Jump to content


Photo

Abiogenesis Vs. God


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
33 replies to this topic

#21 Dave B

Dave B

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • United States

Posted 07 March 2011 - 07:06 AM

"Moving the goalposts" would be pretending that you can separate evolution from its origins.

View Post


If evolution is occuring then it really makes no difference how life originated. To make an argument against evolution you need to argue against evolution and not argue that it could not have happened. If it isn't happening then say so. Otherwise, you're simply moving the goalposts.

That is because there is absolutely no logical, rational or scientific evidence to support such a notion.

View Post


But there is. If God created everything then there must have existed a time when nothing but God existed. So He must have created everything from nothing (life from non-life). Or, perhaps, from himself. But there is no Biblical evidence that this happened. In fact, scripture tells us that God created life from non-life. Adam was created from dirt and life was breathed into him.

#22 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,123 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 March 2011 - 07:50 AM

If evolution is occuring then it really makes no difference how life originated. To make an argument against evolution you need to argue against evolution and not argue that it could not have happened. If it isn't happening then say so. Otherwise, you're simply moving the goalposts.


I think all the creationists have clearly said that macroevolution is not occurring. Unless you want to revise history, Darwin was an atheist that believed life originated from the not living. Ultimately that is what evos believe until fairly recently. I do not believe that mutation can cause new information. Nor can it cause life. Mutation means change. Alleged;y mutation (change) resulted in life coming from the non living, I believe that life has intelligence as one of its components.
What I am saying is since DNA is a chemical materia;, mutation would still be a from of abiogeneisis. I thinl life is doing all the work in the cell. Life makes biology work—not the other way around.

But there is. If God created everything then there must have existed a time when nothing but God existed. So He must have created everything from nothing (life from non-life). Or, perhaps, from himself. But there is no Biblical evidence that this happened. In fact, scripture tells us that God created life from non-life. Adam was created from dirt and life was breathed into him.

You missed the point. Since we believe God has always existed and some of his components are intelligence and life, God did not have to create life. He is the source o f it. Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. The Bible says nothing about creating life.

#23 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 07 March 2011 - 11:07 AM

If evolution is occuring then it really makes no difference how life originated. To make an argument against evolution you need to argue against evolution and not argue that it could not have happened. If it isn't happening then say so. Otherwise, you're simply moving the goalposts.


Ron is arguing against your version of evolution, materialistic evolution which encompasses The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution itself. Evolution is acknowledged in The Bible but the Hebrew word "Miyn" includes the family/genus level according to Hebrew Scholars. There is no goal post shifting going on on Ron's part. I think that you just don't know what he is really arguing against, which is your entire world view, not solely evolution.


But there is. If God created everything then there must have existed a time when nothing but God existed. So He must have created everything from nothing (life from non-life). Or, perhaps, from himself. But there is no Biblical evidence that this happened. In fact, scripture tells us that God created life from non-life. Adam was created from dirt and life was breathed into him.

View Post

Your first point is correct. There is something in physics called the "presumed truth." In this case, we as Christians believe that God is the "presumed truth." Most Scientists agree that there was a beginning. Adam was created from dirt however, being created from a supernatural occurrence or a natural occurrence are two completely different matters. The reason being that a natural occurrence must be consistent with the observed laws of Science today. Unless you may believe that The Big Bang and Abiogenesis somehow occurred outside the laws of nature?

#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 March 2011 - 03:12 PM

You said “Life evolved from non-life via a process that we do not yet understand.” This IS a combination of the “The appeal to belief”, “appeal to probability” and “Argumentum ad Futuris” logical fallacies.

I offered it as a possibility. I did not claim it was true so there is no fallacy.

View Post


It matters not how you proposed it, it is still an “appeal to probability” (you can quibble over probability/possibility all you want, it is still illogical tact).



"Moving the goalposts" would be pretending that you can separate evolution from its origins.


If evolution is occuring then it really makes no difference how life originated. To make an argument against evolution you need to argue against evolution and not argue that it could not have happened. If it isn't happening then say so. Otherwise, you're simply moving the goalposts.

View Post


Incorrect… To make an argument against evolution, I can argue against ALL tenants of evolution. Your attempt to stifle my argument, by limiting it with your own parameters, is disingenuous at best. Therefore it is you (as I provided earlier) who is moving the goalposts. You are attempting to narrow them so that only your “limited” definition of an argument can be used. Unfortunately for you, that won’t work at this forum either.

First – Microevolution is nothing more than adaptation within a kind/species. To infer that millions of years suggest that micro will magically turn into macro is erroneous argumentation of the “Argumentum ad Futuris” kind. It is also the fallacious “appeal to belief” fallacy AND Assertum Non Est Demonstratum fallacy.

Second – There is absolutely no empirical evidence for “Macro-evolution”. It is all speculation based upon the “a priori” need to prove evolution, and lacks factual/foundationsl representation.

Third – If macro-evolution were even true, its origins are as important as the model itself (it is “foundational”), and the lack thereof is a detriment to it. And to run from your foundations, is to knock the props out from underneath your own argument.

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 March 2011 - 03:16 PM

That is because there is absolutely no logical, rational or scientific evidence to support such a notion.

But there is.

View Post

No, Dave, there isn’t. And your above quip (sans any evidence at all) provides great insight into your attempted assertions. It’s yet one more assertion of yours that fails due to the “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum” fallacy (saying it’s so doesn’t make it so).

If God created everything then there must have existed a time when nothing but God existed.

View Post

If God is who and what He says He is, than you are once again failing in your argumentation, and flailing around in your illogical assertions.

First – You are arguing from ignorance, because you do not understand/aren’t aware of the actual Biblical claims. Are you forgetting that God is alive?

Second – If God created a living being (as He said He did), that is life coming from life (not from non-life); therefore you are attempting to drag yet another “red herring” across the stage. My only question here is “do you realize that you are arguing from ignorance here, and creating a ‘red herring’; or are you actually ignorant of what you are doing”?

So He must have created everything from nothing (life from non-life). Or, perhaps, from himself. But there is no Biblical evidence that this happened. In fact, scripture tells us that God created life from non-life. Adam was created from dirt and life was breathed into him.

View Post


Obviously, once again, you argue from ignorance. If God is who He says He is, He said he created man: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Now, man was not a “living Being” until God breathe life into him (man), therefore God “created life”, by “breathing life” into man.

You really need to keep the contextual integrity intact, instead of attempting to rip it out of context to meet your needs.

#26 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 07 March 2011 - 09:44 PM

Having said that, evolution can no sooner divorce itself from an abiogenesis model, then you or I can divorce ourselves from the fact that we have parents. And our parents are definitely a part of us!

View Post


There are people who don't know who their parents are. We assume their origin is natural and do not credit it to the supernatural.

#27 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 March 2011 - 12:01 AM

Having said that, evolution can no sooner divorce itself from an abiogenesis model, then you or I can divorce ourselves from the fact that we have parents. And our parents are definitely a part of us!



There are people who don't know who their parents are.  We assume their origin is natural and do not credit it to the supernatural.

View Post


And at least "parents" being our origins can be empirically proven whether we know who they are or not. Knowing them personally does not deem if we came from them or not. Abiogenesis cannot be empirically proven, so your point is mute.

If you can empirically prove abiogenesis, have at it.

#28 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 March 2011 - 12:20 AM

If evolution is occuring then it really makes no difference how life originated. To make an argument against evolution you need to argue against evolution and not argue that it could not have happened. If it isn't happening then say so. Otherwise, you're simply moving the goalposts.


It is not happening to the degree that it is claimed. Micro evolution is just a fancy name for a mutation. Speciation is another fancy name for changes within a kind. Neither are anywhere near macro evolution which has "never" been observed.

But there is. If God created everything then there must have existed a time when nothing but God existed. So He must have created everything from nothing (life from non-life). Or, perhaps, from himself. But there is no Biblical evidence that this happened. In fact, scripture tells us that God created life from non-life. Adam was created from dirt and life was breathed into him.

View Post


That is if you can prove:

1) There was never any other dimension that things exist in.
2) The laws of physics "always" remained the same.

The Bible says there are 3 dimension, 2 other then our own:
2cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

deut 10:14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

1kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

neh 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

etc...

In order for other dimensions to exist separately, they must have different laws. To have the same laws would mean they would be a part of our dimension.

#29 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 March 2011 - 05:44 AM

Having said that, evolution can no sooner divorce itself from an abiogenesis model, then you or I can divorce ourselves from the fact that we have parents. And our parents are definitely a part of us!

View Post

There are people who don't know who their parents are. We assume their origin is natural and do not credit it to the supernatural.

View Post


Your argument seems to be as ill-conceived and lacking thought, as it is short and lacking cogency.

1 – Not knowing who your parents are, in no way divorces you from who they are, what they are, or the traits you inherited from them. They are, IN FACT, a "PART" of you!

2- There are people who didn't know who their parents were, until they LOOKED for them. And when they did find them, they knew who they were. Further, they never denied they had parents (as that would be illogical).

3 – You KNOW logically, rationally and scientifically that you indeed DID have parents!

4 – We IN NO WAY assume we had parents (See numbers 2 and 3 above), we know it for a fact.

Having said that, materialistic evolution can no sooner divorce itself from an abiogenesis type model, then you or I can divorce ourselves from the fact that we have parents. And our parents are definitely a part of us! Unfortunately for materialistic evolution, there is NO materialistic explanation (logically, rationally or scientifically) for our origins.

#30 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 March 2011 - 06:02 AM

Having said that, evolution can no sooner divorce itself from an abiogenesis model, then you or I can divorce ourselves from the fact that we have parents. And our parents are definitely a part of us!


There are people who don't know who their parents are.  We assume their origin is natural and do not credit it to the supernatural.

View Post

And at least "parents" being our origins can be empirically proven whether we know who they are or not. Knowing them personally does not deem if we came from them or not. Abiogenesis cannot be empirically proven, so your point is mute.

If you can empirically prove abiogenesis, have at it.

View Post


Further - we know that logically, rationally and scientifically (i.e. inductively and experientially) that:

From nothing, nothing comes!
We exist!
We had a beginning!
We did not bring about our own existence!

#31 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 08 March 2011 - 08:57 AM

Ron, this is a classic example of "moving the goalposts". Rather than argue the "flaws" in evolutionary theory Creationists, instead, argue that evolution could not exist without a theory of origins. While that may be true, the lack of a theory of origins does not in any way discredit the Theory of Evolution. The truth is that we just don't know exactly how life began from non-life... or if it even did. Maybe God put life here and it evolved? And perhaps your literal interpretation of scripture is wrong? And, no. It is not argumentum ad futuris to argue that we do not know. This is better known as Occam's RazorPosted Image; not complicating explanation by speculating. It would be argumentum ad futuris if I were to claim that science WILL explain how life began from non-life. But I did no such thing.

It is also quiet disingenuous of you to suggest that there is not "a shred of evidence" to support abiogenesis. I would imagine there is just no evidence you're willing to accept. That's fine. It's certainly your choice to ignore evidence. But I would suggest the work of Szostack if you are interested in understanding where research into origin's theory is headed.

View Post


Hi Dave,

Would you unpack he bolded please. I went to Sxostack's web site. What do you find compelling about this site?

My take on life from non-life:

If life were just chemistry, then we are controlled by the chemistry. For example given a chemical reaction:

A + B ----> AB

Given a set of circumstances we can say that these chemicals will react and to what extent they will react. Given this scenario, Chemistry is in control of life and there is something predetermined by the process.

But what I find interesting about life is that we are in control of the chemistry. If we want to raise our hand the brain sends signals and sets off the desired chemical reactions that lifts our hands.

Let me try and explain it a different way.

This is how this blog describes the elements of life:

1) Living things need to take in energy
2) Living things get rid of waste
3) Living things grow and develop
4) Living things respond to their environment
5) Living things reproduce and pass their traits onto their offspring
6) Over time, living things evolve (change slowly) in response to their environment

From the list what I find interesting is item 4: Life responds to its environment. How does life get past being driven by just Chemistry to responding to its environment? Where the user controls the chemistry to do its bidding rather than visa versa.

#32 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 08 March 2011 - 01:03 PM

And at least "parents" being our origins can be empirically proven whether we know who they are or not. Knowing them personally does not deem if we came from them or not. Abiogenesis cannot be empirically proven, so your point is mute.

If you can empirically prove abiogenesis, have at it.

View Post

The solution to "proving" abiogenesis is ignoring empirical science. :)

#33 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 08 March 2011 - 03:26 PM

There are people who don't know who their parents are.  We assume their origin is natural and do not credit it to the supernatural.

View Post

We don't assume that the parents were apes either, but human beings as well.

One can look into abiogenis and other parts of evolution separately. A model were macro-evolution occurs, but not abiogenesis is thinkable. I guess this is a bit like many theistic Evolutionists think.

#34 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,123 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 08 March 2011 - 08:13 PM

There are people who don't know who their parents are.  We assume their origin is natural and do not credit it to the supernatural.

I must say I found this post rather amusing for the conflict you made giving away that you have the ability to reason and it’s working fine. Our “will” can override our reasoning ability. For example a person can override a warning from his mind that if he walks of a tall building gravity will cause him to fall most likely to his death.

Look at the first sentence, where the contradiction is. A politically correct statement would have been: “There are people that exist that do not know how they got here.” That’s only one of many sentences that someone could have constructed, The use of the term “parents” means they and you believe they had parents. The mentioned people most likely would have believed they had parents by observing all the people around them that had parents.

When we assume we also only speak for ourselves and may be misusing the term supernatural. Why? Because only some of us believe there may not have been a God being involved in people coming into existence even if they had parents.

We may use another definition of "natural" in reference to our solar system. Our solar system seems to have no other human life in it. Us humans could not be considered “natural” or frequently occurring on planets in this solar system. Technical but, food for thought.

In terms of the original post, keep in mind the idea that life did not always exist is the reason for atheism. Atheists needed a support system to explain the existence of plants, animals and humans. The idea of evolution was created for that reason. To hold on to atheism and “assume” life always existed is self-defeating to the atheist point of view.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users