For Danmac - Abiogenesis

[Autodidact]

I assert that it is true on religious grounds, not necessarily scientific ones.

Oh well then...at least you're honest. The rest of us may now safely disregard it.

How do neuroscientists assert that humans have consciousness without knowing exactly what consciousness is?

Quality or state of being aware. As applied to the lower animals, consciousness refers to the capacity for sensation and, usually, simple volition. In higher animals, this capacity may also include thinking and emotion. In human beings, consciousness is understood to include "meta-awareness," an awareness that one is aware.

It's not a question of knowing exactly, it's knowing whatsoever.

The difference is that "wafflespoon" gives us absolutely no information on any level. When you say "kind", while the definition isn't complete, people have an idea of what you are talking about - even my biology textbook talks about animals producing after their own "kind", granted not meant in the exact same way creationists talk about it.

If "kind" is supposed to be a category, and you cannot say what category it is, then it gives you no useful information on any level.

As I said before, I'm out of the loop on creation research,

Neither is anyone else, because there is no such thing.

don't know what's going. Last I heard Todd Wood was doing research into baramin based on statistical models, and if I remember correctly said that his research was beginning to suggest baramin as ruffly equal to the taxonomic rank of "family" for land animals. I would look into it but I just don't have the time.

Except people, I assume?

Look the problem isn't scientific uncertainty. The problem is dishonesty. The reason YECs obstinately refuse to provide a definition for this term is that as soon as they do, their objection is subject to falsification and is then falsified. Either it's a species or something around there, and mythical Noah took mythical millions of creatures on the mythical ark, or it's higher than that, and humans and chimps are the same "kind." So they like it to mean one thing at one time and another at another. For that reason, they avoid any request to define it.

 

[RedOne77]

So Aristotle, Pythagoras and Theophrastus were Christians?

While these people used similar epistemological methodologies to understand the world, they were not scientists.

I am talking about people like Antoine Lavoisier (father of modern chemistry), Gregor Mendel (father of genetics), Johannes Kepler (laws of planetary motion), Issac Newton (law of gravity, Newtonian mechanics, calculus), Francis Bacon (essentially developed the scientific method), Robert Boyle (Boyle's laws, another key figure in early chemistry) and Nicholas Copernicus (Heliocentric model). All of which were Christian.

 

[RedOne77]

While many complex cells convert food into energy through oxidative metabolism, simple cells are perfectly capable of using energy directly through processes such as photosynthesis.

Photosynthesis is quite complex in of itself; with many pathways analogous to that of cellular respiration. I wouldn't call either "simple" in any respect.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I assert that it is true on religious grounds, not necessarily scientific ones.

Then why are you trying to force your beliefs into science?

How do neuroscientists assert that humans have consciousness without knowing exactly what consciousness is?

The difference is that neuroscientists never assert that consciousness is a quantifiable trait and use it to form hypotheses. That is what you're doing.

The difference is that "wafflespoon" gives us absolutely no information on any level. When you say "kind", while the definition isn't complete, people have an idea of what you are talking about - even my biology textbook talks about animals producing after their own "kind", granted not meant in the exact same way creationists talk about it.

My point was that you cannot use a word that does not have a thorough definition in the formation of a hypothesis, and then assert "the definition is being worked on".

I could just as easily assert that "wafflespoon" has more-or-less the same definition as "kind", and that there fore "people have an idea what I am talking about". Problem is that in science, a word isn't just supposed to give you "an idea".

You have to properly define your terms before you can use them to form a hypothesis. If you cannot do that, then your hypothesis of "kinds" is no different to my hypothesis of "wafflespoon".

As I said before, I'm out of the loop on creation research, I don't know what's going. Last I heard Todd Wood was doing research into baramin based on statistical models, and if I remember correctly said that his research was beginning to suggest baramin as ruffly equal to the taxonomic rank of "family" for land animals. I would look into it but I just don't have the time.

So, you've not really looked into it but you're willing to assert that it's been advancing? Could you find me some sources?

And what about all the evidence that strongly suggests that life forms evolve above the family level? Doesn't this entirely contradict these supposed findings?

 

[fantome profane]

Creationists believe that the Bible is fundamentally correct,

And yet when it comes to something like “the firmament” it is a “cultural thing” that needs to be understood in “the correct context”.

Has it not occurred to you that the concept of “kinds” is also a product of human culture? Or rather two different distinct human cultures, the human culture that produced Genesis and a very different human culture that interpreted it. The concept of “kinds” has no more basis in reality than “the firmament” does, and that is why you can’t define the term.

 

[camanintx]

While these people used similar epistemological methodologies to understand the world, they were not scientists.

I am talking about people like Antoine Lavoisier (father of modern chemistry), Gregor Mendel (father of genetics), Johannes Kepler (laws of planetary motion), Issac Newton (law of gravity, Newtonian mechanics, calculus), Francis Bacon (essentially developed the scientific method), Robert Boyle (Boyle's laws, another key figure in early chemistry) and Nicholas Copernicus (Heliocentric model). All of which were Christian.

People like Ibn al-Haytham, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī and Avicenna were using experimental scientific methods long before any of the Christians you mention. Like most other creations of mankind, the scientific method was developed over a very long time and cannot be claimed by any single group.

 

[camanintx]

Photosynthesis is quite complex in of itself; with many pathways analogous to that of cellular respiration. I wouldn't call either "simple" in any respect.

And yet photosynthesis is simple enough to be used by individual bacteria without the need for them to collect and process "food".

 

[RedOne77]

And yet photosynthesis is simple enough to be used by individual bacteria without the need for them to collect and process "food".

If you want to go down that road, as best as scientists can tell both mitochondria and chloroplast were once bacteria that got incorporated into the Eukaryotic cell via endosymbiosis; so both were used by unicellular bacteria.

I would also contend that even photosynthetic bacterium would need to collect and process 'food' (an energy source) in the form of sunlight and water. While they don't have to eat other organisms to get this energy, the process of cellular respiration and photosynthesis are both very complex.

 

[Autodidact]

While these people used similar epistemological methodologies to understand the world, they were not scientists.

I am talking about people like Antoine Lavoisier (father of modern chemistry), Gregor Mendel (father of genetics), Johannes Kepler (laws of planetary motion), Issac Newton (law of gravity, Newtonian mechanics, calculus), Francis Bacon (essentially developed the scientific method), Robert Boyle (Boyle's laws, another key figure in early chemistry) and Nicholas Copernicus (Heliocentric model). All of which were Christian.

Well, they were all male and European as well, but that doesn't make science either a male or European enterprise.

It's also interesting that for almost 1000 years of Christian rule in Europe science didn't happen; it bloomed only under the influence of the enlightenment.

 

[Commoner]

Well, they were all male and European as well, but that doesn't make science either a male or European enterprise.

It's also interesting that for almost 1000 years of Christian rule in Europe science didn't happen; it bloomed only under the influence of the enlightenment.

Variance, I'm sure...

 

[camanintx]

I would also contend that even photosynthetic bacterium would need to collect and process 'food' (an energy source) in the form of sunlight and water.

Both of which were readily available to any organism, making it unnecessary to "produce it's own food" as you previously contended.

 

[RedOne77]

Both of which were readily available to any organism, making it unnecessary to "produce it's own food" as you previously contended.

Um, that link isn't me, it's "Danmac". I'm "RedOne77", notice the difference?

Danmac is asking how the first cell could sustain itself without other life, I think; perhaps alluding to the complex network of ecological systems and how species rely on other species for a myriad of things, without which they would die.

All I'm saying is that cellular respiration and photosynthesis are complex pathways to extract energy from the environment. If anything, I'd say photosynthesis is more complex than cellular respiration. And again, it is thought that both cellular respiration and photosynthesis were present in single-celled bacterium.

 

[Commoner]

Um, that link isn't me, it's "Danmac". I'm "RedOne77", notice the difference?

[cheap stab]

I would literally cry myself to sleep if someone mistook my argument for Danmac's.

[/cheap stab]

 

[RedOne77]

It's not a question of knowing exactly, it's knowing whatsoever.

If "kind" is supposed to be a category, and you cannot say what category it is, then it gives you no useful information on any level.

"Kind" is a category. Specifically that there are many archetypes of living organisms, and each archetype is composed of a "kind". For example there may be a canidae kind, in which that kind would speciate into the many species of wolves, coyotes, foxes and so on that we see today.

Except people, I assume?

According to the Bible we are a separate "kind" as God fashioned us Himself from His image.

Look the problem isn't scientific uncertainty. The problem is dishonesty. The reason YECs obstinately refuse to provide a definition for this term is that as soon as they do, their objection is subject to falsification and is then falsified. Either it's a species or something around there, and mythical Noah took mythical millions of creatures on the mythical ark, or it's higher than that, and humans and chimps are the same "kind." So they like it to mean one thing at one time and another at another. For that reason, they avoid any request to define it.

The taxonomic system is a human concept. So just because we refuse to say nature opperates on a specific taxa (a human concept) without exception, which seems very silly, doesn't mean that our undertaking to get fully developed baramin futile. After all, evolutionists continually redo their evolutionary trees, bushes and webs of life constantly. We might as well say that because evolutionists changed what animals fall into what taxa, that evolution is false. It makes just as much sense as what you propose for creation.

 

[Autodidact]

"Kind" is a category. Specifically that there are many archetypes of living organisms, and each archetype is composed of a "kind". For example there may be a canidae kind, in which that kind would speciate into the many species of wolves, coyotes, foxes and so on that we see today.

I'd like to respond to this, but once again due to Danmac's ADD, we're in the wrong thread. Can we carry this discussion back to the evidence for evolution thread?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The atheist has not made a mistake.
The Biblist is either in denial or ignorant of the contents of the Bible.

If you wish to argue your misperception somewhere else I'll be glad to educate you. Your making a statement in no way implies any truth to what you say.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Kind" is a category. Specifically that there are many archetypes of living organisms, and each archetype is composed of a "kind". For example there may be a canidae kind, in which that kind would speciate into the many species of wolves, coyotes, foxes and so on that we see today.

So, "kind" means the same thing as "family"?

Speciation above the family level has already been observed. Repeatedly.

According to the Bible we are a separate "kind" as God fashioned us Himself from His image.

So, now your definition of "kind" changes from "family" to "family unless the Bible specifies otherwise". Could your definition be any more meaningless?

The taxonomic system is a human concept. So just because we refuse to say nature opperates on a specific taxa (a human concept) without exception, which seems very silly, doesn't mean that our undertaking to get fully developed baramin futile. After all, evolutionists continually redo their evolutionary trees, bushes and webs of life constantly. We might as well say that because evolutionists changed what animals fall into what taxa, that evolution is false. It makes just as much sense as what you propose for creation.

But you are already forming hypotheses based on a term you admit to not having an adequate definition for. Don't pass the blame by pointing at evolution and saying "but evolutionists change their definitions all the time". You do not even have a working definition to begin with, and that is the problem. Evolutionary scientists have working definitions which can be repeatedly tested.

How do you not get this?

 

[camanintx]

Um, that link isn't me, it's "Danmac". I'm "RedOne77", notice the difference?

Sorry, my bad.

 

[RedOne77]

People like Ibn al-Haytham, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī and Avicenna were using experimental scientific methods long before any of the Christians you mention. Like most other creations of mankind, the scientific method was developed over a very long time and cannot be claimed by any single group.

Well, they were all male and European as well, but that doesn't make science either a male or European enterprise.

All I'm saying is that what we consider modern science was developed/completed largely by Christians who thought that science was a systematic way to understand the natural world God gave them so they could take "dominion" over the Earth for the better. And, it is a shame that people on both sides of the aisle try to force a false dichotomy on how the two cannot live peacefully; they are antithetical to one another.

I am not saying that science can only be done by Christians, or other theists, but what we call science was started by Christians for the greater glory of God.

 

[Commoner]

All I'm saying is that what we consider modern science was developed/completed largely by Christians who thought that science was a systematic way to understand the natural world God gave them so they could take "dominion" over the Earth for the better. And, it is a shame that people on both sides of the aisle try to force a false dichotomy on how the two cannot live peacefully; they are antithetical to one another.

I am not saying that science can only be done by Christians, or other theists, but what we call science was started by Christians for the greater glory of God.

Yeah, the difference is, at one time you could get away with both, because the greatest scientific achievement was getting sheep to walk in a straight line. That's no longer the case.