|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Buckets,
I am currently reading a lot about Theistic Evolution not atheistic evolution. Here are some links: 1)
Theistic Evolution 1 2)
Theistic Evolution 2 NOTE: The link between the beginning of the universe and the beginning of Earth is still not complete. I have only recently looked into Abiogenesis and it seems that it is not supported(still being tested). 1)
Abiogenesis You should look into RNA World Hypothesis(still being tested also) because it has more support than Abiogenesis. 1)
RNA World Hypothesis ANOTHER NOTE: I support the Big Bang at this point, and possibly Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection(not the way the schools teach Evolution). Please keep in mind that both Charles Darwin's TOE and Georges Lemaitre's Big-Bang theory support the idea of some sort of original state. Original state meaning that a form of life already existed before any evolution took place. ANOTHER NOTE: Both Charles Darwin and Georges Lemaitre were Christian. Edited by trossthree, : NOTE 3 Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed loooong links Edited by trossthree, : Format "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Dr Adequate,
trossthree writes: You should look into RNA World Hypothesis because it has more support than Abiogenesis.
Dr Adequate writes: A distinction without a difference, surely? A specific hypothesis as to how life began is still a hypothesis as to how life began.
I am excited because you're aware that a hypothesis is a hypothesis. LOL. Can you provide information that will help the community? Or are you going to try and play Doctor? LOL. Edited by trossthree, : Format "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Minnemooseus,
Thank you for your information. I will be reading those threads shortly. You can probably expect me to be posting in them. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
RAZD,
quote: I understand that there are many hypothetical ideas on the possibility of Abiogensis. P.S. IM EXCITED FOR YOU, YOU'RE SO COOL. P.S.S. I AM EXCITED TO LEARN TOO. P.S.S.S WELCOME TO THE FIGHT TOO. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
jar,
jar writes: All of the evidence says Abiogenesis happened, on that the confidence level is so high that it can be stated as fact.
What about tommarow? Edited by trossthree, : correction "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
molbiogirl,
molbiogirl writes: Some of us here work on things like abiogenesis (the RNA World in particular) and find your ill-informed, snotty comments ... "a bit above your pay grade".
What will you do when you lose that job? LOL.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Chiroptera,
molbiogirl writes: If you haven't already guessed, yes. I work on abiogenesis.
Chiroptera writes:
I'm in love.
Ewww. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Jar,
I think you're just having fun saying Abiogenesis is FACT. However, if you keep saying Abiogenesis is FACT you may start to believe it without any faith. LOL. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
jar,
jar writes: Abiogenesis only means "The origin of life." Abiogenesis: A biological genesis. "The origin of life according to biology."
jar writes:
We know that there was a period of time when there was no life on earth. We know that there is life now. So life originated.
Duh.
jar writes: Now there are many Theories of Abiogenesis, but no question that abiogenesis happened. I am glad that you're confident in the belief of Abiogenesis. The problem is that in Science there is no FACT. Everything in Science is theory. Nothing in Science is absolute. Even if we were 99.9999999999999999/100 sure that Abiogenesis occured we would still not have fact. Don't close your mind young one. LOL. Edited by trossthree, : correction "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
jar,
jar writes:
Actually, there is a point reached where the confidence level is so high that use of the term FACT is acceptable. Certainly there is the possibility that new evidence might be found that will show that what was considered Fact is wrong. If that happens the term is no longer applicable. I can't talk to you anymore. I realize that you're a faithful person to Science. However, Science is Science and everybody knows there are no facts in Science. How can a fact change? Facts don't change.
jar writes: Abiogenesis is the origin of biological life. So far we know of no other type life except biological.
Yes. The biological begining. So thus the perception of a Biologist.
jar writes: The only thing that would overturn Abiogenesis would be finding that life always existed. As far as the earth is concerned, we have evidence that shows there was a time on earth when life didn't exist. We also have a very high confidence that the Universe we live in has not always existed and that there was a period when no life existed anywhere in the universe, that the only conditions were simple elements of hydrogen and helium, and of a time even before that when not even the elements existed. So, to over turn Abiogenesis as fact you will need to show that life somehow always existed.
I understand these things. However, because of the things that I have seen via revelation I respect the spirits. I mean, it's my belief that the spirits do exists, and so there are other realities that do exist. There are other Sciences not of Biological nature that study alternate realities, paranormal activites, etc. I don't believe everybody that claims to have experienced paranormal activities but not all of those claims are crazy. Thus there are evidences of other layers of life. Thus is why I believe in Thiestic evolution. DEISM AND BIOLOGY. So, I restate my self, do not be so close minded. TTYL. Edited by trossthree, : err "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
NosyNed,
I understand the things you're telling me. If I say to you: what you just described is not a fact. Then you will think I don't understand what you're describing to me, when that is not the case. I simply disagree. A fact can't change. An example: It's fact that I am replying to your message 184. Metaphore: Now if we wear a pair of Scientific lenses we may see fact in a Scientific way. Which decreases the credibility of Science to a degree if a Scientific fact can change. If a fact can change in Science then why call it a fact? Why not just simply say I believe. LOL. Anyways TTYL. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
jar,
What kind of Scientist studies Biology? A Biologist. What kind of idea is Abiogenesis? A Biological idea. So, thus, Abiogenesis is how a Biologists percieves the origin of life. A Biologist does not study the Bible but a Christian does. So, thus, the Creation account is how a Christian would percieve "origin of life". Without a doubt you're going to reply and say im incorrect someplace or perhaps you're going to disagree. This is over I have things to do. TTYL. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
jar,
jar writes: Whether or not someone is a Christian has nothing to do with the issue. Biologists do not come in flavors, they are Biologists. They may of may not belong to some religion, but that is irrelevant to the question of Abiogenesis. In addition, it is not just biologists that study Abiogenesis or even biology. I am neither yet over my lifetime have studied biology, chemistry, physics, electronics, information technology, religion, theology, mechanics, engineering, coffees, teas and beers. What creation account? There is not even one "Christian" creation account, the Western Canon Bible has two separate and mutually exclusive ones. As the Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta said in his A Pastoral Statement on Creation and Evolution:
I was speaking metaphorically. A Christian Believes in creation, a Biologist believes in biology, and so on. However, I understand that there are other beliefs out there such as mine. I understand things are not black and white always. However, you don't seem to be understanding anything that I am describing, so I will stop here. Everything I am explaining is being thrown way out of proportion. Just to comment on your comment on the two creation accounts. The first(G1) is spiritual creation and the second(G2) is physical creation. The creation accounts(G1-G2) order is not a literal communication either. Also, if you read them(G1-G2) it describes vicariously, creation by natural means, not magical or mystical means.
jar writes: So the term FACT simply means that we have a very high level of confidence in something. There is no "Creation origin of life" model, and the best we can do is look to Science and those of us who are Theists, point and say "Oh! So that is how GOD did it!" I already understand your point but ok. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
crashfrog,
crashfrox writes: What? No. Look, it's from the greek: A- the greek prefix that means "not", "without", "the opposite of." bios meaning "life". genesis "beginning", "creation", "formation", etc. "Abiogenesis" simply means "life from lifelessness." The initial formation of life from lifeless products by some means. Technically it could be God, or aliens, or any number of things. Scientifically we try to answer that question with things we can actually test and observe so we try to steer away from God-based explanations, not least of which because there's no such thing as God.
I already understood this but you really put it into perspective. Thank you. That helps.
trossthree writes: I am glad that you're confident in the belief of Abiogenesis.
crashfrog writes:
It's not a belief, it's an observation. We know that the Earth was without life at one point, like Jar just told you and you agreed; then it was life-bearing. How it went from one to the other is abiogenesis. It's just a word that means "life from lifelessness."
Ok. You're right.
trossthree writes:
The problem is that in Science there is no FACT.
crashfrog writes:
What? No, there are facts in science. I don't know who told you otherwise. Facts are what theories exist to explain. Facts are what theories, in a way, are made out of.
I know the scientific method and jar already cleared the fact deal up but thanks.
crashfrox writes: Look around you. Does life exist? Yes. Did it always exist? No. I believe life has but that belief is not really philosophical at this point.
crashfrog writes: Obviously, abiogenesis occurred. Biochemists are hard at work trying to figure out how. Try not to belittle their effort by acting like a punk about it, ok?
I am not trying to. Edited by trossthree, : err "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Ringo,
Ringo writes:
That's a clumsy metaphor. It should be more like: A biologist believes in biology (though "belief" isn't the right term), a creationist believes in creation, a Christian believes in Christ, and so on. A Christian doesn't necessarily believe in creation and a creationist doesn't necessarily believe in Christ.
trossthree writes:
You're right.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024