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

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.

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

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?

Ok, I think thus far we have established that even without evo. and abio. we have several possible alternative theories as to how life got here.Are we agreed?Now then, since this has been shown. What ground has the creationism position gained? How does god now win by "default"?

awww, i liked it

Ok then... how do we go about looking for a supernatural means then?

iano, that was a serious question. Again:How do we go about looking for a supernatural means then?

Mmmmm...GuinnessYour lucky!I once had the pleasure of having it on tap, and it was some of the nicest stuff I ever tasted. I wonder what it's like over there in the motherland? I'd imagine it's more potent.Anyway, enjoy your friday, hope to discuss the issue further when your able to get back to it.

.... So basically...science should have no other choice but to coroborate your bible?We don't see that. So what difference does it make weather or not we abolish evolution/abiogenesis? Your case for the bibles veracity is not helped one iota.

Might I add, unprovable as well.

Your god is constantly proving himself to be a god of paradox. He is uncreated... yet nothing comes from nothing? Everything has a beginning?Bah, I don't buy it.

I agree with you there jar.I don't belive in infinite regression being illogical. I think that's an outdated aristotelian idea. I think, existence, something which god himself is dependant on, has been around in some form for ever.There was never a time of nothing and there was never a need for a "first cause" or "prime mover".

God's existence is contingent on existance. The state of existing. There was never a time where "nothing" existed.Your god is an unecessary entety, we don't need an "uncreated" thing. There is no eveidence that anything needed to be created in the first place. It's probably allways been here in one form or another.