Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Abiogenesis, no Evolution, then what?
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 31 of 173 (249798)
10-07-2005 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Yaro
10-06-2005 10:58 PM


Yaro writes:
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."
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.
you say "Ill just belive what this dusty 'ol book says."
An patent oversimplification which only serves to underline your prior commitment to restricting the search to science. Scientism in other words...
The bible is neither dusty (it gets read too much for dust to gather), nor old (something that is timeless doesn't age)

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 10-06-2005 10:58 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Yaro, posted 10-07-2005 12:48 PM iano has not replied

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


Message 32 of 173 (249804)
10-07-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by iano
10-07-2005 12:35 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 10-07-2005 12:35 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Yaro, posted 10-07-2005 12:56 PM Yaro has not replied

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


Message 33 of 173 (249811)
10-07-2005 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Yaro
10-07-2005 12:48 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Yaro, posted 10-07-2005 12:48 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 10-07-2005 1:12 PM Yaro has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 34 of 173 (249819)
10-07-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Yaro
10-07-2005 12:56 PM


Re: *bump*
Yaro writes:
How do we go about looking for a supernatural means then?
There is most certainly the potential for a logical, rational approach to this question. But it will have to wait. It's Friday, it's just past 6. My dinner is due on the table at 8 and the interim will be spent over a couple of pints of Guinness
Good weekend EvC-ers
(ps: Crashfrog where are you? This is a development of that wunder-question you once posed)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Yaro, posted 10-07-2005 12:56 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Yaro, posted 10-07-2005 1:41 PM iano has not replied

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


Message 35 of 173 (249828)
10-07-2005 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Yaro
10-07-2005 12:00 PM


Sorry! I thought it might annoy faith to be talking about the universe's rather than life's origins, so I gave it the chop.
Glad you liked it though!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Yaro, posted 10-07-2005 12:00 PM Yaro has not replied

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


Message 36 of 173 (249835)
10-07-2005 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by iano
10-07-2005 1:12 PM


Re: *bump*
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 10-07-2005 1:12 PM iano has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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

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


Message 38 of 173 (249847)
10-07-2005 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
10-07-2005 1:54 PM


....
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 10-07-2005 1:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 39 of 173 (249850)
10-07-2005 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
10-07-2005 1:54 PM


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.
Well, there is ample evidence that is false, so that option may be safely disregarded under any scenario.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 10-07-2005 1:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 40 of 173 (249888)
10-07-2005 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
10-06-2005 10:40 PM


Some alternatives
I can't think of any. Can you?
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)
That list took about 2 minutes, and frankly isn't all that imaginative or complete.
Why, even if we rule out number 1, should we assume that number 3 is correct. Do we have ANY evidence in support of number 3?
How do we answer the fact that there is an equal amount of evidence supporting number 9 as there is supporting number 3?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 10-06-2005 10:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Heathen, posted 10-07-2005 6:19 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 10-07-2005 11:12 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 41 of 173 (249896)
10-07-2005 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Nuggin
10-07-2005 5:44 PM


Re: Some alternatives
faith writes:
except on those points where it denies the Bible, the Creation and the Flood.
and where it says the earth is round, and where it says the earth orbits the sun, and where it say the brain is the centre of thought, not the heart, and where it says there are no windows in the sky holding out water.
yeah... dodgy stuff that science when it disagrees with the bible.
edit: Sorry nuggin... replied to wrong message.. again...
This message has been edited by Creavolution, 10-07-2005 07:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Nuggin, posted 10-07-2005 5:44 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 173 (249900)
10-07-2005 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
10-06-2005 10:43 PM


Re: Other options????
jar writes:
Life has always existed. In the beginning there was life.
I think that is a preposterous concept. Everything had a begining. If there is a god, he had to have to come from somewhere.
To be honest, when we think back far enough we must question as to how anything came to exist. This is indeed a paradox, but it does not mean life always existed.
So, why do you think that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 10-06-2005 10:43 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 10-07-2005 7:41 PM bkelly has not replied
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 10-07-2005 7:55 PM bkelly has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 43 of 173 (249901)
10-07-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by bkelly
10-07-2005 7:29 PM


Re: Other options????
All the evidence seems to point towards life always existing.
No matter where we look we find signs of life.
When we look at the geological layers we find life.
When we look around we find life.
When we look in the depths we find life.
When we look at the Black or White Smokers existing under unbelievable pressures away from all sunlight, we find life.
When we look in boiling hot springs, we find life.
When we look under the ice in the Arctic, we find life.
When we look under the ice in the AntArctic, we find life.
When we look in the deserts, the seas, the mountains, the rims of volcanos, the plains, the valleys, the shores, we find life.
Life is everywhere.
Where is the evidence that it had a beginning?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by bkelly, posted 10-07-2005 7:29 PM bkelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Heathen, posted 10-07-2005 7:53 PM jar has replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 173 (249903)
10-07-2005 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
10-07-2005 1:54 PM


Where is god?
Faith writes:
God created everything at one point in time, or over a period of seven days.
Genisis,26 writes:
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likness, and let ....
1. We are made in god's image. We look like him, he looks like us. The words clear, the words are simple, the words leave no doubt. God has eyes, nose, mouth, penis, anus, etc, etc. He breathes air, speaks in air, hears in air, etc. So where is god? He has the same body as us. Why does he have all these attributes that we need but a god would not?
2. "... in OUR image..." There was more than one god. Again, plain, simple, undeniaible, inarguable. He said it. He meant it. So where are these other gods? What have they done? What happened to them? Did your god kill these other gods?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 10-07-2005 1:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 45 of 173 (249904)
10-07-2005 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
10-07-2005 7:41 PM


Re: Other options????
You've listed only places on earth. so you can at best only logically deduce from that that life has existed as long as the earth has existed. That's not "always"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 10-07-2005 7:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 10-07-2005 7:58 PM Heathen has replied
 Message 48 by bkelly, posted 10-07-2005 8:02 PM Heathen 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