It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

page: 3
9
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:45 PM

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Some people just don't get the totality of the concept.
For example let's use a formula for math, I will use a simple electrical one of amps, volts and watts and electrical horsepower

A X V = W / 746(1000) = HP

If I know 100% percent for sure what the volts are, but I have no idea what the Amps are I can't get the watts or HP accurate, I am just guessing.

So you have cosmology we will say that is "C"
Next we have Abiogenesis we will say this is "A"
Then you have Evolution we will say this is "E"
We have needed time we will say this "T"
Life on planet = "LOP"

So C X A = E / T = LOP.

The point of this example is we can't remove the "A" out the equation to find the actual answer, it is inextricably linked no matter how hard you want to believe through science or otherwise they are not. Everybody is just guessing at "A", because nobody knows, and that has been posted numerous times in this thread.

So, because science does not have a solid theory for abiogensis, evolution does not exist and god did it? Is that the point you're trying to make?

Does that mean that when scientists develop a theory for abiogensis, you will stop believing in creation?
edit on 4/2/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:50 PM
I think the OP is getting at the age old Evolution vs Creationism debate. They are pitted against each other and argued relentlessly when in fact they are not the same thing. Creation addresses the start of life, Evolution does not. At best evolution is half the answer.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:54 PM

originally posted by: jjkenobi
I think the OP is getting at the age old Evolution vs Creationism debate. They are pitted against each other and argued relentlessly when in fact they are not the same thing. Creation addresses the start of life, Evolution does not. At best evolution is half the answer.

The only people who think that Evolution addresses the origin of life are creationists because they see the TOE as a threat to their beliefs.

It's pretty clear that the OP is trying to claim that, because science does not yet have a solid explanation for the origin of life, that means that the TOE can't be true... therefore, god did it and Jesus is real and stuff. It's a classic example of the "God of The Gaps" argument: if science can't explain it, obviously that means god did it.
edit on 4/2/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:56 PM

Why? It has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution. Do we need to explain gravity too?

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:59 PM
Atheism at its core has nothing to do with evolution. There were plenty of atheists before Darwin. The Atheist simply starts with no creator.

As for evolution, to have a valid argument they have to explain how the life came into being before the very first effect of the evolutionary processes started. No life, no evolution.

It is plain to see Atheism is an empty religion, it has no provable mechanism for life which therefore cannot get them into the comfortable realm of spooky evolution. They just all have faith that they don't need a provable mechanism..it's just there and someday everyone will see...which is the exactly the same as believing in a God.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:02 PM

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Atheism at its core has nothing to do with evolution. There were plenty of atheists before Darwin. The Atheist simply starts with no creator.

Well at least you got something right.

As for evolution, to have a valid argument they have to explain how the life came into being before the very first effect of the evolutionary processes started. No life, no evolution.

The theory of evolution very distinctly says that the process for how life got here is irrelevant to evolution being true. God could have magiced life onto the planet and evolution would still be true, because it would take over from there.

It is plain to see Atheism is an empty religion, it has no provable mechanism for life which therefore cannot get them into the comfortable realm of spooky evolution. They just all have faith that they don't need a provable mechanism..it's just there and someday everyone will see...which is the exactly the same as believing in a God.

What is an empty religion? Though I doubt that Atheism is one since atheism isn't a religion. It's just a lack of belief. Still curious what the definition of empty religion is though. Sounds like a you just took an adjective that sounded credible and stuck it in front of religion, but hey what do I know? You said it, not me.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:03 PM

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Atheism at its core has nothing to do with evolution. There were plenty of atheists before Darwin. The Atheist simply starts with no creator.

Well at least you got something right.

As for evolution, to have a valid argument they have to explain how the life came into being before the very first effect of the evolutionary processes started. No life, no evolution.

The theory of evolution very distinctly says that the process for how life got here is irrelevant to evolution being true. God could have magiced life onto the planet and evolution would still be true, because it would take over from there.

It is plain to see Atheism is an empty religion, it has no provable mechanism for life which therefore cannot get them into the comfortable realm of spooky evolution. They just all have faith that they don't need a provable mechanism..it's just there and someday everyone will see...which is the exactly the same as believing in a God.

What is an empty religion? Though I doubt that Atheism is one since atheism isn't a religion. It's just a lack of belief. Still curious what the definition of empty religion is though. Sounds like a you just took an adjective that sounded credible and stuck it in front of religion, but hey what do I know? You said it, not me.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:16 PM

It's empty because the atheist has faith in life starting but refuses to name that which started life.

God could have magiced life onto the planet and evolution would still be true, because it would take over from there.

What God is it, and if the God "magiced life" the God would also have set the conditions for evolution. So to you evolution is nothing more than a process God's life creation has gone through. Atheists do not admit to Gods, so what are you?

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:22 PM

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

It's empty because the atheist has faith in life starting but refuses to name that which started life.

Explain to me why answering that question is necessary. Why are you opposed to the idea of answering a question with "I don't know" if you don't have the evidence to answer it? It's certainly better than just making up anything that sounds plausible like the bible does.

Though Abiogenesis, while only a hypothesis, IS science's best guess for how life arose.

What God is it, and if the God "magiced life" the God would also have set the conditions for evolution. So to you evolution is nothing more than a process God's life creation has gone through. Atheists do not admit to Gods, so what are you?

You are misinterpreting what I am saying. Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis to be true. You could pick and choose ANY origin of life hypothesis that you want and evolution would STILL remain a valid theory. If god magiced life onto the planet, then yes obviously god setup the conditions for evolution, but you still have to prove god exists in that scenario. Hence why god isn't brought into the discussion, you can't prove god exists.

Your entire process of looking at Atheists is backwards. You use science as a means to disparage the simple idea that atheists don't believe in god. Science isn't an atheist's dogma though. Science is just a tool that people use to try to better explain the universe. There are plenty of Christians who have no trouble believing in science like evolution while also believing in god. Heck the Eastern religions like Buddhism have ALWAYS been open to scientific ideas.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:45 PM

You're right to highlight the awkwardness of abiogenesis. It seems to boil down to an alakazam change from inanimate to animated and that's hard to wrap our heads around.

Then again, if anyone spends a little time thinking about it, abiogenesis offers the most likely explanation (such as it is) for why LIFE exists - it must start somewhere right?!

Let's say this universe is a holographic reality? Or maybe it's a Matrix-style show? Let's go with that for a moment.

The programmers of our reality would need to have originated somewhere and at some time in space. They'd have some evolutionary back-story that put them in a position of created our simulated world.

What about God? I can live with the idea that God created all of this. We still have to ask where God arose from? Was there an 'abiogenesis' moment whereby God came to exist?

Whichever way we slice it, we don't know enough to be certain of the explanations. Although I favour abiogenesis above other ideas, philosophically and intellectually, there's a point where I can't help wonder how anything is here before beginning to ponder on the why anything is here.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 04:41 PM

Some people, no matter how many times they see that argument or how nicely it is put, gloss right over it.
edit on 2-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 05:11 PM

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

As for evolution, to have a valid argument they have to explain how the life came into being before the very first effect of the evolutionary processes started.

Actually no, not at all. Evolution defines the processes by which organisms change over time. It has nothing to do with how life began.

It is plain to see Atheism is an empty religion,

Except that atheism is not a religion at all... Atheists only accept what can be proven. No one can prove that god exists or doesn't exist but the same can be said for leprechauns and flying pigs.

it has no provable mechanism for life

There are no religions with a provable mechanism for life, either. What's your point?

which therefore cannot get them into the comfortable realm of spooky evolution.

Yes, "spooky evolution" with its evidence and facts. So much crazier than the comfortable realm of angels, holy spirits, talking bushes, miracles, and magic.

They just all have faith that they don't need a provable mechanism..it's just there and someday everyone will see...which is the exactly the same as believing in a God.

Or we're perfectly fine with saying "I don't know." Life has a lot of unanswered questions and the origin of all things is one of those unanswered questions. I don't have to rely on fairy tales to fill in the gaps left by science. We'd all still be living in the stone age if we used "god did it" to explain everything and stopped searching for answers.
edit on 4/2/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 07:48 PM

In the meantime there was a man named Jesus who healed people in front of witnesses who lays claim to life was created and his first leaders among followers have a testimony of doing the same.

In fact there were dozens, possibly hundreds of faith healers contemporary with Jesus. The Holy Land was darn near overrun by faith healers - just like TV today.

Atheists have scientists who claim life emerged from a unique combination of odds coming together that is undemonstrated. Crazy people from asylums say life poofed into existence out of nowhere and they have more in common with atheists.

Churches have Priests who claim to transform crackers into human flesh and grape juice into human blood every Sunday; they then FEED this stuff to their devotees. If one 'believes' the dogma then one is willingly and knowingly practicing cannibalism.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 07:52 PM

One does not have to be an atheist to believe in either evolution or abiogenisis/proteogenisis. I'm not an atheist, nor Abrhamic

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 08:13 PM

Evolutionists like yourself only claim this because in reality you have no argument for abiogenesis and have to resort to attacking the questions that relate to evolution.

The discussion, as described by the title, is about abiogenesis, not evolution. Questions about evolution are irrelevant to a discussion on abiogenesis.

Here is another try to explain the difference between abiogenesis and evolution with yet another simile:

One day I wake up in a hotel bed in Philadelphia. I go downstairs, read the newspaper, ask the desk clerk whats good to do in Philly that day, maybe go to a museum or a baseball game and watch Tigers kick the Phillies backsides. Later that night I have dinner at a nice restaurant and strike up a conversation with the waitress who takes me back to her place. I have had a whole day of wonderful adventures in Philadelphia, its a beautiful city with a lousy baseball club but terrific waitresses.

But you know what? That wonderful day did not depend on any way with HOW I got to Philadelphia. True, it could not have happened if I hadn't got to Philadelphia some way or another, but it didn't depend in any way on how I got there. I could have been born there. I could have flown, taken the train, hitchhiked from Boston, driven, teleported, anything.

Evolution is like my day in Philadelphia - wonderful and worthy of admiration and study - but wholly and completely independent of how I got there. From the point of view of how I spent my day in Philly, the only thing important about how I got there is precisely the fact that I got there.

Abiogenesis is like the how I got to Philly. Any path that ends up with me getting to that hotel in Philadelphia ends up with me having a great day. I suppose that if I walked from Boston, my legs and feet would be too sore to get up and walk around the city, but that is irrelevant to the story because the fact is that I wasn't too sore to do it. Now if I can't remember how I got to the city, I'd probably want to look for plane boarding passes or train tickets or some such in my suitcase (if I have one) or jackets or whatever, but even if I find a train ticket it doesn't mean that I used it does it? It just means I have found a reasonable transport mode.

The same relationship holds between my arrival method and my day on the town as between abiogenesis and evolution. I can't have a day in Philly unless I am in Philly - how I actually get to Philly does not affect my day after I get there. Likewise, I can't have evolution of life unless I have life - how life came to be does not affect the process of life changing once it exists.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 08:34 PM

Pigsqeal zooting.

It is perfectly rational to accept that life evolves over time based on TOE, without ever addressing the origin of life because TOE has no more to do with life's origin than say, gravity.

They are two completely separate things. Those who have a modicum of scientific education aren't worried that the theory of evolution doesn't explain voting patterns either. They have nothing to do with one another.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:39 PM

At best evolution is half the answer.

So he understands we have the "E" but no "A" in this equation, I thought it was pretty simple actually.

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 02:29 AM

originally posted by: pheonix358

Whichever way you want to believe, you are still left with the ultimate question.

How did God or ET come into existence?

This would of course depend upon which God/Creator you subscribe to. The Christian God existed outside of our Universe, and thus the laws that prevent abiogenesis here would not necessarily apply outside of here.

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 02:58 AM

As for evolution, to have a valid argument they have to explain how the life came into being before the very first effect of the evolutionary processes started.

Why is that?

We have a question: why are there so many different kinds of living thing?
Observation suggests an hypothesis: they all evolved from a common ancestor.
Further research bears out the hypothesis. No objections are found.
This goes on for a hundred and fifty years. The hypothesis remains sound, and attains the status of a theory.

Why is this not sufficient? Why does only the theory of evolution, out of all scientific theories, have to show more than this in order to be accepted as valid?

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:09 AM

It seems to boil down to an alakazam change from inanimate to animated and that's hard to wrap our heads around.

In what does this change consist?

Most people are aware that the definition of life is problematic. Wikipedia says this is 'because life is a process, not a pure substance.' In reality, there is no difference at all between living and inanimate matter. The only change is that the matter becomes involved in certain self-sustaining physical processes for a period of time. The components of a car engine or this computer are also involved in certain self-sustaining physical processes for periods of time, but we don't say they are alive.

Life is merely a label given to a well-known complex of physical processes. It is a semantic label, not a real entity.

new topics

top topics

9