Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Abiogenesis, no Evolution, then what?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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 1444 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 1444 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 1444 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 1444 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

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 21 of 173 (249685)
10-07-2005 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
10-07-2005 12:09 AM


Faith writes:
So there is no origin, but only distribution in this model? Nevertheless it is apparently a naturalistic model, right? Nothing supernatural.
Right. The idea is that life has always existed, and so abiogenesis is not required. See, also, Message 15.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 10-07-2005 12:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 10-07-2005 12:36 AM nwr has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 23 of 173 (249698)
10-07-2005 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Yaro
10-06-2005 10:22 PM


Here's another supernaturalist alternative to natural abiogenesis.
First we assume Vitalism - that there is a "life energy" apart from matter, and it is this animating principle which is the true nature of life..
Then we assume that there are sparks of "life energy" drifiting around the universe and that they have an organising effect matter they encounter If a spark encounters sufficient matter of the right sort it produces a vehicle for itself which it enters and animates.
Thus we do not have true abiogenesis (life exists apart from matter) but we do not have creation by a mind either.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Thor, posted 10-07-2005 3:59 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Thor
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 24 of 173 (249700)
10-07-2005 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by PaulK
10-07-2005 3:16 AM


Awww, I was about to suggest that but you beat me to it! Oh well.
Anyway yeah, sort of like, Life creates itself. Like a 'ghost' of life is out there and forms up into physical life when the right conditions are there. I think that is a reasonable middle ground alternative between creation by something else and abiogenesis. Supernatural but spontaneous too.
BTW, I don't actually believe it. Just trying to think laterally!

The probability that someone is watching you is directly proportional to the stupidity of your action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2005 3:16 AM PaulK has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 25 of 173 (249727)
10-07-2005 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
10-07-2005 12:36 AM


So then we have three possibilities?
That depends on what is being counted.
I guess you are ignoring the assumptions of the OP, and talking about ways that life could be present. In that case, yes, I am aware of three:
(1) Spontaneous abiogenesis through natural means;
(2) Creation by a supernatural being;
(3) Panspermia in a universe where there has always been life.
However, it is my opinion that (2) is indistinguishable from (1). That is, God works through nature, not against it, so a creation event would be a spontaneous event that occurred through natural means. And current cosmology makes (3) look unlikely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 10-07-2005 12:36 AM Faith has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 26 of 173 (249733)
10-07-2005 8:40 AM


Back on topic
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"?

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 173 (249740)
10-07-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
10-07-2005 12:07 AM


Just because a natural option has not been thought of yet doesn't mean a natural option doesn't exist.
quote:
I guess, but why is that relevant.
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?
quote:
If we can't think of one we have nothing to discuss.
Sure we do.
We can discuss why you feel the need to fill the gap in knowledge with "Godidit" and stop looking for a solution instead of leaving it at "we don't know", and continue working on the solution.
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?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-07-2005 09:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 10-07-2005 12:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 10-07-2005 1:54 PM nator has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 28 of 173 (249765)
10-07-2005 10:58 AM


Another option
Life created the universe. The entire universe is a consequence of life rather than a harborer or creator of it.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 29 of 173 (249777)
10-07-2005 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
10-06-2005 10:40 PM


deleted for being completely irrelevent. Sorry.
This message has been edited by Tusko, 10-07-2005 11:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 10-06-2005 10:40 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Yaro, posted 10-07-2005 12:00 PM Tusko has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 30 of 173 (249780)
10-07-2005 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tusko
10-07-2005 11:45 AM


awww, i liked it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Tusko, posted 10-07-2005 11:45 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tusko, posted 10-07-2005 1:29 PM Yaro 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