Mr. Stein goes to Jefferson City

[jj]

Ok - I also offered the biology class definition - reacting to stimulus, etc. Let's save some time and you give me your definition of what's living and we'll see if I agree with it and then we can move on.

You're making the claim. Your job to define your terms.

My computer reacts to stimulii.

Please elucidate.

 

[jj]

Um, my original point was that creationism has more evidence than abiogenesis based on observable evidence we can all see today. You guys are all over the place.

Since there is literally no evidence whatsoever for creationism, I have no idea how you can say that.

No, the "bible", or whatever creation myth you wish to use (which makes things interesting, they can't all be right), is not "evidence" any more than the Harry Potter books are evidence of wizardry.

 

[shadron]

Um, my original point was that creationism has more evidence than abiogenesis based on observable evidence we can all see today. You guys are all over the place.

To what do you refer, rcronk, as evidence? God's face in the clouds, his handiwork in the fair countenance of man (or, better, woman)? His engineering of the Wasatch mountain range, or his work on the vermiform appendix? What predictions can you make about the state of his creations in, say, 200 million years based on his evidence? Or in what happens to the veriform appendix in the next 2000? Any predictions at all, that can be measured and judged by mere mortals? Oceans getting deeper, mountains getting higher, deserts getting hotter, the house fly getting rarer? Tell us, rcronk, the world awaits these and many others.

Do us this, rcronk: give us a two (or five, whatever you think will do) sentence explanation about what you think abiogenesis (as you use the word above) really is, enough to show that you really have an idea about what it is, whether you believe it or not. I'm not here to nitpick your understanding, as long as you can demonstrate what it is you say has less evidence than creationism.

 

[JoeEllison]

Um, my original point was that creationism has more evidence than abiogenesis based on observable evidence we can all see today. You guys are all over the place.

Since your "point" isn't in any way true, you'll have to start over. Sorry, Charlie.

 

[shadron]

The existence and observation of living things are evidence that living things are created by other living things. I can't think of a single example of a living thing coming from something not living - but that is the claim of abiogenesis, upon with both atheism and evolution rely.

Nevermind my question above, I think I found it.

Is this not evidence in favor of creationism?

Maybe, maybe not. Can you not think of any other reasons why abiogensis may have happened in the past, but is not observed today, which do not depend on creation? I can think of several, none of which requires a deity. If you can't rule them out, then I don't call it evidence of creationism.

On the other hand, you say that evolution requires abiogenesis. I think I could make a plausible story concerning evolution working within creation, if that were a given. And you'd still be able to make explanations of past observations and predictions about future developments with it, unlike what you would be able to do with creation alone.

As for atheism requiring abiogenesis, are you on the predestination side, then? We don't have a free will unless god is totally out of the picture?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

However, to explain how the earth went from lifeless to full of life, we have no evidence of life coming from lifeless matter by itself. We have tons of evidence (all around us all of the time) of life coming from other life.

And lots of that life creates new life from non-living matter without any intelligence whatsoever. In fact it would be the very least intelligent forms of life on Earth, plants, that are best at converting non-life in to life. And every step they use is completely natural chemistry with no hint of the supernatural being necessary.

So which theory (abiogenesis vs. creationism) has more evidence supporting it? We didn't see either happen, but based on the evidence all around us, it would seem to me that the theory with more evidence is creationism - that something living created life on earth.

You just agreed that Earth was lifeless. Are you claiming god bave birth to a bacteria?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Again, now (to prevent falling into a Creationist trap)

Please define life. Please define the one trait... etc.

There isn't just one trait.

 

[rcronk]

We have only witnessed living things coming from other living things. That supports creationism. We have not seen living things come from non-living things. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, it just means the evidence we see of living things only coming from other living things supports creationism instead of abiogenesis. That's what I'm saying. Maybe I missed something, but has anyone seen non-living matter turn into a living thing? If so, please post it.

 

[rcronk]

And lots of that life creates new life from non-living matter without any intelligence whatsoever. In fact it would be the very least intelligent forms of life on Earth, plants, that are best at converting non-life in to life. And every step they use is completely natural chemistry with no hint of the supernatural being necessary.

Um, right. You just made my case - we only observe living things making other living things. That's the creationism theory.

 

[JoeEllison]

We have only witnessed living things coming from other living things. That supports creationism. We have not seen living things come from non-living things. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, it just means the evidence we see of living things only coming from other living things supports creationism instead of abiogenesis. That's what I'm saying. Maybe I missed something, but has anyone seen non-living matter turn into a living thing? If so, please post it.

You never did answer my question: don't you mind being lied to by your fellow creationists every step of the way?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Life? How about something that moves in violation of the laws of physics. Against gravity, against remaining still or remaining in motion without force being applied. Would those distinctions work or would they need refining?

Nothing "moves in violation of the laws of physics". Try again.

 

[jj]

Um, right. You just made my case - we only observe living things making other living things. That's the creationism theory.

My goodness, there are so many logical and rhetorical errors in that that I hardly know where to start.

First, you haven't defined "life".

Then, you argue that because, today, we see life reproducing, that somehow that's the only way it can happen. In other words, you're claiming a negative, which is a rather huge burden.

Then, you say that life making life is "the creationism theory". In fact, that has nothing to do with creationism, which says that god made all life as it exists now (that's what the Jewish and Christian bible say, at least), along with the universe, the planet, and everything else.

Finally, you haven't really stated any "creationism theory", just insisted its true.

So, you haven't really even said anything, and you've made a whole variety of mistakes. I think you need to work on your position a bit, so that we can actually examine what you mean to say.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Um, right. You just made my case - we only observe living things making other living things. That's the creationism theory.

But you agreed there was no life on Earth at one time.

 

[Jimbo07]

There isn't just one trait.

No, but it probably goes to creationist thinking. There was no life and then, *bing* there was life! There must be something, in that mindset, that separated the two.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Um, right. You just made my case - we only observe living things making other living things. That's the creationism theory.

No. The Creationism theory is that 6000 years ago God instantly created the Universe and the Earth. Over the course of a literal 6 days life was created by fiat in it's current form. 2000 years later Noah's Flood occured which explains the Earth's geography.

That is Creationism theory.

What you're doing is saying we have sparse evidence for abiogenesis, ergo God did it. That's a theory too - God of the Gaps.

 

[fishbob]

. . . . . . So you can either leave it out or teach both sides. Perhaps that's where creationists are coming from - teach both sides or teach neither - don't teach just one side or it becomes indoctrination. . . . .

. . . . . . But abiogenesis (or even evolution) isn't necessarily reality, it's a theory. I think we can agree as a society to leave theories alone in schools until proven true or provide opposing theories for the sake of balance. . . . .

"It's not fair that your side has all of science, and all we have is this pile of horsecrap."

1 - With creationism, there is no 'both sides'. Creationism ignores evidence, lies about evidence, makes up stuff and calls it evidence. Teaching lies is not acceptable.

2 - Sigh. Look up 'theory', then look closely at the concept of Creationism. The first thing you notice is that there is no theory there - no clear definition, the vague idea that is presented is contrary to reality.

When one side of the scale is loaded with horsecrap, your balance smells like horsecrap. We can most certainly NOT agree as a society to leave theories alone just because the creationist whiners are armed only with smelly scales.

 

[fishbob]

If a week long lesson on the theory of Intelligent design is going to wipe away years of your preaching logic and science to your child then your doing something wrong.

Intelligent design lesson plan:
Day 1 -
Minute 1 - "OK, kids - as best as we can figure from the rantings and of the creationists, here is the theory of 'intelligent design' - we don't like evolution. It doesn't mention god, and it conflicts with stuff in the Bible."

Minute 2 - "OK, kids - here is the evidence that supports intelligent design: 0"

Minute 3 - "OK, kids, time for math."

Yeah, I would love to see it honestly presented in the curriculum. But dragging it out for a week would be child abuse.

 

[fishbob]

We have only witnessed living things coming from other living things. That supports creationism.

Except that it doesn't.
The world is full up. Pretty much every habitable niche on the planet is inhabited with predators, prey, food chains, all kinds of critters, eco-systems. There is no room for primitive life to arise at this time - any stray molecule that looks vaguely organic is food for something that is already here.

Abiogenesis had to happen back when the planet was empty, and darn it, we missed it. The progression of the fossil record supports this idea, while not a single damn thing supports creationism.

 

[CFLarsen]

No. The Creationism theory is that 6000 years ago God instantly created the Universe and the Earth. Over the course of a literal 6 days life was created by fiat in it's current form. 2000 years later Noah's Flood occured which explains the Earth's geography.

That is Creationism theory.

Well, yes and no. The 6,000 year thingie was how Creationism started. Then, along with new evidence that looked curiously as if species evolved, up popped a whole set of increasingly ridiculous forms of creationism:

• Young Earth creationism
• Old Earth creationism
• Day-age creationism
• Progressive creationism
• Gap creationism
• Theistic evolution

Creationism

The really fun thing to ask a Creationist is which Creationism he believes in - and why he doesn't believe in the other kinds.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well, yes and no. The 6,000 year thingie was how Creationism started. Then, along with new evidence that looked curiously as if species evolved, up popped a whole set of increasingly ridiculous forms of creationism:

I was specifically talking about the "theory of Creationism" like one espoused by William Whiston rather than the varieties that have popped up over the years trying to adapt to the new evidence.

It's ironic that "scientific Creationism" existed and was falsified long before Morris and Whitcomb plagerized Price to concoct "Scientific Creationism".

The really fun thing to ask a Creationist is which Creationism he believes in - and why he doesn't believe in the other kinds.

I love reading the transcripts of debates between Old Earthers like Hugh Ross and YECs like Morris and Hovind.