Jump to content


Photo

Abiogenesis Vs. God


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

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1806 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 February 2011 - 12:38 PM

Abiogenesis Vs. God
Is the argument fair? What to do?

If we read the following sentence we may be apprised of the problem of why gene mutation might have difficulty creating new information: “Tires are round and bxxxk.”
The x represents any letter of the alphabet. Most people could read the sentence and easily conclude what the missing letters most likely would be. This is an example of what error trapping might do to a mutation. I deliberately tried to make new information by substituting at least 26 x 3 unknowns. Each x could be any of the 26 letters of the alphabet.

In the beginning the atheist argument was that there was no need for God or life to exist. Life was the result of matter and energy interacting. After the first self replicating molecules the “process” of evolution took over. Now that evo scientists have not been able to intelligently “create” life they seek to support evo with life already existing. That is like changing the rules in the middle of the game? That's not fair!

If abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory, the creationist ought to be able to do the same with the idea of God. In the creationists’ belief system God is life. Therefore, the idea of God is assumed and we can proceed from there with our discussions about the plausibility of evolution occurring. Oh! But, that would make all atheists, and evolutionists theistic evolutionists. Oh dear me. What have I done! What to do? :D

#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 03 March 2011 - 04:20 AM

Well, to further throw a monkey-wrench in the abiogenesis game-plan, There are many lines of evidence FOR God, but only speculation for abiogenesis.

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!

#3 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 03 March 2011 - 10:50 AM

Well, to further throw a monkey-wrench in the abiogenesis game-plan, There are many lines of evidence FOR God, but only speculation for abiogenesis.

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

Darwinism and natural selection isn't even compatible with Abiogenesis, this is why Scientists started separating Chemical(and Cosmic) evolution from the rest of evolution.

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 03 March 2011 - 11:46 AM

Well, to further throw a monkey-wrench in the abiogenesis game-plan, There are many lines of evidence FOR God, but only speculation for abiogenesis.

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

Darwinism and natural selection isn't even compatible with Abiogenesis, this is why Scientists started separating Chemical(and Cosmic) evolution from the rest of evolution.

View Post


Of course they aren't compatible... Nothing from nothing means nothing! ;)

The reason for the distancing is a lack of credibility and foundation for any of the hypotheses.

#5 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 03 March 2011 - 08:37 PM

Darwinism and natural selection isn't even compatible with Abiogenesis, this is why Scientists started separating Chemical(and Cosmic) evolution from the rest of evolution.

View Post


They have different names because they are different fields utilising different specializations and examining different phenomena.

#6 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 03 March 2011 - 08:58 PM

Darwinism and natural selection isn't even compatible with Abiogenesis, this is why Scientists started separating Chemical(and Cosmic) evolution from the rest of evolution.

View Post

They have different names because they are different fields utilising different specializations and examining different phenomena.

View Post


No, they all have one field in common, and that is describing evolution. They are but different views attempting to converge into one common end. But evolution is nothing without its origins. Without it's origins, evolution has no foundation. Unfortunately, for materialistic evolutionists, there is no logical, rational or scientific foundation for the origins of evolution. And that is what this thread is really all about... Origins WITHOUT God.

And, without any origins for atheistic evolution, atheistic evolution is inexplicable. It has no past (origins/abiogenesis), therefore it has no present or future. Just endless speculation...

#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1806 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 March 2011 - 09:08 PM

Darwinism and natural selection isn't even compatible with Abiogenesis, this is why Scientists started separating Chemical(and Cosmic) evolution from the rest of evolution.

View Post

Darwin became an atheist. The people of his social group were predominately Christian and creationists. It would not be to much of a stretch for others to ask Darwin where he came from. Darwin acknowledged he existed. So, where did he and the animals come from?

Life, according to atheists, has not always existed (God is defined as immortal life). Darwin used his native creativity to figure out a way to make lifeless matter the ultimate cause as a replacement for God (life).

The Darwinian argument rests on the claim that life comes from non life. That claim is the antecedent and major reason to be an atheist (still is). Evolution of life from non living matter was Darwin’s “dangerous idea” and still is. It’s like Ron said: Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

Making an attempt to separate the two is a fairytale and defeats the purpose for atheism and the hypothesis of evolution. Atheists I have talked to accept evolution. And why not--given their headset.?.

#8 Dave B

Dave B

    Junior Member

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

Posted 04 March 2011 - 07:04 PM

The Darwinian argument rests on the claim that life comes from non life.

This is incorrect. The "Darwinian" argument does not address the origin of life. It addresses the origin of species (hence the title of his work).

#9 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 04 March 2011 - 08:25 PM

This is incorrect. The "Darwinian" argument does not address the origin of life. It addresses the origin of species (hence the title of his work).

View Post


I'd agree with that. Evolution would still be evolution whether life initially began through abiogenesis or through alien or supernatural intervention.

If the great naturalist Sir David Attenborough is prepared to say that he doesn't know how it all began then "I don't know" is good enough for me. However, it does not follow that we can never know.

Welcome to the forum.

#10 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 05 March 2011 - 01:24 AM

This is incorrect. The "Darwinian" argument does not address the origin of life. It addresses the origin of species (hence the title of his work).

View Post


I'd agree with that. Evolution would still be evolution whether life initially began through abiogenesis or through alien or supernatural intervention.

If the great naturalist Sir David Attenborough is prepared to say that he doesn't know how it all began then "I don't know" is good enough for me. However, it does not follow that we can never know.

Welcome to the forum.


For evolution to even work, life coming from non-life has to happen.

With due respect, I really get tired of evolutionists separating support mechanisms for evolution as if they do not matter. Because those mechanism have major problems. Claiming that one does not require the other is like saying a creation can happen without a Creator.

So if Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution, then explain how evolution will work without it?

If you cannot then your point is mute.

And by the way Mitch, moving the goal post of origins (abiogenesis or through alien or supernatural intervention) does show that you know how weak your theory is. That would be like a creationist saying: God, Buddha, or Allah created everything. I have enough confidence to stick to one Creator. I don't have to move the goal posts so I always look right regardless.

#11 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 05 March 2011 - 02:13 AM

I'd agree with that. Evolution would still be evolution whether life initially began through abiogenesis or through alien or supernatural intervention.

If the great naturalist Sir David Attenborough is prepared to say that he doesn't know how it all began then "I don't know" is good enough for me. However, it does not follow that we can never know.

Welcome to the forum.


For evolution to even work, life coming from non-life has to happen.

With due respect, I really get tired of evolutionists separating support mechanisms for evolution as if they do not matter. Because those mechanism have major problems. Claiming that one does not require the other is like saying a creation can happen without a Creator.

So if Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution, then explain how evolution will work without it?

If you cannot then your point is mute.

And by the way Mitch, moving the goal post of origins (abiogenesis or through alien or supernatural intervention) does show that you know how weak your theory is. That would be like a creationist saying: God, Buddha, or Allah created everything. I have enough confidence to stick to one Creator. I don't have to move the goal posts so I always look right regardless.

View Post

They can't argue without shifting the goal posts. For further clarification, he is saying what I have been saying all along. If you want to come here and justify your beliefs you better be prepared to defend all of them including the origin of life. Abiogenesis is a part of the conventional materialistic evolution world view, which Mitch has already shown he is a part of.

#12 Dave B

Dave B

    Junior Member

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

Posted 06 March 2011 - 10:55 AM

So if Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution, then explain how evolution will work without it?

There are several possibilities.

1. God put life here and it evolved.

2. Life came from other places via meteor, aliens, etc.

3. Life evolved from non-life via a process that we do not yet understand.

Abiogenesis might be a problem for atheists but it in no way falsifies the Theory of Evolution.

#13 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 06 March 2011 - 11:14 AM

The argument for the existence of God is at the origin of life/existence. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. Evolution in no way disproves God, but many atheists like to talk about evolution as if it does disprove God.

Abiogenesis gives absolutely nothing to Science. The conditions for abiogenesis can not be verified, and it violates many observations we can repeatedly make on a daily basis. So what is the solution to the finding the origin of lie? The solution is to throw out any bit of operational Science that gets in the way of origin science. Why people cling to material evolution(Material evolution consisting of cosmic, chemical, and evolution itself) as fact and call all Christians fools that don't understand Science is beyond me. What I see happening to Science is nothing short of absurd.


We have not observed anything that is suggests that common descent is a valid theory. There is a lot of good Science in evolution, but to say that things such as speciation proves all of evolution is not valid because you haven't determined whether or not evolution has limits. The Bible acknowledges speciation, so I am not getting why atheists say that this means that Creationists are wrong.

#14 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 06 March 2011 - 02:12 PM

So if Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution, then explain how evolution will work without it?

There are several possibilities.

View Post

Okay…

1. God put life here and it evolved.

View Post

Unfortunately for evolutionists, there is absolutely no Biblical substantiation for evolutionary thought. In fact, to the contrary, the Bible states that God created “Kinds/Species” to procreate after their own. So the above is left without any kind foundation.


2. Life came from other places via meteor, aliens, etc. 

View Post

Sorry, this doesn’t separate evolution from abiogenesis; it just attempts to add “another planet” (via panspermia) to the argument. Pushing origins to another planet is simply using smoke and mirrors to keep from answering the question, and begs the further question; where did life originate on the “other planet”? This is simply another example for the logical fallacy of infinite regress.


3. Life evolved from non-life via a process that we do not yet understand.

View Post

This is not only illogical, but irrational, and unscientific as well. However, if you wish to use this illogical fallacy of “Argumentum ad Futuris” (hoping and praying that it will happen in the future), we can proceed along that line of “non-evidence” as well.

Abiogenesis might be a problem for atheists but it in no way falsifies the Theory of Evolution.

View Post

Incorrect; abiogenesis is a problem for anyone attempting to use it; period! There is no foundational (origins) support for it anywhere. And, as I provided earlier; the model of evolution has no foundation in the Bible either. Further, you can attempt to claim your model using OTHER theological philosophies, and we can argue that; but you cannot intelligibly or honestly argue for macro-evolution on any level, and hope to provide any evidence for its origins, because there is none.

#15 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 06 March 2011 - 02:40 PM

There are several possibilities.

1. God put life here and it evolved.

2. Life came from other places via meteor, aliens, etc. 

3. Life evolved from non-life via a process that we do not yet understand.

Abiogenesis might be a problem for atheists but it in no way falsifies the Theory of Evolution.

View Post


So if someone shows that one choice is wrong, during a debate, you jump to the next one correct? In this way you can always look correct and you can keek your debate opponent working while you set back and choose. So when you find something wrong with all 3, what's next? Another multiple choice answer for a single question? This is not proving something empirically, this is always having an multiple choice answer for one question. Last I looked that makes the whole thing a hypothesis and not a scientific theory.

No life forming naturally = no evolution.
No real proof for aliens = no seeded earth for evolution.
And your world view is atheist = you choose not to believe in the supernatural.

I think you are trying to waste our time debating by being able to move the goal post. All your points are mute, unprovable, and not empirical.

What I find ironic is that the same people who made fun of people who saw UFOs and claimed aliens existed, are now trying to make that same funactical claim sound scientific and then claim it as their own :( .

This is what the evidence for aliens points to.

Posted Image

Props, which is what evolution is. So why not add another prop? Another one that is far away, cannot be observed, and only fantasy makes it work. The alien seeded the earth is probably the best idea evolutionists have come with yet. And here's why.

1) No one can really prove aliens exists or not. So like God, the alien becomes the intelligent origins of evolution.
2) The process of what they supposedly did (seed the earth) can "never" be observed or proven.
3) And because science will always be the only one going into space, they can take or make any evidence conform to what they want to believe.

Panspermia (aliens seeded the earth) is sciences way of moving an idea so out of touch that it never has to be proven, nor can it be disproven. How desperate have they become.

#16 Dave B

Dave B

    Junior Member

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

Posted 06 March 2011 - 05:13 PM

No life forming naturally = no evolution.

Non sequitur.

The Theory of Evolution does not depend on a theory of origins. As much as you wish this to be true it just isn't so.

#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 06 March 2011 - 06:14 PM

No life forming naturally = no evolution.

Non sequitur.

The Theory of Evolution does not depend on a theory of origins. As much as you wish this to be true it just isn't so.

View Post

Sorry, the "Non sequitur" fallacy is yours... Evolution depends on it's origins, just as your story is dependent upon your parents (your origins). Therefor your analogy fails, because your conclusion does not follow your premise.

You lose a bonus point, because you misused the logical fallacy application.

Further, there isn't, nor has there ever been, a shred of evidence to support the "life from non-life hypothesis. Therefore it is not only "unscientific" but it is still (after all these years" illogical and irrational.

#18 Dave B

Dave B

    Junior Member

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

Posted 07 March 2011 - 06:00 AM

Sorry, the "Non sequitur" fallacy is yours... Evolution depends on it's origins, just as your story is dependent upon your parents (your origins). Therefor your analogy fails, because your conclusion does not follow your premise.

You lose a bonus point, because you misused the logical fallacy application.

Further, there isn't, nor has there ever been, a shred of evidence to support the "life from non-life hypothesis. Therefore it is not only "unscientific" but it is still (after all these years" illogical and irrational.

View Post

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.

#19 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 07 March 2011 - 06:44 AM

Sorry, the "Non sequitur" fallacy is yours... Evolution depends on it's origins, just as your story is dependent upon your parents (your origins). Therefor your analogy fails, because your conclusion does not follow your premise.
You lose a bonus point, because you misused the logical fallacy application.
Further, there isn't, nor has there ever been, a shred of evidence to support the "life from non-life hypothesis. Therefore it is not only "unscientific" but it is still (after all these years" illogical and irrational.

View Post

Ron, this is a classic example of "moving the goalposts".

View Post

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

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.

View Post

It is disingenuous to attempt to separate evolution from its origins, then claim your opponent is “moving the goal posts” to cover your tracks; when, in fact, attempting to separate yourself from your origins (which is your foundation) is itself an act of moving the goalposts. Further, when I argue this, I am arguing against “macro-evolution”, because what you term as “micro evolution” is nothing more than “adaptation within a kind/species”. And since there is no evidence that “adaptation within a kind/species” leads to “macro-evolution” (other than speculation and “a priory” presupposition), evolution has built itself on a sand foundation.
The major flaws exposed in evolution are the lack of evidence for “macro” and the lack of evidence for “origins” (foundation). The exposure of BOTH of these flaws, in fact “discredit” the Model of Evolution.


The truth is that we just don't know exactly how life began from non-life... or if it even did.

View Post

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

Maybe God put life here and it evolved? And perhaps your literal interpretation of scripture is wrong?

View Post

First – there is no Biblical evidence for macro-evolution (as I previously provided), therefore that argument fails.
Second – No matter how you attempt to twist it, I do not “interpret” the Bible in any way, I read it as it is written (in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). Therefore that argument fails.


And, no. It is not argumentum ad futuris to argue that we do not know.

View Post

Once again, you are incorrect, and you need to really spend a little more time in logical studies. First you are attempting to make an argument against a point I didn’t make in the post you are replying to.

Second - Go back and read your statement from the “OTHER” post, and do not attempt to equivocate, misrepresent, or quote out of context on terms. Your “Argumentum ad Futuris” or “appeal to future evidences” is exactly what you did do. 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.

This is better known as Occam's RazorPosted Image; not complicating explanation by speculating. It would be appeal to probabilityif I were to claim that science WILL explain how life began from non-life. But I did no such thing.

View Post

First – You are basing your entire argument on speculation.
Second – You are abusing “Occam's Razor” in your false analogy. And it is exposed. You may want to figure out what "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" really means, and use it appropriately.
Third – As I provided above, you did commit the argumentum ad futuris, appeal to belief, appeal to probability logical fallacies.

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


1- Provide the evidence, or admit you are merely speculating Dave.
2- Quit being "disingenuous" in your accusing ME of being disingenuous Dave. Prove me wrong, and provide your "evidence" for abiogenesis!

Further, your “ad Hominem abusive” against me (as to what I do or don’t, or will or won’t accept, based on fact or supposition) notwithstanding, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the evidence for your accusations. And will be duly noted for future reference.

#20 Dave B

Dave B

    Junior Member

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

Posted 07 March 2011 - 06:53 AM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users