A Reccommendation To Fellow Young Earth Creationists

[IFG1P315]

Hey everybody,

I just wanted to share a thought and get some feedback.

I am a YEC and I have noticed that many of us tend to get hung up on debating evolution with non-creationists. I think it would be far more beneficial if all creationists made our main point of contention with non-creationism and atheism the improbability of abiogenesis. As I see it, abiogenesis is the most significant weak point in a non-creationist world view. Logically, scientifically, and statistically it just doesn't make any sense.

Know that I am not saying we should abandon debating evolution and a young Earth, only that we should leave this debate to be with people who have already admitted to the necessity of a creator.

I think if we choose to make this abiogenesis our main point of contention we will all do a lot better in our discussions with non-creationists.

Any thoughts?

 

[imind]

I am a YEC and I have noticed that many of us tend to get hung up on debating evolution with non-creationists. I think it would be far more beneficial if all creationists made our main point of contention with non-creationism and atheism the improbability of abiogenesis. As I see it, abiogenesis is the most significant weak point in a non-creationist world view. Logically, scientifically, and statistically it just doesn't make any sense.

do you mean to suggest that creationists should rather argue against something that doesn't have so much evidence for it, as evolution does?

 

[FallingWaters]

What is abiogenesis?

 

[metherion]

Abiogenesis is life from non-life.

So, for instance, if a bunch of styrofoam packing peanuts suddenly turned into racoons, that would be abiogenesis.

Metherion

 

[crawfish]

I think many of us would be up to discussing such things. Not here, though.

 

[busterdog]

Hey everybody,

I just wanted to share a thought and get some feedback.

I am a YEC and I have noticed that many of us tend to get hung up on debating evolution with non-creationists. I think it would be far more beneficial if all creationists made our main point of contention with non-creationism and atheism the improbability of abiogenesis. As I see it, abiogenesis is the most significant weak point in a non-creationist world view. Logically, scientifically, and statistically it just doesn't make any sense.

Know that I am not saying we should abandon debating evolution and a young Earth, only that we should leave this debate to be with people who have already admitted to the necessity of a creator.

I think if we choose to make this abiogenesis our main point of contention we will all do a lot better in our discussions with non-creationists.

Any thoughts?

Here are the counter arguments:

1. Evolution is SO successful as a thory that the eventual conquest of abiogenesis is virtually assured.

2. The improbability of abiogensis is a meaningless criticism unless you can offer a competing, peer-reviewed scientific model for the creation of life.

3. Since there is no fossil (or other similar) record of the miraculous creation of life, the Bible is a metaphor for a perfectly "natural", or non-miraculous, abiogenesis. Said otherwise, creation itself testifies to a "natural" abiogenesis, since there is no "evidence" of the miraculous creation of life, except for the Bible, which speaks only in generalities and metaphors on such matters.

In short, the deck is stacked against you. Everything in their view is measured by human knowledge and the ability of people to "know" by their own methods. How are you are going to win a debate on those grounds?

Science will not tolerate any view that doesn't presuppose and prosyletize the view that science can know everything. The definition of science and the validity of all theology is measured by this same rule in theological evolution. It is the fall restated.

 

[IFG1P315]

do you mean to suggest that creationists should rather argue against something that doesn't have so much evidence for it, as evolution does?

No, not in the least. Evolution is largely void of evidence, but for every bit of contestable evidence for evolution, abiogenesis has none. It is simply an easier point of contention. It is also easier to get someone to see the problems with evolution if they understand the need of a creator. I am not saying evolution is right, or even that it is difficult to correctly refute, only that abiogenesis is easier, and more important.

 

[keyarch]

Hey everybody,

I just wanted to share a thought and get some feedback.

That one argument is only part of the picture and one that has to do with evidence here on earth.

The opposition could easily suggest that original life forms could have arrived on earth from an outside source i.e.: asteroid or aliens. Even though you could counter with how could abiogenesis occur anywhere, we don't have access to those environments and so it's a dead issue as far as arguments go.

To me its like loading a scale and taking one subject at a time and trying to weigh it toward creation. It's up to God to tip the scale in their mind.

 

[gluadys]

It is also easier to get someone to see the problems with evolution if they understand the need of a creator.

The difficulty with this is that TEs already believe in a creator. So understanding the need for a creator doesn't come to grips with any problems with evolution--or abiogenesis either.

 

[busterdog]

No, not in the least. Evolution is largely void of evidence, but for every bit of contestable evidence for evolution, abiogenesis has none. It is simply an easier point of contention. It is also easier to get someone to see the problems with evolution if they understand the need of a creator. I am not saying evolution is right, or even that it is difficult to correctly refute, only that abiogenesis is easier, and more important.

One would think ....

I haven't seen much success in this forum, however.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Abiogenesis is life from non-life.

So, for instance, if a bunch of styrofoam packing peanuts suddenly turned into racoons, that would be abiogenesis.

Metherion

That would be awesome.

 

[Floodnut]

That would be awesome.

How about turning MUD into a functioning eyeball, or turning the inorganic element H20 into WINE, an organic material!

The LORD God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

 

[metherion]

Mud to eyeball and water to wine wouldn't really be abiogenesis, because even though they are alive or organic material they are not life. Wine and eyeballs are not organisms unto themselves. This is why the abiotic formation of methane (to name one) and other carbon-based molecules is not abiogenesis. Organic molecules are not life because they are not actual organisms, but they are necessary for life.

OTOH, man from dust would be because humans are organisms unto themselves. So would raccoons from packing peanuts, prokaryotic bacteria from self-replicating polymers, plants from earth, and so on. Because humans, plants, raccoons, and bacteria are organisms.

Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

Abiogenesis is life from non-life.

So, for instance, if a bunch of styrofoam packing peanuts suddenly turned into racoons, that would be abiogenesis.

Metherion

I always wanted to take some styrofoam packing peanuts, preferably the yellowish ones, and leave them lying around in a bowl at a party.

 

[Tomm]

Dear IFG1P315 ,

There is no evidence for Abiogenesis and it has actually
been DISPROVED by Louis Pasteur. He demonstrated that modern organisms do not generate spontaneoulsy from nonliving nutrients.

 

[Citanul]

There is no evidence for Abiogenesis and it has actually
been DISPROVED by Louis Pasteur. He demonstrated that modern organisms do not generate spontaneoulsy from nonliving nutrients.

Are you sure Pasteur disproved abiogenesis? I always thought he disproved spontaneous generation, which as I understood it was different from abiogenesis. Can you point me in the direction of any links to clear this up?

 

[Tomm]

Dear IFG1P315,

Apart from abiogenesis, we can also attack materialistic evolution in other ways :


(1) materialistic evolution cannot explain many human characteristics (especially spiritual ones) , for example :

free will;
self-awareness;
sense of dignity;
sense of beauty;
musical abilities;
language abilities;
sense of morality;
feel ashamed to expose private parts to others;
aversion of dirtiness;
aversion of bad smells;
sense of humour;
refined taste for food and preference for cooked food;
fear of seeing blood.


All these are found lacking in animals. And most of these have nothing to do with survival.


(2) Many supernatural incidents are effective in disproving materialistic evolution, including apparitions of God and saints, miracles (like miraculous spring water of Lourdes , incorruptible bodies of saints), etc.
They are not scientific facts but are FACTS.

 

[Dannager]

Dear IFG1P315,

Apart from abiogenesis, we can also attack materialistic evolution in other ways :

(1) materialistic evolution cannot explain many human characteristics (especially spiritual ones) , for example :

free will;
self-awareness;
sense of dignity;
sense of beauty;
musical abilities;
language abilities;
sense of morality;
aversion of dirtiness;
aversion of bad smells;
preference for cooked food;
fear of seeing blood.

All these are found lacking in animals;

(2) Many supernatural incidents are effective in disproving materialistic evolution, including apparitions of God and saints, miracles (like miraculous spring water of Lourdes , incorruptible bodies of saints), etc.
They are not scientific facts but are FACTS.

Again, I'd love the chance to discuss with you how a) science can explain many of those and b) most of them are found in animals, but debate is not allowed here. Would you be interested in starting a thread on this in the OT board so that we can discuss it?

 

[Tomm]

Again, I'd love the chance to discuss with you how a) science can explain many of those and b) most of them are found in animals, but debate is not allowed here. Would you be interested in starting a thread on this in the OT board so that we can discuss it?

Yeah, Dannager, I believe you when you said
that those human characteristics can be found also in animals because
my dog told me so last night while we were watching TV together,
he told me :

- he got sense of beauty (he's looking for a female dog which looks like Nicole Kidman);
- he listens to Mozart;
- he loves cleaniness (he washes his kennel with soap every week);
- he hates bad smells (he holds his nose whenever he goes to toilet);
- he has sense of dignity (he wants me to address him Sir);
- he is ashamed of exposing his sensitive part (he wears trousers);
- he has refined taste for food and prefers cooked food (he hates dog food and cooks his own food with a pan);
- he has free will (he can control his gastronomic appetite and sexual appetite);
- he has sense of humor (he watches Mr Bean and laughs out louder than me);
- he has sense of morality (he reads moral books and behaves according to their teachings).

Dannager, I am only joking, but you started it first.
In fact, humans are different from animals, animals are purely physical while humans have both physical and spiritual aspects.

Next, you said evolution can explain those characteristics, I'd love to hear, they might give us a good ...
________________________________________________________________________________________

T.C.

 

[Gottservant]

Dear IFG1P315, I understand the point of your post and am willing to contribute positively to your thread.

I agree that evolutionists use their theory as a prop to deny their existence has a connection with God. I agree that that connection is more important than whether a generation changes at some point or not.

We only have one life to live, after all, why should it matter that unusual creatures exist?

Thank you for helping me set my focus on God rather than debate.