Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I need an answer
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 33 of 58 (567873)
07-02-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RyanVanGo
06-16-2010 11:34 AM


RyanVanGo writes:
Evolution: Here's our proof, here's what we know so far, there's a few holes, but we're working on it.
Creation: There's too many holes in evolution, it must be creation.
What you need to understand is that when evolution first reared itself back in the late 18th century (and even earlier in ancient times amongst the greek philosophers) the idea that was presented was that life was not created but rather evolved from nonliving matter.
That is why there has been a 'evolution/creation' debate raging because we creationists have always beleived that God created living things.
However, at some point down the track, the evolutionists began to realise that the 'origin' of life itself is a different topic to the evolution that they were studying. They have since separated the two subjects into
1. Evolution - 'the changes we see in populations over time'
&
2. Abiogenesis - 'the origin of the first living things'
Now evolution is quite true in the current context of 'changes in populations' because we can see it happening and when evolutionists claim that evolution is no longer a theory but rather a 'fact' its because they can actually show how living things change over time. Just look at the human race as an example...how many different looking races do we see? And look at the number of different dog breeds, or horse breeds ect animals do change over time and new breeds appear. So there is evidence that 'evolution' happens.
However, creationists stop at the point where evolutionists say that mankind came from other apelike creatures. The bible is very clear that humans were a special creation unlike any of the animals because they were endowed with Gods thinking.
But is there any evidence as to how No.2 Abiogenesis happened? No.
They cannot generate life from non liivng matter in their labs because life only comes from God...we creationists have always maintained that. Creationism is really the concept that God created the first living things and they were allowed to populate the earth over millions of years.
RyanVanGo writes:
Instead i need to see proof that the earth WAS formed 10000 years ago, and not only that, but that God is the one who formed it, with his hands, in 6 days. WITHOUT saying that our theories are wrong, but proposing new ones. please. my sanity and spirituality are on the line here.
The earth was not formed 10,000 years ago and the bible does not say that it was.
If you read Genesis 1:1 it says that 'God created the heavens & the earth'
then Vs 2 says 'The earth was formless and waste and there was waters upon its surface'
So basically the way to understand this is that vs 2 is speaking about an 'existing planet' that was created in the beginning along with the rest of the universe/heavens.
The remainder of genesis speaks of how God prepared the earth for life to inhabit it.
Also with regard to the '6 days'
these are not literal 24 hour days for the hebrew word used is 'Yom' and it is used in the bible in many figurative ways including 'long periods of time' and 'ages of time' and 'a persons lifetime'
So we do not need to veiw the earth as being created in 6 literal days but rather, in line with the physical evidence, we can accep that the 'yom' in genesis must be refering to '6 ages' of time. Each day represents a new and very differnt 'age' in the earths creation. We dont know how long each age is, but the physical evidence tells us that it was certainly a very long time...many hundreds of thousands of years perhaps more perhaps less.
So my advice to you is not to be confused over evolution or creation because they are not at odds with each other, they are completely different and they have both been proved true in that, animals change over time and life does not generate spontaneously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-16-2010 11:34 AM RyanVanGo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 07-02-2010 11:01 PM Peg has replied
 Message 35 by bluescat48, posted 07-02-2010 11:55 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 36 of 58 (567893)
07-03-2010 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by nwr
07-02-2010 11:01 PM


nwr writes:
As far as I know, Darwin called his book "The Origin of Species". He did not call it "The Origin of Life." So it seems that evolution was already understood to be changes in populations over time. The "separation" you describe appears to be mistaken.
Charles Darwin wrote in his conclusion on Page 484
"I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.
Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype....Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
He clearly did not believe in 'special creation' which is basically that God created the first of each of the different kinds of animals/plants but rather that they had evolved from "one primoridal form"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 07-02-2010 11:01 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 3:23 AM Peg has replied
 Message 46 by nwr, posted 07-03-2010 8:47 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 37 of 58 (567894)
07-03-2010 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by bluescat48
07-02-2010 11:55 PM


bluescat writes:
They have always been separated. They are in no way related . Whether life stated by Abiogenesis or not, has no effect on evolution.
Well not always, lets be honest about that. Spontaneous Generation preceeded the current term 'abiogenesis' by many centuries...that is that flies are produced from rotten meat for example....Louis pasteurs experiements put the belief to rest until 1924 when Alexander Oparin revived the spontaneous generation argument by speculating on earths primitive conditions and the primordial soup.
Now i'm well aware that they are different subjects, but even evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins holds to the spontaneous generation view as the beginning of life....and he puts that view in his evolution books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by bluescat48, posted 07-02-2010 11:55 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 3:28 AM Peg has replied
 Message 50 by bluescat48, posted 07-03-2010 11:02 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 40 of 58 (567899)
07-03-2010 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Theodoric
07-03-2010 3:28 AM


Theodoric writes:
Please provide a source where Dawkins states that spontaneous generation was the source of life.
The Selfish Gene 1976 page 16.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 3:28 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 8:46 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 41 of 58 (567900)
07-03-2010 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Theodoric
07-03-2010 3:23 AM


[qs=Theodoric] Darwins states that he believes that all living things descended from "one prototype"
i think that explains full well his belief and why the religous community objected to his theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 3:23 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 07-03-2010 4:50 AM Peg has replied
 Message 47 by nwr, posted 07-03-2010 8:54 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 43 of 58 (567904)
07-03-2010 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Huntard
07-03-2010 4:50 AM


Huntard writes:
The "religious community" objected to his theory because it didn't fit in with their precious little book.
thats not the point
the OP is asking a very pertinent question and it deserves to be taken for what it is. I am attempting to explain WHY creationists are opposed to evolution and to show that there is no need to oppose it because evolution and abiogenesis are different topics as people such as yourself once (maybe a few more times then once) explained to me.
Creationists still have the two subjects linked which is why they still object to evolution. If they/we separate the two then there is no issue with evolution in terms of 'descent with modification' and changes over time in species. I've come to understand that and i hope the opening poster will also see that.
However, we still dont agree on all the points, but at least we can agree that animals do change over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 07-03-2010 4:50 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Huntard, posted 07-03-2010 7:24 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 48 of 58 (567928)
07-03-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Theodoric
07-03-2010 8:46 AM


theodoric writes:
Care to provide the quote? I do not own the book.
You can read it yourself here
try pages 14-18 where in brief he says:
The Selfish Gene writes:
the account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative by definition nobody was around to see it happen. The simplified account I shall give is probably not too far from the truth.
Chemists have tried to imitate the chemical conditions of the young earth. They have put these simple substances in a flask and supplied a source of energy....artificial stimulation of primordial lightening.
Processes analogous to these must have given rise to the primeval soup...the organic substances became locally concentrated...under ultraviolate light from the sun they combined to form larger molecules. At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed called a Replicator.
Whether we call the early replicators living or not, they were the ancestors of life, they were our founding fathers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 8:46 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Granny Magda, posted 07-03-2010 9:59 AM Peg has replied
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 11:09 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 52 of 58 (568006)
07-03-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Granny Magda
07-03-2010 9:59 AM


Re: Spontaneous Generation is Not Abiogenesis
yes fair enough, i should be using the term abiogenesis which is 'non biological' matter springing to life

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Granny Magda, posted 07-03-2010 9:59 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AZPaul3, posted 07-04-2010 12:12 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 54 by Theodoric, posted 07-04-2010 12:20 PM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024