Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

Sure we do. We call them elements. Check out the periodic table.

quote:

---

I am specific. First ingredient is the one you don't have, from which all matter flows.

​

Sure we do. We call them elements. Check out the periodic table.

---

Elements need a first ingredient, and you don't have it.

OK, I do so toward the bottom of the post. The above three come down to two: creation (entity undetermined and irrelevant to the discussion at this point) vs. spontaneous chemical generation. Always the unlikelihood of abiogenesis has been a good argument for a Creator. Science can't determine this. But it's also off-topic here.From your Message 194: There's nothing to discuss from a Christian point of view. God spoke everything into existence. But again, this is not the topic of this thread. This is irrelevant. The dispute is only between the probability of spontaneous unmediated unintentional "accidental" generation and creation. The nature of the creator is irrelevant at this point -- as is this whole topic irrelevant for this thread. And there's your question-begging. The debate is about creation vs abiogenesis and you've just flatly declared the assumption of abiogenesis correct and creation false in quite disparaging terms too. This is how it happens here. All the mathematics and other scientific considerations are just window dressing as the debate is not taken seriously from the science side at all.

Dorfman, They're called electrons, protons & neutrons.But this is irrelevant. How the elements got there is neither here nor there for abiogenesis to occur. You just argued yourself out of a point.But since were on the subject, creationism needs a god, & you don't have one.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-06-2005 10:33 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

How the elements came about has been explained in quite some detail...

Darn... your right.QED God then

We are talking about abiogenesis, not about the beginning of the universe. Before life started - in whatever manner - matter had been around for aeons.What first ingredient, from everything that was around at the time, did life need?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I'm a Bible-believer, FO. I don't fully understand all the theology involved but I believe all life was created by God as all things were created by God in a seven-day period "in the beginning." I also believe that physical life was designed to reproduce itself on genetic principles so that further divine intervention is not necessary, although God constantly sustains His entire creation by His power and if He didn't it couldn't exist. The genome is simply part of that creation and it reproduces according to the laws He set in motion. Also I believe that God individually creates and intimately knows each individual human soul, as souls aren't part of the reproductive process. But I'm not completely sure about this latter.This is, however, off topic on this thread.

DorfMan, Yaro, Parasomnium, I believe all your posts are off topic for this thread.

There's no need to become hysterical when a topic drifts a bit. I'll refrain from any further posting in this thread, so you can use the remaining twenty-or-so posts for your is-not/is-too game. Have fun.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

It was quite clear from the OP post. I got distracted by the off topic responses myself but have recently recovered the point of the thread and am being clearer about it.And the statement RAZD made in the OP was indeed arguing for abiogenesis when he claimed that there is evidence everywhere for life as an argument against the mathematically erroneous improbability of abiogenesis.

Ya know Faith, Parsomnium brings up a good point.Esentially: So what?Throw out abiogenesis, probability, all that crap. Throw it out. You still don't have an argument. There is no reason to fill the gap of knowledge with a god.So in essence YOU are the one who is ultimately begging the question. Why a god? More importantly, why YOURE god?This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-06-2005 11:02 AM

Panspermia is either a version of spontaneous generation or of creation depending on whether intentionality is imputed to the idea. There are only the two options, the natural versus the intentional or creation.

I am not arguing the particulars of abiogenesis vs creation. That is off topic. The topic is the question-begging of the science side of the question. I will at least have this stated clearly by the time this thread ends though few will have bothered to address it.

Faith is rather prone to anger.