Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 4 of 140 (567992)
07-03-2010 7:05 PM


So what?
Even if " Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject", so what?
One of the major differences between science and dogma is that science changes as new information and data is gathered. Even if there was a time when the two terms were used interchangeably (and so far you have not show that) there is no reason that as understanding grew that the two terms should not take on distinct meanings.
In the 'I need an answer' thread I made the point to the OP that the reason why creationists are opposed to the theory of evolution is because they cannot separate 'abiogenesis from evolution' because when the ToE was introduced, abiogenesis was very much a part of the theory.
Or is it because Creationists have never been able to find any evidence to support "Special Creation?"

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 140 (568008)
07-03-2010 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
07-03-2010 9:14 PM


"Peg" writes:
Just to be clear here, i am not debating evolution OR abiogensis.
I am merely showing that the early evolutionists did in fact view abiogenesis as a part of evolution hence why creationists can't separate the two.
Why are creationist incapable of learning how terms are used when everyone else can?
"peg" writes:
the Miller—Urey experiment was designed to show how abiogenesis was supposed to have occured (although they didnt produce life) and even Richard Dawkins 'The selfish gene' has several pages describing abiogenesis as the means of how life originated on earth....so it seems that while the claim is made that evolution and abiogenesis are completely separate and not dependent on each other, evolutionists are still holding onto abiogenesis one way or another
Of course abiogenesis is still significant. It happened. There is no doubt that abiogenesis happened. That is settled and a fact. There is overwhelming evidence that at one time there was no life on earth and now there is life on the earth. Abiogenesis happened.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 9:14 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2010 9:39 PM jar has replied
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:00 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 11 of 140 (568012)
07-03-2010 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ICANT
07-03-2010 9:39 PM


Re: Why
"ICANT" writes:
Hi jar,
jar writes:
Why are creationist incapable of learning how terms are used when everyone else can?
Because every time the terms are disproved they are then changed.
God Bless,
I covered that in Message 4 where I pointed out that:
"jar" writes:
One of the major differences between science and dogma is that science changes as new information and data is gathered.
Edited by jar, : fix the attribution

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2010 9:39 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 07-03-2010 10:03 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 140 (568017)
07-03-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:00 PM


Peg writes:
jar writes:
Of course abiogenesis is still significant. It happened. There is no doubt that abiogenesis happened. That is settled and a fact.
You've just answered your own question. This comment is exactly why creationists are still opposed to 'evolution'
If it was simply the theory of how animals change over time then i dont think that anyone would argue with that....but the fact is that its not only about how animals change over time...its about how evolutionists believe life got here in the first place as you have just demonstrated.
But Evolution is STILL not abiogenesis.
Evolution is simply change in populations over time. Abiogenesis is simply the beginnings of life.
Abiogenesis does not preclude "Special Creation". If some god or designer or magician breathes life into mud figures then that is still abiogenesis. The issue is finding evidence that supports some god or designer or magician breathing life into mud figures. So far no one has found such evidence.
The Theory of Evolution has shown how the diversity of life we see can be explained.
We are still very early in developing a similar understanding of Abiogenesis. Hopefully in less than the hundred and fifty years since Darwin first published On the Origin of Species we will have as detailed an understanding of abiogenesis.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:00 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:28 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 18 of 140 (568019)
07-03-2010 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by RAZD
07-03-2010 10:03 PM


Return to Sixty Mile???
Do we still have some geologists to help?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 07-03-2010 10:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2010 8:32 AM jar has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 140 (568020)
07-03-2010 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:28 PM


Peg writes:
jar writes:
Evolution is simply change in populations over time. Abiogenesis is simply the beginnings of life.
yes, yet the two are still closely linked just as you have shown them to be.
The only linkage is that things can only evolve after they exist.
Peg writes:
jar writes:
Abiogenesis does not preclude "Special Creation". If some god or designer or magician breathes life into mud figures then that is still abiogenesis. The issue is finding evidence that supports some god or designer or magician breathing life into mud figures. So far no one has found such evidence.
You have said that abiogenesis happened, it is a fact and yet nobody saw it happen, nor can anybody reproduce it and so nobody has ever found the evidence that it happened the way they say it happened.
So why must one find evidence of God to believe he created life, yet they dont need to find evidence of abiogenesis to say that is how life got here?
We can say abiogenesis happened because there is life here. It really is that simple.
No one has said "how" it happened yet. Understand the difference between the fact that abiogenesis happened and a Theory of Abiogenesis.
We are finding evidence of how life can come from non-life. As I said, we are still early in developing a Theory of Abiogenesis, but way further along than we were even 25 years ago.
I have little doubt that while I am still alive we will create life.
If you want someone to take Special Creation seriously then you need to do the same things, develop theories of exactly how the god or designer or magician turned mud figures into living things, theories just like what is being done in laboratories by scientists today.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:28 PM Peg has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 53 of 140 (568336)
07-05-2010 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
07-05-2010 6:51 AM


Re: intuitive linking
Peg writes:
i've already stated earlier that i dont believe in the abiogenesis spoken about by people like dawkins.
Living things may contain chemicals but chemicals do not produce life.
Then it is up to you to explain the model that did produce life.
Understand, just claiming "goddidit" won't fly. You need to explain the processes that god used and set up a series of replicable experiments that can be used to test your theory.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 07-05-2010 6:51 AM Peg has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 64 of 140 (568624)
07-07-2010 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by dall22
07-07-2010 4:56 AM


Re: evolution & abio
dall22 writes:
jar writes:
Of course abiogenesis is still significant. It happened. There is no doubt that abiogenesis happened. That is settled and a fact.
reply:
Your evidence is an assumption, you cannot produce any scientific support. It equally follows that God created, otherwise we wouldn't be here, and I have evidence for that, knowing God's love and healings.
First, welcome home.
Second, no, it is not an assumption. At one time there was no life on earth and now there is, therefore (conclusion) abiogenesis happened. The facts are there. Once there was no life, now there is life.
I think that the problem is that you do not understand what abiogenesis means. All it means is life from non-life. Now it could have happened by some god blowing magic breath on a mud figure as described in Genesis 2 or like what is described in Genesis 1, simply by an act of will of some other god, or it could have happened as a normal chemical and physical reaction.
Then there are the Theories of Abiogenesis. If we look at the three models proposed above, there is no evidence whatsoever of a process using magic breath. Nor is there any evidence of being able to create something by simply an act of will. However there is evidence of chemical and physical reactions happening.
So once again (no assumptions, just conclusions) of the three models suggested above, only the third model is supported by any evidence.
Does that make sense? Do you understand now why all I have said so far is not assumption but rather conclusion?
Edited by jar, : left out 'of'
Edited by jar, : put the 'of' in the wrong place, moved it to where it made sense.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by dall22, posted 07-07-2010 4:56 AM dall22 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 66 of 140 (568764)
07-14-2010 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by marc9000
07-14-2010 9:52 PM


Re: intuitive linking
Speaking as a Christian...HUH?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by marc9000, posted 07-14-2010 9:52 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 9:05 AM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 69 of 140 (568773)
07-17-2010 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
07-14-2010 11:02 PM


Re: evolution & abio
Buz writes:
I wonder what some of our evolutionist friends might have in response to the following exerpts from your link.
I would think that the author is either not very bright or assumes that the audience is not very bright.
When he says "What Venter has proved is that to assemble the first simple DNA for the first cell, you need a team of highly skilled scientists, or just one who knows it all!" he is just making a silly comment.
What Venter did show was that just plain old chemistry and physics is all that was needed, no intelligence needed.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 07-14-2010 11:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 75 of 140 (568843)
07-18-2010 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by marc9000
07-18-2010 9:05 AM


Re: intuitive linking
Why of course — where would these types of discussion forums be without a few Christians to get things going, or ask the anger inspiring questions?
I am a Christian and was asking you how you could post such nonsense as you did in message 65.
Except of course that Genesis 1 & 2 are totally unrelated, written by different authors of different cultures in different eras.
Science is restricted to the realm of rearrangement, our lives are completely restricted to it — humans cannot create nor destroy, and can’t comprehend actual creation or destruction.
Utter nonsense. I have created things. I help fund projects that create things. I have destroyed things.
Atheists can theorize about how all matter was compressed into an area the size of a head of a pin 13 billion years ago, but reducing its size and specifying billions of years of time still doesn’t explain how it originated to a more believable extent than Christian claims of a creator.
Yet more nonsense. Claiming a creator tells us nothing, explains nothing. The current research is at least looking for some answers, not simply claiming 'magic'.
Abiogenesis does mean life from non-life and if God did it, we still need to determine 'how god did it'. Saying "She willed it into existence" is just an empty assertion with little information or relevance.
Genesis 2:7 was not referring to a chemical rearrangement in any way — it was referring to God’s special care and attention to human life.
Genesis 2 and 3 are a "Just so story". Humans wrote the story and the god they created for the story places humans in a special place. But that same god the author created also placed women as subject to man which should give you a hint that GOD had nothing to do with the story but a guy did.
No one I know of except Biblical Creationists think that Genesis 2 refers to anything scientific. It is a fable, a folk tale, a Just So story.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 9:05 AM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 5:05 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 80 of 140 (568887)
07-18-2010 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by marc9000
07-18-2010 5:05 PM


Re: intuitive linking
marc9000 writes:
My source for information about Christianity is found in the Bible, it describes Christ's life and teachings. Where do you get your information about Christ's life and teachings?
Well, of course Christ was not a Christian nor is there all that much about Christianity in the Bible. But that is still irrelevant; we are not discussing Christ or Christianity, rather we are discussing Abiogenesis and Evolution.
If you want to know about Christianity expand your reading.
marc9000 writes:
Name some things that you have created, or destroyed. It will take me about 5 seconds to describe the basics of the rearrangement process that you used.
Destroyed silly ideas like "There was a Noahic flood". Created a whole new way to design cable television systems.
marc9000 writes:
I didn't say it refers to anything scientific. But I did say that science is not the only source of knowledge.
But what we are discussing is only scientific. We are discussing Abiogenesis and Evolution. The points were covered in the very message you quotemined.
jar writes:
Except of course that Genesis 1 & 2 are totally unrelated, written by different authors of different cultures in different eras.
jar writes:
Claiming a creator tells us nothing, explains nothing. The current research is at least looking for some answers, not simply claiming 'magic'.
Abiogenesis does mean life from non-life and if God did it, we still need to determine 'how god did it'. Saying "She willed it into existence" is just an empty assertion with little information or relevance.
jar writes:
Genesis 2 and 3 are a "Just so story". Humans wrote the story and the god they created for the story places humans in a special place. But that same god the author created also placed women as subject to man which should give you a hint that GOD had nothing to do with the story but a guy did.
No one I know of except Biblical Creationists think that Genesis 2 refers to anything scientific. It is a fable, a folk tale, a Just So story.
Is there some reason you did not address those issues?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 5:05 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 5:42 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 87 of 140 (568898)
07-18-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
07-18-2010 5:42 PM


Trying to get back to the topic
marc9000 writes:
Cable TV systems is all rearrangement of existing materials.
The materials that make up a system are material, the design is not, and it was a whole new way to build a system.
marc9000 writes:
Because they are atheistic statements. Anyone who wants to can call themselves a Christian. Sometimes atheists do it just for fun. You may not be - I'm not judging you - but would it make you nervous if someone suspected you were a phony Christian, when you claim the the Bible is fairy tales, that Christ was not a Christian, the Bible isn't about Christianity? This is atheistic mocking, it isn't Christianity.
If you're a Christian, and Christ was not a Christian, what "Christ" do you follow?
Atheist statements? Nonsense. They are the topic of this thread and also subjects accepted by much of Club Christian. I am pretty sure that I've given you the link to the Clergy Project Letter.
It says in part:
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.
Currently it has been signed by over 12,000 Clergy, not simply believers or club members but Priests, Pastors, Ministers, clergy of all manner.
And while anyone can claim to be a Christian only members of a recognized chapter of Club Christian can honestly do so. I've been a recognized member of Club Christian for well over 60 years.
Would I get nervous if someone suspected I was a phony Christian? Of course not. Why would I care what someone else thinks about me, I know the truth about that one at least.
But note that you once again avoided addressing the topic or the issues raised and instead try to change the subject. That is called "Palming the pea".
We are discussing is only scientific. We are discussing Abiogenesis and Evolution. The points were covered in the very message you quotemined.
jar writes:
Except of course that Genesis 1 & 2 are totally unrelated, written by different authors of different cultures in different eras.
jar writes:
Claiming a creator tells us nothing, explains nothing. The current research is at least looking for some answers, not simply claiming 'magic'.
Abiogenesis does mean life from non-life and if God did it, we still need to determine 'how god did it'. Saying "She willed it into existence" is just an empty assertion with little information or relevance.
jar writes:
Genesis 2 and 3 are a "Just so story". Humans wrote the story and the god they created for the story places humans in a special place. But that same god the author created also placed women as subject to man which should give you a hint that GOD had nothing to do with the story but a guy did.
No one I know of except Biblical Creationists think that Genesis 2 refers to anything scientific. It is a fable, a folk tale, a Just So story.
Can you address the issues?
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2010 5:42 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 8:20 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 99 of 140 (569030)
07-19-2010 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by marc9000
07-19-2010 8:20 PM


Re: Trying to get back to the topic
marc9000 writes:
jar writes:
Atheist statements? Nonsense. They are the topic of this thread and also subjects accepted by much of Club Christian.
A quick google search shows me nothing about your organization. Is there any info about it on the net?
What organization, Club Christian?
Club Christian is any and all of the recognized Christian Sects that exist. My Chapter happens to be the Episcopal Church of the Anglican Communion within the overall Club Christian.
marc9000 writes:
jar writes:
I am pretty sure that I've given you the link to the Clergy Project Letter.
You haven't - I'm fairly new here and don't remember having a discussion with you before, but atheists on another forum brought it to my attention. It's a quote mine that is nothing more than an attempt by the Catholic church to mollify an atheist community who has been a threat to bankrupt them with legal action and member intimidation for decades now. In the late 60’s, there was an over-population frenzy largely brought on by the scientific community, predicting massive starvation in the 1970’s etc. In December of 1968, 2600 scientists published a petition in the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, and ‘Commonweal’ (a catholic magazine) urging Catholics to withhold contributions from collection plates, because of the Pope’s stance on birth control. Catholicism often caves to the scientific community. The Clergy Letter Project was a financial/political thing, nothing more. A few of its statements clash with what the Bible says. I don't agree with it, I'm not Catholic.
I'm sorry but beyond being simply wrong and more of your misrepresentation, that is a really silly statement. I also note that yet once again you try to palm the pea, to change the subject.
The Clergy project as has been pointed out to you (I did give you the link this time at least) is NOT something created by the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, it was first written by Michael Zimmerman, a Professor of Biology at Butler University.
In addition, this topic as has been pointed out to you several times, is about science. It also doesn't matter what you agree with.
The facts are that the Clergy Project shows that the issue is NOT atheistic. It shows that Evolution as a fact and the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation of the diversity we see about us is accepted and recognized by Theists and in particular, Christians.
It is only the Christian Cult of Ignorance that continues to support Special Creation and to "deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
Your assertion that Abiogenesis and Evolution are atheistic has been soundly refuted.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 8:20 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 9:08 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 103 of 140 (569040)
07-19-2010 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by marc9000
07-19-2010 9:08 PM


Re: Trying to get back to the topic
Do you even understand any of what you quoted or can you only try to change the subject? This thread is not about my beliefs about Christianity but rather the topic of Abiogenesis and Evolution.
I will be happy to educate you about what those statements mean but they are off topic for this thread and once again I will try to get you headed back towards the topic.
By the way it is the Book of Common Prayer.
Marc9000 writes:
jar writes:
They are the topic of this thread and also subjects accepted by much of Club Christian.
Much of? Do Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, honest Catholics, Pentecostals, agree with the statements you made above?
Yet another example of you taking things out of context and misrepresentation.
The "they" in that quote refers to the fact of Abiogenesis and Evolution and the fact that the Theory of Evolution is not only the best explanation for the diversity we see around us, it is the ONLY model. There simply is no Creation Science model.
And yes, Lutherans and Baptists and Presbyterians and Roman Catholics and Episcopalians and Jews and Unitarians and Methodists agree that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the best and only explanation and model presented so far. Had you read the list of signatures to teh Clergy Project Letter you would have seen that.
Marc9000 writes:
When Christians refer to different Christian denominations, they actually call them "denominations", not "sects" like you and atheists do.
Except I am a Christian and used those terms, so your assertion has been refuted.
Now, if you would like to challenge or discuss some of my statements about Christianity, please propose a new topic and I will be glad to try to educate you.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by marc9000, posted 07-19-2010 9:08 PM marc9000 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024