Apparently you don't understand common English very well.
Just for that I'm going to point out every grammatical and spelling error you make in these forums until I get bored of doing it. I am very patient and don't get bored quickly.
I am not referring to common grammatical and spelling errors. I am referring to understanding what I am saying with the common English language.
Originally posted by RJHinds I am not referring to common grammatical and spelling errors. I am referring to understanding what I am saying with the common English language.
O.K. RJ lets look at the two sentences from your earlier post I was responding to.
Neither is it common sense to believe that life just creates itself.
I responded to this with:
There was a quite common belief up until the early modern period that mice and other small pests were created through abiogenesis...
Therefore I felt justified in challenging your "not common sense" claim. Your next sentence was:
Biological evolution isn't even possible unless we have life first.
So I pointed out that the word biological applies to living things and you'd have to consider evolution of proto-life, such as viruses. So your attempt to evade my argument by claiming I didn't understand it has failed. You can't squirm out of this, your argument is flawed.
Sorry RJ, but I'm better at this kind of game than you are.
Originally posted by DeepThought O.K. RJ lets look at the two sentences from your earlier post I was responding to.
Neither is it common sense to believe that life just creates itself.
I responded to this with:
There was a quite common belief up until the early modern period that mice and other small pests were created through abiogenesis...
Therefore I felt ju ...[text shortened]... of this, your argument is flawed.
Sorry RJ, but I'm better at this kind of game than you are.
Well, you responded wrongly because what I said refers to the present, not the past. So let me restate my point to make it perfectly clear:
In this day and time, it is NOT common sense to believe that life just creates itself.
Now my second point referred to Darwin's Theory of Evolution which he tried to use to explain the origin of the species. But it failed to explain the origin of the species any more than "spontaneous generation" did. So that was what I was referring to when I made the statement:
Biological evolution isn't even possible unless we have life first.
Then I believe i might have added that many evolutionists are still speculating about the possibility of "spontaneous generation" by simply changing the name to "abiogenesis" and claiming that it is now a different theory.
The fact that you want to deflect away from the above statement about the origin of biological life by claiming that the origin of viruses, or so-called proto life, does not have to be explained is nothing short of bullsyhte, as sonhouse would put it.
Originally posted by RJHinds Well, you responded wrongly because what I said refers to the present, not the past. So let me restate my point to make it perfectly clear:
[b]In this day and time, it is NOT common sense to believe that life just creates itself.
Now my second point referred to Darwin's Theory of Evolution which he tried to use to explain the origin of the species ...[text shortened]... oto life, does not have to be explained is nothing short of bullsyhte, as sonhouse would put it.[/b]
Your first point, common sense, more common sense people believe in evolution than your silly 6 day Egyptian creation tale.
Second point is we have been saying all along that evolution and life origins are two separate subjects and you just repeat the obvious. Without life there can be no evolution. DUH.
Originally posted by RJHinds Well, you responded wrongly because what I said refers to the present, not the past. So let me restate my point to make it perfectly clear:
[b]In this day and time, it is NOT common sense to believe that life just creates itself.
Now my second point referred to Darwin's Theory of Evolution which he tried to use to explain the origin of the species ...[text shortened]... oto life, does not have to be explained is nothing short of bullsyhte, as sonhouse would put it.[/b]
In this day and time, it is NOT common sense to believe that life just creates itself.
Well you didn't qualify your statement with: "in this day and age" did you. Your statement is still ambiguous. You could either mean that it is not common sense for people now to think that life just arose 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, which I'd dispute. Common sense would indicate that there had to be a start to life. The major scientific candidates are abiogenesis and extra-terrestrial origin. So, you see, common sense would indicate one of these.
The alternative is that you mean that it is not common sense to think that new life forms could arise by abiogenesis on earth now. As far as I know most biologists would agree with you because we live in an oxidising environment which would destroy the new proto-life before it could get anywhere and proto-life of that form would count as food. It would either be degraded by the environment or eaten.
The fact that you want to deflect away from the above statement about the origin of biological life by claiming that the origin of viruses, or so-called proto life, does not have to be explained is nothing short of [censored], as sonhouse would put it.
I made no claims about the origin of viruses. I merely pointed out that they are not alive, by the biological definition, but are never-the-less subject to natural selection. I also did not claim that the origin of proto-life does not require explanation. We have one, namely the theory of abiogenesis.
In this day and time, it is NOT common sense to believe that life just creates itself.
Well you didn't qualify your statement with: "in this day and age" did you. Your statement is still ambiguous. You could either mean that it is not common sense for people now to think that life just arose 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, which I'd dispute. ...[text shortened]... igin of proto-life does not require explanation. We have one, namely the theory of abiogenesis.
I don't see abiogensis is any different from the idea of spontaneous generation, which has been disproven. You do understand that abiogensis directly conflicts with the Law of Biogenesis don't you?
Originally posted by RJHinds I don't see abiogensis is any different from the idea of spontaneous generation, which has been disproven. You do understand that abiogensis directly conflicts with the Law of Biogenesis don't you?
And YOU know biogenesis is the antithesis of creation don't you?
Your god is not based on biology, so it would not be life making life. Your god is supposedly a spirit so it cannot do biogenesis, only wave it's rhetorical hands and insto presto, life appears.
Originally posted by sonhouse And YOU know biogenesis is the antithesis of creation don't you?
Your god is not based on biology, so it would not be life making life. Your god is supposedly a spirit so it cannot do biogenesis, only wave it's rhetorical hands and insto presto, life appears.
That is not BY DEFINITION biogenesis.
Well, you acknowledge God is a spirit, however He is also alive and the following Holy Bible verses prove it:
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”
Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me... And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this..."
(Revelation 1:8-12, 17-19 NKJV)
So God is a living Spirit and created all other living things proving the Law of Biogenesis that states life comes from life.
Originally posted by RJHinds Well, you acknowledge God is a spirit, however He is also alive and the following Holy Bible verses prove it:
[b]“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the i ...[text shortened]... created all other living things proving the Law of Biogenesis that states life comes from life.
Prove it scientifically, no creepy creationist video's allowed.
Originally posted by RJHinds Well, I am not a scientist and I proved it from the Holy Bible and the Law of Biogenesis has already been proven and accepted by Science.
"Well, I am not a scientist..."
We already know that.
"...and I proved it from the Holy Bible..."
Therefore it's not science, it's religion.
Originally posted by RJHinds I don't see abiogensis is any different from the idea of spontaneous generation, which has been disproven. You do understand that abiogensis directly conflicts with the Law of Biogenesis don't you?
With spontaneous generation they had complex multicellular life-forms popping into existence. Abiogenesis attempts to explain the origin of very primitive single cells.
What you are calling the law of biogenesis is not a scientific law, it's at most a guideline. Once life has started and proliferated, and especially after the first photosynthesisers and the oxygen catastrophe, abiogenesis would not proceed because the structures would simply be oxidised away.
With reference to your discussion with sonhouse, the Bible's definition of what is life and biology's definition are different. Incidentally, does the Bible actually state that God is alive, or does it claim that he is the source of all life, which if you think about it are different things.
Originally posted by DeepThought With spontaneous generation they had complex multicellular life-forms popping into existence. Abiogenesis attempts to explain the origin of very primitive single cells.
What you are calling the law of biogenesis is not a scientific law, it's at most a guideline. Once life has started and proliferated, and especially after the first photosynthesise ...[text shortened]... es it claim that he is the source of all life, which if you think about it are different things.
The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation. This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life." A related statement is Omnis cellula e cellula, "all cells [are] from cells;" this observation is one of the central statements of cell theory.[b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis
Francisco Redi on a macroscopic level and Louis Pasteur on a microscopic level showed that life does not come from non-life
Originally posted by RJHinds [b]The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation. This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex viv ...[text shortened]... not come from non-life
Originally posted by RJHinds [b]The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation. This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex viv ...[text shortened]... not come from non-life
[b]Law of Biogenesis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ-Vz0ITIo0[/b]
Yes RJ I know what the rule of biogenesis says. Did you understand my post? Do you understand that there is a difference between the modern theory of abiogenesis and the ancient theory of spontaneous generation? Do you understand the point that abiogenesis would not be expected to naturally occur in the modern world or pretty much at any time since the oxygen catastrophe? Do you think I will respond well if you attempt to treat me like an idiot?
10 Jun '14 00:16
YouTube
Question evolution
Back to Top