• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Abiogenesis or God?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by ernest_theweedwhackerguy, Sep 18, 2004.

  1. God

  2. Abiogenesis

  3. Other

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    because I understand them and know that they are not violated in evolution and abiogenesis. tell me, which one of those laws is violated and why?
     
  2. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    hey mark, does God have anything to do with gravity?
     
  3. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,094
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Well Jet, does Bill Gates have anything to do with Microsoft?
     
  4. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  5. ernest_theweedwhackerguy

    ernest_theweedwhackerguy Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell

    +185
    Christian
    Private
    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:
     
  6. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    whu? I don't think you accurately described either stellar and planetary formation or the big bang.
    no actually, this is not the case. the way fusion works, the sun has been roughly the sme size for most of its life.
    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?
    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.
     
  7. Karl - Liberal Backslider

    Karl - Liberal Backslider Senior Veteran

    +275
    Anglican
    Married
    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?
     
  8. Tomk80

    Tomk80 Titleless

    +384
    Agnostic
    2/1 - "evolution is against God so it's not true"
     
  9. caravelair

    caravelair Well-Known Member

    +65
    Atheist
    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.

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

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

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE240.html
     
  10. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    those are rather good odds don't you think?
     
  11. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
  12. caravelair

    caravelair Well-Known Member

    +65
    Atheist
  13. versastyle

    versastyle hopeless guide

    +17
    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.
     
  14. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,094
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  15. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  16. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,094
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  17. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    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......
    so he created the universe by divine fiat. the universe is ****ing impressive. Evolution included.
     
  18. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,094
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  19. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  20. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,094
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...