evolutionist professor claims spontaneous generation

[randman]

"Today, most scientists believe that spontaneous generation took place at least once - when certain chemicals came together to form the first simple living organisms more than three billion years ago."

Jerry A. Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, taken from the 1994 edition of the WorldBook Encyclopedia under the section "Spontaeous generation."


Now, Jerry, who says you can't learn something from an encyclopedia. I find it interesting you bashed Nick and I for making the same claim as Jerry Cloyne does here.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Okay I just started a thread but I see you beat me RandMan. Now here is the problem, there are chemical reactions that create organic molecules. Life depends on these. But it is not the same as creating something out of nothing because to have this reaction all base chemicals are needed, nothing is created from empty space only reorganised.

 

[randman]

Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are the same thing. Don't be afraid to say what you believe. Spontaneous generation is simply life stemming from non-living matter. It has never been life coming from nothing.

The posters here just don't like the term, but it is what most evolutionists believe as Coyne points out.

 

[randman]

Uh hum, well, Lewis, I answered your question.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Okay so you protest Chemestry as a false science?

I hope you do not take any medications since they are based on chemestry.

Can we make all the ingredients of a cell chemicaly? Yes.

Infact the cells in your body are doing it at the moment.

Have we found the proper way to get them to organise into life? Not yet, but we are not God and we have not had millions of years to practice yet either.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by randman
Uh hum, well, Lewis, I answered your question.

No you didn't.

I asked for a theory, not an interview where laymans terms were used to try and promote a better understanding (or in your case misunderstanding).

 

[randman]

"Okay so you protest Chemestry as a false science?"

Huh? Oh well.

Lewis, your problem is you can't admit when you are wrong. Grow up.

The various theories of the development of the first life form from non-living matter are indeed theories of spontaneous generation. I have said nothing in that respect that the professor here at the University of Chicago does not state.

Is he a lay-man too?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

How do you define spontaneous generation?

This is a serious question because how one defines the word makes all the difference in the world.

If one defines Spontaneous as hapening quickly there is no problem since most chemical reactions happen quickly.

If one defines Spontaneous as happening instantly there is a problem.

If one defines Generation as an assembaly of existing sub-components, then there is no problem.

If one defines Generation as the creation of something out of nothing there is a problem.

So do you define Spontaneous Generation as, evolutionary wise:

A: The assembaly of pre-existing sub-components into another form in a measurable amount of time.

B: The instant creation of one form without any pre-existing components.

C: You fill in the blank.

 

[randman]

Lewis, I already defined it. The whole phrase and theory is simple, life originating from non-living matter.

Justt admit you were wrong. This is where you get to do the right thing, and apologize for your mistake and move on.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by randman
Lewis, I already defined it. The whole phrase and theory is simple, life originating from non-living matter.

That in a way is true, and every cell in your body does just that. They gather bits of protiens and other matter and build extra parts to themselves out of it and divide.

Justt admit you were wrong. This is where you get to do the right thing, and apologize for your mistake and move on. [/B]

Answer the definition question. How you answer determins if I am wrong or not. From your protests against spontaneous generation you sound like you define it as "B: The instant creation of one form without any pre-existing components." if that is how you define it than I am not wrong.

Answer the question.

 

[randman]

Lewis, you are acting like an imbecile. First, you throw out the life from nothing idea which noone ever stated, and now you display a fundamental lack of intelligence.

I'll let you figure it out on your own.Get out a dictionary. It will help you a little.

 

[chickenman]

randman the christian, spreading the love.

randman the non-scientist, spreading the ignorance

 

[randman]

No, it isn't ignorance to state that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same thing.

Why can't you guys own up to what you beleive?

 

[chickenman]

spontaneous generation - i.e adam being made from dust in an instant - is not abiogenesis

abiogenesis does not happen instantly, it is a series of chemical reactions that results in life. Primitive life, not a fully formed bipedal primate in 1 step

 

[randman]

Well, chickeman, I suggest you quit creating a false straw man. Noone ever said spontaneous generation is instaneous, especially since "instant" is vague and not defined. Spontaneous generation is well-defined, and it is also known as abiogenesis. They are the same thing, kind like mahi mahi and the fish (not mammal) dolphin.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Okay so you protest Chemestry as a false science?

I hope you do not take any medications since they are based on chemestry.

Okay, so you protest creation? Then kill yourself, since you were created and shouldn't be using the body God gave you.

See how stupid a statement like that is? No? I figured you wouldn't.

Can we make all the ingredients of a cell chemicaly? Yes.

Infact the cells in your body are doing it at the moment.

Have we found the proper way to get them to organise into life?

Not yet, but we are not God and we have not had millions of years to practice yet either.

If you are really intent upon proving that you can engage in creation the way it is described in the Bible, you're going to have to make your own chemicals, too.

But let's let that tiny little detail slide and all of the other umentioned and unknown details you haven't addressed regarding the complexity of making that first living cell. Let's just assume you will eventually get to a point where you can get these chemicals to organize into life.

So what have you accomplished? You've proven that an intelligent being can create life.

 

[randman]

"So what have you accomplished? You've proven that an intelligent being can create life."

excellent point

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by randman
"So what have you accomplished? You've proven that an intelligent being can create life."

excellent point

And that given the proper conditions it is possible for it to happen without an intelligent being there to do it.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth


And that given the proper conditions it is possible for it to happen without an intelligent being there to do it.

Self-contradictory. By doing it in the lab, the "proper conditions" were that intelligent beings directed the process.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by npetreley


Self-contradictory. By doing it in the lab, the "proper conditions" were that intelligent beings directed the process.

How is it self contradictory?