|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Dr Adequate,
trossthree writes:
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.
Dr Adequate writes:
Besides an evident desire to be impolite, I can attach no meaning to this post.
I felt the same way about your previous post to me. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
RAZD,
RAZD writes:
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 postscrptum, neut. ptp. of postscrbere to write after] The next addition would also be post (as in posterior) to the previous, hence pps. Ok. I honestly didn't realize that. Thanks.
RAZD writes:
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.
Ok. So, Scientific facts can be modified due to new understandings and the new understandings do not undermine the old understandings. An example would be your shape of planet Earth description. However, what if Scientist discovered that life has always existed, or that life was actually created by God spontaneously? P.S. Are there any theories that state life came from a comet or similar? Edited by trossthree, : deletion and question "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
jar,
trossthree writes:
A Christian Believes in creation, a Biologist believes in biology, and so on.
jar writes:
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.
True. I provided a bad example/metaphore.
trossthree writes: 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:
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.
It is an assumption. You're right. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist,
catholic Scientist writes:
Unless you believe that life has always existed, you must accept abiogenesis as a FACT. At some point in the distant past, there was no life in the universe. Can you agree to that? At some point after that, there was life in the universe. Can you agree to that? If yes to both then that's a yes to abiogenesis. It doesn't matter how that life came about. Even God breathing life into dirt is a form of abiogenesis. Again, the only thing that can't be a part of abiogenesis is if life always existed, infinetly into the past. Which is impossible.
I am unsure of those answers(can't agree). I don't think those questions can factually be answered(can't agree). Also, if God breathed life into dirt that would not be Abiogenesis. God would be a life(breathing life into dirt), so life came from life. Edited by trossthree, : format and comments added Edited by trossthree, : comma "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
jar,
Read my response to Catholic Scientist - message 201. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist,
Catholic Scientist writes:
Well, the second one is most certainly answerable. I'll give you a hint: There IS life in the universe, on earth, right now. That is a FACT.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I can understand you not being able to answer the first question if you don't know. But, if you go back far enough into the early universe, life couldn't possible have existed. It was much too violent of a place and the necessary components couldn't survive.
Any ideas I have on this are a WAG(according to jar =)) unless you believe in GOD.
Catholic Scientist writes:
So you think that god is biological life? If so, then aren't you putting unnecessary limitations on god, itself? How could a biological life be a god? If not, then it would be making biological life from non-biological component. Or as it is commonly refered to as: abiogenesis.
No, Yes/It can't be, and True. Ok, now I AGREE with Abiogenesis as a Scientific Fact. However, I am unsure of the theory I support in the realm of Abiogenesis. Edited by trossthree, : comments "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8 Thankstrossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist,
I actually consider my self a Theistic Evolutionist. I had some confusion about the idea of Abiogenesis and so now it is more clear to me thanks to the knowledge of the EVC forum/threads. I simply agree that Abiogenesis is Biological life from non Biological life. In reality Abiogenesis makes perfect sense and anyone who does not believe in it is crazy. Edited by trossthree, : err Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
CTD,
I thank you for your post, it verified something that I was wondering deeply inside my mind. What exactly is your understanding of Abiogenesis and the word FACT? My understanding of Abiogenesis is that it simply means life created/developed from non life. To be honest, I don't believe GOD is a Biological being. So with my belief on GOD, there is no way to understand it via Science. Science is only the study of nature or things that can be physically/biologically understood. So, really, Science has a possible GAP in understanding truth. If Science is the only reality to Scientists, rather people who don't believe in GOD, or even the possibility of GOD, then there is some unrational behavior on their part. Thus is why I believe in Theistic Evolution. My mind is open to all possible truths. I think the most rational behavior is to keep an open mind in all topics. I recently started reading about sound equalizers in order to tune my computer speakers. I wanted to be able to understand what frequencies are and what decibels are. I came across an interesting thought in the process of learning about sounds. There are frequences that the human ear can not hear unless you increase the decibels of that particular frequency. In some cases if you turn up the decibels the human ear still can't hear the sounds. So, I started to wonder if there is a possibility with the same or similiar issue and vision. Anyways, I have not had time to look into my ideas/thoughts but they are ideas which should be researched. My point is that if there is things human beings can't hear or see(not biological such as radio frequencies) simply because they are undetectable to our senses then that is within in reason/rational thinking that they do exist. Last but not least my perception on what a "FACT" is, is still that FACTS can't change, but now I understand what typically a Scientist would percieve a Fact to be. I mean why call it a FACT if it is a theory? A theory can have a high level of confidence so why call a good theory a FACT? Anyways. Peace. P.S. Forgot to include the link: Fact - Wikipedia Edited by trossthree, : edit - link on definition of FACT. Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
RAZD,
trossthree writes: If Science is the only reality to Scientists, rather people who don't believe in GOD, or even the possibility of GOD,
RAZD writes:
This is a false dichotomy. Are you saying you could not be a scientist or even do science because of your faith?
You need to quote the entire context of my above paragraph. I was saying that atheists believe in Science and nothing else. An atheist perception is limited to the reality of Science. A very limited understanding, it leaves no other potential understanding of origin, a very closed minded individual would be an atheist. Don't get me wrong I know there are other individuals who believe in God/or whatever but also believe that the respective theories above are considered fact. My point with the word fact was to say that Abiogeneis,BB,TOE, are all theories but because of their reputation they are facts in the eyes of an atheist/scientist. I know you are going to comment on my usage of "atheist/scientist" so I will add that im describing an atheist scientist above, not any other form/belief of scientists. You will not be able to change my understanding of the meaning of fact as I realize the original meaning of FACT: "The word fact derives from the Latin Factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete." per wickipedia. Peace. Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
thank you =)
Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
thank you =)
Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
thank you =)
Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Chiroptera,
I think CTD makes a good point. Words do develope over time and I think Scientist take advantage of it. However, I have thought of a new word that has existed for a long time that may make my point better. All forms of Science are not proven absolute. So, you are welcome to use the word FACT to try and substantiate any theory in Science because it does not strengthen your points in anyway. Sure the big bang, abiogenesis, and the toe are facts, so what. Edited by trossthree, : err Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
CTD,
Thank you for your valuable insight. I agree with you completely. So, why is it that nonbelievers "know" that this reality is the absolute reality? I wonder, if any of them were on their death bed, would they claim that Science is absolute? Or would they pray to every God they know of for some sort of grace. So, irrational =). LOL. Thanks trossthree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
Ringo,
I don't think it is rational in any sense to forget any understanding. Thanks trossthree
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024