Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by JBnTX, Dec 30, 2012.
Soooooo, do you believe our universe was created in 6 days, as we understand a day to be?
I'm having a hard time considering abiogenesis as anything but spontaneous generation.
Where is the difference?
I'm not forgetting the trillions of tries making possible the one remotely possible event, but still see abiogenesis as spontaneous generation.
The Bible does not say our universe was created in 6 days. A lot of people Christians and non Christians want to interpret and add to the Bible things it did not say.
On the forth day the sun and moon were set in the sky. God made the stars also does not necessarily mean that they were created on the forth day although it certainly is possible with God.
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Thinking that the Creator God is in some way limited is the mistake made by atheists and evolutionists and even Christians. If a long timespan is considered to be sufficient for life to spontaneously appear then certainly a being of sufficient power and wisdom could do it in a day.
Abiogenesis may still be considered spontaneous in that regard.
However, during Pasteur's time, some thought that maggots spontaneously arose from decomposing meat; fruit flies spontaneously arose from decomposing fruit, etc. the spontaneous generation would have been commonplace. I don't suppose you hold this explanation as having a 50/50 chance of being true?
That is quite different than what would have only needed to be a onetime occurrence in primordial soup. Pasteur's work was not in what we would consider abiogenesis today.
Perhaps you overlooked my earlier question. I'll condense it.
Could you accept an earth that is a 100 thousand years old? A million? A billion?
It's still a very fantastic claim. Abiogenesis has been disproved by science once, and although it may be the real truth to the beginning of live, it's hardly more than a supposition.
It's very interesting that so many are arduously invested in believing in abiogenesis.
Seems to me, the logical approach would be to withhold judgement until either abiogenesis or ID was proven correct.
Disproving that meat turns into maggots or dust into fleas is not the same thing as 'disproved abiogenesis'.
We're talking about chemicals turning into very small, very simple creatures here. Not nonliving substances turning into something even as developed as a maggot. And note the 'hypothesis' in the 'modern hypothesis' in the above.
You are aware that nothing that relates to reality can be proven correct, aren't you? No model, no matter how good, can claim to have shown that it is *never* incorrect. The best you can do is prove the model is internally consistent and then test it against reality - and that will give you confidence in the model. Right up until you discover the model is incorrect (just as Newton's model couldn't accurately predict the orbit of Mercury. Newton's model was wrong, but nobody had a problem using it where it was useful, and nobody has a problem using it where it is useful even today)
If your standard is 'proof' - *nothing* meets that standard, other than pure mathematics or pure logic, which do not have to match reality. But some possibilites are easier to look into than others, and some possibilities look more likely at any given time than others. Why do you seem to understand this so intuitively with some subjects, but demand that strict proof be the standard for this one in particular?
Seems to me, the logical approach would be to support people who are honestly trying to figure it out, using the only process that has any record of actually working consistently. Based on my experience, scientists say a lot of qualifying things in this area - a lot of 'it's not known yet but there's stuff that looks promising'. The ID camp says a lot of things that are provably false if you're the sort of person that bothers to look into it even a little. And people have a lot of experience observing natural processes - I've seen a ton of natural processes in my life. I've never once seen a supernatural process. So why do you think it's unreasonable to say 'We don't know what it is. There's not enough evidence at the moment to determine if any of the currently competing hypotheses are actually correct enough to be accepted. But an unknown natural process seems a hell of a lot more likely than a supernatural process."
I just thought it was interesting that biogenesis was at one time a scientific law.
I support scientific discovery, I don't know that I would push for support of a competing theory over another one though. I'd hope the evidence would lead where it leads, even though that is not always what happens.
The problem is that there is no such thing as a very simple creature that is capable of maintaining homeostasis and replication.
At some point, the cell actually takes active steps to remain alive. Makes you wonder where the will to live comes from? For that matter, where does the need to replicate come from.
There's much more to this life thing than most people realize.
That's why I don't have a firm belief in either abiogenesis or ID, both are claims that require a lot of holes to be filled in with supposition and imagination. I can see the attractiveness of each to people with certain other firm beliefs.
I see the difference, and Pasteur's law of biogenesis has been tossed aside, and yet, so far, he's not been proven wrong. Life has not been observed coming from anything other than life.
I guess we'll have to wait, but I see no movement that is really going to settle the issue. Even if life is made in a lab, both sides are going to claim that ability supports their version of the beginning of life.
As void already pointed out, abiogenesis has not been disproven. Proving that fully formed animals do not spontaneously arise from decomposing meat has nothing to do with proving that single-celled life could not arise from an early abiotic earth, and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.
Regarding "hardly more than a supposition", supporting abiogenesis science:
Can create amino acids in the lab
Has identified 74 amino acids in meteorites (including all that are found in living organisms)
Can easily create most of the proteins found in living organisms by simply splashing amino acids onto hot, dry volcanic rock.
Can demonstrate several mechanisms for arranging short polymers into longer chains.
Can explain how to get from this to a eukaryotic cell through endosymbiosis as can be observed today in giardia and pelomyxa.
So, far from proving that abiogenesis is impossible, steps have been demonstrated that would take inorganic material into amino acids to proteins and other polymers to prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. All the steps are gradual, none require extraordinary circumstances, and none are beyond plausible. Most of the steps can be reproduced in the lab, or are still observed in nature today.
I'm not invested in believing in abiogenesis, but it is currently the explanation with the strongest evidence. A stronger evidence-based case could be built for the argument that life on earth was seeded by life from outer space than for ID.
Yes, the complexity of life today is amazing, but to argue that there is a 50/50 between life arising naturally or life being created is pretty indefensible. Unless... You care to play Angel's Advocate and present the evidence for Creation.
An argument from incredulity is a logic fallacy, not evidence. It is basically saying, "I, Cavalry Doc, don't understand how life could arise naturally. Perhaps it was created by a god."
Even if abiogenesis can be reproduced in a lab, that will not prove that is how life on earth arose. Theories can be supported by a metric arse load of evidence, but they remain falsifiable and are not "proven correct".
I am not claiming that abiogenesis is how life first arose, but, for now, that is where the best evidence lies, but I'll again invite you to present the evidence for Creation that warrants you giving it a 50/50 likelihood.
Never thought of that. Would be a great premise for a movie.
There seems to be an unspoken premise here that you are hitting on. That premise is; Christians believe that the earth is (fill in the blank) years old , therefore if we can prove (fill in the blank) years old they will abandon their faith and join with the unbelievers in their miserable hopeless world view.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but my faith does not rest upon the foundation of the age of the earth.
To answer your question on what I can accept for the age of the earth, it doesn't matter as long as it is truth and no, the Bible does not make the claim that the earth or the universe is 6000 years old. It only makes the claim that God created the heavens and the earth.
My faith is founded upon the Bible and specifically the focus of the Bible which is Jesus Christ my Savior and His teachings.
The Bible outlines the history of the earth from beginning to end. I know the future because it has been revealed to me through Gods word. I know the specifics for my time and the near future. God warned of the flood. Do you see anything left of the ones before the flood who scoffed at the warning?
Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
Luke 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
You know what else we don't see? Any archeological signs that a global flood has ever occured.
Do you not find that strange?
Sometimes it is hard to see the forest for the trees.
An example is the powder river coal in Montana. It seems these deposits of coal defy explanation by scientists because they do not fit in with the accepted non-flood theories .
And yet you can't see how the opposite is also unreasonable. You can't say that "I, Artificial Grape, don't understand how life could have been designed. Perhaps it occurred by a natural process that was able to overcome diffusion and the octet rule of chemistry."
The fact is that both theories are fantastic claims with no real convincing evidence supporting them.
Frankly I don't see any evidence one way or the other. I see a lot of arguments for one way or the other, and even if something like creating life in a lab (an unaccomplished hypothetical feat) were to happen, it really doesn't convince me that the first cell on life just happened, or that it was made.
I do see a lot people that cling to one or the other (abiogenesis vs ID) because it is a comfortably compatible belief with their chosen perspective, not out of any real evidence.
I understand that, I just don't agree with that approach.
Still feeding the troll I see.
What is the evidence for ID again? That life is to complicated to happen without a "designer"?
I've yet to see any facts disputing AG's post listing the evidence that supports abiogenesis, just a bunch of wishy washy, "anything is possible" BS.
What I find most funny is you cling to your "belief" of a designer. Yet have no problem chiding posters on their "beliefs".
You are not the middle of the road, objective agnostic you claim to be. Stop the BS. You are a troll, and don't have the balls to argue for any position that makes you wrong. Instead you pretend to be "objective" with your passive-aggressive-super-duper-agnostic nonsense.
You really don't even have an argument. Because with your position everything is possible.
AND more important please list the evidence for ID.
But the truth is, I can understand how life could be created, what I don't see is a shred of evidence to support Creation of life or a Creator. "God did it" is both lazy ("I give up, let's just say God did it"), as well as arrogant ("If I can't figure out a natural process today, then nobody else ever will, so let's just say God did it").
Do you dispute that amino acids can be created in the lab?
Do you dispute that amino acids have been found on meteorites?
Do you dispute that proteins have been created from amino acids in the lab?
^^^ There it is.
Again, making it in a lab doesn't really convince me of anything. Amino acids are a very far piece away from making life.
I really don't know what would be convincing. Both ID and Abiogenesis are wildly remote possibilities, with firm believers on both sides of the debate. I still have no problem deciding on what to have for lunch without solving that little dilemma on a daily basis.
I can comfortably live in the present without picking sides on that one.
No unspoken premise, and no burst bubble here. There are plenty of Christians that can reconcile a 4.5 billion year old earth with their beliefs. It was not an attempt to get anybody to abandon their faith. Merely to determine if it was worth pursuing a discussion of science. When somebody admits that regardless of evidence they will not accept something that runs counter to their faith, it is not worth pursuing the discussion. This is the case with discussing abiogenesis or evolution with you given your earlier comment that, "One thing that I have as a foundation belief is that the Bible is the inspired word of God. This definitely rules out the spontaneous appearance of life. It also rules out evolution as the force behind the creation of man."
In a previous discussion of the flood and dinosaurs you shared the following, "It has been suggested that the dinosaurs were a product of gene splicing and were therefore amalgamated and not the pure creation of God. When you think of the lifespan of man before the flood and the fact that their every thought became evil continually it makes sense that they might gene splice to grow food and produce animals for warfare.
This would be a good reason for the dinosaurs to be left off the Ark."
You'll have to understand my skepticism when you enter a discussion of science because in one quote you admit that regardless of evidence you cannot accept a theory (in this case evolution), and in this quote you think "it makes sense" that over 4000 years ago man was performing genetic splicing to create dinosaurs for food and warfare which would explain why they were not spared on the arc, despite not a shred of evidence to support this.
So you reject evidence when it counters your faith, and you are willing to accept an incredulous claim with no evidence when it supports your faith. That is why I made my earlier "zero credibility" remark.