Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Where does abiogenesis begin? What are the theories within abiogenesis? How does this relation to evolution? In your opinion which is the most viable theory and why?
There are no theories of abiogenesis.
I glanced at the Wikipedia entry linked to above, I found this to be cute:
"Clay theory of the origin of life
A hypothesis for the origin of life based on clay..."
Evolutionists like to use "hypothesis" and "theory" interchangeably, and then accuse Creationists of ignorance for the correct use of these terms. They also use "fact" and "theory" interchangeably (the "Theory" of Evolution is a "fact"). I guess logically, you shouldn't be surprised then when they insist a mere hypothesis, a wild guess, is a scientifically established fact.
There are a number of abiogenesis hypotheses, but none of them are more substantive than claiming that intelligent aliens from outer space planted life on Earth. Some Evolutionists really consider this to be a possibility; although, the aliens can't be God because then it wouldn't be scientific.
How can you trust anything they say? They iz ignorant. They say, "When we subjected these ribozymes to a test-tube evolution..." If they knew anything about Evolution, they'd know that Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis.
Their dog and pony RNA show does not make their hypothesis look plausible. Were in nature are quantities of RNA forming outside of life? How would their RNA form cells?
In other abiogenesis news, scientists get hydrogen and oxygen atoms to bond, resulting in water. A source commented that this suggests that a water origin of life is plausible, because life is mostly water.
Poke, before you post your replies, do you ask yourself what Jesus would do? Because your posts come across as very condescending and unChristian. You're very quick to judge, without having honestly examined the issues for yourself. Contrary to what you've convinced yourself to be true, there has been all kinds of literature written on abiogenesis -- honest scientific inquiry performed by qualified scientists.
Speaking of which, have you registered your vote in our "Education" poll yet?
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
How can you trust anything they say? They iz ignorant. They say, "When we subjected these ribozymes to a test-tube evolution..." If they knew anything about Evolution, they'd know that Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis.
Their dog and pony RNA show does not make their hypothesis look plausible. Were in nature are quantities of RNA forming outside of life? How would their RNA form cells?
In other abiogenesis news, scientists get hydrogen and oxygen atoms to bond, resulting in water. A source commented that this suggests that a water origin of life is plausible, because life is mostly water.
*sigh*
Evolution means a specific thing when it is used in the phrase "Theory of Evolution."
There are other uses of the word as well, which are not so specific. Yup, the word "evolution" had meanings even before the term Theory of Evolution was coined. That's right. Evil atheists and TE's stole an existing word to describe a specific theory! *laughs diabolically* (<---sarcasm, for the sarcasm impaired) People are still going to use the word evolution uncoupled with "theory of," to describe change. In the context of the article it sounds very much as if the writer was saying that the ribozymes were allowed to change sans outside direction.
The experiment was not one which sought to prove that RNA is being formed from elemental sources today but rather that the ribozymes can arise from non-living sources and might possibly have done so in the past. (let's exclude viri from the discussion as there it is questionable whether they properly classified as life or not) I'd say that they suceeded in forming ribozymes.
__________________
If anyone wants a strong CF pet, PM me. I often have high stat pets to give away.
Evolution means a specific thing when it is used in the phrase "Theory of Evolution."
Why do you say that when you know just the opposite is true? Standard Evolutionist M.O. is to accuse Creationists of ignorance when they use the word "evolution", but not the phrase "Theory of Evolution", in reference such things as abiogenesis?
Why, look at what you said just a few days ago to someone, "The theory of evolution addresses change in life forms over successive generations, as others [tripping over each other] have pointed out. Perhaps you are looking for the theory of abiogenesis." The person you were replying to didn't use the phrase "Theory of Evolution".
Alot of people are under the misconception that AIDS is a Virus in the standard sense. Where as with a "normal" virus you have RNA structure surrounded by it's own membrane. That is a virus, actually when it attacks a host.
AIDS is a little different with HIV. HIV is a JUST the RNA and completely reliant on a host. It has no genomic structure to build it's own membrane. By all defintions it is NOT ALIVE.
Is it self-replicating though? Yes, if you put it in the right environment. Could this environment exist? Sure, but we can't limit our scope. We have to understand that we are dealing with HUGE numbers, crazy numbers. The possibilities of it happening might be 1 in 10^11 which is a huge number. BUT, if it has 10^20 opportunities given space and time, it almost certainly WILL HAPPEN.
AIDS is HIV AND IT'S HOST, at work. HIV is just a simple set of instructions. You could put HIV in the dish full of it's favorite protein and it would go to work replicating with NO MEMBRANE.
Many would like to think that AIDS came from SIN and sex with monkeys or use it's original name G.R.I.D.S. or "Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome" to decribe the punishment God layed down for homosexual behavior. It was definetly championed by a slew of pastors this nation over in the early 80's for just that reason. Fortunately, through Science we've found out that it's a mutation and will subsequently be irradicated through Scientific Inquiry. Even now we have "cocktails" that put it in dormancy. All good news.
Did AIDS just arrise? Not that we see, that would be abiogenesis. The point of this post was 2 fold:
1. That RNA just wants to replicate like your RNA and HIV IS JUST RNA.
2. That establishing and fostering an absolute such as "punishment from God" doesn't lead to answers it only allows an agenda to surface. It's opportunistic and wrong. I don't think that is God's plan for us.
At the most basic level, biology is nothing but chemistry. And at the more basic level, chemistry is nothing but physics. Terms like biology and chemistry are human terms made up to help us classify areas of science.
Originally Posted by pastorkevin73
Would the science and all it's disciplines concur with this statement?
To a large extent, yes.
Chemistry is certainly nothing but messy physics
Or maybe physics is particularly well defined chemistry?
They started from different places but ended up in pretty much the same place.
Chemistry is like thermodynamics, we simply don't have the computing power to work out how a room full of gas molecules behave by looking at them /only/ as individual molecules, we have to look at them as an assemblage.
And biology is "just" taking chemistry one step further down the messiness slope.
Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts?
Well, despite what I have written above I find it worthwhile to remember that very few of the atoms in your body today were there 10 years ago...
Did you know that Wikipedia entries are made by various people, not all of whom are trained scientists.
Why don't you try learning from someone who really knows what they are talking about- like a biology proffesor.
That's why I said look at wiki, but then follow the references. Wiki is a great source for information, provided that the information is backed up with scientific references.
Anyway, pastorkevin73, I suggest you ignore what poke put seeing how most of it is rubbish. Theories on abiogenesis (yes theories) are hypothesis that have tested and passed. It does not mean that that theory was the way abiogenesis occurred, but rather provides a plausible pathway. For example, RNA first theory is backed up by the creation of self replicating RNA. While the self replicating RNA strand is not life, this showed how RNA might be the first reproducer on the way of life. This is why it's a theory. If they failed to create a self replicating RNA strand or if it was shown to be infeasible, it would be a failed hypothesis.
There are many other theories, some more viable than others, some with more stronger than others. It's all very interesting stuff, and even if you don't accept abiogenesis, just read about it, it's science. It's cool!
__________________ Entropy is driving the universe toward "heat death" --- Jesus is the force behind the Strong Nuclear Force that keeps the protons together - Colossians 1:17. - AV1611VET
Linear Mode
