Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Abiogenesis, no Evolution, then what?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 4 of 173 (249650)
10-06-2005 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
10-06-2005 11:33 AM


Now, that those two things are given, I would like Faith or another creationist, to show me how God is the only other option.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 10-06-2005 11:33 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Yaro, posted 10-06-2005 10:37 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 173 (249651)
10-06-2005 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Yaro
10-06-2005 10:22 PM


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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Yaro, posted 10-06-2005 10:22 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 9 of 173 (249658)
10-06-2005 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Asgara
10-06-2005 10:37 PM


There could be numerous other natural options.
I can't think of any. Can you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Asgara, posted 10-06-2005 10:37 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Asgara, posted 10-06-2005 10:47 PM Faith has replied
 Message 12 by nator, posted 10-06-2005 10:50 PM Faith has replied
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 10-06-2005 10:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 29 by Tusko, posted 10-07-2005 11:45 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 40 by Nuggin, posted 10-07-2005 5:44 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 173 (249677)
10-07-2005 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Asgara
10-06-2005 10:47 PM


Are you able to list a possible natural mechanism for the same reason?
Not for the same reason, but I'm very interested in considering all the possibilities. I simply can't think of any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Asgara, posted 10-06-2005 10:47 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 173 (249679)
10-07-2005 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
10-06-2005 10:50 PM


Just because a natural option has not been thought of yet doesn't mean a natural option doesn't exist.
I guess, but why is that relevant. If we can't think of one we have nothing to discuss.
This message has been edited by Faith, 10-07-2005 12:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 10-06-2005 10:50 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 10-07-2005 9:39 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 18 of 173 (249681)
10-07-2005 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by nwr
10-06-2005 10:55 PM


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).
So there is no origin, but only distribution in this model? Nevertheless it is apparently a naturalistic model, right? Nothing supernatural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 10-06-2005 10:55 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 10-07-2005 12:34 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 173 (249682)
10-07-2005 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Yaro
10-06-2005 10:58 PM


I can't think of any. Can you?
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".
I'll ignore your imputation of motives to me and just ask, can you think of any?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 10-06-2005 10:58 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 20 of 173 (249683)
10-07-2005 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Yaro
10-06-2005 10:37 PM


Hey Faith.
I'm gonna reply to both your posts in this one to prevent confusion.
CREATION is the only other option, not "God."
I'm confused... how can you have a creation event without a god? Like aliens or somethin?
I'm simply trying to cover the field. There seem to be various theories floating around, various creator "gods" and aliens yes. I don't know what all. Gaia is an idea. I'm not sure what that is. Sort of a conscious universe or something like that. Whether "creation" is done by "Gaia" I don't know.
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.
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.
Speaking of the Biblical God and Biblical creation, this isn't deduced from anything, it is known by revelation. It is a viable theory held by many and if the odds are against all naturalistic origins it gives weight to theistic creationism.
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.
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?
Nothing. We'd simply never have come up with evolution or abiogenesis. Our genetics, our neurology, whatever, would take creation for granted and otherwise not be different from those sciences as they now exist. We'd probably look for evidence of DEvolution in genetics as that would follow from our Biblical assumptions rather than evolution. But otherwise, science as usual.
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.
Maybe not required, but it would be nice to acknowledge the Creator of it all, and thank Him for it, and in fact depend upon Him to increase our scientific knowledge.
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?
As I say above, Christians, independent of science, believe God is the Creator of all things. We EXPECT naturalistic explanations ultimately to fail. So when evo and abio are deposed, as you put it, for us that is simply proof of what we know already.
This message has been edited by Faith, 10-07-2005 12:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Yaro, posted 10-06-2005 10:37 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 173 (249686)
10-07-2005 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by nwr
10-07-2005 12:34 AM


So then we have three possibilities?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 10-07-2005 12:34 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 10-07-2005 8:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 173 (249843)
10-07-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
10-07-2005 9:39 AM


Wasn't it your implication that because you or any of us, might not be able to think of other natural options for how life could have arisen, that it somehow follows that there must be a supernatural cause?
No. If there ARE none, yes, but not being able to think of any though there are some, no.
Put another way, are you saying that, by definition, anything about the natural world that we do not currently understand, or may never understand, must have a supernatural cause?
Not at all. I believe what I believe from the Bible. God created everything at one point in time, or over a period of seven days. After it was created I have no reason to think He did any more creating. He now sustains what He created but doesn't add anything more to it. Whatever we don't understand about the natural world is for science to study. Science is completely compatible with God as the Bible reveals Him (in fact wouldn't have developed without belief in Him) except on those points where it denies the Bible, the Creation and the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 10-07-2005 9:39 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Yaro, posted 10-07-2005 1:57 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 39 by jar, posted 10-07-2005 2:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 44 by bkelly, posted 10-07-2005 7:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 56 of 173 (249941)
10-07-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Nuggin
10-07-2005 5:44 PM


Re: Some alternatives
1) Naturalistic - Abiogenisis
2) Panspermia
3) Creation by God
4) Creation by a divine entity other than God (Maybe the Angels created life. Maybe the Devil. We have no reason to believe otherwise)
5) Life has always existed everywhere in the universe.
6) Gaia - Earth, and everything alive on it, is part of one large organism.
7) Life does not exist at all - we are mistakingly attributing ourselves with "life" when in fact we are not alive
8) Creation by super intelligent aliens
9) Creation by future Humans sending life back through time (yes, it's a paradox, but still more reasonable than the spagetti monster theory)
Really it all appears to break down to naturalistic origin vs. creation by something or someone, as I've been saying. 3, 4, 8 and 9 are creation, the rest are naturalistic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Nuggin, posted 10-07-2005 5:44 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Nuggin, posted 10-07-2005 11:19 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 58 of 173 (249944)
10-07-2005 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Nuggin
10-07-2005 11:19 PM


Re: Some alternatives
Actually since 8 and 9 bring up the infinite regress situation, the question of the origin of the aliens and the future humans, it is not yet determined whether they are naturalistic or supernatural.
This message has been edited by Faith, 10-07-2005 11:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Nuggin, posted 10-07-2005 11:19 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Nuggin, posted 10-08-2005 12:11 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 60 of 173 (249954)
10-08-2005 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Nuggin
10-08-2005 12:11 AM


Re: Some alternatives
Except that the way we know about God is through revelation (though some are smart enough to see Him in His creation), and revelation tells us that He is uncreated. No infinite regression of the Biblical God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Nuggin, posted 10-08-2005 12:11 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Yaro, posted 10-08-2005 12:20 AM Faith has replied
 Message 64 by Nuggin, posted 10-08-2005 1:28 AM Faith has replied
 Message 93 by DBlevins, posted 10-12-2005 5:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 62 of 173 (249958)
10-08-2005 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Yaro
10-08-2005 12:20 AM


Re: Some alternatives
Huh?
Don't buy what?
God is the only uncreated thing, the only beginningless thing. He preexisted everything He has made by an eternity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Yaro, posted 10-08-2005 12:20 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Yaro, posted 10-08-2005 10:02 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 173 (249974)
10-08-2005 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Nuggin
10-08-2005 1:28 AM


Re: Some alternatives
God is not "bio" as in "abiogenesis." Only things and life were created. God is Spirit, uncreated, above it all. He didn't "come from" anything. He has always Been.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Nuggin, posted 10-08-2005 1:28 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Nuggin, posted 10-08-2005 5:15 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 77 by bkelly, posted 10-08-2005 8:52 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024