Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 8:37 PM
23 online now:
DrJones*, jar, Theodoric (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,091 Year: 9,127/19,786 Month: 1,549/2,119 Week: 309/576 Day: 112/98 Hour: 4/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
Buckets
Junior Member (Idle past 3991 days)
Posts: 7
From: CA, USA
Joined: 08-27-2007


Message 1 of 300 (419095)
08-31-2007 9:01 PM


Hello, I am a new member to the forums. I had recently discussed with a high school Creationist friend of mine, and he brought up abiogenesis. I've read articles about amino acids being formed in a controlled environment, and certain "proto-alive" organisms that have manifested, and this conjures a few questions.

Is abiogenesis always in direct relation with the Big Bang theory, where the Big Bang lays it out, and abiogenesis works from there? (or can abiogenesis it be attributed to theistic evolution, or deism?) In addition, how exactly does a single celled organism develop from nothing? I don't understand how, even if supplied with a life-sustaining environment, life can come to be.

Also, if one supports an atheistic view of evolution (Primordial soup, single-celled organisms, slight successive variation, without a God, etc etc), is it given that they also support the Big Bang?

One more. I'm trying to give a thorough look at both sides of the evolution-creation controversy (I am a pending agnostic), and I've read a lot about the slow degradation of the Big Bang theory. For example, http://creationwiki.org/Big_Bang and http://www.cosmologystatement.org/, as well as the creationist references given in the CreationWiki article. Because most everyone on this site surpasses me in the knowledge of evolution/creation, I'd like some opinions on the contemporary validity of the Big bang theory.

Thanks.

Edited by Buckets, : I left stuff out.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 09-03-2007 10:12 AM Buckets has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 09-03-2007 10:50 AM Buckets has not yet responded
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 09-03-2007 11:29 AM Buckets has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 09-04-2007 2:45 AM Buckets has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 09-05-2007 9:40 AM Buckets has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 2:21 PM Buckets has not yet responded
 Message 165 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 1:02 AM Buckets has not yet responded
 Message 287 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2007 11:22 PM Buckets has not yet responded
 Message 298 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-03-2007 5:02 AM Buckets has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 2 of 300 (419502)
09-03-2007 9:55 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6621
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 3 of 300 (419503)
09-03-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buckets
08-31-2007 9:01 PM


Hi, Buckets. Welcome to EvC.

Is abiogenesis always in direct relation with the Big Bang theory, where the Big Bang lays it out, and abiogenesis works from there?

The Big Bang theory and abiogenesis have nothing to do with one another, except that they are both theories about portions of the history of our real world.

The Big Bang is a theory that describes the early universe as hot, dense, and expanding, and uses this (along with the known laws of physics) to explain how this hot, dense, and expanding early universe developed into the universe we see around us.

Abiogenesis is the the study of how life might have arisen on the early earth. It takes the existence and state of the universe as a given. Sort of like how my family can trace its origins in Ohio and the subsequent migration to Oregon by way of Kansas without ever knowing how my earliest American ancestors actually came to North America.

-

In addition, how exactly does a single celled organism develop from nothing?

Gradually, through small steps.

This is still a subject of intense research and debate. This link will describe some of the main points of the main possibilities. Other people here will be glad to supply more details if there are more questions.


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buckets, posted 08-31-2007 9:01 PM Buckets has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 4 of 300 (419505)
09-03-2007 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buckets
08-31-2007 9:01 PM


Buckets writes:

Is abiogenesis always in direct relation with the Big Bang theory, where the Big Bang lays it out, and abiogenesis works from there?

It sounds like you're not quite sure what the Big Bang is, so let's start there.

The available cosmological evidence indicates that about 13.7 billion years ago all the matter and energy of the universe existed as a tiny speck of incredible density. We don't know what came before this, but the speck rapidly expanded and matter formed as the universe cooled. Some regions of the early universe were slightly denser than others, and their slightly larger gravity caused these regions to draw in ever more matter so that stars and galaxies (huge collections of stars) formed.

The larger the star the faster it consumes itself and turns nova or supernova, meaning that it, in essence, blows up and scatters its remains into the cosmos. The first stars were mostly hydrogen, the simplest element, but the fusion furnaces in the center of stars cook heavier elements all the way up to iron, and nova and supernova create even heavier elements all the way up to uranium and beyond.

New stars condense from the scattered remnants of old exploded stars, and these new stars, and any planets they might possess, begin with at least some heavy elements, depending upon how many old exploded stars contributed material. Our solar system is in just this circumstance, possessing a great deal of heavy materials. The Earth is just chock full of heavy elements like carbon, oxygen and iron. Planets in the first solar systems of the universe could never have been like Earth, since almost no heavy elements existed at the time.

The evidence indicates that the Earth is about 4.56 billion years old, which means that the universe was about 9.14 billion years old when the Earth first formed. The first life appeared on Earth perhaps about 3.8 billion years ago when the universe was about 9.9 billion years old. After the passage of about 9.9 billion years and all the intervening events of many stars and galaxies forming and colliding and exploding over and over, there is really no direct relationship between the Big Bang that is the origin of the universe and the origin of life on Earth.

Also, if one supports an atheistic view of evolution...

Evolution is not atheistic, or at least it's no more atheistic than plumbing or knitting. Neither evolution nor plumbing nor knitting render any opinion pro or con on the existence of deities, but that doesn't make them atheistic. Deities are the realm of religion, not secular activities like science and plumbing and knitting, and when talking about evolution we're talking about science, not religion. But it does get confusing when talking with creationists, because when they talk about evolution, they *are* talking about religion.

(I am a pending agnostic)

Hopefully it is an inner spiritual search and not science that is leading you toward agnosticism.

It's always fun to read Creation Wiki. You can just go on forever and ever picking it apart. In the Big Bang article under the heading Evolutionary Assumptions it says that Big Bang theory has two basic assumptions, the Copernican Principle, and an unbounded universe.

Not only are these not evolutionary assumptions, as the Big Bang resides in the field of cosmology while evolution resides in the field of biology, they are not even cosmological assumptions. The first, what Creation Wiki calls the Copernican Principle, namely that there is no privileged position in the universe, simply falls out of the data. The second, an unbounded universe, is something that we can't be sure of, though the evidence certainly points in that direction, but Creation Wiki is confused on this point, because under the section on An Unbounded Universe he argues for a privileged position, which is actually his point one, the Copernican Principle. I think he really only has one point, an incorrect one in conflict with the data.

You see, as we peer out into the universe we observe that the more distant the galaxy, the faster it is retreating from us. If you imagine galaxies as raisins in rising bread dough during baking, this visualization should indicate to you that every raisin is getting more and more distant from every other raisin. The expanding bread dough is analogous to the expansion of space that causes galaxies to retreat from one another. This means that no matter where you are in the universe, you'll observe galaxies retreating increasingly faster with increasing distance. There is no privileged position.

Addressing the origin of life:

In addition, how exactly does a single celled organism develop from nothing? I don't understand how, even if supplied with a life-sustaining environment, life can come to be.

There are many theories and speculations about abiogenesis (the origin of life), but this post is already long enough. Hopefully I've set the stage by noting the lack of any direct relationship between the Big Bang and abiogenesis, so I'll let others address the issue of the origin of life.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buckets, posted 08-31-2007 9:01 PM Buckets has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 300 (419509)
09-03-2007 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buckets
08-31-2007 9:01 PM


Divisions of Labour
Welcome aboard Buckets. :)

I think that the responses so far are a bit detailed and aren't covering a particular issue very well.

The ideas about the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of species are all being lumped together by creationists. Here we find that they can't seem to remember what they are talking about for a whole paragraph.

Of course, knowledge about one thing may be connected in some way to all knowledge about everything but to not compartmentalize things to a reasonable degree is very silly and inefficient.

It is always useful to "chunk" knowledge so I can concentrate on one issue without being overwhelmed by details that don't matter to the task at hand. We all do this all the time.

Do I worry about electronic engineering while I type at my computer? Do most users know anything about what is going on while they type? Does it matter a darn?

If I am a chip designer I worry a lot about details of the electronics. But do I worry about where the atoms of the chips came from? Do I care (or know) that they came from a supernova?

I can make progress in any one field of knowledge while ignoring a lot of details that are considered to be in another one. I can also be utterly wrong about one area and still get another one very right.

Of course, I have to "chunk" things in a useful way. I need to have pretty clean boundaries or I might be ignoring things in one area that do need to be considered. As an electrical engineer I don't care where the atoms came from but I do have to understand how they behave at a higher level. I may not need any quantum mechanics which accurately explains the behavior of the electrons I work with but I do have to understand that the electrons are there and what their properties are.

In a similar fashion an auto mechanic understands the need to gas, air and a spark to get together to create an explosion in the cylinder. She/he has absolutely no need to know the detailed chemistry. One can have the zaniest ideas about what is going on in there but still do a good job of diagnosing and fixing a stalled car.

So someone interested in the biological evolution of living forms can think that the original cells were dropped off by an alien space craft 3.68 billion years ago. It is probably utterly wrong but it makes absolutely no difference to anything about how life evolves after that.

Someone interested in just how life did arise on earth may believe that the Christian God created the universe and the big bang is how he did it (and many chemists do believe just that) but that makes no difference whatsoever to the questions about abiogenesis.

The knowledge we have today is immense compared to only decades ago and may be a tiny slice of what we will know in a century. In order to advance this knowledge one can not be a Francis Bacon and attempt to know all there is to know. One must focus on carefully bounded slices of knowledge. If one focuses too closely important things may get missed. If one attempts to focus too broadly then you will get your 8th PhD on your death bed and never have time to contribute much new.

I hope this is semi comprehensible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buckets, posted 08-31-2007 9:01 PM Buckets has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 657 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 6 of 300 (419667)
09-04-2007 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buckets
08-31-2007 9:01 PM


A different view point...
The responses above are all solid and well reasoned, however, they are also a bit of a dodge.

While what people are saying is factually true, they are glossing over the opposing view point.

Here's the problem:

While it is true that evolution, abiogenisis and big bang are all independant concepts and do not rely on one another for support (the big bang could be false, evolution would still be true) they all have something in common - they violate Christian Fundamentalist Creation Mythology.

The more you learn about the various topics, the more you'll discover that (surprise surprise) the people who were writing about these things 2000+ years ago didn't have all the facts.

What astounds me is not that the Christian Fundamentalists deny evolution, but that they don't deny the Earth's orbit. After all, the same thinking that dictates their evolution denial is just as valid as it was pre-Galelaeo when everything in the Universe revolved around the Earth.

So, should you choose to go down the road of science, you'll find that pro-magic, anti-history, anti-logic, anti-evidence beliefs put out by the Fundamentalists contradict what can be shown to be true.

In this way, learning about Evolution will show you that the Fundamentalists are profoundly wrong about a great many things, including Big Bang, Abiogenesis, History, Anthropology, Linguistics, Mathematics, well, pretty much anything that using information from any book other than the one they like


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buckets, posted 08-31-2007 9:01 PM Buckets has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Doddy, posted 09-04-2007 8:00 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 7 of 300 (419688)
09-04-2007 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Nuggin
09-04-2007 2:45 AM


Re: A different view point...
Nuggin writes:

What astounds me is not that the Christian Fundamentalists deny evolution, but that they don't deny the Earth's orbit. After all, the same thinking that dictates their evolution denial is just as valid as it was pre-Galelaeo when everything in the Universe revolved around the Earth.

Well, you see, the evidence for heliocentricism is so massive and the principle so simple, that not even Ken Ham or Kent Hovind could deny it. On the other hand, evolution is hard enough to understand and only has enough evidence to be considered true beyond all reasonable doubt. Unreasonable doubt + ignorance can still overcome it...at the moment.


Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 09-04-2007 2:45 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4195 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 8 of 300 (419860)
09-05-2007 2:44 AM


Stay true
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/rockyiii/eyeofthetiger.htm

OFF TOPIC!

P.S. CAN'T I GET AWAY WITH IT JUST 6,000,000,000,000 TIMES?


Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 300 (419884)
09-05-2007 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buckets
08-31-2007 9:01 PM


Regarding The Really Hard Questions
Hi and welcome, Buckets. I'm one of the few Biblical devouts here who am confident in my own mind that it all has been eternally created, destroyed, & managed by an incredibly intelligent supreme Biblical god whose name is Jehovah. I've said that to say that so far as your questions, Biblicist creationists who aren't agnostics continually have and ask similar questions that you, the young agnostic are posing.

I've pretty much given up asking these questions since the bottom line is that the answer seems to boil down to something similar to how I must answer for my own hypothesis. The BB advocate and the evolutionist advocate, as well as creationists like me just don't know the answers to some questions in detailed depth. We all observe certain aspects of our hypotheses and base our belief system on what we think makes the most sense logically and scientifically.

It is the inadequacy of BB evolutionist in answering some of your questions which keep me in my own hypothesis and as well how my inadequacy to explain in detail how an eternal supreme creator can exist keeps them in theirs.

I apply the thermodynamic laws in supporting my hypothesis, though they see it as inadequate. Likewise I cite the problems they have in their application (or perhaps, imo, the lack of it) to their alleged theories (which I regard more as hypothesis status).

I guess what I'm saying is when all's said and done here, you'll learn some useful and interesting stuff like how relative the BB is to evolutionism, but good luck on conclusive answers to your really hard questions. :)


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buckets, posted 08-31-2007 9:01 PM Buckets has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 09-05-2007 10:22 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 11 by GDR, posted 09-05-2007 11:20 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2007 2:43 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 15 by kuresu, posted 09-05-2007 2:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 10 of 300 (419890)
09-05-2007 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Buzsaw
09-05-2007 9:40 AM


Re: Regarding The Really Hard Questions
Buz writes:

It is the inadequacy of BB evolutionist...

For the umpteenth zillionth time, BB is cosmology, evolution is biology. Groups that reject BB, evolution, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, the implications of the fossil record, geological layers and the constancy of physical laws, to name just a few, are rejecting most of science, not just evolution.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 09-05-2007 9:40 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 09-06-2007 10:44 PM Percy has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4814
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 11 of 300 (419895)
09-05-2007 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Buzsaw
09-05-2007 9:40 AM


It is not either/or
Buzsaw writes:

I'm one of the few Biblical devouts here who am confident in my own mind that it all has been eternally created, destroyed, & managed by an incredibly intelligent supreme Biblical god whose name is Jehovah.

Just so that it doesn't get narrowed down to science or Christianity I just want to say that I believe everything in this statement of yours as well. I also have no problem with the BB, evolution or anyting else in science. I read the Bible as a book written by people inspired by God but I don't read it like a science text.

In that view I am in the same camp as people like CS Lewis and St. Augustine from the past. Many emminent sceintists today such as Francis Collins and John Polinghorne are devout Christians.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 09-05-2007 9:40 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4195 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 12 of 300 (419921)
09-05-2007 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buckets
08-31-2007 9:01 PM


Eye of the tiger
Is abiogenesis always in direct relation with the Big Bang theory, where the Big Bang lays it out, and abiogenesis works from there?

This is the case that evolutionists would like you to believe. They refer to themselves as scientists and hide under the pretense of un-bias scientific evaluation. However, with the growing creation science (which will be ridiculed by someone here, and for bad reasons) there is new light to be shed. IMO the answer is rather unscientific as is the big bang and it requires one principle: Faith. Unbending, unreasoning faith. Faith is good because you get rewarded by God in the physical and spiritual realms and you develop a stronger relationship with Him.

Just try it. What do you have to lose that you can take with you after your physical body dies?

I'd like some opinions on the contemporary validity of the Big bang theory.

It is a fairy tale, that if true would imply utter hopelessness. I choose to believe in good things instead of this disgusting theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buckets, posted 08-31-2007 9:01 PM Buckets has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2007 2:31 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 09-05-2007 2:57 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 17 by molbiogirl, posted 09-05-2007 3:02 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 09-05-2007 3:20 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 19 by bluegenes, posted 09-05-2007 3:24 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 09-05-2007 3:35 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 21 by Clark, posted 09-05-2007 4:15 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 300 (419922)
09-05-2007 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 2:21 PM


Re: Eye of the tiger
Is abiogenesis always in direct relation with the Big Bang theory, where the Big Bang lays it out, and abiogenesis works from there?

This is the case that evolutionists would like you to believe.

But, Vashgun, everyone reading this thread can see that evolutionists say the exact opposite.

Why tell tall tales like this when you know that you're going to get caught?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 2:21 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 300 (419923)
09-05-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Buzsaw
09-05-2007 9:40 AM


Re: Regarding The Really Hard Questions
It is the inadequacy of BB evolutionist in answering some of your questions ...

Perhaps he could decide that for himself?

I apply the thermodynamic laws in supporting my hypothesis, though they see it as inadequate.

Perhaps, to avoid confusion, it should be pointed out that we think the laws of thermodynamics, as found in, y'know, thermodynamics textbooks are perfectly adequate.

What I find inadequate, I speak only for myself, are creationists who behave as though "thermodynamics" is a magic word which will magically make them right.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 09-05-2007 9:40 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 15 of 300 (419927)
09-05-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Buzsaw
09-05-2007 9:40 AM


Re: Regarding The Really Hard Questions
Isn't an agnostic biblical creationist a contradiction in terms?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't agnostic mean "I don't know if god exists" and doesn't a biblical creationist believe that "god created everything (or atl east somethings)"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 09-05-2007 9:40 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019