Deinonychus antirrhopus

I used to think that the confusion between evolution and abiogenesis indicated just how ignorant people like Paul are.

But I'm starting to think that the confusion is not an accident. The creationists are realizing that their arguments against evolution have failed so they have fallen back on confusion. They believe that the less developed state of abiogenesis can be smeared onto the more developed theory of evolution.

>Nevermind that I am pretty sure I've never written anything indicating whether or not I think abiogenesis is true or not. The simple fact that I believe a theory that has practically nothing to do with abiogenesis means I must believe in abiogenesis.

Never-mind I never wrote that you were an oozer and never-mind you took it out of context. geeze!

as far was your list... If you look at my comments to the Commisar, I explained the EXACT same things to him*... if only you would read before you posted.

P

*OK I skipped the God part.

So, Paul, is your problem only with abiogenesis, or only with the combination of abiogenesis and evolution, or what? If someone accepts evolution but regards the present theoretical basis of abiogenesis as sketchy, are they then not an "oozer"? And do those hundreds of transitional fossils turn out to exist after all?

I'd ask you directly, only there seems to have been an unfortunate accident at Wizbang where somehow all the comments on your posts got deleted.

Steve,

Why bother antagonizing the OozBang crowd? I guess I'm just in a weary mood right now, but no matter how much information and clarification you send Paul's way it won't lead him to reassess his position.

He thinks he's reached the epitomy of scientific literacy with his 9th grade exposure to science, is blind to the threat that ID and creationism pose to the scientific foundations of our nation and why scientists weary of doing battle against the forces of superstition, and in Paul's case, willful ignorance. He thinks he's being a witty raconteur with his schtick - taking creationist arguments and putting lipstick on them and then painting himself as the voice of reason as he attacks a strawman. No amount of lipstick on the pig changes the fact that the pig is still a pig.

Carry the name Oozer proudly! By its very name, abiogenesis has got to be true. The first life would have had to come from not-life.

True or not true, always remember that abiogenesis gave us one of the finest book lines ever:

Bung a fork of lightning through this lot, he thought to himself, and you'd start the evolution of life all over again

People like Paul remind me why I gave up Christianity for Lent a few years back.

Paul did you write,

That same 9th grade science teacher (you did read the link right?) used to say that the measure of a true scientist was not what they knew but how much they admitted they didn't know. That is why I take great pleasure is smacking around the global warming kooks and G O O F B A L L "evolution" zealots. (or "oozers" which is more accurate)

It seems I have gotten the dubious distinction of being the first link in GOOFBALL which you refer to as both "evolution zealots" and "oozers". So it seems to me that you very much did imply, and rather strongly at that, that I am some an "Oozer". The problem for you is it is quite easy to demonstrate I don't fit your definition. I have nowhere written that I think abiogenesis must be true.

So, quoting you out of context? Maybe you are correct, but if I include the full context (i.e., the above quote) it becomes painfully obvious that you did put me in the "Oozer" catagory.

as far was your list... If you look at my comments to the Commisar, I explained the EXACT same things to him*... if only you would read before you posted.

Yes, I know you "explained" it to The Commissar. The point is that you missed that the Commissar knew exactly what he was talking about. He was being sarcastic in his feigned ignorance of abiogenesis and pointing out that one can be totally ignorant of abiogenesis and still, quite rationally, believe in the theory of evolution.

Pixy Misa,

No Paul believes in "micro"-evolution. Nevermind that the same drivers for micro-evolution are the same drivers for macro-evoltuion. Nevermind all the transitional fossils. Nevermind all the other evidence supporting macro-evolution.

Actually, I don't anything particularly wrong with the theory of abiogenesis. Given that abiogenesis, if it occured on Earth, would have somewhere around a billion years in the past, we seem to have a reasonable theory.

Abiogenesis has been supported both in the fossil record (for example, fossil record shows the absence of multicell life before around 500 million years ago) and in lab experiments that show high energy events like lightning discharges or UV radiation can product complex organic molecules like amino acids.

In this light, some forms of intelligent design theories also would be reasonable (ie, life planted by an intelligent being with a physical presence). Ie, they can be made into falsifiable theories though the effort to test the theories will be extraordinary and will consist mostly of testing for absence of evidence not just on Earth but also in galactic space. The key here is that you should be able to present an "intelligent designer" or evidence of their interference at some point. If you can't do that, then the theory isn't useful.

Steve - Okay, so he's one of those grudgingly accept "micro-evolution" because we can actually see it happening but vociferously deny "macro-evolution" despite all the evidence types? Where "macro-evolution" is defined as whatever we haven't yet observed in its entirety as it is actually happening...

Apart from simply being wrong (and using long-refuted Creationist arguments), Paul has been dishonest in his handling of the debate. That shouldn't surprise me, but does disappoint me. Oh well, at least I've found some interesting new blogs. :)

The key here is that you should be able to present an "intelligent designer" or evidence of their interference at some point. If you can't do that, then the theory isn't useful.

Or rather, you should be able to falsify the theory. And if we take "intelligent" for it's everyday meaning, we can: Study the vertebrate eye for example.

Now, if they were to propose a theory of Lazy Friday Afternoon Hack Job Design, we might be in trouble. ;)

The vertebrate eye? As evidence for ID? I think Den Beste covered that a long while back.

Stephen Jay Gould wrote a very good essay on the vertebrate eye...and Darwin had useful things to say (although what Darwin wrote is usually grossly misrepresented by creationists as well as lefties like Jeremy Rifkin.)

Or rather, you should be able to falsify the theory. And if we take "intelligent" for it's everyday meaning, we can: Study the vertebrate eye for example.

Yes, falsify the theory. But I don't see how studying the eye or other complex organ is going to help. There are many complex biological structures like the human brain and eye, but these have had hundreds of millions of years to evolve. You can't demonstrate I.D. on the basis of complexity alone.

As Den Beste pointed out in that link above, God would be a fairly crappy engineer to have designed eyes the way they are. They break, degrade, don't convey that much information, and aren't that efficient.

Right, I agree with Timothy. Another example is one of the ID Cerationists favorite examples. The bacterial flagella. They love to point to the ICness (irreducible complexity) of the flagella as a sign of design. But Mark Parekh pointed out that this argument boils down, essentially, to: Stupid, therefore designed. The design is stupid in that if one part "breaks" the flagellum wont work at all. So the conclusion is that God is rather a dumb designer.