Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 5:59 AM
24 online now:
(24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
20Next
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
Force
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 300 (424421)
09-26-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by jar
09-26-2007 9:35 PM


Re: excitment
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

Thanks
trossthree


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 9:35 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 9:57 PM Force has responded
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2007 11:48 PM Force has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 182 of 300 (424426)
09-26-2007 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Force
09-26-2007 9:46 PM


Re: excitment
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 If that happens the term is no longer applicable.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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 9:46 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 10:28 PM jar has responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 300 (424428)
09-26-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by jar
09-26-2007 9:57 PM


Re: excitment
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

Thanks
trossthree


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 9:57 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by NosyNed, posted 09-26-2007 10:41 PM Force has responded
 Message 185 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 10:50 PM Force has responded

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


Message 184 of 300 (424431)
09-26-2007 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Force
09-26-2007 10:28 PM


beliefs
Thus is why I believe in Thiestic evolution

So you believe God created everything? Well, so does Jar. What is the problem?

How can a fact change? Facts don't change.

Well, actually they do change. The colloquial meaning of a "fact" is just something that we are very, very, very sure is true.

Once many people thought the earth was flat. Later they thought it was a sphere. Those were facts.

In the limited context of the times both those facts were correct and still are!

You can live your life in a small village in Africa (or a couple of hundred years ago in England) and take the earth as a flat plate as fact and it works perfectly well.

Later we took the earth as a sphere and explored it by sailing ship. That "fact" worked perfectly well and still does for most of us.

However the earth is neither a flat plate or a sphere. Now sometimes we have to know that or things don't work. It is a much more complicated shape than a sphere.

In "fact" the earth isn't anything like we perceive it to be but taking it as a solid, oblate spheroid works very well most of the time.

Fact is, as jar pointed out, simply something that we have a high degree of confidence in. Sometimes that turns out to need modification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 10:28 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 10:56 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 185 of 300 (424432)
09-26-2007 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Force
09-26-2007 10:28 PM


Re: excitment
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.

They can and do change, and I even explained the mechanism and you even quoted it.

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.

Yes. The biological begining. So thus the perception of a Biologist.

The beginning of biological things. It has nothing to do with perceptions or who is doing the perceiving.

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.

Really? Please point me to a science that studies paranormal activities other than as natural events.

Thus there are evidences of other layers of life.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 10:28 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 11:09 PM jar has responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 300 (424433)
09-26-2007 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by NosyNed
09-26-2007 10:41 PM


Re: beliefs
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

Thanks
trossthree


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by NosyNed, posted 09-26-2007 10:41 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 300 (424435)
09-26-2007 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by jar
09-26-2007 10:50 PM


Re: excitment
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

Thanks
trossthree


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 10:50 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 11:23 PM Force has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 188 of 300 (424439)
09-26-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Force
09-26-2007 11:09 PM


Re: excitment
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.

So, thus, the Creation account is how a Christian would percieve "origin of life".

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:

In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 11:09 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 1:05 AM jar has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 300 (424441)
09-26-2007 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Force
09-26-2007 9:46 PM


Re: excitment
Abiogenesis: A biological genesis. "The origin of life according to biology."

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 am glad that you're confident in the belief of Abiogenesis.

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."

The problem is that in Science there is no FACT.

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.

Even if we were 99.9999999999999999/100 sure that Abiogenesis occured we would still not have fact.

Look around you. Does life exist? Yes. Did it always exist? No.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 9:46 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 1:17 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 300 (424448)
09-27-2007 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by jar
09-26-2007 11:23 PM


Re: excitment
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

Thanks
trossthree


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 11:23 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by ringo, posted 09-27-2007 1:41 AM Force has responded
 Message 195 by jar, posted 09-27-2007 9:25 AM Force has responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 300 (424450)
09-27-2007 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by crashfrog
09-26-2007 11:48 PM


Re: excitment
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

Thanks
trossthree


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2007 11:48 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16681
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 192 of 300 (424452)
09-27-2007 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Force
09-27-2007 1:05 AM


trossthree writes:

I was speaking metaphorically. A Christian Believes in creation, a Biologist believes in biology, and so on.

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.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 1:05 AM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 4:26 PM ringo has not yet responded

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


Message 193 of 300 (424483)
09-27-2007 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Force
09-26-2007 4:50 PM


Re: thiestic evolution
Dr Adequate,

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.

Besides an evident desire to be impolite, I can attach no meaning to this post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 4:50 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 4:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 194 of 300 (424489)
09-27-2007 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Force
09-26-2007 5:48 PM


excitment and fun facts
P.S.S. I AM EXCITED TO LEARN TOO.

Cool. The proper form is ps\pps\ppps\etc it's an abbreviation for "postscript"

    1. A message appended at the end of a letter after the writer's signature.
    2. Additional information appended to the manuscript, as of a book or article.
    [Origin: 1515–25; < L postscrīptum, neut. ptp. of postscrībere to write after]
The next addition would also be post (as in posterior) to the previous, hence pps.

Message 181
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.

You seem very sure this is a fact.

What we are looking for is the reality of "life, universe and everything" (to use DNAdams phrase), and improving our understanding of it.

That reality is a fact, but our understanding of it may be imperfect. The example of the earth being flat, round, and oblate spheroid are examples of coming closer to the reality of what the earth's shape actually is.

In each case the validity of the representation can be gaged by independent observers applying the knowledge and the model of reality that applies and see how well it represents reality accordingly.

It is a fact that the earth has a surface that we stand on.

When we test the idea of the surface being flat versus the being a sphere by sailing around it, it is not the earth that changes, but our understanding of it.

It is a fact that the sphere is a better representation of reality than a flat plane.

When we test the idea of the earth being an oblate spheroid by gps measurements and observations from space, it is not the earth that changes, but our understanding of it.

It is a fact that the oblate spheroid is a better representation of reality than a sphere.

These facts are not going to change, the reality is not going to change, each change in our understanding comes closer to reality, becomes more factual.

However, every time we use a map we acknowledge that the surface of the earth can be represented by a flat plane with a very high degree of reliability. The fact of the sphere being a better representation does not diminish the factual representation of the surface by the map.

Likewise when we plot our position on a globe as we travel around the earth we acknowledge that the shape of the earth can be represented by a sphere with a high degree of reliability. The fact of the oblate spheroid being a better representation does not diminish the factual representation of the shape by a globe.

We can also do this with the age of the earth, and find that our understanding of it has improved tremendously by the application of science. We now know that it is a fact that the earth is at least 4.55 billion years old. This will not change to a younger date, but it may change to an older date. Why? because we have as evidence - facts - bits of the earth (and moon) that are 4.55 billion years old.

Likewise life: we know it is a fact that life has existed on earth for at least 3.5 billion years. This will not change to a younger date, but it may change to an older date. Why? because we have evidence - facts - fossils of life in sedimentary rock that is 3.5 billion years old. We know life already existed then, but we have not found any sedimentary rock older than 3.5 billion years that has not been metamorphosed (subject to heat and pressure, and destroying any fossils in the process).

The facts - evidence - that the earth and life have the age that they do will not change if we discover new evidence for older dates, but they will be superseded by new facts that show a closer understanding of reality. The 4.55 billion year old rock will still exist as fact and the 3.5 billion year old fossils of life will still exist as fact.

These are facts of science.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : format


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 5:48 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 5:04 PM RAZD has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 195 of 300 (424494)
09-27-2007 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Force
09-27-2007 1:05 AM


Re: excitment
A Christian Believes in creation, a Biologist believes in biology, and so on.

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.

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.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 1:05 AM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 5:26 PM jar has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019