The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution

Of course, that simply shows how ignorant you are about science or even learning.Hopefully what we know is always being revised. As we learn more we can discard that which is shown to be false, toss ideas like the World-Wide Flood in the last 6000 years or so on the trashbin where they belong.You also seem to continue to confuse Fact and Theory. Had this not be pointed out to you many times, I might think you were simply ignorant, however since even after the difference has been explained, you continue the misrepresentation, I must wonder what your motive is for repeating falsehoods.We can look at the evidence and see that there was a time on earth when there was no life. We can look at the evidence and see that now there is life on earth. Therefore, Abiogenesis is a fact.Then there are the Theories of Abiogenesis, the explanations of how that might have happened. There we are dealing not with fact but with theory. However, again, some ideas such as life being created over a period of six days or that plants existed first on land we know are wrong, and so they should be tossed on the trashheap where they belong.Then there is the Fact of Evolution. There is no doubt evolution happened, we can see that there was a time when there was no land life, later there was; that there was a time when all life was simpler, and that later other forms are found.But there is also the Theory of Evolution, the explanation of how all the change came about. But even there we do know certain things; for example we know that man is not very unique and is a fairly recently evolved life form, that was NOT around from the beginning.The FACTS remain facts.As we learn more, the theories change, as they must unless one is totally dishonest.Revision is the only honest alternative.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If anyone checks, post #69 in that thread is not even from me but rather modulus.That thread has several message from me; Message 6, Message 26, Message 29, Message 32 (the one I think you meant) and Message 49.No where do I have a quote box with just the term macroevolution.Further, in this thread I also address the issue of Fact vs Theory in Message 126.There I address both the differences between FACT and Theory and also explain why Theories must change when new information is found if we are to be honest.So far you have not addressed any of those points.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If this is what you are referring to: as you seem to indicate when you posted: it was not so much a prediction as an acknowledgment of fact. The only part of your prior quote that might be considered a lie was when you said you "creationists are continually misportrayed[sic]". Of course I contend that NO field of science behaves in the manner you describe.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, I said a little more in Message 126 than just that.You said:

quote:

---

I did think of one more thing evolution 'theories', big bang 'theories', and abiogenesis 'theories' all have in common: they're all continually being revised. What's yesterday's 'fact' is today's rubbish in all three cases.

​

The prepackaged response is always "That's how science works. You just must not know the first thing about science." Well, in any other field of science (i.e. legit science) when a theory or hypothesis is tenuously maintained, they don't go around propagandizing it as 'fact'. They don't question the sanity of persons who question it and search for alternatives.

---

and I replied: You also mistate reality when you claim "Well, in any other field of science (i.e. legit science) when a theory or hypothesis is tenuously maintained, they don't go around propagandizing it as 'fact'."In no field of science do we claim that theory is fact and no one here has made that claim. One thing that might clue even you in is that we have the Theory of Evolution. Note the first word there. It is "Theory." Huh?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, the limit on the 30 year period is somewhat restricting. However, if you know of an alternative theory to the Copernican model that has been presented in the last 30 years, please start a thread on it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Uh, no, there are not "many hypothetical ideas on the possibility of Abiogensis."All of the evidence says Abiogenesis happened, on that the confidence level is so high that it can be stated as fact.The was a time when there was no life, there is life now, so Abiogenesis happened.There are many theories on "How Abiogenesis came about."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Tomorrow?Unless some very strong evidence is presented the confidence level will just increase.So far ALL the evidence shows Abiogenesis is FACT. Every new discovery supports it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Abiogenesis only means "The origin of life."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.Now there are many Theories of Abiogenesis, but no question that abiogenesis happened. Well, faith has nothing to do with it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.Abiogenesis is the origin of biological life. So far we know of no other type life except biological.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.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

They can and do change, and I even explained the mechanism and you even quoted it. The beginning of biological things. It has nothing to do with perceptions or who is doing the perceiving. Really? Please point me to a science that studies paranormal activities other than as natural events. And the evidence for that is?Look, I have no problem with beliefs, I believe in GOD. But that is a personal belief, no more, and there I must also mention and admit I could well be wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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: 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!"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm sorry but that is simple what is called a False Dilemma. Those positions are not mutually exclusive. It is certainly possible to be a Christian Biologist and to believe the way God did it was by using biology. I'm sorry again, but there is simply NOTHING in the Bible to justify any such assertion. If you want, find one of the Genesis threads and try to support your position.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If evidence was found that life always existed, it would refute Abiogenesis.Life created by God would not. Sure, those are referred to overall as "Panspermia". But that also would not refute the fact of Abiogenesis. All it does is move the location back in time and off earth in location.But...All of the evidence seems to support a time when not even the elements existed, and a longer period when only hydrogen and helium existed. During those period life as we understand life could not have existed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry but that is just theobbable.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Spamming the same message in multiple threads is kinda frowned on around here. Because what is might well have always existed, or always exited in some other form, or ...

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion