This is something both sides innately know, but it doesn't matter. The Creationists don't have the scientific background to know it's an issue (or be able to articulate it) and the Evolutionists purposely avoid it because they know it's by far the weakest link in their entire line of argument. And since for many of Evolutionist backers, their whole rationale is try to make evolution an all-encompassing denial of God's existence, it would be pretty mortifying for them to admit the starting premise for their entire worldview is a crock of scientifically unprovable sh!t.

I think you are living in a paranoid fantasy world. A lot of great scientists have also believed in God - perhaps just not the retarded way a lot of other people choose to do it.

And Abiogenesis isn't "unprovable." It just hasn't been proved to be correct or incorrect yet. It's not a bad hypothesis.

It doesn't matter here in the purpose of this thread if it is provable. Evolution is being used as a name for abiogenesis trying to say that life came out of no where which many zealots seem to believe that is what evolution is saying. Some also believe that evolution is also the big bang, I reference that from a previous post in a thread where someone said evolution is how the universe came to be. That is bs. People if you want to have an intelligent discussion about something, I think that we must know what it is we are talking about.

Evolution != abiogenesis != Big Bang theory.

I hope you aren't expecting the same people who don't understand the difference between all of these things to understand the "!=" notation popular in certain coding syntaxes haha.

 

[kage69]

Not sticky worthy.

Even though there are so many opinionated fundies ignorant of the distinction, I agree - ardent creationists will no doubt opt to cling their fragile world view in light of a sticky.

 

[Pliablemoose]

The whole argument about Creationism VS Evolution just pisses me off.

I had a HS biology teacher that was a bible thumping Creationist & a Baptist minister, & he crammed that stuff down our throats at every chance during lectures and he had those damn ultra religeous booklets all over his room & eventually the school.

I used to piss him off & tell him neither theory was correct because life was seeded/planted on Earth by aliens, that since life originated elsewhere & that we didn't have access to that planet it was a moot point. I used to bring books like Chariots of the Gods to class, just to get him fired up.

He finally got fired a few years after I graduated.

If the Creationists were a bit more creative, they'd include some of the concepts of Evolution in with their theory, & claim that God (big G) initiated life on this planet and that Evolution was all part of his plan.

The biggest problem I have with Evolution is that we don't see the suggested mutations & new species cropping up as the theory suggests. And I could drive a truck through all the gaping holes in Creationism.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: glenn1
This is something both sides innately know, but it doesn't matter. The Creationists don't have the scientific background to know it's an issue (or be able to articulate it) and the Evolutionists purposely avoid it because they know it's by far the weakest link in their entire line of argument. And since for many of Evolutionist backers, their whole rationale is try to make evolution an all-encompassing denial of God's existence, it would be pretty mortifying for them to admit the starting premise for their entire worldview is a crock of scientifically unprovable sh!t.

I think you are living in a paranoid fantasy world. A lot of great scientists have also believed in God - perhaps just not the retarded way a lot of other people choose to do it.

And Abiogenesis isn't "unprovable." It just hasn't been proved to be correct or incorrect yet. It's not a bad hypothesis.

It doesn't matter here in the purpose of this thread if it is provable. Evolution is being used as a name for abiogenesis trying to say that life came out of no where which many zealots seem to believe that is what evolution is saying. Some also believe that evolution is also the big bang, I reference that from a previous post in a thread where someone said evolution is how the universe came to be. That is bs. People if you want to have an intelligent discussion about something, I think that we must know what it is we are talking about.

Evolution != abiogenesis != Big Bang theory.

Unfortunately many of the creationist know that having an intelligent discussion about this is the exact WRONG method for them to achieve their ends. The purpose of course is to spread FUD.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Paratus
Unfortunately many of the creationist know that having an intelligent discussion about this is the exact WRONG method for them to achieve their ends. The purpose of course is to spread FUD.

Well...for the prominent creationists out there this is definitely true. For your average, going-to-church, believes-whatever-the-preacher-says fundamentalist creationist, the problem is their ignorance, rather than their dishonesty.

 

[kage69]

The biggest problem I have with Evolution is that we don't see the suggested mutations & new species cropping up as the theory suggests

And of course you wouldn't with a scope of just a few hundred years, that's not even a "blink of an eye" in the larger scale of time concerning our planet.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: kage69

The biggest problem I have with Evolution is that we don't see the suggested mutations & new species cropping up as the theory suggests

And of course you wouldn't with a scope of just a few hundred years, that's not even a "blink of an eye" in the larger scale of time concerning our planet.

I tend to agree, I also suspect humans are changing the planet so quickly that adaptive mutations cannot occur quickly enough to be usefull.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: kage69

The biggest problem I have with Evolution is that we don't see the suggested mutations & new species cropping up as the theory suggests

And of course you wouldn't with a scope of just a few hundred years, that's not even a "blink of an eye" in the larger scale of time concerning our planet.

Hell more like 50 years. Evolution occurs fastest in new isolated but habitiable enviroments. I would be surpised if we were studying any such enviroment for more then 50 years.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: kage69

The biggest problem I have with Evolution is that we don't see the suggested mutations & new species cropping up as the theory suggests

And of course you wouldn't with a scope of just a few hundred years, that's not even a "blink of an eye" in the larger scale of time concerning our planet.

Hell more like 50 years. Evolution occurs fastest in new isolated but habitiable enviroments. I would be surpised if we were studying any such enviroment for more then 50 years.

50 years will be enough time to build a subdivision on it

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: kage69

The biggest problem I have with Evolution is that we don't see the suggested mutations & new species cropping up as the theory suggests

And of course you wouldn't with a scope of just a few hundred years, that's not even a "blink of an eye" in the larger scale of time concerning our planet.

I tend to agree, I also suspect humans are changing the planet so quickly that adaptive mutations cannot occur quickly enough to be usefull.

Right now I think the only animals that could evolved would be deer and other animals that live in suburbia. I wouldn't be surprised if the deer end up slower and their would split into two breads a short more dog sized animal and skinny taller one with a long neck.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: kage69

The biggest problem I have with Evolution is that we don't see the suggested mutations & new species cropping up as the theory suggests

And of course you wouldn't with a scope of just a few hundred years, that's not even a "blink of an eye" in the larger scale of time concerning our planet.

I tend to agree, I also suspect humans are changing the planet so quickly that adaptive mutations cannot occur quickly enough to be usefull.

Right now I think the only animals that could evolved would be deer and other animals that live in suburbia. I wouldn't be surprised if the deer end up slower and their would split into two breads a short more dog sized animal and skinny taller one with a long neck.

That doesn't make much sense. Do they really have a need to evolve?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The whole argument about Creationism VS Evolution just pisses me off.

I had a HS biology teacher that was a bible thumping Creationist & a Baptist minister, & he crammed that stuff down our throats at every chance during lectures and he had those damn ultra religeous booklets all over his room & eventually the school.

I used to piss him off & tell him neither theory was correct because life was seeded/planted on Earth by aliens, that since life originated elsewhere & that we didn't have access to that planet it was a moot point. I used to bring books like Chariots of the Gods to class, just to get him fired up.

He finally got fired a few years after I graduated.

If the Creationists were a bit more creative, they'd include some of the concepts of Evolution in with their theory, & claim that God (big G) initiated life on this planet and that Evolution was all part of his plan.

The biggest problem I have with Evolution is that we don't see the suggested mutations & new species cropping up as the theory suggests. And I could drive a truck through all the gaping holes in Creationism.

Was that HS teacher banned from AT?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: kage69

The biggest problem I have with Evolution is that we don't see the suggested mutations & new species cropping up as the theory suggests

And of course you wouldn't with a scope of just a few hundred years, that's not even a "blink of an eye" in the larger scale of time concerning our planet.

I tend to agree, I also suspect humans are changing the planet so quickly that adaptive mutations cannot occur quickly enough to be usefull.

Right now I think the only animals that could evolved would be deer and other animals that live in suburbia. I wouldn't be surprised if the deer end up slower and their would split into two breads a short more dog sized animal and skinny taller one with a long neck.

That doesn't make much sense. Do they really have a need to evolve?

Animals don't evolve out of need but out of oppertuinity. Look at the deer hurds in suburban areas and you will see that there are lots of small deer compared to the country were the deer population is much smaller and the deer are larger. There is alot of competion for food and deer are not specilized to live in that enviroement so they would likely exprence a burst of evolition if they where isolated.