Can raw energy create Order

[Rev. Rye]

Can raw energy create Order? Evolutionist theory has no answer.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/758/233/

Yes, it does.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

Oh, and, be a dear and check this before you say "Evolutionist theory has no answer" to some challenge. Practically every seemingly defensible argument against evolution is there.

[Faith No More]

You know, it makes me feel a little bit better about only having half of a semester of community college under my belt when I realize that I have a greater understanding of entropy than someone with a Ph.D.

[John V]

You have a point to a certain extent BUT:

A: Abiogenesis: How life started from non-life
B: Evolution: What happened next.

So evolution does not rely on abiogenesis because you could insert some other thing at A and not invalidate B.

What other thing could you insert at A? Panspermia just moves the location of abiogenesis. Are there other scientific alternatives?

[Mister Agenda]

The points in that article are irrelevant to evolution. You want abiogenesis, look that up

Yeah. And you can look it up in a college evolution textbook. Most of them have a chapter on abiogenesis. But they're two completely different things. Really...I mean it.

God could have popped the first living cell out of thin air, and evolution would still get us where we are today and be just as valid an explanation of the evidence.

[John V]

How about instead of quibbling over definitions, you just take my point that evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing?

No, when you use words completely incorrectly, it's worth noting.

Nope: evolution can take place even within the constraints of an intelligently designed system. That's why we can breed dogs. Theistic evolution is a thing many christians accept, and there's also the idea of directed panspermia. The fact that evolution takes place isn't in doubt; it's confirmed, it's directly observable, and can be reproduced by anyone given enough inclination and money. Abiogenesis doesn't have the same level of support, which should be your first hint that they do not rely upon one another.

You reject creationism and panspermia just moves abiogenesis to a different location. So, yes, evolution is dependent on abiogenesis.

No, I'm saying that evolution is entirely confirmed and factual, and it is: Check it.

And don't get me started on this theory/fact crap again: Educate yourself.

Use the word consistently with its claimed meaning and I won't be able to call you out on it.

Hmm... kind of. I'm actually having a hard time putting my objection here into words, but I think the issue here is that the two processes that really aren't alike; evolution is a thing that only happens to living organisms, after all. By definition, it's a process that occurs within already formed life, whilst abiogenesis is all about the formation of life.

You're likely having trouble wording it because "life" is surprisingly difficult to define.

[Mister Agenda]

Do you understand how two concepts can be related without being connected?

No.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/related?s=t

re·lat·ed
adjective
1.
associated; connected.

You are right. They are connected. Both concern biology as an historical science and both probably depend on natural selection. Those are indeed connections.

Evolution surely depends on abiogenesis.

What do you think would happen to the theory of biological evolution if it turned out natural causes was not the explanation for the origin of life on earth?

Are you saying that abiogenesis is entirely confirmed and factual?

No, he did not.

You did call it a theory.

No, he did not. He said it had 'theoretical underpinnings'. Abiogenesis is still in the hypothesis stage.

It would depend on the abiogenesis model. If the model involves something that's self-replicating, then abiogenesis and evolution are part of the same continuum, with a somewhat arbitrary dividing line called "life" drawn in somewhere. If you're intellectually honest.

A time traveler could have deposited the first life form in a paradoxical loop and it would have profound implications for abiogenesis, but the theory of evolution wouldn't need to be changed at all (physics might be in trouble). The only way you can be intellectually honest and not grasp why evolution does not depend on abiogenesis is to just not have the mental equipment to understand it.

---

You reject creationism and panspermia just moves abiogenesis to a different location. So, yes, evolution is dependent on abiogenesis.

I think I see the 'disconnect' you're having. Everyone else is talking about the hypotheses of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, but that's not what you're talking about at all.

You're talking about the occurrence of the origin of life and the evolution of life thereafter. In that sense, yes, you can't have evolution without life, the process of biological evolution can't occur until you've got life.

But the process of evolution does not depend on hypotheses about abiogenesis being right. It could be magic and evolution will get along fine.

Use the word consistently with its claimed meaning and I won't be able to call you out on it.

It's a tricky word to use, with it having a colloquial and scientific sense. Have you considered attempting to understand what he means from the context in good faith, or are you determined to make a fuss every time?

You're likely having trouble wording it because "life" is surprisingly difficult to define.

Yep.

[Esquilax]

No, when you use words completely incorrectly, it's worth noting.

Then I invite you to continue to quibble endlessly while I ignore it all and discuss the salient points of the discussion.

You reject creationism and panspermia just moves abiogenesis to a different location. So, yes, evolution is dependent on abiogenesis.

It doesn't matter what I think is the answer to the origin of life, it matters what that answer actually is: right now, that answer, honestly, is that we don't know. We do know, however, that evolution is occurring, regardless of what origin we eventually do discover for life.

I can know that a line of dominoes is falling without being able to see the very first domino, after all.

Use the word consistently with its claimed meaning and I won't be able to call you out on it.

The word has two meanings, like some words do: you decided to pull the standard dishonest tactic of demanding everyone use the incorrect definition so you can pull one over on us. Sorry, but I don't play that game.

You're likely having trouble wording it because "life" is surprisingly difficult to define.

Sure. This point, however, has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is occurring, despite our lack of knowledge of the beginnings of life. Perhaps you'd like to get to your point, if you can take time away from your busy schedule as the arbiter of definitions?

[Doubting Thomas]

Can raw energy create Order? Evolutionist theory has no answer.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/758/233/

Can creationism create order? - Creationists cannot point to any such thing as well

Of course not. "Creationist research" consists solely of trying to tear down the Theory of Evolution, so that biblical creationism wins by default. So instead of using actual science to further their ideas, they use whatever means to discredit the leading theory.

Much like how conspiracy theorists don't actually try to prove a vast conspiracy which causes/caused X, they just raise a bunch of doubts about the official story.

---

Use the word consistently with its claimed meaning and I won't be able to call you out on it.

When you're losing the argument, argue semantics.