Jump to content


Photo

Why Abiogenesis Is Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
288 replies to this topic

#1 UseReasonandLogic

UseReasonandLogic

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Tennessee

Posted 01 July 2010 - 07:18 AM

So often, when discussing evolution, the initial "spark" of life is dismissed by evolutionists as "not part of their theory". They claim that evolution begins with that first life and that the theory of how life started is another whole field of science.

The reason for this post is simple.

It's time to stop putting up with this. Abiogenesis is the very foundation of the evolutionary theory, period, end of discussion. It's a debate strategy that they are using. Why? Because evolutionists want you to think that their theory is rock-solid, and abiogenesis, as we all know is perhaps the shakiest "field of study" in all of science.

What is the point of evolution in the first place? Well, it merely is a way of understanding how we got here. For years, atheists/agnostics and non-believers didn't really have a scientific way to express how the world around us could be explained in a natural way. Evolution provided them with that theory.

However, don't lose sight of the fact that for US to get here, life first would have had to arose. And I think we ALL understand the amazing difficulties of life arising by chance.

Yet, evolutionists routinely shift these problems to another field of science. STOP LETTING THAT HAPPEN. Call them out on it. They are the ones mocking you for believing in God. Mock them for not even having a shred of evidence to get their theory started.

Evolutionists routinely ask for PROOF of God. My question to them? Give me scientific reasons WHY I SHOULD BELIEVE THAT LIFE AROSE FROM NON-LIFE. From a scientific perspective, is there any reason for me to believe that it happened?

What evolutionists will generally say at this point is that "We're here aren't we?". Well yes, geniuses, we are here. Thanks for the update. However, you guys have had 100+ years and gone through the most unbelievable scientific revolution in man's history (not because of evolution mind you, but because of oil and electricity) and you still have zero idea how it happened. In fact, with every passing year and every new discovery, the first cell gets harder and harder to make. A far cry from the beliefs in Darwin's day where they thought the spark of life was the "easy" part.

The fact that we are here is in fact the entire point. We know that life arose. This is obviously a solid fact. So the question is, "how did it arise?" Did it arise by chance or did it arise by design. That's the real question.

Scientists determine design all the time. I was watching a show on the History channel a few weeks ago, where they found these round stones in the Pacific off the coast of California. Scientists were debating whether they were natural, or whether they were anchors from ancient oriental ship vessels. There are certain characteristics that PROVE that they were manmade. Why? Because scientists understand that these could never arise in nature on their own.

When they see a ship-wreck, they instantly know man was there. Why? Because it's too complex to just arise on it's own.

The same thought process should easily be applied to a cell, even an early one. You have atheists that want you to believe that life arose spontaneously, though the odds of a cell forming are basically mathematically impossible. All I want is for them to open their eyes and admit, that it is far more likely that the first cell was designed. I don't care if they say green bogey-men from mars did it, just admit that.

Since they cannot admit that, despite all the evidence against them, they cast abiogenesis into a whole other field of study, to protect their precious theory of evolution.

Again, don't let them do that! I will refuse to discuss anything other than abiogenesis with any atheistic evolutionist. You get me life, and then we'll discuss how it may have evolved. If you can't get me life, then you don't even have a rational and logical theory. And don't tell me that "science hasn't discovered it yet". All that is, is an atheist hoping that science will one day vindicate his personal beliefs. And don't forget, that the most out-spoken and condescending evolutionists, are usually the atheists. Why? Because their way of life depends on it.

If an evolutionist will admit that it is probable that the first cell was designed and created by some force, than I will then address them on the rest of evolution.

If not, then they can take their unsubstantiated babble to the next guy.

I encourage all of you to follow the same pattern.

#2 taikoo

taikoo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • midwest

Posted 01 July 2010 - 08:17 AM

So often, when discussing evolution, the initial "spark" of life is dismissed by evolutionists as "not part of their theory".  They claim that evolution begins with that first life and that the theory of how life started is another whole field of science.

The reason for this post is simple. 

It's time to stop putting up with this.  Abiogenesis is the very foundation of the evolutionary theory, period, end of discussion.  It's a debate strategy that they are using.  Why?  Because evolutionists want you to think that their theory is rock-solid, and abiogenesis, as we all know is perhaps the shakiest "field of study" in all of science. 

What is the point of evolution in the first place?  Well, it merely is a way of understanding how we got here.  For years, atheists/agnostics and non-believers didn't really have a scientific way to express how the world around us could be explained in a natural way.  Evolution provided them with that theory.

However, don't lose sight of the fact that for US to get here, life first would have had to arose.  And I think we ALL understand the amazing difficulties of life arising by chance.

Yet, evolutionists routinely shift these problems to another field of science.  STOP LETTING THAT HAPPEN.  Call them out on it.  They are the ones mocking you for believing in God.  Mock them for not even having a shred of evidence to get their theory started.

Evolutionists routinely ask for PROOF of God.  My question to them?  Give me scientific reasons WHY I SHOULD BELIEVE THAT LIFE AROSE FROM NON-LIFE.  From a scientific perspective, is there any reason for me to believe that it happened?

What evolutionists will generally say at this point is that "We're here aren't we?".  Well yes, geniuses, we are here.  Thanks for the update.  However, you guys have had 100+ years and gone through the most unbelievable scientific revolution in man's history (not because of evolution mind you, but because of oil and electricity) and you still have zero idea how it happened.  In fact, with every passing year and every new discovery, the first cell gets harder and harder to make.  A far cry from the beliefs in Darwin's day where they thought the spark of life was the "easy" part.

The fact that we are here is in fact the entire point.  We know that life arose.  This is obviously a solid fact.  So the question is, "how did it arise?"  Did it arise by chance or did it arise by design.  That's the real question.

Scientists determine design all the time.  I was watching a show on the History channel a few weeks ago, where they found these round stones in the Pacific off the coast of California.  Scientists were debating whether they were natural, or whether they were anchors from ancient oriental ship vessels.  There are certain characteristics that PROVE that they were manmade.  Why?  Because scientists understand that these could never arise in nature on their own. 

When they see a ship-wreck, they instantly know man was there.  Why?  Because it's too complex to just arise on it's own.

The same thought process should easily be applied to a cell, even an early one.  You have atheists that want you to believe that life arose spontaneously, though the odds of a cell forming are basically mathematically impossible.  All I want is for them to open their eyes and admit, that it is far more likely that the first cell was designed.  I don't care if they say green bogey-men from mars did it, just admit that.

Since they cannot admit that, despite all the evidence against them, they cast abiogenesis into a whole other field of study, to protect their precious theory of evolution.

Again, don't let them do that!  I will refuse to discuss anything other than abiogenesis with any atheistic evolutionist.  You get me life, and then we'll discuss how it may have evolved.  If you can't get me life, then you don't even have a rational and logical theory.  And don't tell me that "science hasn't discovered it yet".  All that is, is an atheist hoping that science will one day vindicate his personal beliefs.  And don't forget, that the most out-spoken and condescending evolutionists, are usually the atheists.  Why?  Because their way of life depends on it. 

If an evolutionist will admit that it is probable that the first cell was designed and created by some force, than I will then address them on the rest of evolution. 

If not, then they can take their unsubstantiated babble to the next guy.

I encourage all of you to follow the same pattern.

View Post




A couple of comments. Anyone, "evolutionist" or otherwise who calls for proof of God, is not being reasonable. Likewise, anyone who calls for "proof" of any law or theory in science, is not being reasonable. Agreed?

If so we might just set those people and their ideas aside, and look at your main idea here, that abiogenesis is an integral part of the theory of evolution.

I think I understand where you are coming from, and a non divine origin to life is there to be interpreted from the theory of evolution.

Yet, to my knowledge, there are a good many devout Christians who could be called "theistic evolutionists" whose view, as I understand it, is that God got it all started, but does not / has not micromanaged every detail. Is that a correct characterization?

So am i right that not everyone takes the ToE as eliminating or denying God?


Next..
Would you agree that a theory like the ToE, or ones about say gravity, can only incorporate and try to explain that for which there is evidence?

Or specific scientific laws. Maybe Hess', or Boyle's law. You would agree, that in science, those are not absolutes? That they are considered to be true and reliable under all known conditions, but that nobody can say that it is impossible for there to be exceptions?

Boyle's law can only incorporate the evidence, the data that actually exists is that not so?

So why would it be different for atomic theory, electromagnetic theory, the theory of evolution? None propose to deal with matters beyond their scope, like the origin of the universe, do they?

ToE works with the evidence pointing to life having changed over time; so that goes into the theory about how it happened.

There is no evidence to show how life got started, so, that cannot be incorporated into any theory. Maybe that will change, maybe it wont.

That is how i see it. Does that make sense?

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 July 2010 - 09:03 AM

I can see your point Taikoo

However I personally think it is illogical to believe in a theory that has no begining. Life had to start somewhere, it can't evolve before it started.. So in that sense the Evolution Hypothesis should be an extention to Abiogeneisis.

ie- How life got here, followed by how life changed into other forms.

Avoiding Abiogenesis does allude to a LARGE problem with the science behind the naturalistic view of how this world came to be.

#4 UseReasonandLogic

UseReasonandLogic

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Tennessee

Posted 01 July 2010 - 09:06 AM

A couple of comments.  Anyone, "evolutionist" or otherwise who calls for proof of God, is not being reasonable.  Likewise, anyone who calls for "proof" of any law or theory in science, is not being reasonable.  Agreed?

If so we might just set those people and their ideas aside, and look at your main idea here, that abiogenesis is an integral part of the theory of evolution.

I think I understand where you are coming from, and a non divine origin to life is there to be interpreted from the theory of evolution.

Yet, to my knowledge, there are a good many devout Christians who could be called "theistic evolutionists" whose view, as I understand it, is that God got it all started, but does not / has not micromanaged every detail.  Is that a correct characterization?

So am i right that not everyone takes the ToE as eliminating or denying God?
Next..
Would you agree that a theory like the ToE, or ones about say gravity, can only incorporate and try to explain that for which there is evidence?

Or specific scientific laws.  Maybe Hess', or Boyle's law.  You would agree, that in science, those are not absolutes?  That they are considered to be true and reliable under all known conditions, but that nobody can say that it is impossible for there to be exceptions?

Boyle's law can only incorporate the evidence, the data that actually exists is that not so?

So why would it be different for atomic theory, electromagnetic theory, the theory of evolution?  None propose to deal with matters beyond their scope, like the origin of the universe, do they?

ToE works with the evidence pointing to life having changed over time; so that goes into the theory about how it happened.

There is no evidence to show how life got started, so, that cannot be incorporated into any theory.  Maybe that will change, maybe it wont.

That is how i see it.  Does that make sense?

View Post



Taikoo, I am limited for time this morning and will try to address your post more fully later this evening.

Quickly though, I just wanted to touch on a brief point.

You are right that there is no evidence to show how life got started.

However, much of the evolutionists that we argue with spend much of their time ridiculing those that believe in a designer.

A staunch evolutionist will try and have us believe that blind chance, (NS and RM) are responsible for the diversity that we see. They will completely toss out any mention of any type of intervention by any intelligent being, whatsoever!

I know this is the case, as I have experienced it many times.

The point is that if they are unable to even address the issue of a designer, then obviously they are an atheist, and don't believe in a designer. As such, the argument must always go back to how life originated in the first place.

If someone is trying to sell me on the fact that science "proves" that all life today is the product of chance, than they're first going to have to give me some reason to believe that life got here by chance.

Because abiogenesis, evolution...they're all science, right? While evolutionists may try and convince us that they are two un-related fields, I'm not stupid. You guys can label it whatever you want. The point is that SCIENCE currently teaches (jams down our throat) that life arose from non-life and evolved into all the diversity that we see today. Whether you want to call that abiogenesis or evolution, it's all really the same. It's science trying to determine what happened in the past.

And if you can't get me past step one, then why am I going to have any faith in steps 2 through 2,000,000?

#5 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 July 2010 - 09:28 AM

And if you can't get me past step one, then why am I going to have any faith in steps 2 through 2,000,000?

View Post


Because, my friend, that's how religion proceeds... On faith, and some evidences. The amount of evidences is directly proportional to the blindness quotient of the faith.

And, since abiogenesis (for example) has absolutely NO evidential foundation, it is as close to "blind" faith as you can get. And this is precisely why atheists, skeptics and some evolutionists shy away from abiogenesis and say "it's not a part of evolution"; because (although it's the only answer in town for some of them), it is indefensible.

If evolution is true, it had to come from somewhere. So, where (or what) was that? From what did evolution evolve?

This is the conundrum for the materialistic atheist, skeptic and evolutionist.

#6 taikoo

taikoo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • midwest

Posted 01 July 2010 - 09:48 AM

Taikoo, I am limited for time this morning and will try to address your post more fully later this evening.

Quickly though, I just wanted to touch on a brief point.

You are right that there is no evidence to show how life got started.


Good, a point of agreement!


However, much of the evolutionists that we argue with spend much of their time ridiculing those that believe in a designer.


That is a shame, ridicule from anyone on any topic is unmannerly.
Let them go their way, they speak poorly for their side, whoever they are, whatever their side.


A staunch evolutionist will try and have us believe that blind chance, (NS and RM) are responsible for the diversity that we see.  They will completely toss out any mention of any type of intervention by any intelligent being, whatsoever!


"Blind chance' is not really it, but yes, some toss out the idea of any intervention,and some dont.  If there is a God, then it is to be presumed that he takes some part in the affairs of the universe, dont you think?  But.... who knows how much of what exactly.

Nobody I know thinks He manages every single detail down to the exact vibration of every atom.   Or tells a river just exactly how to carve its channel and build its sandbars.  He could make the rules, then let the river have its way. Maybe, or maybe not, but is that a reasonable notion?

So... just what is a natural process and what is specifically guided is always open to speculation, dont you think?


I know this is the case, as I have experienced it many times.

The point is that if they are unable to even address the issue of a designer, then obviously they are an atheist, and don't believe in a designer.  As such, the argument must always go back to how life originated in the first place. 

If someone is trying to sell me on the fact that science "proves" that all life today is the product of chance, than they're first going to have to give me some reason to believe that life got here by chance.


Lets settle this now ok... science does not offer to "prove" anything.  If someone wants to misrepresent science, that only shows something about him.
Like those who misrepresent Christianity; they have no say, they are not worthy of respect.



Because abiogenesis, evolution...they're all science, right?  While evolutionists may try and convince us that they are two un-related fields, I'm not stupid.  You guys can label it whatever you want.  The point is that SCIENCE currently teaches (jams down our throat) that life arose from non-life and evolved into all the diversity that we see today.  Whether you want to call that abiogenesis or evolution, it's all really the same.  It's science trying to determine what happened in the past.


Evolution and abiogenesis are not unrelated.  But abiogenesis simply is not and cannot be, at this time, part of the ToE, for the reasons i gave.  Science does not include in a theory things for which there is no evidence!

So i have to disagree with you, it is not all the same.

Now as for what "science teaches".  Science covers a lot of fields not all of which deal with life.  So perhaps a bit of overgeneralizing?

In my school experience up thru a year of grad school i never was taught that life arises from non life.  Never heard that said.  If someone does teach that, they are not teaching science, they are teaching opinion.  I heard it discussed as a possibility as speculation about how it might have happened.  Never as fact, never as theory, never as true, never as proved.  Sorry if you had some other experience


And if you can't get me past step one, then why am I going to have any faith in steps 2 through 2,000,000?

View Post


Do you feel that unless any and all scientific theory can explain the origin of the universe (step one), that you cannot rely on any of them?

#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 July 2010 - 10:20 AM

It's like the saying goes. It's not religion unless there is some faith. Because if everything is provable, then what is their to believe or have faith in?

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 July 2010 - 10:26 AM

So often, when discussing evolution, the initial "spark" of life is dismissed by evolutionists as "not part of their theory".  They claim that evolution begins with that first life and that the theory of how life started is another whole field of science.

The reason for this post is simple. 

It's time to stop putting up with this.  Abiogenesis is the very foundation of the evolutionary theory, period, end of discussion.  It's a debate strategy that they are using.  Why?  Because evolutionists want you to think that their theory is rock-solid, and abiogenesis, as we all know is perhaps the shakiest "field of study" in all of science. 

What is the point of evolution in the first place?  Well, it merely is a way of understanding how we got here.  For years, atheists/agnostics and non-believers didn't really have a scientific way to express how the world around us could be explained in a natural way.  Evolution provided them with that theory.

However, don't lose sight of the fact that for US to get here, life first would have had to arose.  And I think we ALL understand the amazing difficulties of life arising by chance.

Yet, evolutionists routinely shift these problems to another field of science.  STOP LETTING THAT HAPPEN.  Call them out on it.  They are the ones mocking you for believing in God.  Mock them for not even having a shred of evidence to get their theory started.

Evolutionists routinely ask for PROOF of God.  My question to them?  Give me scientific reasons WHY I SHOULD BELIEVE THAT LIFE AROSE FROM NON-LIFE.  From a scientific perspective, is there any reason for me to believe that it happened?

What evolutionists will generally say at this point is that "We're here aren't we?".  Well yes, geniuses, we are here.  Thanks for the update.  However, you guys have had 100+ years and gone through the most unbelievable scientific revolution in man's history (not because of evolution mind you, but because of oil and electricity) and you still have zero idea how it happened.  In fact, with every passing year and every new discovery, the first cell gets harder and harder to make.  A far cry from the beliefs in Darwin's day where they thought the spark of life was the "easy" part.

The fact that we are here is in fact the entire point.  We know that life arose.  This is obviously a solid fact.  So the question is, "how did it arise?"  Did it arise by chance or did it arise by design.  That's the real question.

Scientists determine design all the time.  I was watching a show on the History channel a few weeks ago, where they found these round stones in the Pacific off the coast of California.  Scientists were debating whether they were natural, or whether they were anchors from ancient oriental ship vessels.  There are certain characteristics that PROVE that they were manmade.  Why?  Because scientists understand that these could never arise in nature on their own. 

When they see a ship-wreck, they instantly know man was there.  Why?  Because it's too complex to just arise on it's own.

The same thought process should easily be applied to a cell, even an early one.  You have atheists that want you to believe that life arose spontaneously, though the odds of a cell forming are basically mathematically impossible.  All I want is for them to open their eyes and admit, that it is far more likely that the first cell was designed.  I don't care if they say green bogey-men from mars did it, just admit that.

Since they cannot admit that, despite all the evidence against them, they cast abiogenesis into a whole other field of study, to protect their precious theory of evolution.

Again, don't let them do that!  I will refuse to discuss anything other than abiogenesis with any atheistic evolutionist.  You get me life, and then we'll discuss how it may have evolved.  If you can't get me life, then you don't even have a rational and logical theory.  And don't tell me that "science hasn't discovered it yet".  All that is, is an atheist hoping that science will one day vindicate his personal beliefs.  And don't forget, that the most out-spoken and condescending evolutionists, are usually the atheists.  Why?  Because their way of life depends on it. 

If an evolutionist will admit that it is probable that the first cell was designed and created by some force, than I will then address them on the rest of evolution. 

If not, then they can take their unsubstantiated babble to the next guy.

I encourage all of you to follow the same pattern.

View Post


And I agree. Evolution cannot happen without life. And if one cannot prove life naturally, then the Creator is the only option left. Which totally debunks evolution. This is why evolutionists toss the idea about abiogenesis being a part of the evolution theory like a hot potato. If pinned down on it, they cannot show life from dead matter. So that debunks evolution and they know it. So to keep that from happening, abiogensis now becomes:

1) A different field of science.
2) Not a foundation of evolution theory.

It's like because the idea has so many problems, it might as well be the plague. Who would have thought that one of their own ideas would dig a grave for the main idea.

#9 UseReasonandLogic

UseReasonandLogic

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Tennessee

Posted 01 July 2010 - 10:41 AM

Evolution and abiogenesis are not unrelated.  But abiogenesis simply is not and cannot be, at this time, part of the ToE, for the reasons i gave.  Science does not include in a theory things for which there is no evidence!

So i have to disagree with you, it is not all the same.

You can label this however you want to, I'm not interested in the labelling.  However, most staunch evolutionists teach that abiogenesis happened, correct?  Please don't tell me it isn't taught, because I see it all the time.  Now it's glossed over, (for obvious reasons) but it's taught and at the very least implied.  In fact most staunch evolutionists don't have room for any intelligence in the TOE whatsoever. 

But for a person that wonders how man got here, and is using science to determine that, abiogenesis is critical to their understanding, as is evolution.  It's all the same.  Life arose out of a molecular soup and gradually formed homo sapiens.  It's all together, all the same process. 

IF a reasonable person looks at the first part of that, the part in which life arose out of nothing..they might just find that their is a real possibility that life didn't spontaneously occur, but that is was designed by "someone/something/(whatever you want to put here)".  And if they can make that concession, it could have very real and fundamental changes in the way they approach the theory of evolution.

The questions that I'll ask below, might just make more sense in their minds.  Because, while science is one way of looking at the universe, there is a truth of what exactly happened.  And if a person is trying to figure out that truth, they don't need evolutionists telling them that the TOE is rock-solid fact, when in fact the whole foundation of a materialist TOE is based on life arising by chance...which it in fact did not do.


Do you feel that unless any and all scientific theory can explain the origin of the universe (step one), that you cannot rely on any of them?


  The Theory of gravity is very testable.  I can prove it with a variety of experiments.  The science involved in figuring out how to design an airplane is extremely testable.  The design of an Iphone is science, and much testing goes on to design and build it.  Whether the universe arose 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, 1 billion years ago or 100 billion years ago makes no difference to the above theories I have listed.

Evolution is different.  Evolution lies in the remote past.  It's something that is purported to have happened millions and millions of years ago.  It's not something I can see occurring today.  Before you give the standard (evolution occurs every day!) understand that I'm talking about evolution on a large scale.

I've yet to see a reasonable explanation for how/why fish decided to leave a perfectly good ocean, grow lungs and legs and move to dry land.  I've yet to see a good explanation for animals growing wings and flying.  Still have no idea how a gorilla decided to get smarter, grow a tongue for language, and turn into humanity.  There are theories, but they involve alot of guess-work and "faith". 

Steps 2 through 2 million are full of problems themselves!  How much more so are they full of problems when you consider that there is zero scientific evidence that step 1 ever has occurred or ever could occur.



#10 UseReasonandLogic

UseReasonandLogic

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Tennessee

Posted 01 July 2010 - 10:55 AM

And I agree. Evolution cannot happen without life. And if one cannot prove life naturally, then the Creator is the only option left. Which totally debunks evolution. This is why evolutionists toss the idea about abiogenesis being a part of the evolution theory like a hot potato. If pinned down on it, they cannot show life from dead matter. So that debunks evolution and they know it. So to keep that from happening, abiogensis now becomes:

1) A different field of science.
2) Not a foundation of evolution theory.

It's like because the idea has so many problems, it might as well be the plague. Who would have thought that one of their own ideas would dig a grave for the main idea.

View Post



Well I don't know that I completely agree with a few of your points. If a Creator is the only option left, than it could still be argued that the creator "set evolution in motion", as many people believe.

However, when a Creator/designer becomes obvious, then it is only natural to assume that many of the problems (flight, lungs, etc) could easily have been solved by that Creator...instead of just assuming that NS and RM randomly "discovered" these problems on their own.

To a reasonable person, the Creator eventually destroys the theory of evolution. But there are still many people who believe in evolution, but think that God or the creator just started life and has long since abandoned this universe.

But then that thought is usually more of a religious belief (the abandonment) than anything else.

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 July 2010 - 11:39 AM

Well I don't know that I completely agree with a few of your points.  If a Creator is the only option left, than it could still be argued that the creator "set evolution in motion", as many people believe.


Is your goal to promote a Creator, or evolution?

However, when a Creator/designer becomes obvious, then it is only natural to assume that many of the problems (flight, lungs, etc) could easily have been solved by that Creator...instead of just assuming that NS and RM randomly "discovered" these problems on their own.


Dead matter coming to life is not even scientific. If it were, it would have already been done. Instead we get excuses as to why it cannot be done. Miller's experiment has been done several times. They are no closer to life than the first time it was done.

To a reasonable person, the Creator eventually destroys the theory of evolution.  But there are still many people who believe in evolution, but think that God or the creator just started life and has long since abandoned this universe.


Evolution makes God an incomplete Creator. Did His Son only go halfway to the cross?

But then that thought is usually more of a religious belief (the abandonment) than anything else.

View Post


Humans are known for not wanting the blame of bad things put upon them. The Bible makes it very clear that it was "sin" that separated us from God, not that God just left us.

#12 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 01 July 2010 - 12:11 PM

I never knew that life-from-non-life wasn't part of the ToE until being involved in this forum; I didn't hear of "abiogenesis" until this forum. When I first realized that evo's thought they didn't need to explain the origin of life I was baffled :blink:

I agree wholeheartedly, and whole-brain'edly, with the OP.

Thanks, UseReasonandLogic, for bringing it up.
(love the username BTW :lol:)

#13 taikoo

taikoo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • midwest

Posted 01 July 2010 - 12:14 PM

View Post


A lot of topics that might be interesting to discuss, but the original post was about what is and what is not part of the actual ToE.

This is my basic response:

All theory is open to falsification

No theory in science can be proven

A theory is based on data.

A theory attempts to explain that data

No data=no theory; there is no data for abiogenesis. So there is no theory about it. There can be no theory without data, it would be a complete contradiction of how science works.

Do you have any disagreement with that?

I understand that there are valid complaints to be made about individuals and how they behave. Science is often very badly taught; and there are those who take up banners in their personal cause.

THEY are not part of the ToE, and neither is abiogensis.

What do you think of those devout Christians who do accept evolution?

#14 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 July 2010 - 02:57 PM

I never knew that life-from-non-life wasn't part of the ToE until being involved in this forum; I didn't hear of "abiogenesis" until this forum.  When I first realized that evo's thought they didn't need to explain the origin of life I was baffled :blink:

I agree wholeheartedly, and whole-brain'edly, with the OP.

Thanks, UseReasonandLogic, for bringing it up.
(love the username BTW ;))

View Post


You couldn't be more wrong. Biologists want to understand the origin of life, but it's not something that can be explained by evolution. How can something breed and change if it isn't alive yet.

#15 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 01 July 2010 - 03:05 PM

You couldn't be more wrong.  Biologists want to understand the origin of life, but it's not something that can be explained by evolution.  How can something breed and change if it isn't alive yet.

View Post

What, exactly, am I wrong about in my post? :blink:

I said:
I never knew that life-from-non-life wasn't part of the ToE until being involved in this forum; I didn't hear of "abiogenesis" until this forum.
- That is a fact. I am the person who made the statement.

When I first realized that evo's thought they didn't need to explain the origin of life I was baffled ;)
-Another fact, again it was me stating this.

I agree wholeheartedly, and whole-brain'edly, with the OP.
- Yet again, a fact. I am agreeing with somebody else's opinion. I certainly can't be wrong to be in agreement with an opinion.

Thanks, UseReasonandLogic, for bringing it up.
- Am I wrong for thanking somebody for something? (rhetorical)

(love the username BTW ;))
- Another fact, I am opining that I like a username.

#16 UseReasonandLogic

UseReasonandLogic

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Tennessee

Posted 01 July 2010 - 04:47 PM

Is your goal to promote a Creator, or evolution?
Dead matter coming to life is not even scientific. If it were, it would have already been done. Instead we get excuses as to why it cannot be done. Miller's experiment has been done several times. They are no closer to life than the first time it was done.
Evolution makes God an incomplete Creator. Did His Son only go halfway to the cross?
Humans are known for not wanting the blame of bad things put upon them. The Bible makes it very clear that it was "sin" that separated us from God, not that God just left us.

View Post


I'm not disagreeing with you on your points. I'm just saying that just because it's obvious that life was created doesn't in itself mean that the rest of the TOE is false (though I think it is).

The point I was trying to make is that if a cell was proven to be designed, that doesn't in itself "destroy" evolution. It destroys atheistic evolution, but theoretically, the rest of evolution would still be possible. I know this because I've there are many who believe (wrongly, imo) that a designer seeded the earth with cellular life and that evolution took over from there.

What I believe however, is that if a rational person came to the realization that life couldn't arise from non-life, that eventually the theory of evolution would collapse, were they to analyze it closely enough.

#17 UseReasonandLogic

UseReasonandLogic

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Tennessee

Posted 01 July 2010 - 05:04 PM

A lot of topics that might be interesting to discuss, but the original post was about what is and what is not part of the actual ToE.

This is my basic response:

All theory is open to falsification

No theory in science can be proven

A theory is based on data.

A theory attempts to explain that data

No data=no theory; there is no data for abiogenesis.  So there is no theory about it.  There can be no theory without data, it would be a complete contradiction of how science works.

Do you have any disagreement with that?

I understand that there are valid  complaints to be made about individuals and how they behave.  Science is often very badly taught; and there are those who take up banners in their personal cause.

THEY are not part of the ToE, and neither is abiogensis.

What do you think of those devout Christians who do accept evolution?

View Post



I think there would be alot of scientists who would disagree with you on your thoughts on abiogenesis, but I do agree with one part of what you said. There is no data on abiogenesis.

But consider this:

Science is telling me that animals grew wings and learned to fly through evolution. However there is no "data" on that. Does that mean that flight isn't part of the TOE? What about how fish with gills escaped water and "grew" lungs? There's no data on that. So is that not part of evolution now?

There are hundreds of problems that occur with the TOE that we are asked to just gloss over, though there is no "data" on them. Abiogenesis is one of them.

But abiogenesis is a vital part of figuring out the truth, which is where life came from, and how/why humans are here.

So AGAIN, abiogenesis is a very important part of evolution for many, many people, despite what some scientists and wikipedia say.

#18 UseReasonandLogic

UseReasonandLogic

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Tennessee

Posted 01 July 2010 - 05:21 PM

You couldn't be more wrong.  Biologists want to understand the origin of life, but it's not something that can be explained by evolution.  How can something breed and change if it isn't alive yet.

View Post


Let's break this down another way.

I have a problem with the TOE. I believe it's impossible for man, and all life we see today, to have evolved from a single-celled organism with no help from a designer.

An atheistic evolutionist think's it's possible. This debate is what 90% of all the fuss is about. It's really not about evolution or science. It's about God vs no God. The theory of evolution hides behind science, but for MANY, it's just a front for their atheistic beliefs, and that's the root of their gripe with creationists. They don't want to let the Creator "in the room".

So they throw abiogenesis out of the theory and refuse to act as if it has any relevence to the theory of evolution.

But it's all the same. It's a way of trying to determine how we all got here. The history of our planet.

I ask you, as an evolutionist who believes in God..how much of a role do you feel God had in the formation of life? Do you think he was right there "guiding" evolution or do you think he seeded life and watched it take off?

#19 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 July 2010 - 06:42 PM

When I first realized that evo's thought they didn't need to explain the origin of life I was baffled :blink:
-Another fact, again it was me stating this.


View Post


The origin of life is something biologists want to explain, but it isn't something evolution explains. That's what you were wrong about.

#20 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 July 2010 - 06:58 PM

Let's break this down another way.

I have a problem with the TOE.  I believe it's impossible for man, and all life we see today, to have evolved from a single-celled organism with no help from a designer. 

View Post


That might be true, but evolution can't account for a designer. I really have no idea why it would be so impossible, but I don't deny there might a guiding hand.

An atheistic evolutionist think's it's possible. This debate is what 90% of all the fuss is about.  It's really not about evolution or science.  It's about God vs no God.  The theory of evolution hides behind science, but for MANY, it's just a front for their atheistic beliefs, and that's the root of their gripe with creationists.  They don't want to let the Creator "in the room". 

View Post


Well a lot of atheists are stupid. They rival some of the most extreme Christians and Muslims in defending their "beliefs".

So they throw abiogenesis out of the theory and refuse to act as if it has any relevence to the theory of evolution.

View Post


Abiogenesis was never part of biological evolution. It's still something that isn't completely understood whether it's part of evolution or not.


But it's all the same.  It's a way of trying to determine how we all got here.  The history of our planet. 

View Post


It's in our nature.

I ask you, as an evolutionist who believes in God..how much of a role do you feel God had in the formation of life?  Do you think he was right there "guiding" evolution or do you think he seeded life and watched it take off?

View Post


My beliefs are kind of complicated. I believe God has been part of the entire process, but i also believe God doesn't really interfere.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users