CORE podcast, Jan 1, 2008

[LegendarySkyKing]

The first life would of have to been a self replicating cell, that could produce its own energy, and miraculously survive the supposed harsh conditions on the early earth. The best probes we send to Mars can't even do this, and yet evolutionist try to tell me it wasn't intelligent design that created life. Spontaneous generation is more incredible to believe than a natural virgin birth.

[InternetDisciple]

@LegendarySkyKing

"Spontaneous generation is more incredible to believe than a natural virgin birth."

Life from non-life has been disproved for centuries, my friend. Also, life from non-life violates a known scientific law.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple Incorrect, biogenesis involves modern life and only modern life. Pasteur's work debunked things like rats spawning from trash and maggots generating from rotten meat, nothing to do to with the biochemical origin of life.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Incorrect, biogenesis involves modern life and only modern life. Pasteur's work debunked things like rats spawing from trash..."

The law of biogenesis states that life comes from life. There is no evidence for the 'life from non-life' fairy tale. Of course, these scientific facts don't stop some people from believing by blind faith that life could come from non-life.

Some people just don't believe in science.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple Nope, again, Pasteur's work and biogenesis only involve the debunking of modern life spontaneously generating

'Some people just don't believe in science.'

Yeah, they think that biogenesis somehow deals with the origination of self replicating systems when it clearly doesn't.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple The only things Pasteur, Redi, et. al. demonstrated are such claims of spontaneous generation as flies spawning from rotten meat, rats spawning from trash etc.

Given that 'human popping out of dirt' isn't really scientifically distinguishable from 'rat popping out of trash', really the only thing they debunked was creationism.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

It is amazing that you are arguing for a position that you won't even endorse. Even though you won't say that you believe that life could come from non-life, it is obvious that you believe that unscientific fairy tale which has no evidence to support it.

I guess that you are so ashamed of your own belief that you don't want anyone to know that you believe something that is so clearly unscientific.

Life comes from life, just as the scientific law of biogenesis states.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple Again, incorrect. Biogenesis only deals with the debunking of the supposed spontaneous generation of modern life, it has nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life.

To prove my point, perhaps you could try to give a single example of Pasteur's work that involved anything other than the debunking of the spontaneous generation of modern life. What's sad is when you can't, you still won't realize (or admit) that you're utterly wrong.

[InternetDisciple]

"Again, incorrect."

It is not incorrect. The law of biogenesis statest that life comes from life. You believe that life could come from non-life because you don't believe in science.

"To prove my point,"

Red herring. The law of biogenesis, despite what you say, states that life comes from life. If you want to disprove that law, perhaps you could try to give a single example of life coming from non-life. what sad is when you can't, you still won't realize (or admit) that you're utterly wrong.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple You're absolutely incorrect,

1: Pasteur's work, biogenesis etc. only dealt with modern life

2: Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe what does happen, they don't dictate anything.

'Red herring'

The fact that you think me asking you to support your position is a red herring is sad. Again, laws are descriptive and Pasteur's work only involved modern life. If you think there's an example when it didn't, try giving it.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"You're absolutely incorrect."

Your ignorance of science is showing. The law of biogenesis states that life comes from life.

Say it, my friend: 'The law of biogenesis does not say that life comes from life'. Let us see you say that and I will post the quote from Pasteur showing you that you are wrong.

Waiting.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple The projection of your ignorance of science is showing.

Pasteur experimented with modern life and only modern life, absolutely nothing to do with the origin of self replicating cells and protocells.

Let me know if you still don't understand.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Pasteur experimented with modern life..."

Again, say it, my friend. 'The law of biogenesis does not say that comes from life'. After you state that that is your position, I will be very glad to post the quote from him showing you that you are wrong.

Still waiting.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple Which experiment of Pasteur's involved anything other than modern life?

Name one.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Which experiment of Pasteur's involved anything other than modern life?"

Red herring. I don't need to go there.

And tell me, if I can't name any such experiment, how does that help you?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple Because, as I've pointed out four times now, scientific laws are descriptive. This means they describe what is observed. So if it's observed that rats reproduce via sex as opposed to automatically generating out of trash, then this process is *de*scribed by the law not *pre*scribed.

In case you didn't notice, rats spawning out of trash does not equal organic components bonding via dehydration synthesis etc.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Because, as I've pointed out four times now, scientific laws are descriptive."

I understand that you are trying to make your 'life from non-life' fairy tale to be viewed as science. But there is no evidence for your fairy tale.

The law of biogenesis states that life comes from life. Come over to the side of science, my friend, it is very nice over here.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple You still continue with your misunderstanding. Scientific laws don't state anything, they describe a phenomena. IE relativity doesn't tell gravity to move mass to earth a 9.21m/s² it explains how it does.

Laws do not dictate anything, including that 'life must come from life'

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheScienceFoundation That should be 9.81m/s²

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Scientific laws don't state anything,"

It is very obvious that you have rejected science. Life comes from life, just as stated in the law of biogenesis. You believe in the 'life from non-life' fairy tale. There is no evidence for that fairy tale, but that would not stop those that have rejected established science.

For myself, I'll stick with science. Live comes from life, just as stated in the law of biogenesis. I love science.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple You've been helping me make it abundantly clear that I'm the only one in this particular discussion that has any idea what constitutes science. In some 20+ posts you haven't even come any closer to understanding that scientific laws do not dictate anything.

Which part of that are you failing to grasp? I'll help educate you in real science if you can just articulate what you're having a problem understanding here.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"You've been helping me make it abundantly clear that I'm the only one in this particular discussion that has any idea what constitutes science."

You've been making it abundantly clear that you have rejected science. It is stated in the scientific law of biogenesis that life comes from life. You believe in the 'life from non-life' fairy tail' for which there is no evidence.

I believe science, you believe fairy tales.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple You keep projecting your ignorance as if it were an argument.

All I'm doing here is trying to help you understand your failed comprehension of science.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"You keep projecting your ignorance..."

As stated in the law of biogenesis, life comes from life. The people that believe that life could come from non-life are the ignorant ones. There is no evidence for that fairy tale.

I'll stick with science.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple Scientific laws don't state anything, they're descriptive. The people that believe Pasteur's work or biogenesis had anything to do with anything other than modern life are the ignorant ones.

You've never had a grasp on science.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Scientific laws don't state anything,"

As I repeated said: "AS STATED IN the law of biogenesis", life comes from life. Let me know if you are still confused.

"You've never had a grasp on science."

This from someone that has obviously rejected science. I believe that life comes from life, and you beleive in a fairy tale that has no evidence. If you have any evidence for your fairy tale, you'd have posted it by now.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple It's not stated in biogenesis, it's described and it only involves modern life. Let me know if you still don't understand.

You assert your failure to understand the basic principles of scientific law as an argument. Notice you have not even attempted to present any of Pasteur's work that involves anything other than modern life.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"It's not stated in biogenesis,"

Whoa! Are you saying that you believe that it is not stated in the law of biogenesis that life comes from life? If you wish, I can give the quote showing that Pasteur stated in the law of biogenesis that life comes from life.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple Biogenesis is the model that explains how modern life replicates via sexual reproduction, that is all.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"It's not stated in biogenesis,"

Again, are you saying that you believe that it is not stated in the law of biogenesis that life comes from life? If you wish, I can give the quote showing that Pasteur stated in the law of biogenesis that life comes from life.

Please let me know.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple 'I can give the quote showing that Pasteur stated'

Do you have any examples of his work that involved anything other than modern life?

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Do you have any examples of his work that involved anything other than modern life?"

Again, if I can't give any such examples, how does that help you?

"It's not stated in biogenesis,"

You're ignorance of science is showing. In the law of biogenesis, Pasteur did state that life comes from life. Do you now understand why you are wrong on this? Please let me know if you need me to correct you further on this.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple Because my point is that his work only involved modern life. The fact that you're unable to give an example of his work that involves anything other than modern life supports my point.

So can you give an example? Yes or no.

Given that it is an entirely reasonable and relevant question to the discussion, it would also be reasonable to take any further dodging from you as an admission that you cannot, in fact, give any such example.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Because my point is that his work only involved modern life. The fact that you're unable to give an example of his work that involves anything other than modern life supports my point."

I am very glad that you are admitting that it is not your point that the above would support the 'life from non-life' fairy tale. However, if you are saying that your above point supports the 'life from non-life' position, please let me know.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple So which work of Pasteur's do you think applies to the biochemical origin of life? Be specific.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"So which work of Pasteur's do you think applies to the biochemical origin of life?"

There is no biochemical origin of life {life from non-life}. What make you mistaken think that there is, my friend?

[InternetDiscipIe]

@InternetDisciple Disregard that retardation on my part. I actually realize that the work Pasteur did only involves modern life.  Readers can easily read through the beating I've taken and see that I was completely unable to give a single example of Pasteur's work that applies to anything other than modern life.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Notice you have not even attempted to present any of Pasteur's work that involves anything other than modern life."

I see that you are back to red herrings. As I already asked, if I can't give any such examples, how would that help you? Remember how you repeatedly FAILED to answer that question.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple Are you really asking how it would help my position that Pasteur's work only involved modern life if you can't give an example of his work that doesn't involve modern life?

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Are you really asking how it would help my position that Pasteur's work only involved life if you can't give an example of his work that doesn't involved modern life?"

That is close to the question that I've been asking. I notice that you really don't like to respond to the things that I say or ask. I guess that my stance my stance and my quesitons are just too hard for you.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple You can't give an example of his work that involves anything other than modern life because, spoiler, there is none.

His work only involves modern life, it had nothing to do with the origin of self replicating cells and protocells. Let me know which part of that you don't understand.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"You can't give an example of his work that involves anything other than modern life because, spoiler, there is none."

Again, if what you say here is true, how does that help you? Why are you trying so hard to avoid answering this question? Is it too hard for you?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple Because you're trying to imply that his work applies to the origin of life, it does not. His work solely involved modern life.

Let me know which part you still don't understand.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Because you're trying to imply that his work applies to the origin of life,"

I am just pointing out that it is stated in the law of biogenesis that life comes from life. And there is no evidence for the 'life from non-life' fairy tale anyway.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple Again, his work only involved modern life and in no way applies to the biochemical origin of life.

Let me know which part you still don't understand.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Again, his work only involved modern life and in no way applies to the biochemical origin of life."

Again, there is no evidence for the 'life from non-life' fairy tale. What makes you mistakenly believe in something so obviously unscientific?

(And, dear readers, remember that TSF has yet to admit that Pasteur stated in the law of biogenesis that life comes from life. As far as you know, dear readers, he is still ignorant of that fact.)

[InternetDiscipIe]

@InternetDisciple Whoops there goes my creationist retardation again, mistaking Pasteur's work for anything that even remotely applies to the biochemical origin of life.

It doesn't and my inability to give an example of any such work of Pasteur's should speak volumes.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDiscipIe It's good to see you finally realize that Pasteur's work had absolutely nothing to do with the initial generation of self replicating cells.

There maybe hope for you yet.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

Again, dear readers, if someone won't even endorse his own position, then please look very skepticly at that position.

TSF obviously believes in the 'life from non-life' fairy tale, but he won't seem to endorse his 'life from non-life' position.

Very telling.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple So do you yet understand that scientific laws are descriptive and not prescriptive?

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"So do you yet understand that scientific laws are descriptive and not prescriptive?"

These kind of questions from some that has wholesale rejected science. Remember, my friend, I am the one that believes that life comes from life, just as stated in the law of biogenesis, and you are the one that believes the 'life from non-life' fairy tale.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple No, these are the kind of questions that come from me who understands science to you, who doesn't.

The fact that you refuse to even attempt to understand that laws are descriptive, never prescriptive, shows that you have no understanding of science in the least.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"The fact that you think me asking you to support your position is a red herring is sad."

Strawman. You did not ask an open ended question like: 'Please support your position with evidence'. You want me to accept your flawed presupposition. 'Please accept this flawed presupposition and then give me evidence based on my flawed presupposition.' No thanks.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple Except it's not flawed and it's not a presupposition. It's a fact that Pasteur only experimented with modern life.

If you're claiming that his work involved anything other than modern life, then you're either being ignorant or dishonest.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Except it is not flawed..."

Yes it is. Since the law of biogenesis states that life comes from life, I don't need to defend any other position other than that one. It is no wonder that you want me to defend a position other than that one.

Say it, my friend: 'I, TSF, hereby state that the law of biogenesis does not state that life comes from life' and see what happens. :)

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple Try naming a single experiment of Pasteur's that involves anything other than modern life.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"Try naming a single experiment of Pasteur's that involves anything other than modern life."

If I can't name any such experiment, how does that help you?

I understand that you're just trying to make it seem that the law of biogenesis says something other than what it says in order to make it seem as if you believe in science. My friend, you can believe in life from non-life, but please stop trying to make it seem that you believe in science when you obviously don't.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple I've already explained your faulty understanding of what a law is in science in great detail.

Scientific laws *de*scribe : "to represent by a figure, model, or picture"

they don't *pre*scribe : "to specify with authority"

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"I've already explained your faulty understanding of what a law is in science in great detail."

Remember, you are the one that rejects established scientific laws. I believe that life comes from life, just as stated by the scientific law of biogenesis.

Dear readers, if someone will not even endorse his own position, please look at that position with great skepticism. TSF will not even endorse his position of the 'life from non-life' fairy tale.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple You're still working from your entirely failed understanding of a scientific law. Scientific laws do not, nor have they ever dictated must what happen, they describe was does happen. In the case of biogenesis, it explains that modern life replicates via sexual reproduction as opposed to spontaneous generation. The *de*scriptive model formed via biogenesis has nothing (not any thing ; no part) to do with the biochemical origin of life.

[InternetDisciple]

@TheScienceFoundation

"You're still working from your entirely failed understanding of a scientific law."

Strawman. I understand just fine. This is merely a thinly veiled attempt to make the argument about me instead of what Pasteur stated in the law of biogenesis.

It is still obvious that you have rejected science in favor of your 'life from non-life' fairy tale.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@InternetDisciple If you think that a scientific law states or dictates anything, then no, you have no knowledge of what a scientific law is.

Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. They do not dictate or order anything to occur, they describe what does occur. In the case of biogenesis, it describes that modern life reproduces sexually as opposed to spontaneous generation.

[9pt9]

Love it Ian!

[MajSmJz]

Wonderful.

[akg41470]

By the way, all the scientists listed with the exception of 2 were working in pre-Darwinian times. The two that were (Sedgewick and Owen) were very outspoken and were part of the argument in the late 1800's. Couldn't you have listed any scientists who worked in the LAST 100 YEARS? No? Any reason why not?

[wazooloo]

The list was too long - apparently you did not look at the link I referenced. There was LOTS of people in the past 100 years.

[akg41470]

OK, I got the chance to look at the link, and right offhand I can see that a LARGE majority of them don't work in a related science that USES evolution... a radar designer? international labor expert? materials engineering? I'm sorry, but those individuals aren't really qualified - they did not have to STUDY evolution for their positions!

[wazooloo]

Ah, but your double standard is now exposed! They are only a "scientist" if they are an evolutionist? (I saw that coming) There are many, many more that are not on that list who had to study evolution; Dr. Jonathan Sanford, co-inventor of the gene gun for example.

[akg41470]

NO, absolutely not. You can certainly be a scientist and a creationist (albeit an unfortunately hindered one), especially if your field of expertise doesn't need evolutionary concepts (computer science, plastics, etc)... but you can't claim that they are experts on the subject by naming them in a list and that one should listen to their opinions on the subject, because they AREN'T.

[wazooloo]

Look, I'm not trying to be rude, but that is a ridiculous argument. But tell ya what - I'll address this in the next podcast. The list is too long for such silly texting.

[akg41470]

Great, I'll make a response video to this video and we'll go from there as well. I don't understand how my statement was ridiculous in the slightest.

[wazooloo]

Excellent - I look forward to it.

[akg41470]

You are misinterpreting what Matzke said. The supernatural cause was removed for the EXPLANATIONS for the facts that were found in the experiments. This has NOTHING to do with the beliefs or the driving forces of the scientists who DID the experiments themselves. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

[wazooloo]

I disagree. The two are intimately intertwined. Did you forget WHY Matzke said what he did? It was his response to the claim that life had an Intelligent Designer, and that the first life did not evolve. This was the whole crux of the court case, and the resulting documentary.

[akg41470]

The two are NOT intertwined. The scientific method itself is inherently different than the personal religious beliefs of a scientist. How, then, does PEER REVIEW work? The crux of the court case was whether ID is *science*, which, by definition, it is NOT. Science has NO supernatural element. ID requires one. What part of NO don't you get?

[wazooloo]

And evolution requires a supernatural element. Secondly, if you look at a car, is it more "scientific" to say it had a creator, or that it formed by unguided processes? You just used the tool of intelligent design, which is completely scientific.

[akg41470]

Evolution requires NO supernatural element. Where do you get this from? Secondly, don't compare living systems to non-living systems. The element of reproduction is absent, which is a core element of evolution (random mutation + sex + etc). Do you understand what you're talking about?

[wazooloo]

Thank you for bringing that up - I deal with that in the next podcast, which should be posted here shortly. You hit the nail on the head - living systems are VASTLY more complex than a car. So if you can't deny a car was designed, why on earth would you deny that a cell was designed, which is much more complicated?

[akg41470]

It's not about complexity, it's about the capability to reproduce. You can't compare a non-living system to a living system with relation to where they come from - AT ALL. The relation of complexity simply cannot be compared because you're comparing apples to, say, shoes.

[wazooloo]

Again, a ridiculous argument. Let me put it another way: If someone made a cell from scratch, would you not agree it took incredible skill and intelligence to do it? Secondly, which came first: The DNA which has the blueprints on how to build the cell, or the cell which uses the DNA to build itself and more copies of the DNA?

[akg41470]

I would agree that it would take incredible skill to create it - IF WE KNEW IT WAS CREATED BY AN INTELLIGENT FORM. First, we know nothing of testing against or making demands of this intelligent form, so it cannot be known. Second, natural processes have been found to be able to EXPLAIN HOW it was created.

[wazooloo]

What? WHAT natural processes? The law of biogenesis: Life only comes from life. Apparently you've found a way to violate this law - please tell us all about it.

[Hooya2]

There is such a thing as biogenesis, but there is no such thing as a "Law of biogenesis". To propose that life cannot emerge from non-life would require a full understanding of all environments containing chemically reactive non-living matter, and all possible processes such environments could contain.

Human knowledge is nowhere near advanced enough to theorize a "law of biogenesis".

[akg41470]

It's not a matter of "which came first", unfortunately. They didn't just APPEAR in the form they are in today, they were less-complex forms that DEVELOPED. They grew more and more complex SIMULTANEOUSLY over a long time. If you want to be specific, however, the answer is obviously the DNA.

[wazooloo]

And DNA is completely and utterly useless without the machinery to use it. Secondly, where did the information in the DNA come from?

[akg41470]

Understand this: the DNA and the machinery *developed together* from smaller precursor structures. Less complex DNA and less complex cells. It's pretty simple to understand. Secondly: define "information" with respect to chemical compounds, please.

[bearpaw72]

No, I'm just saying that I am going to hell when I die because I believe that the value of pi is equal to 3.14159 etc., and NOT 3 as the bible says.

[bearpaw72]

I try to believe in the supernatural without the dogma. The existence of God and an afterlife woudn't surprise me, and I am going to hell when I die because of the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

[wazooloo]

What? I would never suggest that you are "going to hell" because you believe in an old earth! We all have wrong beliefs somewhere. The only action that determines whether you are bound for eternal life or not was whether you sold yourself to Christ or not.

[alienspy07]

Also: criticism unrelated to science, I was reading the subtitles and at times I thought that it wouldn't have made sense if I hadn't heard you speaking. Next podcast you should probably try reading all the subtitles before you post it, just to make sure.

[wazooloo]

Appreciate it - thanks; it's tough because I talk fast AND the guys in the interviews talk fast. I had to cut parts out; that was the recommendation of a deaf person actually.

[alienspy07]

Wazooloo, its true that the scientists who made huge discoveries like Newton and Galileo were Christians, but they DID remove the supernatural from their models. Its a bit dishonest to say that they did no remove the supernatural from their discoveries because they were Christians. And hey, Darwin was a Christian when he proposed evolution, so...

Also, abiogenesis is still not a part of evolutionary theory. And biogenesis does not prevent abiogenesis- at least not in their current models.

[wazooloo]

Thanks for the comments; I deal with this a bit more in the next podcast, I cite an example with Newton to show they did leave in the supernatural. However, I understand what you're saying there. It's also true that evo's avoid abiogenesis, but ID is only useful for abiogenesis; again, more on that next podcast. Mind if I use your comments on a future podcast?

[alienspy07]

Sure, no problem.