Is U.S. Becoming Hostile to Science?

It's actually "abiogenesis". You are correct the theory of evolution doesn't include the orgins of life. But the evolutionists indeed do suggest they have a clue as to whether abiogenesis is fact or not.

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins" is, in its most general sense, the hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses of the origin of life from a primordial soup. Earlier notions of abiogenesis, now more commonly known as spontaneous generation, held that living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat.

Biogenesis is the law that life comes from life, not from non-living matter.

Define "non-living matter" and how it differs from "living matter". Discuss a virus, DNA, and protein and their classifications.

~Ulrika~

no, I misused the word biogensis, I meant "genesis of life", not "abiogenesis".

But in any case you ignored the main point of my post.

Living matter is life, not the building blocks of life. A life needs to consume energy and release waste.

"A virus is a microscopic nonliving parasite that infects cells in biological organisms. Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites; they can reproduce only by invading and controlling other cells as they lack the cellular machinery for self reproduction. The term virus usually refers to those particles which infect eukaryotes (multi-celled organisms and many single-celled organisms), whilst the term bacteriophage or phage is used to describe those infecting prokaryotes (bacteria and bacteria-like organisms). Typically these particles carry a small amount of nucleic acid (either DNA or RNA, but not both) surrounded by some form of protective coat consisting of proteins, lipids, glycoproteins or a combination."

"DNA (or deoxyribonucleic acid or deoxyribose nucleic acid) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions specifying the biological development of all cellular forms of life."

"A protein (in Greek πρωτεϊνη = first thread) is a complex, high-molecular-weight organic compound that consists of amino acids joined by peptide bonds. Proteins are essential to the structure and function of all living cells and viruses. Many proteins are enzymes or subunits of enzymes. Other proteins play structural or mechanical roles, such as those that form the struts and joints of the cytoskeleton, serving as biological scaffolds for the mechanical integrity and tissue signalling functions. Still more functions filled by proteins include immune response and the storage and transport of various ligands. In nutrition, proteins serve as the source of amino acids for organisms that do not synthesize those amino acids natively.

Proteins are one of the classes of bio-macromolecules, alongside polysaccharides, lipids, and nucleic acids, that make up the primary constituents of living things. They are among the most actively-studied molecules in biochemistry, and were discovered by Jöns Jakob Berzelius in 1838.

Almost all natural proteins are encoded by DNA. DNA is transcribed to yield RNA, which serves as a template for translation by ribosomes."

There you are sweetie

It's a red herring fallacy. Because he lacks the faculties to address your main point, he instead fixates on something simpler, reposting a snippet from the web that's appeared in his replies several times already. In this case, it's simply the first paragraph from the Wikipedia entry on abiogenesis.

It's a damn shame we spend so much time writing up thoughtful, intelligent replies only to have them dismissed, ignored, and misinterpreted by those with whom we seek a debate. Yet at the same time, it can only be expected from someone supporting an untestable supernatural supposition against individuals who are significantly more intelligent and educated. *shrug*

~Ulrika~

Are you stating that the phrase "living matter" is synonymous with the word "life"? Are you defining "a life" as something which "needs to consume energy and release waste"?

Let me help you with your definition of life. In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:

1. Growth, full development, maturity
   
2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
   
3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
   
4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet separate from, itself
   
5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions. This property is also called homeostasis.

However, this doesn't define what "living matter" is.

This is the wikipedia entry for a virus.
This is the wikipedia entry for DNA.
This is the wikipedia entry for protein.

None of these relate to your concept of "living matter" or "abiogenesis". Once again you have failed to provide any sort of logical argument that supports your statements and position. You are an intellectual fraud.

~Ulrika~

Sweetie, you asked for the information on these non-living things. I posted it for you, as it appears you weren't clear on what living matter is.

Love ya, darling

I believe in the Divine.

However, who do you want treating you for a critical injury in the emergency room?

An emergency room doctor whose methods and information are grounded in our current science education?

or

A faith healer? Or someone who gets their techniques only from some Scriptual text.

(i know some would choose the latter depending on their HMO...lol)

Who do you want engineering the plane you fly in?

An engineer whose methods and information are grounded in our current science education?

or

Someone who has recieved that education from a school which only teaches "science" from the ID perspective? Given the current arguments for ID, this should be enough, since it's just as valid.

I know that is possible to hold/mix both views and be a decent doctor or engineer, but I have difficulty believing this debate is still being...well...debated.

Faith and Science are two separate things. If parents think that their individual beliefs are not communicated clearly enough, I don't see what is stopping them from doing so outside the public school system (where Church and State a seperated for very good reasons). This Separation was put in place, not to infringe upon religious beliefs, rather to protect them from a State imposed belief system.

I suppose ID proponents could argue that Science is such a system, but what differentiates it from other belief systems is that its elements must be proven and are openly subject to change. Faith does not really enter the picture. Are people from other faiths usually allowed to change each others holy books? Not usually.

Once again, ask yourself the two questions posed at the beginning and then determine whether or not we're headed the the right direction in terms of our educational systems future focus.

edit---

There is an appropriate place to teach Intelligent Design. Religious Studies classes. There, many relgious and spiritual views can be presented and be debated, including Creationism and its conflict or compatibility with current scientific thought.

Be careful of throwing stones in your glass house Ulrika... Or would you like me to list some of your responses to me.

This is a straw-man argument. I asked you to define what "non-living matter" is (your words) and how it differs from "living matter". I then asked you to discuss a virus, DNA, and protein using your definition of "non-living matter".

You failed both in the definition and discussion, posting instead only an erroneous definition of life.

~Ulrika~

Kevn, do you honestly not see the conflict here? ID is a concept based in and in support of religion. Does this topic belong in public schools?

What's "sensoring" mean?

~Ulrika~

The answer to this one is ludicrously simple, and has been endlessly repeated. One last time, then:

Teach science in science class. And since science is largely method, and not belief, require it of everyone. Teach religion in religion class. And since religion is largely a matter of belief and faith, make it an option for those who would learn it.

Kevn, since you claim to be a reasonable person, I know that you will join me in endorsing this common-sense solution. And I know that you will work hard to get ID believers who are not as reasonable as you are to accept it.

Kevn,

Since you repsonded to this post but did not address the portion above that I have quoted, does this mean that you agree with what I said? If not, why?

Thank you for posting this again, despite the fact that it is certain to be lost on your target audience. It's an accurate and simple way of separating out methodology (science) and belief (religion) and relegating each to their own domain.

~Ulrika~

I just noticed that the last ten or so posts addressing Kevn are all complaining about his inability to address issues or to assimilate data presented in posts.

~Ulrika~

I just noticed that those same people, with the same writng style, all agree with you. How many alts is one allowed in SL? hmmm?!? lol

I never have nor ever will use an alt in the forum. Frankly, I don't need them. The individuals you see in these threads are all separate, intelligent, well-educated people who speak the same language, engaging you in what has turned out to be a one-sided debate.

But then again, this is just another red herring isn't it? You are completely incapable of carrying on a logical debate with any one of us let alone all of us simultaneously, that as a defense you're avoiding the issues (again). You have been so soundly put under in these threads, that your conversation has now evolved into a comical running retreat.

~Ulrika~

Zuzu,

The evidence for abiogenesis is even less than there is for creation.

The problem I see is most people just accept what they are taught. Many prefer the anti-God explainations because it helps them with their personal feelings of wothlessness. If everyone is nothing, they can feel fine about being a nothing. They also reject the notion of a creator because most religions do not allow the carnal freedoms these people enjoy.

If they could seperate their need to live in a state of non-judgement from their preconceived notion of God(probably a grandfatherly figure with a vengence), they could be more open-minded to the possibility of a creator.


Every argument againt the possibility of a creator revolves around religion.

Many refuse to explore the possibility of a creator because if they found evidence(I believe life is evidence) their ability to live in a state of non-judgement would be questioned.

Can you look at all possibilties, or are you refusing to explore th possibilties that would upset your notion of reality?

I can look at all, and even tho I don't believe in the" life appeared from nothing after a big explosion" belief, if it can be proven, I'm interested. In fact, I seek to invalidate my beliefs, as a good scientist should. Evolutionists seek to reinforce their beliefs, never to invalidate the dogma of Macroevolution.

Now you're just being silly...

Thinking that Ulrika uses alts to agree with herself takes more of a leap of faith than ID does.

Lianne,

It was a "tongue-in-cheek" comment to match her comment. I believe several of the posters here agree with her. It's part and parcel of the SL forum world. People in SL and the forums aren't representative of the population outside of SL.

That said, it's interesting she starts a thread and drops out, then someone else comes and hold up her side of the debate. It's not impossible she uses more than one AVto post.

Sweety,

You don't carry on logical debates. You shout down those who disagree with your arguments from ignorance.

No...Tom Cruise is becoming hostile to science. He's not the spokesperson for America, so don't listen to him.

funny that. I grow tired of pedantry. I don't support ID as a scientific theory, not because it is not a theory, but because it is not a scientific theory. We are all bandying statements of rhetoric that are pretending to be didactic. Evolution is not an undisputed fact. And it may be that some people will stick their heels in and never agree that an example has not proven that genetic differences are reinforced by environmental forces, hence evolution.

The fact that things evolve is not a fact. Science is not about facts. Science is about exploration and attempts at explanation. Keep the current theory until a better one comes along. Despite that, humans are flawed, and some keep hold of personal favourites longer than they should; one example is the resistance to plate tectonics.

However, evolution is a damn good model to be going on with. One person won the Nobel prize for postulating that our internal immune system works by a "survival of the fittest" model; more effective anti-bodies are more likely to be produced, gradually improving our autoimmune response etc. There have been other instances where evolutionary forces have quite likely been displayed. The most convincing for me was developed immunity to DDT also increased the fertility of mosquitoes; one evolutionary force having an unexpected beneficial side effect.

Just to nail my colours to the mast, I am a pagan and a scientist. In trying to explain to my daughter's school teacher that I don't want her 'removed' from Christian activities, just for it to be explained in context - not 'we' pray, but Christians pray - I did have her turn round and ask me if I believed in evolution. It did feel a bit like I was being asked if I believed in aliens...