Creation or Evolution, does it matter?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

By comparing the number of my ancestors back through time with the total population of Europe, I estimate that my most recent common ancestors with these two human beings were born no longer ago than 1200 AD.
View attachment 249751
If I have to admit to being related to Hitler and Himmler, then I have no reason to object to being descended from apes.

Good point. We all seem to have famous or notorious ancestry...

 

[juvenissun]

Technically, that's true. The problem is, defined that way, the term "creationist" would apply to any theist and would not be very useful. That is why in this forum, and pretty generally, the term "creationist" is reserved for a biblical creationist.

Not at all. Except Christianity, other gods do not explain their creation acts well or at all. Christianity is the only religion which delineates a very clear picture of creation processes and goal. So, the term creationist only applied to Christian.

 

[juvenissun]

Sure we are. We just don't want to call abiogenesis "evolution." It's not an accurate usage.

Good point. Why not? I think all suggested principles of evolution can be applied to abiogenesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good point. Why not? I think all suggested principles of evolution can be applied to abiogenesis.

You can think whatever you want.
The reality is that evolution and abiogenesis are two different things, different area's of study and different scientific fields all together....

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not afraid of the origins problem, because I'm not afraid to say I don't know.

So evolutionists do not know what to say about the role of evolution in abiogenesis. So, instead of say "I don't know", they said: It is not included.

 

[Speedwell]

Good point. Why not? I think all suggested principles of evolution can be applied to abiogenesis.

How? None of the presently considered possibilities--from direct intervention by God to any current scientific hypothesis involves evolution. In fact, no one knows exactly how it happened. How can you be so sure it involved the same processes which drive evolution?

 

[Speedwell]

So evolutionists do not know what to say about the role of evolution in abiogenesis.

Because at the present time it does not appear likely that evolution played any role in abiogenesis.

 

[juvenissun]

How? None of the presently considered possibilities--from direct intervention by God to any current scientific hypothesis involves evolution. In fact, no one knows exactly how it happened. How can you be so sure it involved the same processes which drive evolution?

Because the principles of evolution is so nebulous that ANY process can use them.

 

[Speedwell]

Because the principles of evolution is so nebulous that ANY process can use them.

So randomly distributed heritable variation acted on by natural selection is nebulous? Sounds pretty concrete to me. The processes can be closely modeled mathematically. Is that nebulous?

 

[juvenissun]

So randomly distributed heritable variation acted on by natural selection is nebulous? Sounds pretty concrete to me. The processes can be closely modeled mathematically. Is that nebulous?

Could this principle be also applied to an abiogeneic process? How do you describe the process that a smaller organic particle becomes a larger organic particle? Is it random? Is it natural selection? Is it a heritable variation?

 

[Speedwell]

Could this principle be also applied to an abiogeneic process? How do you describe the process that a smaller organic particle becomes a larger organic particle?

It's called an "organic chemical reaction" which happens all the time in nature and in the lab.

Is it random?

It depends on what you mean by "random." In the scientific sense of the term, no.

Is it natural selection?

If the entity survives in its environment then it has been "naturally selected," yes.

Is it a heritable variation?

Not at the very beginning, no. There is no "heritable" without DNA.

 

[juvenissun]

Not at the very beginning, no. There is no "heritable" without DNA.

Some small organic particle can only "grow" into a particular type larger organic chemical. Why is it not heritable?

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Speedwell]

Some small organic particle can only "grow" into a particular type larger organic chemical. Why is it not heritable?

No DNA to pass on.

 

[juvenissun]

No DNA to pass on.

To make DNA.

 

[Speedwell]

To make DNA.

If scientists knew that then the problem of abiogenesis would be largely solved.

 

[juvenissun]

If scientists knew that then the problem of abiogenesis would be largely solved.

Solved or not, why not use principles of evolution to study it? Why should it be rejected from the evolutional processes?

 

[Speedwell]

Solved or not, why not use principles of evolution to study it? Why should it be rejected from the evolutional processes?

Because it didn't start in the "evolutional" process. It was always a separate discipline because nobody knew whether the principles of evolution applied to it or not. If they ever are shown to do so, then they will be used--although at this point it doesn't seem likely.

 

[juvenissun]

Because it didn't start in the "evolutional" process. It was always a separate discipline because nobody knew whether the principles of evolution applied to it or not. If they ever are shown to do so, then they will be used--although at this point it doesn't seem likely.

I never see any evolutionist tried that. There must be a reason.
I think the reason is: When applied, it will fail. So.... better not touch it, simply claim: it does not belong.

 

[Speedwell]

I never see any evolutionist tried that. There must be a reason.
I think the reason is: When applied, it will fail. So.... better not touch it, simply claim: it does not belong.

That makes no sense whatever. You're accusing biologists of not using an inappropriate paradigm to investigate abiogenesis as if it was some kind of cop-out. Do you really think the theory of evolution was ever supposed to be a theory of everything?

But what I believe is that you are trying to discredit the theory of evolution by showing that it doesn't explain abiogenesis and in order to do that you have to show that it was intended to explain abiogenesis in the first place. That is why you are insinuating that we know it was intended to explain abiogenesis and are trying to cover it up.