The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution

Well, I agree that the two go together, but they remain very different things.On the other hand, Big Bang and abiogenesis/evolution don't go together. They are totally, utterly unrelated subjects.- Huh. And you still seem to have a 12 year old's knowledge of the subject. Is that when you dropped out of school?

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

What is taught in high school is Biology - Life Sciences (plural). This includes the science of abiogenesis and the science of evolution. Not just different theories, but different sciences under the "Life Sciences" umbrella.{abe} Well, of course -- that is what evolution says through the theory of common descent. This is the essence of the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.In fact the transmission of life from one generation to the next always involves the transmission of life, whether asexual division of living cells by duplication and division, or by sexual species through similar production of gametes that then combine in a zygote (which then proceeds to grow through cell division).In no case is life created or developed in the process. In essence every single organism on Earth is the product of cell division from some original population of organisms.This is what evolution teaches, albeit with some additional caveats:

that the transmission is imperfect due to replication errors and other mutations, and

​

that those that are expressed in the phenotype of the individual organisms are subject to selection for the prevailing ecology and the opportunities presented by other ecologies, and the opportunities provided by existing variation of phenotypes within the populations.

​

Thus life only comes from life, but it is also continually changing and testing itself.
{/abe}

​

The rest of your post is mostly the argument from incredulity, which only betrays a general ignorance rather than any problems for reality and the rational study thereof.

​

...and we all know the reason why.

​

No we don't: why don't you educate us further on your grasp of reality?

​

Enjoy.

​

Edited by RAZD, : abe section

​

---

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.

Oh, that's an easy question. There isn't one. Come back in a hundred years, and we'll see what we can do.

Damn it, Dr. A! You're giving away the game! Our evil atheist conspiracy will never work unless we can convince the rubes that we have all the answers!

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

I suppose this string of ill-natured lies about your opponents might deceive Buckets --- if he knows nothing about biology, and never comes into contact with anyone who does.Otherwise, it's going to tell him a lot more about creationists then you intended.

This is pure baloney plain and simple. There are scores of places on earth where we can witness live gradual deposition. Simply because you are ignorant of them does not change the reality that they exist.Take it to a geology thread where this is on topic and this rediculous notion can be properly disposed of in the tall trash heap of ignorant blather of all claims that propose we deny observable phenomenon.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Life only comes from life, eh? So life is eternal, then, and has always existed, in your view. Is it a very well thought out view?Of course, if you decide that you're wrong, then you might come around to the more conventional view, shared by both evolutionists and creationists, that life on earth came into existence after the earth came into existence.You seem to have problems with the idea of natural phenomena having natural origins or causes. Even though the only causes ever identified for any natural phenomena have always been natural, so experience shows this to be the norm, and no non-natural causes for natural phenomena have ever been identified, you seem to be under the impression that in looking for the exact explanation for a natural phenomenon, like life, non-natural explanations should be considered seriously.The only natural explanation for life on earth is some sort of abiogenesis (even if it happened elsewhere and panspermia is involved). As with any as yet unexplained natural phenomonen, scientists can be pretty sure that the answer they're seeking is natural, based on past experience. So, the "large burden of proof" that you mention above is actually on the shoulders of those who seem to think, completely without reason, that life, a natural thing, should have non-natural origins.What's your preferred theory of the non-natural origin of life on earth?How many other natural things have proven to have non-natural origins in your opinion?Would you care to list them?

I almost didn't notice that some of your rant was on topic. Enjoy.But apart from very simple cases like this, it is true to say that we only ever observe organisms being produced by the reproduction of similar organisms. But you didn't actually say that, did you? You said "Life only comes from life", so that you could conflate an actual empirical observation with God making organisms by magic, which is not the reproduction of an organism or organisms, and which is not something that we ever observe.I should be interested, by the way, to see a single scientific definition of "life" which includes both God and a bacterium.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I see. Nobody has ever observed macro-evolution. No has observed the Big Bang. Nobody has really ever observed positive mutations or adding of genetic information to a genome in a chromosome. Yet you will stand at your podium at spit fairy-tale stories of how life began and state them as scientific. You just cater words and definitions to your specific arguments. The only way evolution can be won is in a discussion board with delusional word games.

Chiroptera:

quote:

---

Well, I agree that the two go together, but they remain very different things.

​

On the other hand, Big Bang and abiogenesis/evolution don't go together. They are totally, utterly unrelated subjects.

​

-

---

You may choose to view the speculations invented to replace the history of life and the speculations invented to replace the history of the rest of the cosmos as unrelated. Not everyone is required to make the same choice. I fail to see any legitimate reasons for doing so.

quote:

---

Huh. And you still seem to have a 12 year old's knowledge of the subject. Is that when you dropped out of school?

---

I can only wish I had. Actually, so long as I'm wishing I'll wish I could have opted out of learning so many lies. Lies are surely interesting to study, but we don't need quite so many specimens around.And they should also have courses for budding young liars to improve their art. Mark Twain complained about the poor quality of lies in his day, and the situation is much worse now. They really shouldn't have ignored him - he knew very well what he was talking about.Oh let's try to get a little more directly on-topic. The simplest way to see that the evolution of the cosmos is linked to the evolution of life might be to understand that life needs a place to evolve, and a time to evolve.Survey the old 'ages' of the world and the universe. They started out saying 50 to 80 thousand years, as I recall. Then they found out evolution couldn't (even in their own eyes) get the job done in so short at time. They went to the cosmologists and asked for more time, and since cosmology hadn't discovered any limits at all - "Sure thing!" They asked the 'geologists' if it'd work. "Sure - we get our rock dates from your fossil charts anyhow, so if the fossils are older we can make our rocks older." Again and again it happened. The earth was said to be 200 million years old, then 500 million, then a billion!How did it end? Did evolutionists find a way to squeeze in evolution and abiogenesis in the allotted time? Not hardly! What happened was the Big Bang replaced the Steady State, and one day the cosmologists said "No." The Big Bang means there's now a limit. They did foresee this. At the time they were making it up they checked and found out that evolutionists only needed a billion years for their story. They decided to give them plenty of extra time just to be safe: four billion years. Four times what they thought they'd ever need! But in just a couple of short decades... oops!And that's not the only problem with asking for more time. The radiometric dates were all calibrated to match the 'fossil column' of their day. It was no easy job. If evolutionists want more time from geologists, they've got another thing coming. It'd mean tons and tons of work: recalibrating, revising, and inventing new stories to justify it. Who's going to pay for all that work?Those who invent stories about the evolution of life could even be viewed as ungrateful from the other perspectives. 'Geologists' and 'cosmologists' both told their share of stretchers in order to support these stories. They conformed to request after request. What did they ever get in return? If they hadn't gone overboard and given so much to the cause, wouldn't it be much easier to change their stories?Since the 1960's they haven't much bothered to ask for more (imaginary) time. They know they won't get it, and it's humiliating business begging for time.Ironically, the problem is too much honesty. They've stretched "human evolution" alone back beyond the original "ages" of the earth. If they'd just learn to shut up and let on that it only takes a few thousand years at most, none of their followers would be any more likely to question things on that account.Lest I forget, these ideas have all been linked together - not by creationists, but by evolutionists themselves who claim the cosmos "wants" to evolve life. That's why we have terms like 'stellar evolution' and 'chemical evolution'. Granted it's a small sect, but they are surely evolutionists. In my opinion, there are a lot more members of this sect "in the closet" - if you know what I mean.And part of it's PR. By using the term 'stellar evolution' the cosmologist indicates that he is indeed a supporter of the other forms of evolutionism. That can't be bad for business...

The point being made isn't that you're required to accept the scientific view. The point being made is that if you're going to argue against the scientific view, then be aware that science views the origin of the universe and the origin of life as distinct and unrelated events separated by a vast amount of time.--Percy

The reason one makes this choice is that these two theories are in different fields of science and are supported by different evidence using different methods. Big Bang could be disproven next week -- counter evidence could turn up, and an new theory could be constructed that would account for all this new evidence as well as the old evidence. However, this evidence would be based on astronomical observations (and perhaps reformulated the laws of physics); the evidence for the evolution of life on earth would remain, and the theory of evolution would be untouched by this.On the other hand, the theory of evolution could be changed or discarded. New evidence geologists studying the earth or biologists in their laboratories could discover new, hitherto unseen evidence that would overturn the theory of evolution. But this would have nothing to do with the astronomical observations that have led to the conclusions of the Big Bang theory.This is sort of like the history of my family in North America. We don't know how my family originally came to North America. But we do have evidence that at one point they were in Ohio, moved down to Kansas, and then moved to Oregon. Now this is entirely independent of how my family arrived in North America to begin with. We could find evidence that they originally arrived in Virginia in the early 1800s. Or we could find out that they arrived at Ellis Island in the late 1800s. Either way, it wouldn't change the part of the history where they moved from Ohio to Kansas to Oregon. Similarly, we could find new (and to us) interesting evidence that instead of going directly to Kansas, my family lived in Saskatchewan for a bit. But this change would have no bearing on how may ancestors originally arrived in North America.- Actually, this is untrue. Cosmologists could care less what biologists "need". In fact, you have brought up an important point. If scientists were motivated by a need to "prove" long ages and to "interpret" their data the way that they need to, then they would have stuck with the Steady State Theory. They would just have "interpreted" all the evidence in a way to maintain it. There was a resistance from some at first to the implications that the universe might only have a finite age -- Hoyle, for example, felt that this would end up implying the existence of a creator, and that's why he was pretty much against the Big Bang Theory. The fact that scientists switched from believing in an eternal universe to the Big Bang model pretty much shows that they do honestly look at the data and reach the conclusions that the data indicate.- This, too, is not true. Radiometric dates are "calibrated" through experiments in physics laboratories, and physicists, like cosmologists, don't really care what geologists "need".- Huh? This makes no sense. You just claimed that they've been given what they "need" whenever they have asked for it. Your own conspiracy theory is confused.- That's okay. You're doing a fine job of maintaining a breathtakingly profound ignorance of the subjects against which you are debating.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

Dr Adequate

quote:

---

But apart from very simple cases like this, it is true to say that we only ever observe organisms being produced by the reproduction of similar organisms.

---

Apart from simple cases? No, apart from any cases whatsoever. You talk as if life has been observed in "simple cases" arising from nonlife. It has not, and we all know it. I doubt anyone will have trouble understanding that, but in the end each individual who reads this thread will decide for themselves if you've met the burden of proof.Make no mistake - I checked the link. Just how many orders of magnitude separate the simple molecular building blocks from a living cell?Or even a dead cell for that matter! A dead cell is still 10,000 times more complex and organized than anything man's managed to cobble together in a lab. And it isn't alive. But that's a hurdle they never talk about. If they could somehow, someday assemble a cell they still couldn't get it to live. Guess they're saving that problem until it comes up, eh?

bluegenes

quote:

---

Of course, if you decide that you're wrong, then you might come around to the more conventional view, shared by both evolutionists and creationists, that life on earth came into existence after the earth came into existence.

---

Life on earth came into existence before the earth. Hmm. That's odd. If it was before the earth it couldn't be on the earth. *Ptui!I tried those words, but they just won't fit in my mouth. What can I say? I'd like to say "nice try", but it wasn't nice and it didn't have much effort or thought behind it.I'll let you respond to the following two paragraphs, since they're directed against your own words.

quote:

---

What's your preferred theory of the non-natural origin of life on earth?

​

How many other natural things have proven to have non-natural origins in your opinion?

​

Would you care to list them?

---

Seems off-topic.Pasteur's work in the 1800's wasn't quickly accepted, and apparently there are some who still can't handle the news. One does what one can to promote science and truth, but there are limits to what one can do.Now bluegenes, if you can point out some flaw in Pasteur's methods or some factor he failed to take into account maybe you could make some headway. Simply stating your beliefs is nice, but it isn't very convincing or scientific. (Note that Pasteur was only one of several who investigated this field, and the others deserve their share of credit for some fine contributions to science.)It's kind of a confusing thing to google. The law of biogenesis isn't the same thing as "Biogenetic Law" (as if anyone other than its author ever considered it a "law"!).Page not found - EXPERIENCEThat might help.

RAZD

quote:

---

The rest of your post is mostly the argument from incredulity, which only betrays a general ignorance rather than any problems for reality and the rational study thereof.

---

I just love that phrase "argument from incredulity". What does it mean? Well, I've given it some thought, and what's the purpose of any argument? People don't argue from incredulity, but rather to incredulity. "Incredible" literally means something isn't believable, and the point of any argument is to demonstrate that the opposing view shouldn't be believed.Judging by other threads, and other times I've seen the term used I'd have to take this as an indicator of success. If my argument has made anyone incredulous about the fairy tales in question, that's a good thing.And I congratulate the others who've had the same compliment paid to them. I'm far from the first. When we argue, let us continue to argue to incredulity!How exactly would an argument from incredulity go? "I don't believe it and neither should you." Not very convincing, and I don't recall seeing it used. That'd be a pretty arrogant version of the appeal to authority.

quote:

---

In fact the transmission of life from one generation to the next always involves the transmission of life, whether asexual division of living cells by duplication and division, or by sexual species through similar production of gametes that then combine in a zygote (which then proceeds to grow through cell division).

​

In no case is life created or developed in the process. In essence every single organism on Earth is the product of cell division from some original population of organisms.

​

This is what evolution teaches, albeit with some additional caveats:

---

That's what the science of biology teaches. That's what evolutionism has been forced to concede, and it's been an uphill battle. If you didn't know that you might want to study a little history & shut up about my ignorance. I do try to keep tabs on it. "A good man knows his limitations" - Clint Eastwood.