Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,478 Year: 3,735/9,624 Month: 606/974 Week: 219/276 Day: 59/34 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 297 (543729)
01-20-2010 11:13 AM


As a theistic evolutionist, when I use the word "abiogenesis" I am referring to inevitible fact that life had to have come from non-life (because we know that there was a point in the universe where there was no life and there is life now) whether god had his hand in it or not and whether he use naturalistic or supernaturalistic means.

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 297 (551340)
03-22-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Iblis
03-22-2010 1:39 AM


Re: abioGENESIS
Is there anything else in Genesis 1 to support this view? Well yes, as ICANT has been kind enough to point out more than once.
Genesis 1:21 writes:
And God created great whales ...
Yep. You got it. The only other organism, that God is specifically noted as creating, rather than just having the world bring forth naturally, are the cetaceans.
Lets look at the whole thing in context. KJV Genesis 1:
quote:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
It looks like the waters brought them forth, but God still created them after their kind.
Not that this makes it make any more sense...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Iblis, posted 03-22-2010 1:39 AM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Iblis, posted 03-23-2010 6:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 297 (551819)
03-24-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Iblis
03-23-2010 6:21 PM


Re: abioGENESIS
Oh, I misunderstood you and the joke went over my head. I thought you were saying that the whales were not brought forth. Thanks for expounding.
I don't see anything to disagree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Iblis, posted 03-23-2010 6:21 PM Iblis has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 297 (633821)
09-16-2011 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 3:28 PM


It preposterously claims that the ordinary classic and cosmic scales of existence could have developed from the quantum, sub-atomic level like a mighty plant develops from a tiny seed.
Why is that preposterous?
Emergent properties via superpostion could foot the bill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 3:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 265 of 297 (633828)
09-16-2011 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 4:32 PM


Well, you can say, of course, that depth is an emergent property of breadth and height. That is, if you start modelling from drawing two lines, the second perpendicular to the first. May it though mean that the depth can physically evolve from breadth and height in linear time, like a plant does from a shoot with the shoot itself developing from a seed of a dimensionless point?
No, but I can add sodium to chlorine and get salt, which has deliciousness. Those atoms by themselves are nothing like salt... and taste terrible
Er, wait... unless you think salt was intelligently designed Talk about preposterous
I reckon not. That would be just mistaking one's own process of modelling for the real physical evolution. That's a laughable extrapolation of a mental process onto the whole of existence to which the quackademical BB hypothesis is a good example.
Yeah, but you just took a stupid example, and are extrapolating that to all examples... so you just fell into your own trap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 4:32 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 7:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 297 (633851)
09-16-2011 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 7:11 PM


Well, yes, you add sodium to chlorine to let deliciousness emerge and I have no trouble with that.
Well then, there you go: A higher state emerging from a microscopic one... I thought you did have a problem with that? That is, unless you think the deliciousness of salt was intelligently designed...
All I have trouble with is your subsequent ludicrous pretence that in the process you have managed to trace the ultimate origin of deliciousness.
Where have I done that? Please don't speak for me... I'm right here and you can ask me.
I contend that deliciousness has no "ultimate origin". I presume that it is something that gradually emerged with the evolution of the tongue. There would be various states of it with no clear indication of a "beginning".
The idea you defend here pretends that this was the first instance of salt ever, that is sodium and chlorine had never met before and then it goes on to assume both sodium and chlorine are ultimately traceable to nothing at all.
No, not at all. You've grossly misunderstood.
And there has never been "nothing".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 7:11 PM Alfred Maddenstein 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