It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

page: 15
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Golden Boy
 
so what makes some people think we are doomed without a deity is beyond me.

is this not essentially stating the same thing:

"mankind is doomed unless we call upon the giant space lego man for assistance"




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




rnaa - we were not talking about natural disasters but "evil" – wickedness committed by man. But since you thrown natural disasters it into the mix - then let me address it too.


You asked about wickedness and evil 'since the evolution of man' and that is what I addressed. Are you suggesting 'natural' disasters are not, still to this day, not blamed on 'supernatural' causes and the wickedness and evilness of man? Is it not so that when an earthquake in Iran kills 40,000 people or a tsunami in the Pacific kills 250,000 people there are holy men running around that just can't wait to point out that God did it to punish homosexuals in California, or some poor shepherds who might like to enjoy a beer after a hard day of watching their flock? Are you really that obtuse?



BTW, to believe in the existence of a loving God is not a “ridiculous” proposition.


And I never said it was (I did make a typo and didn't notice it in time to edit it, the correction was posted 4 or 5 posts after the one in error, 2 or 3 above yours. Sorry if that caused confusion).

The "ridiculous" proposition was that

"a No God philosophy/belief then, means that man is truly responsible for all of the wickedness perpetrated on earth since his evolution."

It means no such thing; it means that natural disasters are blamed on nature, man made disasters are blamed on man.



As it was brought up already, due to man's rejection of his Creator's guidance and protection. Due to man's greed and selfishness, he rejected his Father's loving hand. It was man's challenge to God that there was no need for him. That mankind can live by themselves, create their own way of life without any help from their Creator. In short, it is like slapping God in the face and saying to him leave us alone. So with sadness, God let man prove his claim. Yet when calamity strikes who gets blamed? By your words above - who are u blaming for "Earthquakes and floods"..."floods, famine, drought, and pestilence"? Is it not God?


No, I am not blaming God, certainly not for natural disasters. Natural disasters are just that: natural.

You on the other hand are blaming God. You are directly saying that God is so petty that he takes revenge for being spurned by causing 'supernatural' disasters. A flash flood must have a cause, where did all the water come from? It isn't raining here, it must be the God residing up in the mountains that sent it to punish us for something.

And if you understood my reply, which clearly you didn't (which is OK), you would understand that I accept this as a fundamental human psychological need. Mankind would not have become 'human' without the concept of God.



Why blame him since you've rejected him and don't believe that he exist?


When you understood my argument you will understand that I have neither rejected God, nor do I believe that God does not exist. On the contrary, I know full well that God exists and played a vital role in the psychological advancement of humanity.

My knowledge of God does not, however, mean that I believe, for example, that the Bible is the autobiography of God, nor does it have anything to say to the modern world on cosmology or biology or other scientific fields (well, maybe psychology and anthropology), nor does it have any superiority to the holy scripture or mythology of any other people around the world.



So if not man – then who?


Your question is a non-sequitur. Nature is not a 'who'.



I guess it's God's fault. But since you believe that he does not exist then where did “viruses or bacteria” came from? I thought you believe these living things evolved or products of abiogenesis? If so, then who or to be precise what is the caused of all of these? Is it evolution/abiogenesis? Unless you're saying that “God” created all of these? But how could that be since he does not exist?


You seem to answer your own question, then turn the answer inside out to something totally meaningless.

Yes living things are a result of abiogenesis and have evolved into their current forms over time, no God did not create them, just the opposite. I did not say God does not exist.



If so are you saying then that man invented God so that he can have someone to blame (other than himself)? It's like someone blaming an imaginary person after robbing a bank – he made me do it. It's like a self justification don't you think?


In the final analysis, yes, but that is not the only reason.



Man kills man, man invents God, God gives command not to kill, but man kills man anyway and then blames his invented God. Disaster strikes (man-made/natural) blames his invented God for it. So who is it that man is actually blaming then? Is that what you really think how religious people think and believed?


Again, in the final analysis, yes. I believe that it was a psychological imperative that distinguishes mankind from other animals. The concept of God did not spring whole cloth into the consciousness of mankind, of course, and 'invention' is not really the right word for the 'genesis' of the concept. It 'evolved' as man evolved, became more complex as man became more complex.



And actually teach it to others?


No. It is none of my business to 'teach it to others'. When the topic arises, I explain myself, just as I am doing now. I don't think it is all that radical an idea amongst psychologists and anthropologists and the related sciences, but I have no real evidence of that.



That is, man came from nothing by unguided process – then evolves from lower form to higher form to the present then invents God so that he can attribute things to God, then used God to either advance himself or justify his wars and atrocities.


Man and God evolved in parallel, the idea of God did not just occur to some brightspark one day 'in a burning bush' so to speak. Spirituality evolved from extremely primitive roots to complicated modern ideas over thousands of years, just as civilization and society as a whole has done, and probably in the exact same time frame.



Happily the God that I believe in is a loving God and will not allow man to destroy his own creation:


Please explain the concept of a loving God to Job. I'll bring the popcorn.



So in other words, what your saying is that God is only a facade or as Carl Marx said: "religion is the opiate of the masses". It was needed to feed a "gnawing urge", the need to find an explanation to reality, a “scapegoat to preserve the psychology of the race”, and at the same time “inspire himself to greater things”.

In other words, “Humanity simply would not be humanity were it not for God.” An invented God, that is.


No, not an "opiate of the masses" but a fundamental psychological imperative. 'Hardwired', so to speak, part of what differentiates 'brain' and 'mind'. I agree that the word 'invented' is wrong; it gives the incorrect assumption of a directed response. "Evolved" is perhaps better.



...just a figment of imagination...


For emphasis, again, no. A fundamental psychological imperative, as real as anything else in the human experience.



Then there's nothing to worry about the future, correct?


Don't worry. Be Happy.

Seriously, from the point of view of evolutionary time frames, what should I be worried about? That mankind is going to blow up the planet? Or pollute it to the point of un-habitability? Well yes, I do worry about that, but God isn't going to solve those problems.

Do you suggest I worry, personally, about an afterlife? The fact is, I can do nothing about an afterlife if it exists. I can do something about life while I possess it, and that is more than enough to worry about, thank you very much indeed.



Thus the prophecy below is just a figment of imagination, correct?


In the same sense that any work of art is a figment of imagination, yes. That does not detract from any wisdom it may contain in any way, in fact it only serves to enhance it.



After all, we are all products of evolution - from lowly worm to brilliant minds - all brothers, correct?


Absolutely.



Finally,

How confident are you with the future? Bright one? Can science resolve man's growing problems? Can man successfully solve his own problem - the threat of economic collapse, natural disasters, terrorism, pollution, population explosion, famine, increasing of lawlessness, collapse of moral values, nuclear as well as biological threats? This is the reality that man is now facing - at an incredibly alarming rate - in-spite of advancements in science and technology.


Science has most of the information to solve those problems that lend themselves to technological solutions today. Science cannot stop earthquakes, obviously, and any attempt to do so would cause more problems (we may be able to 'lubricate' fault lines to reduce the size of earthquakes someday). Other woes have been dealt with in the past and will be dealt with in the future. That doesn't mean that there will be no suffering, it just means that life will go on, and to the extent that mankind refuses to see themselves in the causation of those events means will be an exact measure of the "wickedness and evil" that will result. Blaming God for these things will get us nowhere except deeper into chaos. By all means, look to God for personal comfort in time of need, but don't stand around doing nothing while expecting God to supernaturally intervene in the stock market on your behalf.

edit on 14/2/2011 by rnaa because: hit reply before I finished proof reading



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

Maybe there's a simpler way. It's worth trying, anyhow...

reply to post by edmc^2
 


rnaa - we were not talking about natural disasters but "evil" – wickedness committed by man. But since you thrown natural disasters it into the mix - then let me address it too.

Is God omnipotent, or are His powers somehow limited?

If God is omnipotent, then He can allow natural disasters to happen, or He can prevent them.

If He can prevent them and does not, though he knows that millions of living things, including hundreds or thousands of humans, will suffer and die, is He not doing evil? You say God loves us. Is it not evil to stand idly by when your loved ones are suffering and dying, and you have the power to prevent it?

If God exists, He is responsible for natural disasters, whether he causes them deliberately or simply allows them to happen. Therefore He is responsible for the death and suffering they cause.

Is this not evil? Or do you have some new definition of 'evil' that excludes it somehow?


To believe in the existence of a loving God is not a “ridiculous” proposition.

A loving God who who allows natural disasters, created viruses, parasites and genetic diseases, and seems to revel in pain and death. Not ridiculous?

Note: Please be advised that I will not read long-winded Bible-quoting answers. Keep it short and to the point, or forget it. Thanks in advance.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

How confident are you with the future? Bright one? Can science resolve man's growing problems? Can man successfully solve his own problem - the threat of economic collapse, natural disasters, terrorism, pollution, population explosion, famine, increasing of lawlessness, collapse of moral values, nuclear as well as biological threats? This is the reality that man is now facing - at an incredibly alarming rate - in-spite of advancements in science and technology.

If man is just a product of evolution - then may an imaginary God have mercy on us.

So we should manufacture a belief in god out of fear that we can't cope without a god?

You recommend living in anticipation of Deus ex Machina suddenly arriving and solving our problems for us?

Perhaps, if fewer people had believed in such a god in the past, and more had believed we're responsible for cleaning up our own messes, the world would not be in this state.

Perhaps some overly-doting parents have led their children to believe there is always someone older, stronger and wiser who will take care of everything. Then, when the child grows to a adult, and the parent is no longer god to him, he looks upward, as he used to look upward to his parent, and imagines a really big sky-daddy is up there, waiting to show himself and take care of everything.


If I were god, and people were looking to me as their Deus ex Machina, I'd be pretty pissed off, and wonder why they wouldn't get off their divinely created backsides and start solving their own problems.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by edmc^2
If God exist and ignores the plight of mankind - his children - then He is guilty. But if he fulfills his promisess then anyone who goes against it will fare badly.

On the other hand if God is just a figment of our imagination or just an invention (as rnaa puts it) then I say mankind is doomed. For the problems that we are now facing are beyond our control. Unless you have total faith in man's ability to control nature, his nature and circumstances.


What is the point of this? What are you trying to say?


It's called prosetylisation.

And it's enough to turn a believer like me atheist.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 





It's called prosetylisation.


You call it that, I call it spreading reality, so people have the pertinent information, so they can save themselves from what is coming ahead. The concept of Abiogenesis/Evolution is a huge mental and emotional road block towards that endeavor, why do you think I spend so much time on this topic. I don't enjoy beating my head against the wall with people like "madness", but there are others that are perhaps less adamant in there perception of reality. People who say "guess what we just don't know".
edit on 15-2-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Kailassa
 





It's called prosetylisation.


You call it that, I call it spreading reality, so people have the pertinent information, so they can save themselves from what is coming ahead. The concept of Abiogenesis/Evolution is a huge mental and emotional road block towards that endeavor, why do you think I spend so much time on this topic. I don't enjoy beating my head against the wall with people like "madness", but there are others that are perhaps less adamant in there perception of reality. People who say "guess what we just don't know".
edit on 15-2-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


Well, reality's based on hard evidence and facts...not "I'll make up whatever the hell I want"



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


So assuming that abiogenesis and evolution are false and that there’s a God, then your entire post can be summarized this way:

If there’s a God, why are there wickedness, sickness, pain and death in the world?


The answer is; there’s a good reason why the above circumstances exist. But they can only be found in one place or for that matter on a book. Question is whether you will believe it or not?

In any case - here’s a scenario to give you an idea:

What would you do if a family member of yours suddenly presented himself in front of your entire family and your neighbors accusing you of being an unfit father? He accused you of things that you never even thought of let alone doing them. Add to that, he accused the rest of your family members of selfish motives for ‘loving’ you because of what you provide to them. Not yet satisfied, he then slanders you in front of all onlookers telling them that you’re weak and uncaring. Sad part is he was able to convince some of your family members to side with him.

So what would you do? How would you respond to these lies? What is the BEST way to address this CHALLENGE, this SLANDER once and for all time and at the same time uphold your integrity and preserved your good reputation as well as that of the remaining faithful and loving family members of yours?

Possible choices: (you can add as many as you want)

1) Destroy the accuser/s right in front of all. Why?
2) Let the accuser/s prove his/their claim. Why?
3) Ignore the accuser/s. Why?
4) Blame your family and do nothing. Why?
5) ???

Remember all who heard the accusations is looking at you, waiting on what you will do. In their minds, especially those who don’t fully know you are asking these questions: Could it be true? Are the accusations true? Is he really that evil, uncaring and powerless?

So how will you resolve the issue once and for all time? You only got one shot so it better be the right one.

I await your reply.

ciao,
edmc2

tip: take note of the players in the drama/scenario above.
Per your request, keeping short no scriptures but the verses are available in case you want to know if I can back up what I’m saying.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Kailassa,
May I ask you this simple Q if you don't mind.

Are you a Theist but a proponent of evolution - that is, for a lack of a better description: Theist Evolutionists?

Reason I ask is that you said you believe in a God but at the same support the evolution theory.

By God - I mean not the God of the Bible - YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) - correct?

Thanks.
edmc2



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
I call it spreading reality


Call it whatever you want. It's still nothing but you spouting nonsense.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
You call it that, I call it spreading reality, so people have the pertinent information, so they can save themselves from what is coming ahead.


If it were reality you could prove that it is and back up your claims.



The concept of Abiogenesis/Evolution


You keep acting as if they're linked, yet you've yet to establish that link despite repeated requests to do so by several members.

Once more, where is the link between Abiogenesis and Evolution? How can evolution not exist without abiogenesis? How would a supernatural cause for life prohibit evolution?



is a huge mental and emotional road block towards that endeavor, why do you think I spend so much time on this topic.


How? How is the concept of a demonstrable, observed scientific fact which we can successfully apply to lifesaving medical research like evolution a roadblock to anything?

I think you spend so much time on this topic because you are an idolater. You are practicing a form of idolatry in which you worship a book that was authored by clearly fallible humans rather than the deity supposedly described within it.

Unless you can disprove evolution (there's a link to a thread I started just for this purpose), do not speak out against it. There is ample evidence in favor of it and ample real life application of the knowledge gained from it.



I don't enjoy beating my head against the wall with people like "madness",


Though you do seem to enjoy talking about me in a negative light.

You mean the people that call you out when you're demonstrably wrong? ...which is always (at least with regards to this topic). I don't like saying that people are wrong all the time, but I've yet to see an instance where you're right



but there are others that are perhaps less adamant in there perception of reality. People who say "guess what we just don't know".


We don't know that abiogenesis is a correct idea. That's why it is not considered to be as weighty a concept in the scientific world as evolution. Of course, there is plenty of evidence which points in favor of abiogenesis, which is far more than can be said for the idea of supernatural creation.

Evolution, on the other hand, we know. We have more than enough evidence to enter evolution into the canon of scientific fact. There is, of course, a bit of tweaking we have to do with regards to understanding how it happens, but we know that it happens. Cease disputing it until you can prove otherwise.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





I don't like saying that people are wrong all the time, but I've yet to see an instance where you're right


Sure you do, I have seen you do it to other posters as well, not just me.
Yet another instance of opinion based dogmatic arrogance.
It's even in that new debate thread you have up with the MOD Skyfloating on this subject, you just can't help yourself.
Oh well, it is what it is, and you are what you are.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Kailassa
 

Are you a Theist but a proponent of evolution - that is, for a lack of a better description: Theist Evolutionists?
Reason I ask is that you said you believe in a God but at the same support the evolution theory.
By God - I mean not the God of the Bible - YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) - correct?

I have discussed my concept of god at length, in threads where it was relevant.

Belief in a god would only be relevant to this thread if such a belief was antithetical to the theory of evolution.
However such a belief is irrelevant to evolution as, if their is a deity beyond this material world, and even if that deity created us, we have no way of knowing how this was done. Thus it's logical for us to investigate, to use our senses and our power of reason, in order to learn about our origins.

Just as the existence of god is not something we can prove in this material world, there is nothing in this material world which can disprove the existence of god. Therefore closing one's eyes and ears to science to protect one's beliefs is a waste of time, as is trying to disprove science in order to make others believe.

Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to god that which is god's.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





I don't like saying that people are wrong all the time, but I've yet to see an instance where you're right


Sure you do, I have seen you do it to other posters as well, not just me.
Yet another instance of opinion based dogmatic arrogance.


You're kidding, right? I mean, the irony is strong in this one, YOU of all people talking about dogmatic arrogance when you blatantly refuse to even look at objective evidence when it contradicts your dogmas. Thx for making me chuckle though



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Kailassa
 


It's called prosetylisation.

You call it that, I call it spreading reality, so people have the pertinent information, so they can save themselves from what is coming ahead. The concept of Abiogenesis/Evolution is a huge mental and emotional road block towards that endeavor, why do you think I spend so much time on this topic. I don't enjoy beating my head against the wall with people like "madness", but there are others that are perhaps less adamant in there perception of reality. People who say "guess what we just don't know".

Blue_Jay, you believe a fairy-tale. You believe your fairy-tale predicts an armageddon. You believe closing your ears and eyes to scientific research, and denying facts, will help save you from that armageddon.

Are you so insecure in your belief in god that you must deny reality in order to keep believing? Or do you believe in a god so unjust he will punish people for not denying reality?

Either way, you are living in fear - blinding fear.

Pitiable as your fear may be, all it does here is explain why your attempt to discredit evolution, by claiming it is inextricably linked to abiogenesis, is based on neither logic or fact. Just as you have attempted to twist the bible to fit in with science, you are attempting to twist science to fit in with your interpretation of the bible.

It's too late to turn away from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. According to your fairy-tale, Eve and Adam ate of it on behalf of all of us.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



You keep acting as if they're linked, yet you've yet to establish that link despite repeated requests to do so by several members.

Once more, where is the link between Abiogenesis and Evolution? How can evolution not exist without abiogenesis?


Madness:

According to TalkOrigins.org


”The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination and gene flow.” --Evolution within a Lineage


www.talkorigins.org...

Since (organic) evolution means “a change in the gene pool of a population over time”

Question is/are:

In the early stages of “life” at what point did evolution occurred / took place?

Did it occur after an organism was formed or did it happened way before that, while in “genetic drift”, while the DNA’s/RNA’s were combining, forming the first molecule – while in the “organic soup”? Or is this the realm of abiogenesis already?

In other words:
Where’s the demarcation mark between Abiogenesis Theory and Evolution Theory if they are separate processes according to the excerpts below?

First though let me quote Blu_Jay33’s OP: (see the rest on page 1).


en.wikipedia.org...
In natural science, abiogenesis is the study of how life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis. In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach. In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure)


Comparing it with the excerpts below:

Excerpts from “A Brief History of Life”


Life evolved in the sea. It stayed there for the majority of the history of earth.
The first replicating molecules were most likely RNA. RNA is a nucleic acid similar to DNA. In laboratory studies it has been shown that some RNA sequences have catalytic capabilities. Most importantly, certain RNA sequences act as polymerases -- enzymes that form strands of RNA from its monomers. This process of self replication is the crucial step in the formation of life. This is called the RNA world hypothesis.
The common ancestor of all life probably used RNA as its genetic material. This ancestor gave rise to three major lineages of life. These are: the prokaryotes ("ordinary" bacteria), archaebacteria (thermophilic, methanogenic and halophilic bacteria) and eukaryotes. Eukaryotes include protists (single celled organisms like amoebas and diatoms and a few multicellular forms such as kelp), fungi (including mushrooms and yeast), plants and animals. Eukaryotes and archaebacteria are the two most closely related of the three. The process of translation (making protein from the instructions on a messenger RNA template) is similar in these lineages, but the organization of the genome and transcription (making messenger RNA from a DNA template) is very different in prokaryotes than in eukaryotes and archaebacteria. Scientists interpret this to mean that the common ancestor was RNA based; it gave rise to two lineages that independently formed a DNA genome and hence independently evolved mechanisms to transcribe DNA into RNA.

The first cells must have been anaerobic because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. In addition, they were probably thermophilic ("heat-loving") and fermentative. Rocks as old as 3.5 billion years old have yielded prokaryotic fossils. Specifically, some rocks from Australia called the Warrawoona series give evidence of bacterial communities organized into structures called stromatolites. Fossils like these have subsequently been found all over the world. These mats of bacteria still form today in a few locales (for example, Shark Bay Australia). Bacteria are the only life forms found in the rocks for a long, long time --eukaryotes (protists) appear about 1.5 billion years ago and fungi-like things appear about 900 million years ago (0.9 billion years ago).
Photosynthesis evolved around 3.4 billion years ago. Photosynthesis is a process that allows organisms to harness sunlight to manufacture sugar from simpler precursors. The first photosystem to evolve, PSI, uses light to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) to glucose. This process releases sulfur as a waste product. About a billion years later, a second photosystem (PS) evolved, probably from a duplication of the first photosystem. Organisms with PSII use both photosystems in conjunction to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) into glucose. This process releases oxygen as a waste product. Anoxygenic (or H2S) photosynthesis, using PSI, is seen in living purple and green bacteria. Oxygenic (or H2O) photosynthesis, using PSI and PSII, takes place in cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria are closely related to and hence probably evolved from purple bacterial ancestors. Green bacteria are an outgroup. Since oxygenic bacteria are a lineage within a cluster of anoxygenic lineages, scientists infer that PSI evolved first. This also corroborates with geological evidence.


Read the rest here:www.talkorigins.org...

Here’s another: excerpt from “Origin Of Life” (somewhat strange that God was even mentioned with organic evolution along with spontaneous generation)


1. Introduction
cience shows us that the universe evolved by self-organization of matter towards more and more complex structures. Atoms, stars and galaxies self-assembled out of the fundamental particles produced by the Big Bang. In first-generation stars, heavier elements like carbon, nitrogen and oxygen were formed. Aging first-generation stars then expelled them out into space – we, who consist of these elements, are thus literally born from stardust. The heaviest elements were born in the explosions of supernovae. The forces of gravity subsequently allowed for the formation of newer stars and of planets. Finally, in the process of biological evolution from bacteria-like tiny cells (the last universal common ancestor, abbr. LUCA) to all life on earth, including us humans, complex life forms arose from simpler ones.

Upon considering this self-organization of material structures in the realm of philosophy, one may conclude that it happens either because the underlying laws of nature, which have to be exceedingly special to allow for it (Rees 2001, Smolin 1999, Susskind 2006), simply are the way they are (possibly in the context of a multiverse) or because they were designed by God for this purpose. Since we know that the laws of nature are so self-sufficient that, based on them, the complexity of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles, and further, complex life forms from simpler ones during biological evolution, we can reasonably extrapolate that they would also allow life itself to originate spontaneously, by chemical evolution of suitable structures – regardless if we believe these laws are designed or undesigned. Therefore, we should expect an origin of life by natural causes from both theistic and atheistic philosophical perspectives.
(bold mine)

Read the rest here: www.talkorigins.org...

Quoting Blue_Jay33

So even those that will dispute and argue that Abiogenesis is not part of evolution, are still by their own definition of evolution, left with the nearly infinite gap between prokaryotes and humans.--


So madness – per the excerpts above can you please show me the demarcation between abiogenesis and evolution? Or is the entire process describing (organic) evolution or both?

Per Dr. Sagan (Cosmos) – there is no separation between abiogenesis and organic evolution, no gap – just one continues process.

Per Dr. Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) – there is no separation, no gap – just one continues process.

However, this still puzzles me, I can’t quite figure out why proponents of evolution here keep saying they are separate processes. Separate theory maybe but separate processes the evidence says otherwise. Based on the excerpts above (and others), imho abiogenesis theory is the process for which life came to be (developed/evolved) within the parameters of evolution theory. That is, while abiogenesis is occurring, evolution is also taking place – until full organic evolution took over. But that’s just me.

The problem though that I see which I believe is confronting “evolution scientist and evolutionists” is the actual source of life. Was it from a non-living source/alien? On this there are still big debates, speculations and new theories are being formulated. My suggestion to evolutionists, they should come up with another theory/definition to distinguish abiogenesis from the formation of the source of life – that is before abiogenesis - maybe officially adopt exobiogenesis theory? But then again, that might not work too, for it’s just another way of “kicking the can” (so to speak) on to another location. Problem is still there. Maybe this is the reason why the adamant attitude not to link the two.

Because per your statement:


We don’t know that abiogenesis is a correct idea…Of course plenty of evidence which points in favor of abiogenesis,…


On this Richard Robinson seem to agree (Robinson 2005):


“Give biologists a cell, and they’ll give you the world. But beyond assuming the first cell must have somehow come into existence, how do biologists explain its emergence from the prebiotic world four billion years ago?”
– TalkOrigins.org

So still can’t see the link? Am I right?

Caio,
edmc2

P.S.
Astyanax – sorry for the as you call it “assiduous quote-mining”, had to do it to prove my point. Besides I’m not able to quote the entire page as they are too large – mods will block it.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

First of all, thank you for replying briefly and without Bible quotes. Now,


Assuming that abiogenesis and evolution are false and that there’s a God, then your entire post can be summarized this way: if there’s a God, why are there wickedness, sickness, pain and death in the world?

No. If you need a one-line summary, here it is: if there is a God, then God is evil.


There’s a good reason why the above circumstances exist. But they can only be found in one place or for that matter on a book. Question is whether you will believe it or not?

You mean there's a good answer to your straw man question and it's in the Bible. Yes it is. I know it well. It's called the Fall of Man. Another name for it is Blame the Victim.


What would you do if a family member of yours suddenly presented himself in front of your entire family and your neighbors accusing you of being an unfit father? (...)

How would you respond to these lies? Possible choices: (you can add as many as you want):

1) Destroy the accuser/s right in front of all. Why?
2) Let the accuser/s prove his/their claim. Why?
3) Ignore the accuser/s. Why?
4) Blame your family and do nothing. Why?
5) ???

Your choices are very revealing. I would do my best to prove my accuser wrong, and establish my innocence. That is because I'm human and my choices are limited. God's are not.

You can't use human analogies when talking about God, because God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Those attributes change the rules completely. In the above situation, God could easily make sure the accuser was not believed, or even prevent the accusation from ever being made.

Since we're on the subject, God (being omnipotent, etc.) wouldn't need to 'make himself human' – whatever that means – and die on a cross as a sacrifice to himself in order to atone to himself for the sins of beings he created himself and is therefore responsible for. Can't you see how plainly nonsensical that is? God could just say 'all sins forgiven, get out of jail free, kids' and that would have been it. Or He could have fixed is so that nobody sinned in the first place. The whole bloody charade is meaningless and pointless – unless, of course, God is somehow addicted to pain and suffering. Maybe that's the answer to the Problem of Evil: God needs His fix.

Anyway, your hypothetical scenario does not satisfy the question of how a 'loving Father' can cause such terrible things to happen to his 'children'. Blaming the victims is not an acceptable response. You, and the religion you confess to, need to do a lot better than that.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Since (organic) evolution means “a change in the gene pool of a population over time”

Question is/are:

In the early stages of “life” at what point did evolution occurred / took place?


One last time, it doesn't matter!! All the theory explains or talks about is how life evolves. It doesn't matter how that life came into existence. If the mighty spaghetti monster created the first life, the theory would still be valid.

All the theory requires is for life to exist in the first place...which it does as we know.

I'm really unclear what your point is. We know the theory holds up, and it's completely irrelevant how life started in the first place as the theory makes no statement regarding it.


The reason it's hard to figure out how it went single celled organisms to multicelled organisms and then on to simple life forms is because they hardly ever leave evidence behind. Simple life forms do, but a cell won't leave anything behind after 3.5bil years.

But again, how would that invalidate the theory of evolution, every single evidence we found in forms of remains confirms it.
edit on 15-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'm really unclear what your point is.

I think he's asking whether natural selection worked on protolife to turn it into life, and if so doesn't that mean you need evolution to end up with life.

Quite likely it did. Quite likely you do.

However (as these people never seem to grasp, or at least to admit) this doesn't mean that the theory of evolution includes, or even needs, a theory of biogenesis to make it complete.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2


Here’s another: excerpt from “Origin Of Life” (somewhat strange that God was even mentioned with organic evolution along with spontaneous generation)


This is truly a sad state of affairs. edmc^2, your belief system has severely clouded your capacity for understanding words, context, and evaluating language.

A picture directly from the TOP of the website you are pulling your information from (emphasis mine):



And again, this is your quote (no emphasis needed):



(somewhat strange that God was even mentioned with organic evolution along with spontaneous generation)


Imagine a website debating Coke and Pepsi, and in one of the random dirges I happen to read in favor of Pepsi, I see Coke mentioned. COKE WINS PEPSI SUCKS!!!!!

Having read further your miscalculated and poorly structured "argument", I noticed other little anecdotes that serve as a devastating contradiction to whatever side you think you are arguing for. From what I can decipher, you believe simple life forms were created spontaneously by the most complex being imaginable--an absurd concept, silly for its inherent irony--while others believe life arose through natural processes and the bonding of chemicals (from non-units of natural selection to units of natural selection).

That being established, you now serve up some eminent quotes from eminent scientists as contribution to your argument:



Per Dr. Sagan (Cosmos) – there is no separation between abiogenesis and organic evolution, no gap – just one continues process.

Per Dr. Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) – there is no separation, no gap – just one continues process.


Followed by:


However, this still puzzles me


Now this I have no doubt, for it puzzles me too. We would expect the construction of molecules to create self-sustaining life forms to be "one continuous process", because there is no reason to believe in spontaneous generation or intervention from some extraterrestial force. It goes without saying Sagan and Dawkins are correct in their banal and obvious statements. Would it be of a major shock to you if someone walked from point A to point B in one continuous process? Or were there agents of spontaneous pedalism at work?




Separate theory maybe but separate processes the evidence says otherwise.


Correct. There is zero evidence for natural discontinuity.



abiogenesis theory is the process for which life came to be (developed/evolved) within the parameters of evolution theory.


Evolution explains biodiversity and the modification through descent of organic life forms.

Abiogenesis would probably fall under the parameters of organic chemistry.



The problem though that I see which I believe is confronting “evolution scientist and evolutionists” is the actual source of life. Was it from a non-living source/alien? On this there are still big debates, speculations and new theories are being formulated. My suggestion to evolutionists, they should come up with another theory/definition to distinguish abiogenesis from the formation of the source of life – that is before abiogenesis - maybe officially adopt exobiogenesis theory?


No there are no accredited sources of some exobiogenesis theory or any non-abiogenesis theory. The debate amongst scholars of science is abiogenesis in what form.




On this Richard Robinson seem to agree (Robinson 2005):


“Give biologists a cell, and they’ll give you the world. But beyond assuming the first cell must have somehow come into existence, how do biologists explain its emergence from the prebiotic world four billion years ago?”
– TalkOrigins.org



TalkOrigins.org is scarcely a source with the sophistication to negotiate the complexities of microbiology and organic chemistry, or even evolutionary biology. And hitting Ctrl+F then "god" or "abiogenesis", then selecting, copying, and pasting, is not exercising sound research habits, and just shows you are competent with keystrokes by way of hand. At the least use wikipedia, which is one of the most conveniently objective and accessible public websites available. But might I suggest a scholarly journal or, I don't know, maybe a university?

Here's a good start

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

P.S. Learn the definitions of inorganic and organic (hint: glucose is organic)
edit on 15-2-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join