Evolution=Atheism

[Larry]

That's funny, since you can have fundamentalists with different spins from different Christian sects, meaning that not all fundamentalist beliefs agree.

So, if you agree with all fundamentalist Christian beliefs, aren't you contradicting yourself?

I'm telling you what I believe on the subject. Period. No contradictions. The specific 'hows' of God's creation, are not core Christian doctrines.

What is this? Am I now getting the 3rd degree from you? This thread is not about me. Okay?

 

[USincognito]

Interesting. Your title says, "Fundamentalist Christian," yet that's not a typical fundamentalist belief.

What makes you say that? He wrote that God created. That sounds like a fundamental of the faith to me.

 

[Jet Black]

The question is this: We can encompass electricity and magnetism in a single theory, could the same be done for abiogenesis and evolution ??

well we could do the same for cosmology and evolution too, but it would be useless. The thing is that evolution and abiogenesis work on completely different principles. one can doscuss evolution with only fairly vague links to chemistry, perhaps even not at all. we can discuss evolution purely on the basis of concepts like beak size, jawbone arrangement, cranial capacity and so on. we can discuss allopatric and sympatric speciation, sexual and natural selection and a whole host of other things. This is even in principle different to abiogenesis, in which we must discuss the fine details of chemistry and the minutae of the environmental factors, optical and thermal environments and so on. they are totally different sibjects to discuss, and what would we learn from trying to combine them.... well absolutely nothing really since all you would get in some combined theory is exactly what we have now; you start off discussing the chemical processes of abiogenesis and then you say "life begins about here" and then you have evolution. In fact the only real link is the concept of natural selection and mutation, initially of replicators, and then living organisms.
It is just the same with physics. you can start off with the big bang, and then say "and then here begins stellar formation" and then start talking about totally different physical principles. trying to combine both under one umbrella is pointless and does not answer anything. This is the principal reason why abiogenesis and evolution are not linked, and also, evolution being a biogenic theory, could survive without abiogenesis and as others have said, life could have been started by God.

 

[Jet Black]

hmm... bevets is looking. cue the quote mine. before (if) he posts anything, let it just be said that quotes have no bearing on the actual nature of theory... if he brings up that "molecules to man" evolution thing, I would argue with the scientist who said that.

 

[Sopharos]

hmm... bevets is looking. cue the quote mine. before (if) he posts anything, let it just be said that quotes have no bearing on the actual nature of theory... if he brings up that "molecules to man" evolution thing, I would argue with the scientist who said that.

Edit: Oh wait, I see him. He's viewing the thread. Man, I rarely if ever look at those thread viewers thing.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Son of Him, you claim to be a theistic evolutionist. So you know that evolution can occur in harmony with religious belief.
And abiogenisis can exist in harmony with evolution.
But it doesn't HAVE TO. They're not mutually inclusive.

You can believe that a deity created life. You can belief life was created chemically. You can believe that a deity directed evolution. You can believe that natural selection directed evolution. Heck, you could even believe than life was created chemically and then a deity came along to direct it.
You can understand this concept right?

Now, the reason so many of us atheists get annoyed by the Evolution = Atheism claim is that it is false. The mere fact that you are a theistic evolutionist confirms that. lucaspa consistantly demonstrates a knowledge of evolution far exeeding my own. So the claim is a lie.

The lie is propegated, mainly by creationists. They tie them together to scare and bully fellow Christians into thinking that evolution and christianity are incompatible.

That's why atheists (and theistic evolutionists) get up in arms about the false claim.

Me personally, I believe in Abiogenesis and Evolution.

Ryal Kane.

 

[Mistermystery]

I 'm sorry I could not help but notice that all those who claim that evolution does not equal atheism end up showing to be atheists at the end !!!!!!.

1) First of all, most Christians would disagree with you. So you're wrong
2) That says more about the atheists who understand the theistic evolutionists's position, rather that evolution equals atheism.

They go on supporting evolution and defending their position that evolution does not say anything about God, and when someone dares to hint that evolution is the tool by wich God brought the species to present form, they go crazy denying God!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

This is a matter of faith, rather a matter of science. Science is based on data, and drawing logical conclusions from all data.

So not to go to apologetics here goes the question :

Why is not abiogenesis linked in anyway to evolution ??

It is. But not in the way you think. Evolution simply accepts the creation of life, just like you accept the creation of your car when you go and drive around in it. Or like you accept my creation when we're typing on this messageboard. That doesn't mean we have to get into a conversation on how I was created.

I do not get those who claim otherwise. Evolution only speaks about living organisms yada,yada,yada. But seriously, life , and everything about it including its origin should be under the same umbrella, come on !!!.
To defend evolution alone and fearing to talk about abiogenesis is childish (for those who are atheists).

I don't get those who claim that evolution equals atheism, even when people like the pope accepted it.

 

[Mistermystery]

Exactly, I agree . I am a theistic evolutionist . But I still do not know why atheist evolutionist jump so high when you try to link evolution witn abiogenesis.

Buh? I should learn to read a complete thread before posting in it. I don't understand your query anymore. You first say that evolution = atheism, then you say that you are a theisic evolutionist. That must mean that your initial query is false.

And normally other people are needed to refute the op. You can do it all by yourself .

 

[Ron21647]

Electricity and magnetism should be linked because a moving electric charge causes a magnetic field, and a moving magnetic field causes an electric current. This is how electrical motors and generators work (along with a lot of other useful principles), and we would not fully understand those without a linked theory.

In the same way, quantum mechanics tells us certain things, and relativity tells us other things. but when we have particles that can only be described by quantum mechanics moving at speeds that can only be described by relativity, things happen which cannot be completely described by one or the other. So a theory of both is needed to describe these conditions. In the same way, gravity needs to be incorporated in these theories, because in an extremely strong gravitational field, none of the three theories by itself is sufficient to explain what happens.

But in the case of cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution, we have to postualte that a universe exists to have either of the other two. And we have to have the existence of life to have evolution. But the details of how the universe came into existence do not really affect abiogenesis or evolution, and the details of abiogenesis (or however life was created if you want to call it something else) do not affect evolution.

So these theories should not be linked, until we find a compelling reason to do so, as in my other examples above.

Ron

 

[lucaspa]

I 'm sorry I could not help but notice that all those who claim that evolution does not equal atheism end up showing to be atheists at the end !!!!!!.

Since when did Karl and I end up being atheists?

They go on supporting evolution and defending their position that evolution does not say anything about God, and when someone dares to hint that evolution is the tool by wich God brought the species to present form, they go crazy denying God!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Arikay and Mistermystery, both atheists, did not. Where are you getting your information?

"And I say that God could have created the diversity of species with evolution as his tool. He could have created the world with the big bang. And I know that this idea is uphold by many evolutionairy Christians." Mistermystery at http://www.christianforums.com/t725336

So not to go to apologetics here goes the question :

Why is not abiogenesis linked in anyway to evolution ??

ONE MORE TIME ... Theories have boundaries. Gravity doesn't explain cells, Cell Theory doesn't explain heredity, Relativity doesn't explain the causes of diseases, etc. Evolution assumes the existence of life. Once life exists, evolution explains the diversity of life -- descent with modification. But evoution won't explain where you got the first life to start the chain of descent. Darwin separated them in Origin

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

So, if God zapped the first life into existence, then evolution explains the diversity of life!

To defend evolution alone and fearing to talk about abiogenesis is childish (for those who are atheists).

But now you are doing two things:

1. Asking atheists to defend their worldview. That belongs in Apologetics.
2. Using the bad theoloy of god-of-the-gaps. Atheism is valid if chemistry produces life? In that case, you should become an atheist, because I can tell you how to produce life from non-life in your kitchen!

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Be sure to read the third site all the way thru!

 

[lucaspa]

Exactly, I agree . I am a theistic evolutionist . But I still do not know why atheist evolutionist jump so high when you try to link evolution witn abiogenesis.

Because it is bad science! Did it ever occur to you that not everything is about defending a worldview? That people might have integrity and simply want to do good science?

 

[lucaspa]

There are excellent evolution threads and great abiogenesis threads, so why is it that atheists feel so uncomfortable when trying to link the two ??

That is my question , How else do you want me to phrase it ??

BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LINKED! The theories are not linked, but separate. Abiogenesis is chemistry. Evoution is biology. Why do you have a problem with people wanting the truth?

 

[lucaspa]

The question is this: We can encompass electricity and magnetism in a single theory, could the same be done for abiogenesis and evolution ??

No. Abiogenesis is chemistry. It is making the proteins and other molecules of a living cell by chemical reactions.

Evolution starts with those molecules. Evolution also involves natural selection of individual organisms to change populations of organisms over time. This can't apply to the chemical reactions to produce proteins and nucleic acids.

Now, the "interface" comes when you have a molecule or primitive cell capable of reproduction. At that point, natural selection can possibly take place among individuals of the population of molecules or primitive cells.

Now, I will say that abiogenesis theories are tested by their ability to produce entities that are capable of participating in natural selection. If the series of chemical reactions (theory) do not lead to an entity that can evolve, then the theory must be wrong. Why? Because we know that life on earth has evolved by natural selection. So any theory to get the first life that doesn't have that first life being able to evolve by natural selection can't be right.

 

[Phred]

Agree, but then there should be a link between whatever theory of origin of life and evolution.

Fine, you propose one. The rest of us will just have to get by with two separate theories that answer two different questions about the same subject... Life on Earth.

There is people trying to link quantum mechanics and relativity thru a common theory and here I have people saying there is no link between the origin of life and the mechanism that life uses to progress thru time .

Because they share common questions. If you ask why mass exhibits a gravitational field you will get differing answers. The people is (sic) working to unify the theories so you will get just one answer. Evolution and Abiogenesis aren't able to be unified because they are answers to different questions.

Thanks God neither Newton, Einstein or Plank thought like that and kept looking for links between physical phenomena !!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, Abiogenesis attempts to answer the question, "how did life on Earth begin?" The Theory of Evolution answers the question, "How did life on Earth become so abundant in such variety?" You can't answer the question about life's beginnings by offering evidence of mutation.

Both questions are about life on Earth. But that's where the similarity ends. Your paradigm has the same answer to both questions... goddidit. You can't seem to understand why you have one answer while science has two, so you're trying to force some connection.

 

[The Son of Him]

You can't seem to understand why you have one answer while science has two, so you're trying to force some connection.

I have no problem with any of the two theories ,abiogenesis or evolution .

I am saying that it will be nice to find a connection by wich we can derive evolution from a consistent abiogenesis theory.

Of course I know both answer different questions, but one deals with the origin of LIFE and the other one with how that SAME LIFE changes to its current form. !!!!!

I do not understand people that say there is no connection !!!. (They both talk about life !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

Thanks God that DARWIN himself did not pay attention to those who said there was no connection between species, otherwise we would not have evolution theory today !!!!!

 

[Tomk80]

For further pondering. The reason I get very irritated about the mixing of abiogenesis and evolution is because of the standard creationist argument about this:
1. Blah can never produce life
2. Abiogenesis can't be happening because of 1.
3. Since blah can never produce life, evolution is false.

It's not even the inconsistency of blah which upsets me the most. It's creationist conclusion 3. which is annoying. Why? Because indeed for evolution to be happening it doesn't matter how life started. Do you understand the irritation here?

 

[Tomk80]

I have no problem with any of the two theories ,abiogenesis or evolution .

I am saying that it will be nice to find a connection by wich we can derive evolution from a consistent abiogenesis theory.

Of course I know both answer different questions, but one deals with the origin of LIFE and the other one with how that SAME LIFE changes to its current form. !!!!!

I do not understand people that say there is no connection !!!. (They both talk about life !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

Thanks God that DARWIN himself did not pay attention to those who said there was no connection between species, otherwise we would not have evolution theory today !!!!!

The problem is that, as far as theories go, they ARE seperate. Seperate theories which deal with different aspects of life as we know it. That is why arguing them as one and the same doesn't make sense. Because both describe differing mechanisms and both theories are arrived at and supported in different ways.

 

[The Son of Him]

Now, I will say that abiogenesis theories are tested by their ability to produce entities that are capable of participating in natural selection. If the series of chemical reactions (theory) do not lead to an entity that can evolve, then the theory must be wrong. Why? Because we know that life on earth has evolved by natural selection. So any theory to get the first life that doesn't have that first life being able to evolve by natural selection can't be right.

I agree .That is what I am pointing to.
See, the capacity to evolve sould be a "built in" capacity of the first living organism spawned from an abiogenesis theory. So I interpret this to be a link between the two.
May be the origin of life and life evolving share some common principle, (a quantum mechanical one perhaps ?) that could be encompassed in a unifed THEORY of LIFE.

 

[Dark_Adonis]

Since when did Karl and I end up being atheists?

Since the EAC slipped you that pill in your drink, that's why it's so fizzy... Oh crud I signed a non-disclosure agreement when I left... Please don't sue, please don't sue..

 

[The Son of Him]

The problem is that, as far as theories go, they ARE seperate. Seperate theories which deal with different aspects of life as we know it. That is why arguing them as one and the same doesn't make sense. Because both describe differing mechanisms and both theories are arrived at and supported in different ways.

Just like Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

They ARE separate which deal with different aspects of energy and matter (one at short scales and the other at large ones )as we know it but :arguing them as one and the same doesn't make sense ??.

There is people trying to unify them into a single theory (strings and branes perhaps ).

Can we give continuity to abiogenesis and evolution in a beautiful theory of life in wich the second is an inevitable consequence of the first ???