This in spite of the enormous scientific challenges to this Epicurean mythology. It is incredible that evolutionists insist that spontaneous formation is a fact, beyond all reasonable doubt. Evolutionists resist this plain description of their theory, but in doing so they are their own judge. For this is precisely what their theory claims. Swerving atoms, no matter how much they are adorned with Darwinian rhetoric, are not likely to create biosonar, consciousness and the entire cosmos.
My point was quickly confirmed when an evolutionist professor responded “Why do you keep conflating evolution with ‘the universe must have arisen spontaneously on its own’ - whatever that is supposed to mean?”
Whatever that is supposed to mean? It means exactly what evolutionists have been claiming for centuries. In the eighteenth century philosophers and scientists such as Gottfried Leibniz, Immanuel Kant and Pierre Laplace insisted that the cosmos (focused primarily on the solar system at that time) must have arisen spontaneously, via natural laws and processes.
And the mandate was soon applied to the origin of life as well. Darwin’s theory of biological evolution, and its subsequent variations, all say that life arose from non life, and then proliferated madly into millions and millions of species, on its own. It was a spontaneous process, according to evolutionists.
It is difficult to speak of evolution in measured terms. For scientifically this is, frankly, rather silly. But to make matters worse, evolutionists insist that their idea is a fact, beyond all reasonable doubt. And when you repeat their rather amazing claim back to them, evolutionists erroneously claim you are misrepresenting them. How could that be, we are simply repeating their own claims. But their denial is understandable given their dubious position. So why not just give it up?
You're not even trying anymore, are you Cornelius? Just pop out any old ridiculous strawman attack on science, blog it, call it a day.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I think you can't sink lower into the slime, you manage to lower the bar.
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteDarwin’s theory of biological evolution, and its subsequent variations, all say that life arose from non life, and then proliferated madly into millions and millions of species, on its own.
Flat out lie. The theory of biological evolution only deals with how life evolved after it was established. Even Darwin himself made the clear distinction:
Darwin "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Abiogenesis is the science that explores the origin of life issues; how organic self-replicators first arose. There is no clear theory of abiogenesis yet, certainly nothing considered fact, but several plausible hypotheses that are still being researched and tested.
"Spontaneous generation" is a discarded 18th idea that living creature somehow arose fully formed form inanimate matter, like flies spontaneously arising from dead animals. It has absolutely nothing to do with modern evolutionary theory.
Seems like Cornelius just can't help himself. He just has to toss out his canard-a-day and attack the sciences that threaten his weak religious views. Maybe he just wants to add points to his lifetime Liar-For-Jesus score.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteNice to see another creative spurt.
Is Spontaneous Generation is a Fact?
Am I missing something? I don't understand this sentence. Could it be re-worded?
But their denial is understandable given their dubious position. So why not just give it up?
Because it is a religion, duh.
.
... and then proliferated madly into millions and millions of species...
ReplyDeleteProliferated madly? Given that it took over 3 billion years (which really is a very, very, very long time), I'd hardly call it "madly". Rather, it proliferated with extreme slowness.
As for the universe arising "on its own", well, why don't we just say God created the universe? Is that a more satisfying explanation?
Last night it got so cold that ice crystals spontaneously formed on my bedroom window. Oh no wait, that's just silly. What I mean to say is that God created ice crystals on my window, in a beautiful display of His creative greatness.
Who cares whether it happened "on its own" or God did it? The interesting question, as always, is what was the mechanism? The big bang, cosmic inflation, formation of galaxies and planetary systems, the origin of life, and organic evolution. That's what is incredible and fascinating. Whether God did it or not is besides the point (and utterly boring to boot).
Thorton:
ReplyDelete===
"Spontaneous generation" is a discarded 18th idea that living creature somehow arose fully formed form inanimate matter, like flies spontaneously arising from dead animals. It has absolutely nothing to do with modern evolutionary theory.
===
I was trying to think of the best term to describe the claims of evolution, but you're absolutely right, the confusion with the historical use of the term is too much.
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
===
"Spontaneous generation" is a discarded 18th idea that living creature somehow arose fully formed form inanimate matter, like flies spontaneously arising from dead animals. It has absolutely nothing to do with modern evolutionary theory.
===
I was trying to think of the best term to describe the claims of evolution, but you're absolutely right, the confusion with the historical use of the term is too much.
You could try reading the primary scientific literature and using the terms real scientists use. But I suppose that would be too much work. Easier for you to stick to the 'make it up as you go' Creationist drivel you provide now.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"JUST POP OUT ANY OLD RIDICULOUS STRAWMAN ATTACK ON SCIENCE, blog it, call it a day."
===
This is incredible. He's NOT attacking science itself at all and furthermore never has. Of course you've already known this all along. So I presume this was mostly meant as nothing more than entertainment value for your Peers out there in cyberspace who lurk in the dark shadows.
He wants impirical Scientific Method researched work done when it comes to this particular theory which in reality is nothing more than a FAITH-BASED Philosophy that has had the incredible debilitating influence of infecting other sciences. But turn it around and say he's attacking science and therefore is anti-science and you imagine you've scored points in an otherwise time wasting rant. Proof that disingenuous tactics used by Evolutionists to prop up this dogma and having a strong negative influence throughout other scientific fields is how Monsanto is dealing with it's opponants of their GMO Frankenorganism power & wealth creation pursuits. Monsanto is now putting out disinformation that any opponants of GMOs are actually Anti-Science. Nothing could be further from the truth since these people have legitimate concrens as born out by independent research[done at various universities] of the side effects and ecological corruption presently going on in nature as a result of this dishonest lying company hiding and burying negative research data[for which ONLY court ordered releases can force suc verification that they've known all along the damage they cause]. And their military-like tactics to fight the opposition when they've clearly been exposed is simply to call and lable them as Anti-Science.
---
Thorton:
"Every time I think you can't sink lower into the slime, you manage to lower the bar."
===
Incredible Pot calling Kettle black loaded with massive amounts of double standard.
Just incredible!!!
Thorton:
ReplyDelete===
There is no clear theory of abiogenesis yet, certainly nothing considered fact
===
National Academy of Sciences:
"For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components."
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"Flat out lie. The theory of biological evolution only deals with how life evolved after it was established. Even Darwin himself made the clear distinction:
Darwin "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
===
Wow that's an incredible admission. Are you now giving a public testimonial to your Theistic Evolutionary worldview and that there is actually a god who lives out there somewhere who is the uncaused cause of everything in existance ???
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!
---
Thorton:
"Abiogenesis is the science that explores the origin of life issues; how organic self-replicators first arose. There is no clear theory of abiogenesis yet, certainly nothing considered fact, but several plausible hypotheses that are still being researched and tested."
===
Abiogenesis is a cop out for evolutionists who know full well that they'll look like bigger fools if they even remotely try to explain things along the lines of unguided undirected processes of nothing more than physics and chemcials doing anything remotely intelligent. Here let me help you out with a better definition of Abiogenesis-Evolutionism.
Once upon a time, because Stuff Happened in a warm little pond[much like the one in your backyard], a certain mystical cell emerged that had all the potential library of information for every living thing we see presently. Evolution, the goddess of Nature along with her little helper Tinker Bell[natural selection], began whittling down that potential in the Great Ancestor, producing, as original information was left on the cutting room floor, trilobites, sharks, giant sequoias, butterflies, sea tortoises, tyrannosaurs, eagles, petunias, blue whales, mice, dogs, and chimpanzees. Last and least, humans emerged with the leftovers.
Norm Olsen:
ReplyDelete"As for the universe arising "on its own", well, why don't we just say God created the universe? Is that a more satisfying explanation?"
===
Well didn't Michio Kaku tell everyone in a debate what the esteemed evolutionist Richard Dawkins and other colleagues believed about the Universe ????
" . . . on one side we have my esteemed colleagues who are 100% certain that the universe is pointless, meaningless and that there is no God."
So IF the Universe is meaningless and pointless, then how exactly does one arrive at anything even satisfyingly meaningful when they research it ??? Is researching the cosmos pointless ???
---
Norm Olsen:
"Last night it got so cold that ice crystals spontaneously formed on my bedroom window. Oh no wait, that's just silly. What I mean to say is that God created ice crystals on my window, in a beautiful display of His creative greatness."
===
Yet just as rediculous as the above is, you believe that life with all it's complexity[which humankind isn't even close to understanding as new amazing facts bare out on a daily basis], just happen to arise through nothing more than blind undirected unguided forces of nothing more than physics and chemicals with no help or manipulating by the intelligent guidance of a designer. Thus far all scientific experiments have been unable to disconnect intelligence from any experiment.
Of course all this is a mute point if you are a Theistic Evolutionist, but even they have the same burden of proof dilema without fable, myth or any story fabrication.
In the eighteenth century philosophers and scientists such as Gottfried Leibniz, Immanuel Kant and Pierre Laplace insisted that the cosmos (focused primarily on the solar system at that time) must have arisen spontaneously, via natural laws and processes.
ReplyDeleteKant put it this way:
"The defender of religion fears that the harmony which can be explained by a natural tendency of matter would demonstrate the independence of nature from divine providence."
http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/kant/kant2e.htm
Darwin’s theory of biological evolution, and its subsequent variations, all say that life arose from non life, and then proliferated madly into millions and millions of species, on its own. It was a spontaneous process, according to evolutionists.
ReplyDeleteScientists do not attempt to explain these phenomena as the products of a supernatural creative agency, but search for natural causes.
Is that an impossible quest? How could one determine that a priori?
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
===
There is no clear theory of abiogenesis yet, certainly nothing considered fact
===
National Academy of Sciences:
"For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components."
COULD have originated CH, not definitively DID. You still can't read for comprehension I see.
Also why did you cut off the second half of the quote?
"For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells."
...which is exactly what my sentence said, there is no single pathway that is considered factual.
CH,
ReplyDelete"For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells"
so scientists investigating the origin of life assume that it came about through natural processes and investigate possible pathways. in other words, they follow methodological naturalism, like all other scientists. so?
Mr. Guid (4afb...),
ReplyDeleteMethodological Naturalism? Like all other scientists?
1) MN isn't science, its materialism and is fundamentally lacking.
Proof: Assume that life really was created or formed by an intelligent designer.
Now, could MN discover this? No, of course not. Thus it is insufficient and lacking because it's premise is absolute materialism.
2) All scientists practice MN?
Yes and no. FYI, the scientific method was invented by creationists.
As MN is insufficient, more is needed and many smarter scientists don't limit themselves to the religiously imposed limits of strict materialism.
Going where the evidence points is not MN since MN refuses going anywhere outside of its own metaphysical presumptions.
Gary, you write like a poorly educated dolt. How about that proof by statistical mechanics that evolution is impossible? You're just a lying bluffing little creationist aren't you?
ReplyDeleteGary,
ReplyDelete"Assume that life really was created or formed by an intelligent designer."
OK, let's assume this. now what? please give some examples of questions/hypotheses that research using this assumption could address.
Gary: Proof: Assume that life really was created or formed by an intelligent designer. Now, could MN discover this? No, of course not.
ReplyDeleteOf course they could. Forensics and archaeology use methodological naturalism. They work with design and designers all the time, but not with vague, poorly-defined supernatural entities.
If thetheory of evolution doesn't say anything about how living organisms arose then it cannot say anything about how it subsequently diversified as the two are directly connected.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your persistence in the face of the deliberate ambiguity, obfuscation, and misrepresentation of your critics Dr. Hunter. I enjoy your posts and find them enlightening.
ReplyDeleteAs for your critics' "Flat out lie. The theory of biological evolution only deals with how life evolved after it was established. Even Darwin himself made the clear distinction:" this is pure misdirection - for proof, suggest that we insert "having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one" into textbooks as a valid OOL hypothesis. We may suddenly find that the Gospel of St. Charles is not so infallible.
The fact is, once you remove God as a causal agent, all we have is physics. The philosophy leaves room for nothing else. If there is no God then something like evolution must have happened, cosmologically, chemically, and biologically. There are no other options.
So, for the committed atheist, the mere fact that the science does not support his religious assumptions is immaterial to the discussion. His faith is not based on reason but on sentiment, and science (so-called) is nothing more than a prop for his sentiment.
Darwin added the "breathed by the Creator" business after there was concern about a potential backlash, not because he was proposing a purposeful creation by an intelligent being. Indeed, in later years, Darwin was the one proposing the "warm little pond" hypothesis of abiogenesis in one of his famous letters.
ReplyDeleteThe term "evolution" has many meanings and is exceedingly slippery. It doesn't include abiogenesis when that suits the story; it most certainly does when it suits.