Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 300 (424614)
09-27-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Force
09-27-2007 5:04 PM


Re: excitment and fun facts
It maybe a Scientific fact that the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and TOE occured however it is not a FACT.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 5:04 PM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 5:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 300 (424620)
09-27-2007 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Force
09-27-2007 5:35 PM


Re: excitment and fun facts
I am unsure of those answers(can't agree). I don't think those questions can factually be answered(can't agree).
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.
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 5:35 PM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 5:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 300 (424727)
09-28-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Force
09-27-2007 5:57 PM


Any ideas I have on this are a WAG(according to jar =)) unless you believe in GOD.
I don't know what 'WAG' means. FYI, I believe in god.
Ok, now I AGREE with Abiogenesis as a Scientific Fact. However, I am unsure of the theory I support in the realm of Abiogenesis.
I knew that before I even posted in this thread even though you were saying otherwise. It seemed that you were using an unconventional definition of abiogenesis and assigning undue ramifications to it.
I'm glad I could help clear it up for you.
Haven't you read up on Theistic Evolution? Even if you accept that life arrose on Earth via chemical reactions, that could still be the method that God used to create it. The only thing it does not fit with, is a literal and inerrant reading of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 5:57 PM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Force, posted 09-28-2007 5:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 7:01 AM New Cat's Eye 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