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.
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.
This is the same thing people were saying at the start of the century about plate tectonics and quantum mechanics.
Oh well. To each his own.
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...
Hey, the only real science is physics. Everything else is just stamp collecting ...
... but there are a whole lot of stamps out there.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Hey, the only real science is physics. Everything else is just stamp collecting ...
... but there are a whole lot of stamps out there.
I used to drive my Electronic Engineering professor (I was taking first term circuit analysis) nuts by claiming that EE was Maxwell's equations + fudge factors to deal with noise
Sadly my "God said [maxwell's equations]
and there was light" t-shirt has bit the dust, I've got to get another one.
I used to drive my Electronic Engineering professor (I was taking first term circuit analysis) nuts by claiming that EE was Maxwell's equations + fudge factors to deal with noise
That's brilliant. I'll have to try that in uni myself someday
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
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".
As I said, Poke, evolution means a specific thing when it is used in the phrase "the theory of evolution." It means a different thing when is is used in another context. Abiogenesis is a separate field from the theory of evolution.
The person I replied to in the snippet you quoted certainly didn't use "Theory of" in his question, but the literate realize that there is such a critter as context, and that was the context in which he was speaking. Rather than acting retarded and pointing out that he didn't use the entire name of the theory of evolution to discuss the theory of evolution, I took it in context, as any reasonable person would.
__________________
If anyone wants a strong CF pet, PM me. I often have high stat pets to give away.
Why not read through it, see what you can understand, and then ask about anything you can't understand.
I read the link. I believe I understand it, but will refrain from commenting. At this point I am not interested in debating, just asking questions to see what is out there and what theory each poster favors. With that said I have two more questions.
1) Does all biology have "life," i.e. a living function?
2) Is there any element to chemistry that has "life"?
I read the link. I believe I understand it, but will refrain from commenting. At this point I am not interested in debating, just asking questions to see what is out there and what theory each poster favors. With that said I have two more questions.
1) Does all biology have "life," i.e. a living function?
2) Is there any element to chemistry that has "life"?
1) Biology is the study of living things. So yes.
2) Your body is made up of chemicals that daily react with one another. So yes.
__________________ "Call some place paradise/Kiss it goodbye"
The Eagles, the Last Resort
Liberal Christians do it in context
"Literalism is the first line of defense of a mind that wants to put itself to sleep." Walter A Davis
Is the same true outside of the human and animals bodies and plant life? Could you give some specifics?
When two chemical elements mix anywhere in the universe there is a chemical reaction. Try pouring phosphorus into water, for instance.
When the chemicals in plants meet light you get photo-synthesis.
One's not alive, one is. What makes the plant alive is not the chemical reactions that lead to photosynthesis, but the chemistry of DNA reproduction, and the presence of such chemicals as proteins. Chemistry again. And physics, because of course everything that exists as part of this universe has to obey this universe's physical laws.
Physics, chemistry and biology are just different ways of describing life, scientifically. Science, of course, isn't concerned with spirituality and can't test for such things as "soul" or "spirit" because it can't measure it.
__________________ "Call some place paradise/Kiss it goodbye"
The Eagles, the Last Resort
Liberal Christians do it in context
"Literalism is the first line of defense of a mind that wants to put itself to sleep." Walter A Davis
I understand that there is a theory that life began through a chemical reaction of non-living matter. How viable is this?
I think you're referring to abiogenesis. There are many different hypothesis on abiogenesis, some have more evidence than others. Of course, no theory on abiogenesis will ever be able to say, "This is the correct pathway that life took" since it was far too long ago and microfossil records of the first life doesn't exist. The best thing that scientists can do is try to find possible pathways that life may have come about.
__________________ 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
