Talk:Biogenesis

This is very bad "Law of Biogenesis and Creationism"

I agree. The section of Law of Biogenesis and Creationism is purely opinion, and uses too broad of a paint brush. As it comes off as hateful or vindictive and a chip on ones shoulder. I can't believe such a part would still exist in Wikipedia for as long as it has. As being quite clearly written by a creationist, puhlease. That last part was pretty "partisan" and spoke for all creationists that support biogenesis when he wasn't even close.

Kevindk 19:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly written by a creationist

As if it wasn't clear enough, the last sentence gives it away,

"Finally, they argue that once it has been conceded (as is conceded by theistic evolution) that the original cell was created by a divine being, there is no reason to believe He could not have created life in a variety of forms."

This whole article needs a rewrite.

You do something about it, then. Infraredeclipse 15:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.116.11.90 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Biased, faaar too little CITING

Several claims in this article do not resonate with what is in the biology textbook sitting in front of me. Especially claims that "the earth's early atmosphere is pure speculation without basis" and "the most basic amino acids were formed in Miller's test tube but the atmosphere required to make them killed them soon after." I don't believe that Campbell's Biology (the textbook) is the "one truth", but I would like to see a citation before I write off what is widely accepted scientifically. Large parts of this article were CLEARLY written by a creationist or proponent of intelligent design. It just reeks of bias. There are whole paragraphs of assertions that are UNCITED. THIS SHOULD HAVE A TAG FOR BEING AN ARTICLE WITHOUT SOURCES and NOT HAVING A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. It should be examined thoroughly by people with actual scientific knowledge that can back it up with sources.

I thought people had given up trying to use logic to prove the existence of God. It can't be proven logically, that's why FAITH is a big deal. Believing when there is no reason to believe other than faith. People who embrace logic won't be swayed by the skewing of scientific principles carried out by proponents of intelligent design, who have neither the guts to conclude that they're alone nor the faith to turn to God without logic. Either life is a miracle (which is defined by the property of being outside what makes sense in the normal world, such as gravity, the scientific method, etc), or it's not (and can be explained by what makes sense in the normal world).

Sorry for the rant, but CITE! Even if you're going to only show one side, at least provide evidence for your own arguments! (if there is any evidence... see I won't believe you if you don't CITE!) arghhh!

Inaccuracy

I will remove this sentence: (although the same criteria also discount anyone who is impotent, for the same reasons). If you look at the [Life] page, the criteria apply to lifeforms (species) not individuals. That's why mules, ants and impotent people are considerd alive and virusus not, as stated on the Life page. Anonymous, 12 Dec 11:53 PM, December 12, 2005

This is very bad

1. Irrelevant mentions ( ex: "life was never seen comming from dead matter" ) 2. No such thing as "creationist biology", creationists just say life was the result of a miracle and came out of nothing, which is a non-falsifiable hypothesis

Please, clean this article

What exactly do you mean? Creationist biology is the creationist view on biology.(A few biologists adhere to that view) Creationists don't neccesarily say life was a result of a miracle. Keep in mind this is the Young-Earh creationist viewpoint on the article or an Intelligent Design. And Yec's believe life was created but then followed(and continues) adapatation etc, just not leaps in evolution.(Dinosaur-->bird, etc) So could you please clarify your points a bit more. Keep in mind this an online dictionary that expresses the views but doesn't delcare a fact unless it is which this article doesn't. If you like you can add to the Controversy sectionFalphin 19:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term "creationist biology" makes as such sense as "plumber's biology". Creationists are not scientists doing scientific research.203.71.28.216 04:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CITE

Does anyone have any sources for any of the claims on this article? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious Statement

I corrected a possibly misleading statement and a number of grammatical errors. I believe that I was fair in portraying the intention of the statement; however, in it's form it was not appropriate. Feel free to return the concept or corrected argument to the article, addressing the following criticism.

Removed portion: "The organic makeup of life and the makeup viruses are not the same. Viruses feed of life and rarely live outside it's host for long."

1. Is the first statement refering to organic (chemical) makeup, or organic (physiological) makeup? It does posess much of the same chemical makeup (RNA, often DNA, protiens). Physiologically, life does not require organs (physiologically), There is a requirement for the life to be encapsulated in a cell; however this may be a falacy of accident.

2. "Viruses feed of[f] life..." This arguement is spurious and incomplete. Any organism that is not a producer is a consumer. Consumers feed off life. If you intend to state that viruses require a host in order to have the mechanisms required to reproduce, then you must state that.

3. Your claim is that a virus does not live, yet then you claim they do by stating: "viruses rarely live outside..." A possible correction: "Viruses are rarely viable if excluded from a host cell for an extended period of time"

rmosler 12:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize and clarification

"The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules." [1]

I believe this should be added to the entry to clarify what Pasteur and others were actually addressing with their law of biogenesis. Furthermore this article should be included in Biology, which I'll do now... but perhaps it should also be included in Creationism as well given their interest in adopting it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

good stuff, as long as it's attributed. reasonable minds can disagree on the interpretation of the law, so we can attribute it, but not state it as fact. Ungtss 18:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problem with "human attempts to create life"

In particular, I have a problem with the following quote: "Additionally, some point to lesser-known and controversial experiments such as those performed by Andrew Crosse as examples of abiogenesis." I looked up this link and found that Andrew Crosse produced an experiment in the 1800's in which he discovered the creation of insects in the lab, but later he concluded that he likely had an experiment contaminated with insect eggs. This experiment is lesser known for a reason, and I don't know of anybody who is pointing to it presently as an example of abiogenesis. I won't edit the statement because by some chance I may be mistaken and that some proponents of abiogenesis in fact are using Crosse's experiment as an argument. However, combined with some of the problems of above, I suspect that the article is written poorly and perhaps with bias (although I can see an attempt at neutrality). I advocate it's omission from Wikipedia. 16:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What the heck's wrong with I.D.? Just because there's proof for I.D doesn't mean that people have to get all mad about it, saying that the article was "quite clearly written by a creationist". For all I know, most science text books are quite clearly written by an evolutionist! Anyway, I think those that don't teach the debate in biology class are dangerously violating our right to free speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.247.124 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]