Abiogenesis or God?

Where did living things come from?

  • God

  • Abiogenesis

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ernest_theweedwhackerguy

Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell
Jun 1, 2004
7,646
251
35
New York
✟16,541.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Where did the dust come from in the universe to create the earth if nothing was in the universe. Let me tell you something you people might find interesting. Scientists have been saying that the sun is getting smaller. If the sun and the earth were both 80 million years old, then the sun would have engulfed the earth! Also, the rings around jupiter keep distancing themselves from Jupiter itself. So, once again, if jupiter waseven 10 million years old, the rings would be so far away from it that you wouldn't be able to tell that the rings were around Jupiter, and not just several planets. Just a little something for you people to think about....I know its irrelevent to our conversation, but the "How was the earth created?" thread got shut down....Now for the thing i have that disproves abiogenesis and evolution!!!.......In a few minutes.... :cool:
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
ernest_theweedwhackerguy said:
Where did the dust come from in the universe to create the earth if nothing was in the universe.
whu? I don't think you accurately described either stellar and planetary formation or the big bang.
Let me tell you something you people might find interesting. Scientists have been saying that the sun is getting smaller. If the sun and the earth were both 80 million years old, then the sun would have engulfed the earth!
no actually, this is not the case. the way fusion works, the sun has been roughly the sme size for most of its life.
Also, the rings around jupiter keep distancing themselves from Jupiter itself. So, once again, if jupiter waseven 10 million years old, the rings would be so far away from it that you wouldn't be able to tell that the rings were around Jupiter, and not just several planets.
you are equivocating the age of the rings of jupiter with the age of jupiter. who says the planet and the rings are the same age?
Just a little something for you people to think about....I know its irrelevent to our conversation, but the "How was the earth created?" thread got shut down....Now for the thing i have that disproves abiogenesis and evolution!!!.......In a few minutes.... :cool:
oh well I hope it is better than your flawed arguments above, neither of which are even remotely near how the named systems work. so are you going to tell us about lunar dust and the eaths magnetic field?

how about sticking to the laws of thermodynamics, we questioned you and you just replied with the usual PRATT list.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
56
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟20,947.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Personally I can't wait for this knock out disproof of mainstream science.

Odds:

7/2 - some ancient item off the PRATT list
6/1 - some home-cobbled idea based on a complete lack of understanding of one or other areas of secondary school science
6/1 - strawman version of abiogenesis
5/1 - strawman version of natural selection
17/1 - well reasoned and researched but ultimately flawed objection
10^50/1 - a genuine rebuttal of mainstream science, and a candidate for a Nobel prize.

Any other bets?
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
43
Maastricht
Visit site
✟21,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Personally I can't wait for this knock out disproof of mainstream science.

Odds:

7/2 - some ancient item off the PRATT list
6/1 - some home-cobbled idea based on a complete lack of understanding of one or other areas of secondary school science
6/1 - strawman version of abiogenesis
5/1 - strawman version of natural selection
17/1 - well reasoned and researched but ultimately flawed objection
10^50/1 - a genuine rebuttal of mainstream science, and a candidate for a Nobel prize.

Any other bets?
2/1 - "evolution is against God so it's not true"
 
Upvote 0

caravelair

Well-Known Member
Mar 22, 2004
2,107
77
44
✟10,119.00
Faith
Atheist
ernest_theweedwhackerguy said:
Where did the dust come from in the universe to create the earth if nothing was in the universe.

when the earth formed, there were many, many things in the universe. the earth didn't form until almost 10 billion years after the big bang. that's plenty of time to get a large cloud of dust. the dust probably came from supernovae, or something like that.

Let me tell you something you people might find interesting. Scientists have been saying that the sun is getting smaller. If the sun and the earth were both 80 million years old, then the sun would have engulfed the earth!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

Also, the rings around jupiter keep distancing themselves from Jupiter itself. So, once again, if jupiter waseven 10 million years old, the rings would be so far away from it that you wouldn't be able to tell that the rings were around Jupiter, and not just several planets.

jupiter doesn't have rings. you're thinking of saturn...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE240.html
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

versastyle

hopeless guide
Aug 3, 2003
1,358
18
✟1,610.00
Faith
Christian
If we are forced to scientifically categorize the creation of Adam, it would be called abiogenesis.

Life arising from non-life.

From dirt to man.


I have noticed many people have a hard time seperating atheism from evolution. One reason I actually find evolution to be more reasonable then the 6000 YEC idea is because GOD DID IT.

God CAUSED abiogenesis.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Jet Black said:
you're learning. so why can't that be the case for abiogenesis and evolution then? If isn't a "can or can't", but but an "it is or it isn't", please pick.

Let me see if I understand the choices:

  • God can't create life as a natural process apart from divine fiat.
  • God can create life as a naturalistic process apart from divine fiat.
  • abiogenesis\evolution, is the method by which God creates life over time.
  • abiogenesis\evolution, is not the method by which God creates life over time.

I'm going with can or can't, there are reasons why original creation must be instantaneous, biological as well as theological. By the way, theological and biological considerations do not take preference over one another.

I am going with can or can't Jet, final answer.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Jet Black said:
can't for some theological reason, or can't because he isn't able? I don't see why he can't create a universe which generates life.

From what I have managed to learn from natural science, life just doesn't work that way. Now as far as the theology there are the divine attributes of God that are incommunicable (sort of nontransferable), since God cannot give his glory to anything or anyone else He must create by divine fiat.

Now like I said these are seperate issue but there are general principles that proceed from the same line of reason. God like nature is inexplicable and inexaustable as an experiential source of knowledge. God's divine attributes are reflected in nature but they are inverted so the principles are corrospond but are an inversion of logic.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
mark kennedy said:
From what I have managed to learn from natural science, life just doesn't work that way.
what we know of natural science is abysmally small. I find it strange that you can so easily come to the conclusion that abiogenesis is wrong. do you want to present something to that effect? I mean, things like photosynthesis in Fox's protocells (thermal proteinoid spheres) RNA self replication and so on......
Now as far as the theology there are the divine attributes of God that are incommunicable (sort of nontransferable), since God cannot give his glory to anything or anyone else He must create by divine fiat.
so he created the universe by divine fiat. the universe is ****ing impressive. Evolution included.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Jet Black said:
what we know of natural science is abysmally small. I find it strange that you can so easily come to the conclusion that abiogenesis is wrong. do you want to present something to that effect? I mean, things like photosynthesis in Fox's protocells (thermal proteinoid spheres) RNA self replication and so on......

For one thing Fox's protocells do not have the ability to self-replicate and they are basiclly empty shells. Of course I am thinking about Behe's 'irreducibly complex' and his characterization of Darwin's natural selection as a black box. Also the RNA experiments can minipulate RNA and it is very flexible but like divine attributes when you remove one essential element you don't something that is alive.


so he created the universe by divine fiat. the universe is ****ing impressive. Evolution included.

I have never said that naturalism is not an important process that often happens independant of divine intervention. I just don't see life originating from purely naturalistic processes, whats more, I don't happen to think the implications of empirical science warrant a purely naturalisitic explanation.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
mark kennedy said:
For one thing Fox's protocells do not have the ability to self-replicate and they are basiclly empty shells. Of course I am thinking about Behe's 'irreducibly complex' and his characterization of Darwin's natural selection as a black box. Also the RNA experiments can minipulate RNA and it is very flexible but like divine attributes when you remove one essential element you don't something that is alive.
I have never said that naturalism is not an important process that often happens independant of divine intervention. I just don't see life originating from purely naturalistic processes, whats more, I don't happen to think the implications of empirical science warrant a purely naturalisitic explanation.
the thing is that behe still hasn't found anything unevolvable. I still think you are basing your outlook on abiogenesis and evolution on a few hopes, rather than any particular justification.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Jet Black said:
the thing is that behe still hasn't found anything unevolvable. I still think you are basing your outlook on abiogenesis and evolution on a few hopes, rather than any particular justification.

Why would it have to be unevolvable? This is what I mean about naturalistic methodology, if you reject one part you reject all of it, if you accept part of it you accept all of it. I can reason as well as the next guy and I don't pin my hopes on a fragmentary conception of God. Why should I be compelled to accept Fox's or Darwin's conclusions on framentary evidence?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.