[_ Old Earth _] Dr. John Sanford interview

[spartakis]

So the commandments were written as an allegory to.
I guess anything that evolution don't fit in is an allegory. (that's a huge problem)

You've said "goodbye" three times now. Decided to stick around anyway?

No I just you didn't read it like a lot of the stuff I post. Figured you might man up to the challenge but we know why you won't do that.

Should of figured it's about the internet barbarian trying to get in the last word.

So we see you decline the word of God, you decline the challenge that was asked and you have not went back on topic. I believe we are done here until otherwise. God bless.

So go ahead get your last word in, I am sure it won;t be on topic or to the challenge.

 

[Barbarian]

So the commandments were written as an allegory to.

No, but I doubt if anyone is surprised you're pretending I said they were.

I guess anything that evolution don't fit in is an allegory. (that's a huge problem)

That, or God's word is consistent with His creation. One of those.

Barbarian chuckles:
You've said "goodbye" three times now. Decided to stick around anyway?

No I just you didn't read it like a lot of the stuff I post. Figured you might man up to the challenge but we know why you won't do that.

I don't think that story is going to sell any better if you say it one more time.

Should of figured it's about the internet barbarian trying to get in the last word.

It's a message board. You write messages, people comment on them. That's how it works. Am I messing with you, trying to see how many "You won't have Spartakis to kick around any more" posts we can accumulate? No. Just commenting.

So we see you decline the word of God, you decline the challenge that was asked and you have not went back on topic. I believe we are done here until otherwise. God bless.

Until the next reply...

So go ahead get your last word in, I am sure it won;t be on topic or to the challenge.

 

[cupid dave]

But that isn't life ex nihilo. It's life arising from other, non-living things.

If you want to be technical as that then remember that life is a spiritual force, that Vital Force that disappears when the dead body remains and leaves us with all the same non-living things that were merely part of the apparatus used to produce life ex nihilo.

ASee what I mean?
The Vital Force is gone, but the remains which had come together to produce the magic of ex nihilo are still there.
They were not really used to make that Vital Force, only used to set the stage for its appearance from nothing.

 

[cupid dave]

Let's take a look...

The universe was created ex nihilo. Life was created from pre-existing things.

.

I basically agree that Spontaneous Generation supposes that inorganic matter (the dust of the earth) was used to produce the results we observe as organic life.
But I still oppose the suggestion that Genesis supports magic and some supernatural idea about this Ex nihilo argument about the Cosmos.

If all matter (along with the required Space/time that comes along to contain that matter) were to back track the expansion, and to disappear down the single spot on our mental graph, (the one we superimpose upon the Universe), the Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter tells us that, (all this that has disappeared), is now existing as pure Potential Energy at rest, outside of the Universe that had existed.

Matter and the Space/time which is required in its presence will have been transmuted into Energy which is massless and requires no Space to contain it.

 

[Barbarian]

I basically agree that Spontaneous Generation supposes that inorganic matter (the dust of the earth) was used to produce the results we observe as organic life.

No. Spontaneous generation is not abiogenesis.

But I still oppose the suggestion that Genesis supports magic and some supernatural idea about this Ex nihilo argument about the Cosmos.

Nothing magic at all. Genesis says God created life by natural means.

 

[cupid dave]

No. Spontaneous generation is not abiogenesis.



Nothing magic at all. Genesis says God created life by natural means.

What is the differnce between Spontaneous Generation of the first life on earth and abiogenesis except that the technically descriptions that follow muddy up the basic similarities???

Both abiogenesis ans Spontaneous Generation remain magic until we demonstrate the process as a consequence of natural laws, which we rally have only hypothesized.
But even more difficult to explain is the Vital Force that is so elusive in regard to the matter that we guess is alive according to subjective definitions.

 

[Barbarian]

What is the differnce between Spontaneous Generation of the first life on earth and abiogenesis except that the technically descriptions that follow muddy up the basic similarities???

Spontaneous generation is the theory that rotting organic matter can produce complex organisms. Abiogenesis is the theory that very simple organisms appeared as the first living things by natural processes.

Both abiogenesis ans Spontaneous Generation remain magic until we demonstrate the process as a consequence of natural laws, which we rally have only hypothesized.

There is a good deal of evidence for abiogenesis. Would you like me to show you some of it?

But even more difficult to explain is the Vital Force that is so elusive in regard to the matter that we guess is alive according to subjective definitions.

Apparently, God saw no need to include a "Vital Force" to make living things.

 

[cupid dave]

Spontaneous generation is the theory that rotting organic matter can produce complex organisms. Abiogenesis is the theory that very simple organisms appeared as the first living things by natural processes.



There is a good deal of evidence for abiogenesis. Would you like me to show you some of it?



Apparently, God saw no need to include a "Vital Force" to make living things.

It is silly to call Spontaneous Generation a theory when the words, themselves, are sel explanatory.

They are the same words that could be used to define "Abiogenesis" before one adds information that explains as a theory.
Abiogenesis is actually a Hypothesis, and it can not be replicated as an experiment.


The idea of a missing Vital Force in the sciences van not just be swept away as you try to do here.
We actually have neither hypothesis nor theory to describe Life, and are stuck at a level where we even debate a definition to identify the living from the dead.

 

[Adam]

The modern concept of abiogenesis cannot be defined by "spontaneous generation."


Spontaneous generation has classically been an explanation for life that appears to come from non-life, such as maggots found in garbage. When bacteria were first discovered we assumed bacteria generated spontaneously rather than reproducing sexually because no one knew of or understood cell division at that time.

Spontaneous generation not only does not and cannot describe abiogenesis, the concept has been discarded as bunk science through thorough investigation and experimentation.

 

[Barbarian]

Abiogenesis is actually a Hypothesis, and it can not be replicated as an experiment.

Neither can the formation of stars, but we can have a theory of star formation by evidence for it. So it is for abiogenesis.

The idea of a missing Vital Force in the sciences van not just be swept away as you try to do here.

It doesn't even exist in science until some evidence for it can be found.

 

[cupid dave]

The modern concept of abiogenesis cannot be defined by "spontaneous generation."


Spontaneous generation has classically been an explanation for life that appears to come from non-life, ....

LOL

Bottom line, what else is Abiogenesis than life appears to come from non-life?

 

[cupid dave]

Neither can the formation of stars, but we can have a theory of star formation by evidence for it. So it is for abiogenesis.



It doesn't even exist in science until some evidence for it can be found.

LOL

SApontaneous Generation is also a hypothesis which we have evidence for, the same evidence used to support first life by Abiogeneisis.

Funnier yet is that Vital Force is self evident but we haveno clue.

 

[Adam]

LOL

Bottom line, what else is Abiogenesis than life appears to come from non-life?

Abiogenesis is the result of logical minds understanding biogenesis, yet acknowledging that "omne vivum ex ovo" ultimately leads to a problem of infinite regress. In other words, the problem of which (chicken or egg) came first.

However, abiogenesis is not an ex nihlo statement.

Just as the Grand Canyon is the result of elements and time and did not "spontaneously generate," in abiogenesis there are stages of proto-life.

Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell


The primary distinction being that abiogenesis is a process and by definition has a beginning that happens at a seperate time than the end. By definition, processes are not spontaneous.

 

[Barbarian]

Funnier yet is that Vital Force is self evident but we haveno clue.

If it was self-evident, there would be evidence for it. But we have none. God is a lot smarter than you might think. He created this universe to have life. And the rules by which it works are sufficient to produce life.

 

[cupid dave]

If it was self-evident, there would be evidence for it.

But we have none.

.

?

Dead bodies are the eidence that something vital is missing from the matter which has everything necessary to be alive except that "something" that sparks life into being.

We see this virtal force disappear in Near Death Experiences and then flood back after we have clinically record a peson as dead.
We do not know what this is, but we are certain we can stitch the parts of an anatomy together and expect that the results wil somehow come to be "alive," which is a state that has even dified our ability to define o=it, let alone manufacture it.

 

[Adam]

Sir, appealing to Mary Shelly's Frankenstien isn't an argument.

 

[cupid dave]

Sir, appealing to Mary Shelly's Frankenstien isn't an argument.

How so?

 

[Adam]

Because Frankenstein, like all your other claims you have made so far, is a fiction.

As such, it has no bearing on reality.

 

[cupid dave]

Because Frankenstein, like all your other claims you have made so far, is a fiction.

As such, it has no bearing on reality.

?
Yes, Frankenstein was fictious but an important consideration because, as I said, we have no clue what the missing Vital Force is that makes matter alive.

Your example of Frankenstein clearly illustrates my poont, that even if we gathered all the amino acids necessary into one container with a cell wall around it, we coud jump start the vital life force needed to run its engine.

 

[Adam]

?
Yes, Frankenstein was fictious but an important consideration because, as I said, we have no clue what the missing Vital Force is that makes matter alive.

.

You need to demonstrate that there is a "Vital Force" before you jump to the conclusion that one exists or is necessary for life.

I doubt you will have any luck, however, since you claim it is missing.