| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
26th May 2012, 04:23 AM
| | Member
  
| | Join Date: 18th May 2012
Posts: 144
Blessings: 22,834
Reps: 572,181,492,797,778 (power: 0) | | | Why assume 153 years after Darwin, one can add abiogenesis to Theory of Evolution?
I keep hearing creationists insist NOT just that "The Theory of Evolution SHOULD include abiogenesis as part of the theory". No, some of them many of them will actually argue, "Yes, abiogenesis is part of the Theory of Evolution!" and won't take no for an answer.
I don't get it. Scientific theories address a single question and provide an explanation for the data related to that explanation. So why would anyone think that they can somehow "append" a second question ("How did life begin?") onto a theory which addresses the question "How do living things change over time?"
Obviously, the two questions are entirely different, just as The Plant Auxin Theory of Phototropism explains how sunlight causes a plant to grow toward the sun---- but that theory does not try to explain how the sun began or how light is produced on the sun. So how is there attempt to add abiogenesis to evolution theory any different?
I can sort of understand why creationists deny abiogenesis [even though Genesis 2:7 clearly describes life from non-life, the very definition of abiogenesis]. But why try to force various abiogenesis hypotheses [there is no final, comprehensive and well accepted theory of abiogenesis] into The Theory of Evolution?  |
26th May 2012, 10:30 AM
|  | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
58    
 | | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,638,483
Blessings: 65,821 My Mood 
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,857,420) | | Originally Posted by MostlyLurking  I can sort of understand why creationists deny abiogenesis [even though Genesis 2:7 clearly describes life from non-life, the very definition of abiogenesis]. But why try to force various abiogenesis hypotheses [there is no final, comprehensive and well accepted theory of abiogenesis] into The Theory of Evolution?
If you can inject abiogenesis into Genesis 2:7, don't complain if we inject abiogenesis into evolution.
I, myself, don't -- but some do.
__________________ THE BIBLE SAYS IT ... THAT SETTLES IT |
26th May 2012, 10:42 AM
|  | Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
52   
| | Join Date: 31st March 2006 Location: Wales
Posts: 14,325
Blessings: 28,009,799 My Mood 
Reps: 2,304,241,849,508,589,312 (power: 2,304,241,849,508,611) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET If you can inject abiogenesis into Genesis 2:7, don't complain if we inject abiogenesis into evolution.
I, myself, don't -- but some do.
Back in the early church, it was already injected into Gen 1:24 by creationists like Basil.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
When you come to the Ammonites, do not
harass them or provoke them. Deut 2:19
|
26th May 2012, 10:44 AM
| | Loudmouth
   
| | Join Date: 3rd July 2008
Posts: 3,045
Blessings: 100,679 My Mood 
Reps: 127,433,160,464,321,440 (power: 127,433,160,464,329) | | Obviously when Darwin wrote Origin of Species he wasn't discussing how life originated. Similarly most evolutionists of all kinds today emphasize that abiogenesis and evolution are two seperate topics.
But in theory - why shouldn't the two be combined? All living things are organic, but not all organic things are living. If I had to choose just one trait which distinguishes the two, I'd choose replication. The difficulty here is that not all organic replicators are defined as living beings (prions, for example).
If we were to include abiogenesis has part of evolution, perhaps it would help us to distinguish between:
a) inanimate and living organic matter and
b) living replicators and non-living replicators. Originally Posted by AV1611VET If you can inject abiogenesis into Genesis 2:7, don't complain if we inject abiogenesis into evolution.
Fair enough.
__________________ I judge you unfortunate because you have never been unfortunate; you have passed through life without an antagonist; no one will know what you can do, not even yourself. Lucius Annaeus Seneca If we seriously think about it, it probably makes more sense to assume that this is a naturally evil world that has somehow been mysteriously 'contaminated' by goodness, rather than the other way around. M. Scott Peck Thanks to everyone for the good reputation points. |
26th May 2012, 10:47 AM
| | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
58
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,638,483
Blessings: 65,821 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,857,420) | | Originally Posted by Assyrian Back in the early church, it was already injected into Gen 1:24 by creationists like Basil.
Oh.
__________________ THE BIBLE SAYS IT ... THAT SETTLES IT |
26th May 2012, 10:53 AM
| | Newbie
 
| | Join Date: 23rd May 2012 Location: North Carolina
Posts: 64
Blessings: 21,565
Reps: 9,323,071,743,785,920 (power: 9,323,071,743,787) | | Originally Posted by MostlyLurking I keep hearing creationists insist NOT just that "The Theory of Evolution SHOULD include abiogenesis as part of the theory". No, some of them many of them will actually argue, "Yes, abiogenesis is part of the Theory of Evolution!" and won't take no for an answer.
I don't get it. Scientific theories address a single question and provide an explanation for the data related to that explanation. So why would anyone think that they can somehow "append" a second question ("How did life begin?") onto a theory which addresses the question "How do living things change over time?"
Obviously, the two questions are entirely different, just as The Plant Auxin Theory of Phototropism explains how sunlight causes a plant to grow toward the sun---- but that theory does not try to explain how the sun began or how light is produced on the sun. So how is there attempt to add abiogenesis to evolution theory any different?
I can sort of understand why creationists deny abiogenesis [even though Genesis 2:7 clearly describes life from non-life, the very definition of abiogenesis]. But why try to force various abiogenesis hypotheses [there is no final, comprehensive and well accepted theory of abiogenesis] into The Theory of Evolution?
My own approach to this has always been, fine. If they want to suppose that the first self replicating molecule was zapped into existence by God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an AP science class from Betelgeuse, that's OK. Evolution just picks up from there. |
26th May 2012, 10:59 AM
| | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
58
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,638,483
Blessings: 65,821 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,857,420) | | Originally Posted by GrannyM My own approach to this has always been, fine. If they want to suppose that the first self replicating molecule was zapped into existence by God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an AP science class from Betelgeuse, that's OK. Evolution just picks up from there.
What's with the melodrama? is that your style?
If not, would you please direct me to a creationist who claims this Monster or science class from Betelgeuse?
It's fun to include God in a list of melodramatic, made-up fantasies, isn't it?
__________________ THE BIBLE SAYS IT ... THAT SETTLES IT |
26th May 2012, 11:14 AM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 23rd May 2012 Location: North Carolina
Posts: 64
Blessings: 21,565
Reps: 9,323,071,743,785,920 (power: 9,323,071,743,787) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET What's with the melodrama? is that your style?
If not, would you please direct me to a creationist who claims this Monster or science class from Betelgeuse?
It's fun to include God in a list of melodramatic, made-up fantasies, isn't it?
OK. You certainly have my permission - not that you need it - to pare your list to one. God zapped the first self replicating molecule into place, and evolution proceeds from there. |
26th May 2012, 11:19 AM
| | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
58
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,638,483
Blessings: 65,821 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,857,420) | | Originally Posted by GrannyM OK. You certainly have my permission - not that you need it - to pare your list to one. God zapped the first self replicating molecule into place, and evolution proceeds from there.
"Zapped?"
What's with the melodrama?
It kills you guys to use proper terminology, doesn't it?
Yet you guys expect us to.
__________________ THE BIBLE SAYS IT ... THAT SETTLES IT |
26th May 2012, 11:20 AM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 23rd May 2012 Location: North Carolina
Posts: 64
Blessings: 21,565
Reps: 9,323,071,743,785,920 (power: 9,323,071,743,787) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET "Zapped?"
What's with the melodrama?
It kills you guys to use proper terminology, doesn't it?
Yet you guys expect us to.
You are at liberty to use whatever terminology you choose. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
