No Abiogenesis, no Evolution, then what?

This is a thread sparked by the recent "Begging the question" thread.
Me and Faith got into an aside about the probability of abiogenesis, and whether it's high improbability is evidence for a creator.I would like to propose a discussion where we assume evolution does not exist and abiogenesis is false. We will assume there is a gap there, no one knows how we got here, and there are no current theories.Now, that those two things are given, I would like Faith or another creationist, to show me how God is the only other option.This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-06-2005 11:35 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I would just like to elaborate more on this...It seems that most creationists feel that if evo. and abio. were abolished creationism, and god-belief are the only other options. I don't see how this could be the case.Again, I would like to discuss what the ramifications would be if evo. and abio. were to be proven wrong/or never existed all together.

CREATION is the only other option, not "God." I believe there is only one God, as shown us in the Bible, but in this conversation I only say that there are just the two options, that is, either life arose by purely natural blind chemical processes, or a mind created it. Either it just happened to happen or it was intentionally created. I see no other options. So you'd have to show me that there are other options.

I don't see the problem. A Christian would base all knowledge of biology on Genesis. Other religions would have their own versions of creation. What we'd be debating then is pure religion, which version of creation, which God, is the true one.

I would think, that since there is no developed theory of abio. that the options would be a version of naturally or a version of supernaturally. The hows haven't been backup up yet so we don't have anything more.There IS a developed theory of evo though. If that were proven false it doesn't default to supernatural. There could be numerous other natural options.

Hey Faith.I'm gonna reply to both your posts in this one to prevent confusion. I'm confused... how can you have a creation event without a god? Like aliens or somethin? See Faith, I think thats a false dichotomy. Just because abiogenesis and evolution may be false, I don't see how it points to a consious mind at all... the universe is pretty mindless no matter how you slice it, I don't see how one can deduce consiousness from it. I can agree with this part at least. But I still don't see how no evo. and no abio. would default to "intention". It could still be a mindless unknown process.So what ground does your possition gain should the two theories be deposed?second post: But this has never been the case. Biology, nor any other science, has ever been based on the bible. For example, what knowledge of neurology does the bible empart to us?I say this because it is important to note, that even without evolution/abiogenesis, science would still be inherantly naturalistic and observational. No god or bible would be required. I disagree. God does not 'win' by default. God, or any other religions god, would not serve to aleviate the gaps in our knowledge one iota.Maybe I should ask you this way: Should evo. and abio. be deposed, do you feel that a god would be the only explanation left?

But why do we even bother entertaining the notion of the supernatural?I don't see how it fits into the equation other than filling a knowledge gap with more mystery.This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-06-2005 10:39 PM

I can't think of any. Can you?

Life has always existed. In the beginning there was life.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Off the top of my head? No, I can't. It would have to be a pretty powerful option to cover everything covered by the TOE.But then I can't think of a viable supernatural explanation either.I'm willing to list a supernatural mechanism as an option because I'm not afraid to say "I don't know."Are you able to list a possible natural mechanism for the same reason?

quote:

---

I can't think of any. Can you?

---

Why is that relevant?Just because a natural option has not been thought of yet doesn't mean a natural option doesn't exist.

The invisible pink unicorn did it.There is still a possibility of panspermia. In particular, if the universe has existed forever, then it is conceivable that life always existed, and is distributed via panspermia (suitable organic molecules being distributed into space). Granted, current cosmology suggests a finite age for the universe, which would rule this out. But I think it hasn't yet been completely ruled out.

This points out a pretty big flaw in christian/creationist reasoning. It basicaly says "I give up, I'm satisfied not knowing and settling for the answer that makes me 'feel' good".So, we have this gap, "how did life get here?". Instead of donning your lab coat and thinking cap and figuring it out, you say "Ill just belive what this dusty 'ol book says."I don't think thats the best way to go about things. What if Jonah Salk went about it this way?

If we look at the evidence, there's no indication that life has not always existed. It doesn't seem that there was some moment when there was no life, or some creation event.When we look, we find signs of life throughout the geological column. We look at fossils and find they go back billions of years, as far back as we can go. What we see is that life tends to get simpler as we go back but still there. When we get to places where we thought there might not be life we still find the signs they were there, tracks and tunnels of softbodied critters that would not have fossilized.Until someone can show evidence that there was a time before life, the only possible conclusion is that life has always existed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion