The Creationist Lie That Just Wont Die

WAS said:

Thanks for the article Skwim. I'm aware of the more recent experiments, the analysis has not changed--we are nowhere near contradicting the law of biogenesis. That said, if we are ever able to accomplish this feat, it will only be through a great deal of intelligent design on the part of the scientists. Finally, as I mentioned in my post to the other posters on the thread, I'll have to cut the conversation short for the time being--thanks for the interesting discussion.

Click to expand...

When you say 'law of biogenesis', the only law I am aware of is the informal codification of the experiments by Redi and Pasteur, that falsify the creationist claim of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation was a creationist belief that life could arise fully formed from non-living matter.

The origin of life does not claim that life arises fully formed and the work of Redi and Pasteur do not prohibit life originating from non-living matter through a process of physics and chemistry.

Oh yes. The intelligent scientists confirm intelligent design claim.

You just keep whipping out the old canards and throwing them up there. How quaint and nostalgic.

Dan From Smithville said:

Molecules to man is not an assumption, statement of fact or prediction included in or made using the theory of evolution. Molecules to man is made up and not something claimed in science.

Click to expand...

If you are referring to a bunch of molecules getting together and suddenly forming a man, I would agree. However, what WAS actually said was...

WAS said:

molecule to man evolution.

Click to expand...

Note the word "evolution". Also note I, and presumably WAS, are using the 2nd definition:

2.
This shouldn't be confused with "The Theory of Evolution" with a capital "E".
Molecules to man evolution is an assumption I have made for many years. If you have a better concept for the origins of prokaryotes or man, I'd like to hear them.

Kangaroo Feathers said:

The narrative I want? What, pray tell, is the "narrative I want"? I think you may have mistaken me for someone else. You're acting rather like the Creationists we disdain, frankly, getting aggressive and ad homy when someone asks inconvenient questions.

You can claim I'm "splitting hairs" but I thought we were having a discussion about science? The whole point of science is to be as precise and accurate as possible, therefore the terms we use need to be clearly defined. Like it or not "death" as popularly understood, is kinda vague. To use your own example, take a PVS patient on a respirator. Dead, you may claim, but with fully functioning celular metabolism, healthy, reproducing cells and even viable germ cells. So "death" is kinda fuzzy. There's legal death, clinical death, cellular death, brain death, and probably other kinds I don't know about. All quite distinct.

I direct you to professor Brian Cox's discussion on when a strawberry may be considered "dead".

Click to expand...

Fair enough-- I'm obviously guilty of projecting that which isn't there. So very sorry about that-- mea culpa.

But yes-- I agree 100% that "death" is a very fuzzy concept, among most.

Which is why I pointed to what was considered 'dead' from my years as a Biology Major-- dead is unable to breathe(exchange of gasses), unable to excrete, unable to reproduce, unable to eat.

Of course, that isn't good enough for some folk. However, I think it's quite good enough for a single-celled organism. Multi-cellular organisms are a bit more complicated.

ecco said:

If you are referring to a bunch of molecules getting together and suddenly forming a man, I would agree. However, what WAS actually said was...

Note the word "evolution". Also note I, and presumably WAS, are using the 2nd definition:

2.

the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
​

This shouldn't be confused with "The Theory of Evolution" with a capital "E".

​

Molecules to man evolution is an assumption I have made for many years. If you have a better concept for the origins of prokaryotes or man, I'd like to hear them.

Click to expand...

I recognize that what was said was molecules to man evolution and that the description, as it stands, in no way conforms to what is stated in the theory of evolution. The intent of its use is consistent with the creationist effort to conflate two distinct concepts --origins and evolution--as interchangeable or dependent. I recognize that your focus is on a natural origin of life and that, regardless of origin, this life is demonstrated to evolve. The problem is that as stated, and within the context my post addressed, it is a straw man argument against the theory of evolution.

I do not think your personal idea is an attempt at a straw man or that it confounds more accurate descriptions, since it is merely a convenience you seem to use in your thinking. It is not uncommon for those trained in science to incorporate a simplified metaphor to describe a view of the bigger picture.

The gradual change and increasing complexity in chemistry that may have lead to the origin of life is conceptually similar, but not the same as the evolution of life, though both involve change over time. Nor is chemical change over time described and explained by the theory of evolution. The evolution of life is not dependent on a particular origin of life, even if it is convenient to assume natural origins as the only possibility, since that is the only possibility that science can address.

ecco said:

We get it. You don't like science. That's OK.

Click to expand...

Right over your head, no worries

THE HOOD APOLOGIST said:

Right over your head, no worries

Click to expand...

Irony duly noted, especially considering your stance on science...

RE:Molecules to man evolution

Dan From Smithville said:

I recognize that what was said was molecules to man evolution and that the description, as it stands, in no way conforms to what is stated in the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

The Theory of Evolution is one part of a process that nature took moving from molecules to dinosaurs and man. It is an evolutionary process.

You should not conflate the two.

Dan From Smithville said:

The intent of its use is consistent with the creationist effort to conflate two distinct concepts --origins and evolution--as interchangeable or dependent.

Click to expand...

I don't let creationists define words and word usage. I am well aware of their tactics. However, I will use "evolution" when appropriate and I will use "Evolution" or "Theory of Evolution" or ToE when appropriate.

Dan From Smithville said:

I recognize that your focus is on a natural origin of life and that, regardless of origin, this life is demonstrated to evolve. The problem is that as stated, and within the context my post addressed, it is a straw man argument against the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

If memory serves, you were responding to WAS's comment. So he set the context. Molecules to man evolution is not a strawman that can be used against ToE. All that is necessary is to insist that all parties use words properly.

Dan From Smithville said:

The gradual change and increasing complexity in chemistry that may have lead to the origin of life is conceptually similar, but not the same as the evolution of life, though both involve change over time.

Click to expand...

I never said it was.

Dan From Smithville said:

Nor is chemical change over time described and explained by the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

I never said it was.

Dan From Smithville said:

The evolution of life is not dependent on a particular origin of life,

Click to expand...

I never said it was.

Dan From Smithville said:

even if it is convenient to assume natural origins as the only possibility, since that is the only possibility that science can address.

Click to expand...

It's far beyond a "convenience".

ecco said:

RE:Molecules to man evolution

The Theory of Evolution is one part of a process that nature took moving from molecules to dinosaurs and man. It is an evolutionary process.

Click to expand...

It is not all one process and you should not conflate the origin of life with evolution of life. That is against the evidence and concepts. It is so creationist.

ecco said:

You should not conflate the two.

Click to expand...

I clearly did not and am not. Why contrive a falsehood against me for correcting a creationist straw man? Do you have a bias against me for my beliefs that I do not assert scientific claims or defenses with? I would remind you that neither of us knows the origin of life.

ecco said:

I don't let creationists define words and word usage. I am well aware of their tactics. However, I will use "evolution" when appropriate and I will use "Evolution" or "Theory of Evolution" or ToE when appropriate.

Click to expand...

Curious. My entire argument is based on not allowing a creationist define scientific terms and conditions. On the other hand, you just explained how you use evolution conflating it with abiogenesis where it is only appropriate to your view and right in line with creationists attempts. In science, abiogenesis and evolution are distinct and independent concepts. I never thought I would have to point that out to someone that has, until now, held a sound and logical position based on scientific principles, logic and evidence.

ecco said:

If memory serves, you were responding to WAS's comment. So he set the context. Molecules to man evolution is not a strawman that can be used against ToE. All that is necessary is to insist that all parties use words properly.

Click to expand...

Since it was just today and not that long ago, I do not see that you would have to strain your memory and can go right to the posts.

The attempt by Was to conflate the two concepts was incorrect and a typical and persistent straw man attempt to conflate the origin of life with the evolution of life.

Your point about definitions is perplexing, considering that you use a definition combining the two concepts that is outside of the definitions proposed and used in science.

ecco said:

I never said it was.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are saying, but you imply the two are dependent and that is not an established fact and inconsistent with the scope of the theory of evolution and any hypothesis of abiogenesis.

ecco said:

I never said it was.

Click to expand...

Again, you said you use them as linked, so your statement here is not consistent with your previous statement.

ecco said:

I never said it was.

Click to expand...

Then what is all this about? You have some reason for dragging us down this rabbit hole. Is it personal. I cannot imagine why. We seem to share the same scientific position. At least until today. The only difference has been in quibbling over details regarding where the line between micro- and macro-evolution is drawn, and that is not a difference in ideology. So, I am left puzzled at this entire dialogue.

ecco said:

It's far beyond a "convenience".

Click to expand...

It is only a convenience. It bears no corollary to the position in science. Especially, since no one knows the origin of life, unless you do. Are you claiming to know the origin of life?

I remain very puzzled at the content and tenor of your posts and do not understand why you are defending creationist tactics.

Have I been mistaken and you are a creationist? This would be quite a revelation, but not completely unexpected, given the creationist penchant for lying in defense of their faith.

Dan From Smithville said:

It is not all one process and you should not conflate the origin of life with evolution of life. That is against the evidence and concepts. It is so creationist.

Click to expand...

That you do not understand that the word "evolution" has two meanings is not my problem.

Do you think the design of automobiles has evolved over the past 100 years?

Do you think one's sense of fashion evolves over time?

My contention is based on a linear scale.

Toward the left end of the scale are quarks. Toward the right end are alligators, dinosaurs, homo sapiens, and cockroaches. Moving from one end to the other is a constant evolution. There is no fine line between "non-life" and "life" as there is no fine line between "orange" and "red".

Dan From Smithville said:

Have I been mistaken and you are a creationist? This would be quite a revelation, but not completely unexpected, given the creationist penchant for lying in defense of their faith.

Click to expand...

Seriously?

ecco said:

That you do not understand that the word "evolution" has two meanings is not my problem.

Click to expand...

I am not clear what your problem is, but I do understand that the word has more than one meaning. I also understand the context it was being used in and the additional meaning that was being given to it.

ecco said:

Do you think the design of automobiles has evolved over the past 100 years?

Click to expand...

Does it change the biological context of the word? No.

ecco said:

Do you think one's sense of fashion evolves over time?

Click to expand...

Again, does this change the meaning of the word in a biological context? No.

ecco said:

My contention is based on a linear scale.

Toward the left end of the scale are quarks. Toward the right end are alligators, dinosaurs, homo sapiens, and cockroaches. Moving from one end to the other is a constant evolution. There is no fine line between "non-life" and "life" as there is no fine line between "orange" and "red".

Click to expand...

So your intention is to make the word meaningless in a biological context by stretching it out of that context and, in doing so, defend creationist use of it to include the origin of life. Fine. Thank you for clearing that up.

ecco said:

Seriously?

Click to expand...

Now I have to wonder. You seem to be defending the creationist straw man use of evolution that includes the origin of life.

Seriously.

ecco said:

RE:Molecules to man evolution

The Theory of Evolution is one part of a process that nature took moving from molecules to dinosaurs and man. It is an evolutionary process.

Click to expand...

I get that you are using evolution to mean change in anything over time. You are defending this as one continual process starting with what? The Big Bang? You don differentiate chemical evolution and biological evolution even though these are two different concepts and the latter is not dependent on a particular origin of life, but only that life exist.

ecco said:

You should not conflate the two.

Click to expand...

According to you, any admixture is not conflating two concepts since you call it one process. Your admonishment has no meaning.

Having reread my work, I see no instance of me conflating the two concepts and two they are. But you on the other hand, are conflating them and all on a dictionary definition of the word evolution. Fine. You can do that I suppose, but what sets that apart from what creationists do?

ecco said:

I don't let creationists define words and word usage. I am well aware of their tactics. However, I will use "evolution" when appropriate and I will use "Evolution" or "Theory of Evolution" or ToE when appropriate.

Click to expand...

I wish you would.

Dan From Smithville said:

I am not clear what your problem is, but I do understand that the word has more than one meaning. I also understand the context it was being used in and the additional meaning that was being given to it.

Click to expand...

Dan From Smithville said:

Does it change the biological context of the word? No.

Again, does this change the meaning of the word in a biological context? No.

Click to expand...

ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
   synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
   "early ecologists were not interested in evolution"
2. 2.
   the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
   "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
   synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding; More

I have repeatedly stated that when using the phrase molecule to man evolution, I was using definition #2. Do you see anything in that definition referring to "biology"? Biology refers to living organisms. We would both agree that molecules are not living organisms. WAS used the phrase "molecule to man evolution" and I picked up on that. Usually, I refer to it as atoms to man evolution. In either case, the word "evolution" is shown as the 2nd definition which has no biological aspect.

Synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding

Dan From Smithville said:

So your intention is to make the word meaningless in a biological context by stretching it out of that context and, in doing so, defend creationist use of it to include the origin of life. Fine. Thank you for clearing that up.

Click to expand...

I am not doing anything of the sort. I am using a word that has two separate and distinct definitions and I refuse to let the Creos conflate the two. I am correcting you when you attempt to conflate the two.

I also do not let them conflate the two separate and distinct definitions of words like "belief", "believe" or "faith".

Dan From Smithville said:

I get that you are using evolution to mean change in anything over time. You are defending this as one continual process starting with what? The Big Bang? You don differentiate chemical evolution and biological evolution even though these are two different concepts and the latter is not dependent on a particular origin of life, but only that life exist.

According to you, any admixture is not conflating two concepts since you call it one process. Your admonishment has no meaning.

Having reread my work, I see no instance of me conflating the two concepts and two they are. But you on the other hand, are conflating them and all on a dictionary definition of the word evolution. Fine. You can do that I suppose, but what sets that apart from what creationists do?

I wish you would.

Click to expand...

see above post #134. If you still have a problem, I'm open to discussion.

Dan From Smithville said:

I recognize that what was said was molecules to man evolution and that the description, as it stands, in no way conforms to what is stated in the theory of evolution. The intent of its use is consistent with the creationist effort to conflate two distinct concepts --origins and evolution--as interchangeable or dependent. I recognize that your focus is on a natural origin of life and that, regardless of origin, this life is demonstrated to evolve. The problem is that as stated, and within the context my post addressed, it is a straw man argument against the theory of evolution.

I do not think your personal idea is an attempt at a straw man or that it confounds more accurate descriptions, since it is merely a convenience you seem to use in your thinking. It is not uncommon for those trained in science to incorporate a simplified metaphor to describe a view of the bigger picture.

The gradual change and increasing complexity in chemistry that may have lead to the origin of life is conceptually similar, but not the same as the evolution of life, though both involve change over time. Nor is chemical change over time described and explained by the theory of evolution. The evolution of life is not dependent on a particular origin of life, even if it is convenient to assume natural origins as the only possibility, since that is the only possibility that science can address.

Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. I just made the mistake of implying I was including the origin of life in my discussion of evolution. They are such related topics in that they both seek to explain how the life we know on the planet came to be in all its diversity and complexity yet the evidence and way of studying the two are different. One based on primarily biologic and geologic evidence, the other entirely in organic chemical evidence and predictions of conditions prior to life starting on earth. More important when people who argue for intelligent design or creation theories start ground in a debate on evolution and its evidence quickly pull in abiogenesis which we have less evidence to demonstrate (although the evidence is getting stronger) into the argument about evolution to move away from their losing argument. I must admit the forum has helped remind me try to keep these two concepts separate.

ecco said:

ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
   synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
   "early ecologists were not interested in evolution"
2. 2.
   the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
   "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
   synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding; More

I have repeatedly stated that when using the phrase molecule to man evolution, I was using definition #2. Do you see anything in that definition referring to "biology"? Biology refers to living organisms. We would both agree that molecules are not living organisms. WAS used the phrase "molecule to man evolution" and I picked up on that. Usually, I refer to it as atoms to man evolution. In either case, the word "evolution" is shown as the 2nd definition which has no biological aspect.

Synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding




I am not doing anything of the sort. I am using a word that has two separate and distinct definitions and I refuse to let the Creos conflate the two. I am correcting you when you attempt to conflate the two.

I also do not let them conflate the two separate and distinct definitions of words like "belief", "believe" or "faith".

Click to expand...

So when I correct a creationist who is conflating the two concepts, I am conflating the two concepts. That is as clear a mud.

I have not conflated the two concepts. To say so is a lie.

Wild Fox said:

I agree with you completely. I just made the mistake of implying I was including the origin of life in my discussion of evolution. They are such related topics in that they both seek to explain how the life we know on the planet came to be in all its diversity and complexity yet the evidence and way of studying the two are different. One based on primarily biologic and geologic evidence, the other entirely in organic chemical evidence and predictions of conditions prior to life starting on earth. More important when people who argue for intelligent design or creation theories start ground in a debate on evolution and its evidence quickly pull in abiogenesis which we have less evidence to demonstrate (although the evidence is getting stronger) into the argument about evolution to move away from their losing argument. I must admit the forum has helped remind me try to keep these two concepts separate.

Click to expand...

I figured that was the case and you would clear up any confusion as you have.

Dan From Smithville said:

I figured that was the case and you would clear up any confusion as you have.

Click to expand...

Thanks

ecco said:

see above post #134. If you still have a problem, I'm open to discussion.

Click to expand...

You do not seem open to discussion. It sounds more like you have concluded that your way is the only way and any deviation from that is incorrect, even when the deviation is to clarify the creationist penchant for conflating evolution with the origin of life.

It is all very confusing.

All I see is that you are arguing that I am both correcting those that conflate the origin and the evolution of life and that I am somehow conflating those two at the same time. It makes no sense. If you want to look at the big picture and use evolution in the broad sense, I can understand that, but it does not change the context of evolution when it is used in biology and it does not connect the separate and distinct concept of the origin of life.