|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: No Abiogenesis, no Evolution, then what? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Now, that those two things are given, I would like Faith or another creationist, to show me how God is the only other option 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
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 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.
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 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:
I don't see the problem. A Christian would base all knowledge of biology on Genesis. 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.
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 on 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
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". 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
awww, i liked it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
By automatically donning your lab coat your are making the presumption that a naturalistic origin of life must exist. You are pre-disposed to thinking that way and are thus likely to arrive at the basis of some naturalistic theory or other. All that has been done is to wind-up the same old naturalistic clockwork toy and set it further back down the same old track. It will arrive at the same destination by another means. Ok then... how do we go about looking for a supernatural means then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
iano, that was a serious question. Again:
How do we go about looking for a supernatural means then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Mmmmm...Guinness
Your 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
....
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
That is an unproven assertian. Might I add, unprovable as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
God is the only uncreated thing, the only beginningless thing. He preexisted everything He has made by an eternityp 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024