13,000 Year old temple,

[BigShot]

GAH!
Firecrest...

all elements apart from hydrogen and helium were created within the nuclear fusion of stars, including carbon and oxygen (and therefor water)- that which our bodies are made up of.
At some point all elements in the universe were inorganic, but we seperate ourselves from this and call ourselves organic. as our bodies had to have been made by inorganic process abiogenesis is not disproven.

Bold is neither self-evident nor established, nor is the opposite hypothesis disproven.

I'm not, not, not getting involved though! Really, I'm not.

Basically, bold is only true if abiogenesis happened, as you've worded it though you've got the argument back to front and it's based on an unestablished point.

I'm done.

Have fun kids.

Really!

 

[Draven]

Good post Bigshot, and probably totally right - after all, can't let a silly thing like the truth get in the way of good debate As you say, proving it could happen is one thing - proving it did is completely different, it's like busting someone for assault because they have fists.

I'll start a new theory then - we went back in time and planted the organisms which would later evolve into us - then we don't have to worry about a beginning, a circle has no end I'm stickin by it!

Enjoy your retirement

 

[BigShot]

it's like busting someone for assault because they have fists.

BRILLIANT!
It's not often I actually laugh properly rather than the more usual internal laugh at online things... but that got me. Nicely put!

I'll start a new theory then - we went back in time and planted the organisms which would later evolve into us - then we don't have to worry about a beginning, a circle has no end I'm stickin by it!

Paradox overload!
Brain going into meltdown!
aAaaaAAAAAArgh!

Enjoy your retirement

I am - thoroughly!

 

[Draven]

Just can't keep yourself away can you mate?

 

[BigShot]

...silence...

...because I'm not here any more...

 

[HillBill]

Good post Bigshot, and probably totally right - after all, can't let a silly thing like the truth get in the way of good debate As you say, proving it could happen is one thing - proving it did is completely different, it's like busting someone for assault because they have fists.

I'll start a new theory then - we went back in time and planted the organisms which would later evolve into us - then we don't have to worry about a beginning, a circle has no end I'm stickin by it!

Enjoy your retirement

Or we went back in time with dna and embryos and became the gods of old. Then went back further still and planted animal cross human species there like minataurs etc for a laugh.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/02/medicalresearch.ethicsofscience

 

[firecrest]

Firecrest...
...science hasn't "moved on" with regards to biogenesis.

Those were mentioned because that was the most relevant work on the point, and since then they have not been disproven. 100+ years and still going strong.
Nothing in modern science has changed their findings, just added a lot of hypotheses about origins to the mix.

I've read more on this subject (both modern and ancient [if 150 years or so is ancient]) than I care to think about right now. My earlier post still stands up in light of modern science.
EDIT: Note that I made veilled references to the work of people like Oparin, Haldane, Miller and Urey and more recent attempts at proof-of-concept.



Oh, and on the topic of cartoons... I've always liked this one...

I think that applies to lots of people arguing on both sides of the debate.

science has well moved on since the examples you have given.As was pointed out by Draven. The Abiogenesis disproven by Pasteur was aristotlian abiogenesis which deals
mice spontainiously arising from hay, lice arising on the bodies of dead animals.
Modern Abiogenesis deals with the the formation of ordered cellular structure from the inorganic. self replicating molecules require only 6 dna and have been recreated in science and there is modern research coming in all the time....

• research into the formation of long proteins (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999);
• synthesis of complex molecules in space (Kuzicheva and Gontareva 1999; Schueller 1998; see also: "UV would have destroyed early molecules".);
• research into molecule formation in different atmospheres; and
• synthesis of constituents in the iron-sulfur world around hydrothermal vents (Cody et al. 2000; Russell and Hall 1997).

BigShot - why pick a subject you knew to be obselete to argue with? I was talking about the evolution of the first life forms and you were talking about a theory concerning mice being created from from dead hay.

 

[Chinkapin]

I've enjoyed this debate a great deal. Even though I only took a very small part in it. It kind of reminds me of the story of the Hillbilly (no pun intended), and his son who were sitting on their front porch one hot afternoon, watching the world go by. An airplane flew overhead and the small boy said: "Pa, why don't that contraption fall out of the sky?" Pa, replied: "Well I don't rightly know son." Just then a motorcycle came around the curve, leaned over quite far, and the son said: "Pa, why don't that thing fall over." Pa, replied: "Well I'm not real sure about that son." Just then a car came down the road with all of its windows rolled up and the air conditioner on. The boy said: "Pa how is it that it is hot outside here where we are but cool inside that car?" Pa replied: "Well, son, I never have studied up on that matter." At this point, the boy says: "Pa am I asking you too dang many questions?" To which Pa replied: " Hell no son, if you don't ask questions, how you gonna learn?"

 

[demographic]

Gobekli Tepe is a stunning site, but why does the Mail have to report it in such an overblown way ?
The archaeological remains are unique enough that they don't need a religious controversy added to their interpretation.
One man's theories promoting a book is why

Pretty much how I read it as well, its been reported in such a way as to get people to buy the book.

Thats "the" book and not "The" book by the way

 

[British Red]

BritishRed is correct to say that until a person has seen with his (non-gender specific) own eyes there's an element of faith in his belief in the existance of some creature or another.
That's partly why I always get excited the first time I see something in the flesh as it somehow *feels* more real to me.

Firecrest is correct to say there is a fundamental difference between a creature a person has not seen, and a deity they can not see.

I think you're arguing about two ever so slightly different things.

Of course we are, well spotted.

Throughout the debate I have been cautious to not comment on the validity, or otherwise of either the creationist or evolutionary standpoints.

My interest is perhaps more philosphical than scientific or religious.

My interest is in two groups of people arguing about theories that they, personally have not observed, merely read about.

The core of my argument is that two groups of people discussing theories and evidence that they have accepted as true without personal validation is...amusing!

Red

 

[Tadpole]

My interest is in two groups of people arguing about theories that they, personally have not observed, merely read about.

The core of my argument is that two groups of people discussing theories and evidence that they have accepted as true without personal validation is...amusing!

Red

Don’t you think that your “amusement” comment is just slightly patronising, For one there are more than just the two distinct groups, and for two you have no proof or evidence that either group have no valid personal experience of the matter discussed

 

[British Red]

The comment wasn't aimed at any members of this forum Tadpole - my apologies if it offended you - it wasn't aimed at you or anyone else here.

It is general amusement at an entrenched closed minded position of what in my mind are "hard line" science devotees vs "hard line" religious arguments (of whatever persuasion) where both will argue with heat and fervour about things they have read about but do not, personally, know to be true.

I'm not sure its patronising, but its certainly schadenfreude - as I admitted on page 1 when I wrote

I love poking fun at pompous priests and I also enjoy poking fun at pompous scientists

Not having a pop at any membes of this forum but I willingly confess to moments of schadenfreude when the pomposity of any "we know better" group is dented

Red

 

[BorderReiver]

What I find amusing about this whole debate is that it is being carried on by bags of organic chemicals using electro-chemical processes to discuss the products of those processes.

AND non of us will live long enough to find out who is right.

 

[firecrest]

The comment wasn't aimed at any members of this forum Tadpole - my apologies if it offended you - it wasn't aimed at you or anyone else here.

It is general amusement at an entrenched closed minded position of what in my mind are "hard line" science devotees vs "hard line" religious arguments (of whatever persuasion) where both will argue with heat and fervour about things they have read about but do not, personally, know to be true.

I'm not sure its patronising, but its certainly schadenfreude - as I admitted on page 1 when I wrote



Red

well it is patronising Im afraid. You`re implying that anybody who argues a stance does so because they are a `close minded` and some kind of devotee. You are also sugessting the most philisophical and correct view is therefor to sit on the fence and `watch with amusement` You are also putting both theories on an equal footing which is also insulting. Could you imagine going up to an archaeologist who spent years digging artifacts out of a trench that all pointed to a certain culture at a certain point in time and telling them they were entrenched in their narrow thoughts and that you needed to give equal credulance to the guy over the road who thinks the artifacts were placed their by fairies who were having a bit of a laugh. "they are both opposite sides of the debate!" you say
I am not hard set in my thoughts. I have read and considered evidence. I have read christianity, buddhism, hinduism, taoism philosphy, buiology and physics. I read everything to form a well rounded opinion, and in doing so some ideas I dismiss as outright dumb and others I take on board. I have never dismissed the idea of god, and I am open to other suggestions to how evolution happened. However, i am to accept creationism- that the world was made in 6 days by a being with an emotional repitoir thats suspeciously human then I would have to ignore huge amounts of evidence. Not only that but we must then give credance to all other creation "theories" as equally valid. Dreamtime - I like that one. What about norse gods, why do we accept the Norse gods are ficticious, and the egyptian ones? they were worshiopped for longer, thousdands of years, surely there must be some grain of truth Ra?
I think Red, that you like to ask other peoples opinions without giving your own because it makes you feel smarter. Nobody has the answers this is true, but we can get closer to the truth and in the process give ourselves new understanding of the world and ourselves by studying it and forming opinions.
But you know, Some people say the sun rises in the east, some people say it rises in the west, I guess the truth is somewhere inbetween and we will all be smarter to agree that it rises in the middle.

 

[BorderReiver]

well it is patronising Im afraid. You`re implying that anybody who argues a stance does so because they are a `close minded` and some kind of devotee. You are also sugessting the most philisophical and correct view is therefor to sit on the fence and `watch with amusement` You are also putting both theories on an equal footing which is also insulting. Could you imagine going up to an archaeologist who spent years digging artifacts out of a trench that all pointed to a certain culture at a certain point in time and telling them they were entrenched in their narrow thoughts and that you needed to give equal credulance to the guy over the road who thinks the artifacts were placed their by fairies who were having a bit of a laugh. "they are both opposite sides of the debate!" you say
I am not hard set in my thoughts. I have read and considered evidence. I have read christianity, buddhism, hinduism, taoism philosphy, buiology and physics. I read everything to form a well rounded opinion, and in doing so some ideas I dismiss as outright dumb and others I take on board. I have never dismissed the idea of god, and I am open to other suggestions to how evolution happened. However, i am to accept creationism- that the world was made in 6 days by a being with an emotional repitoir thats suspeciously human then I would have to ignore huge amounts of evidence. Not only that but we must then give credance to all other creation "theories" as equally valid. Dreamtime - I like that one. What about norse gods, why do we accept the Norse gods are ficticious, and the egyptian ones? they were worshiopped for longer, thousdands of years, surely there must be some grain of truth Ra?
I think Red, that you like to ask other peoples opinions without giving your own because it makes you feel smarter. Nobody has the answers this is true, but we can get closer to the truth and in the process give ourselves new understanding of the world and ourselves by studying it and forming opinions.
But you know, Some people say the sun rises in the east, some people say it rises in the west, I guess the truth is somewhere inbetween and we will all be smarter to agree that it rises in the middle.

Whoa!

I think that possibly Red is putting his arguments in the way he is doing to keep the pot boiling, not to act in a superior way, or to "feel smarter".

It might be best for us all to withdraw from the floor before what has been an interesting discussion turns into a slagg off.

 

[British Red]

Indeed BR,

I have no desire to enter into a slanging match so we'll leave it there.

Firecrest, my intention was never to insult, merely to illustrate that there is room for lots of people to hold lots of opinions. I have no need or desire to convince people of mine where I have them. What I or anyone else believes will not alter the truth.

You want my opinion? Its simply that no single theory as to the origin or purpose of life can withstand objective critique. So everyone can hold whatever opinion they are most comfortable with, with an equal chance of being right...or wrong.

I enjoyed playing "debating society" with BR - but as people are becoming upset, its time to stop.

Red

 

[firecrest]

I hadnt meant to upset you with the comment about feeling smarter, it wasnt very well thought out of me, I apologise

but yeah like i said, although we can never prove anything absolutely, it doesnt make all theories equally valid.

 

[Tadpole]

So everyone can hold whatever opinion they are most comfortable with, with an equal chance of being right...or wrong.

Not an equal chance of being wrong, a very unequal chance. take the Abrahamic religions, there is nothing factual in their religious books, doctrines, pseudo histories, nothing that can be pointed to and say, “that happened” “this event was real, and here is the proof”.
Unlike for example parts of the theory of evolution, where you can say, “this happened, and this is why we think it happened”. Or “this proof has been tested and not yet been disproved”.

Creationism, has been disproved, in so much as it has been tested and found not to be actual. The books on which it was based are there for all to read, and test and those that actually bother to read them cannot with all honesty say “this fact is reproducible, observable, testable.”

So not equal chances of being wrong.

 

[xylaria]

Of course we are, well spotted.

Throughout the debate I have been cautious to not comment on the validity, or otherwise of either the creationist or evolutionary standpoints.

My interest is perhaps more philosphical than scientific or religious.

My interest is in two groups of people arguing about theories that they, personally have not observed, merely read about.

The core of my argument is that two groups of people discussing theories and evidence that they have accepted as true without personal validation is...amusing!

Red

The one of the reasons evolution is so universally excepted by botanists is that the conclusions of Darwin are observable. Any botanical subject studied in any depth leads to evolution being the only conclusion that can be come by the observations. Fungi for example, there is an order just as there is in animals, going from the simplistic through to the complex. Just like animals the simpler species turn up earlier in the development of this planet. The specailists, and better generalists turn up later. This quite difficult to explain as it is not realisation that comes from books but from looking at a single subject and taking in depth field observations, often literally under a microscope.

I was educted in catholic schools, i am under the impression that evolution is excepted by most main stream christian churchs, and that the world is made is seven days thing is only held as belief in evangelical free churchs.

 

[Tadpole]

I was educted in catholic schools, i am under the impression that evolution is excepted by most main stream christian churchs, and that the world is made is seven days thing is only held as belief in evangelical free churchs.

Six days, Shabbat was a resting day