evolution question

[Loudmouth]

I believe God is infinite and eternal and that he created everything we observe in our reality including ourselves. This would mean God himself is beyond our reality, but also able to effect our reality.

So I suppose observable direct proof of abiogenesis would be an effect on our reality, but I don't understand why God would want to show us how life spontaneously emerged from non-life. It seems contradictory to His purpose of wanting to be praised for creating life.

He created life, it wasn't randomly spontaneous, it was planned and created for a purpose.

That's what I believe anyway.

Nice post. All I ask is for is an honest appraisal of one's beliefs which is exactly what you have done.

Yes, God established the laws of nature for a purpose. He also created life for a purpose. The reason he created life is so he could be praised for accomplishing his plan of eternal life for his creation. What better purpose is there for a God? None that we can imagine in our current states of being.

Anyhow, I sense this going off topic.

We aren't entirely off topic since the original question involved abiogenesis. I don't want to persist with the same idea too far into the discussion, but your post does make me want to ask why God establishing the laws of nature and God creating life have to be separate processes. If God can create the natural laws with a purpose, why can't those natural laws include processes that create life? As you say, you don't believe this is how it happened, but these are the questions that your posts are putting into my head.

 

[Michael]

I believe God is infinite and eternal and that he created everything we observe in our reality including ourselves.

For all we really know this universe *is* infinite and it's eternal, and everything created inside of it is created by it, consciously and intentionally. God could be the single most "natural" thing in the universe, specifically the universe itself.

This would mean God himself is beyond our reality, but also able to effect our reality.

Even if God is this living universe, we observe but a *tiny sliver* of that physical reality.

So I suppose observable direct proof of abiogenesis would be an effect on our reality, but I don't understand why God would want to show us how life spontaneously emerged from non-life.

You've assumed that the universe isn't "alive" apparently. I see no evidence to support that assumption.

It seems contradictory to His purpose of wanting to be praised for creating life.

Actually if God is the physical universe, it would be the "natural" way to create life, and it might be the single "easiest" way to create life.

He created life, it wasn't randomly spontaneous, it was planned and created for a purpose.

In Panentheism (not necessarily Pantheism), that would still be true. Earth itself may have been "created" with intent, designed to harbor life for billions of years. We really can't eliminate the possibility that we live inside of a living universe, even if abiogenesis is confirmed. A "natural" God isn't threatened by abiogenesis theory.

That's what I believe anyway.

You're of course welcome to believe what you want. I was simply pointing out that concepts of a natural God, including pantheism and panentheism are in no way eliminated or done away with simply because life forms "naturally" given exactly the right conditions to work with.

 

[Michael]

Nice post. All I ask is for is an honest appraisal of one's beliefs which is exactly what you have done.



We aren't entirely off topic since the original question involved abiogenesis. I don't want to persist with the same idea too far into the discussion, but your post does make me want to ask why God establishing the laws of nature and God creating life have to be separate processes. If God can create the natural laws with a purpose, why can't those natural laws include processes that create life? As you say, you don't believe this is how it happened, but these are the questions that your posts are putting into my head.

FYI, I would add that I think that these are all perfectly logical questions that you should ask yourself from my perspective (as a theist) as well. Even if God is "supernatural" in origin, and created "nature" as we understand it, that "nature" might certainly include all the necessary ingredients of life *by design*, including the process known as abiogenesis.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I assume all this means they observed life emerge from non-life? Did they get it on video by chance?

Better. It is recorded in rock.

 

[Chriliman]

For all we really know this universe *is* infinite and it's eternal, and everything created inside of it is created by it, consciously and intentionally. God could be the single most "natural" thing in the universe, specifically the universe itself.

This universe has an apparent beginning and I don't think God would allow that unless he was trying to tell us that he created the universe, not that he is the universe.

I go to scripture to figure out the truth and this is what I've found to support my position

Deuteronomy 10:14-16
"Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is."

This makes it clear to me that even the heavens above the universe belong to God. Meaning He is even above the heavens of the universe. He's making it clear that He is the highest possible being.

Revelation 20:11
"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

This makes it clear that when we are being judged by God at the end of time, God's presence will cause the earth and the universe to flee away. To me this means God can't possibly be the universe. He's is something entirely greater and more powerful.

You can interpret these verses however you want. But I think it's clear that God is trying to inform us that He is the creator of even the heavens of the universe, which are both greater than the earth.

 

[Chriliman]

We aren't entirely off topic since the original question involved abiogenesis. I don't want to persist with the same idea too far into the discussion, but your post does make me want to ask why God establishing the laws of nature and God creating life have to be separate processes. If God can create the natural laws with a purpose, why can't those natural laws include processes that create life? As you say, you don't believe this is how it happened, but these are the questions that your posts are putting into my head.

I agree it can be understood that God established the laws of nature and allowed life to come from what He established.

Genesis 1:24
"And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so."

The only thing to keep in mind is time. To God, time only exists for our purposes. His view of time is that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. In other words, time doesn't really matter to God. What looks like millions of years of evolution could actually be a 24 hour day of creation for God. Our ways of dating things could be way off.

So God said let the land produce living creatures, but when it comes to mankind, we have a different explanation.

Genesis 1:26
"Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Notice God does not say let the land produce mankind. He says let us make mankind in our image. Our image meaning in the image of the God head, which includes God the father the son and the holy spirit. "God the father" is the essence of a greater power that we all have. "The son" is the way to connect to this power. "The holy spirit" is the way that the power of God works in us.

This is how I explain the reality I perceive.

 

[Chriliman]

Better. It is recorded in rock.

So they didn't actually observe non-life actively emerge into life?

They observed non-life in a rock and then separately they observed life in a rock? The life was already in the rock, but they're assuming it emerged from the non-life in the rock? Just want to make sure I'm understanding the observation correctly. Is there a picture of this rock that they observed?

I'm sure you can understand that I want to personally observe this non-life emerge into life with my own eyes so I can know it's true, rather than just assume it's true based on what science is telling me.

 

[Armoured]

I'm sure you can understand that I want to personally observe this non-life emerge into life with my own eyes so I can know it's true, rather than just assume it's true based on what science is telling me.

As opposed to personally seeing God create humans from dust with your own eyes so you can know it's true?

 

[Chriliman]

As opposed to personally seeing God create humans from dust with your own eyes so you can know it's true?

Christianity claims that God actively creates us into new perfect beings. Im personally observing him doing that with me now. He's actively correcting me and teaching me what's right. This can be defined as a demonstration of what is true to me personally.

It would be the same if I actively observed life emerge from non-life. If I observed that, I wouldn't be able to rationally deny it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't see anything that would prevent abiogenesis from occurring today or anytime since when it first happened. The conditions for life are exponentially better now than when it first occurred. However, that's just my opinion.​

​

I don't think that's accurate.

The atmosphere and overall environmental conditions on the planet today are vastly different then how it was 3.8 billion years ago.

Our environment is literally shaped by developing life forms. The oxygen we breath for example, is created by living things. The type of life that we know of today that enjoys the conditions on this planet, literally evolved to live under these ever-changing conditions.

Don't confuse the conditions that are "good" for life TODAY would be also just as good for ancient life of almost 4 billion years ago. Most likely even, the current conditions would be harmful to that "first" life. The process of abiogenesis that took place all those years ago, might even be completely impossible under the current conditions.

It's hard to say off course, since there is no real conclusive theory on how this process happened (that I know of, at least). But imo common sense would suggest that the present state of the planet is not a suitable one to complete that process.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the conditions of old are the required environment for that process to take place.

At best, we'ld find relatively similar conditions today in rather toxic environments like underwater volcano vents etc.


In any case......

My main point is that when you say that conditions for life are "exponentially better" today... You need to remind yourself that you are talking about life that has undergone 3.8 billion years of evolution to adapt to the ever-changing conditions on this planet.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It should be easy, because in laboratory, it is easy to set environment to be suitable for life to born, if it is truly possible that lifeless material could turn into life spontaneously.

Why should it be "easy"?

If material really has that ability, it can be seen in nature same way as every other ability in nature. Or what do you think; would you believe in gravity, if things would not fall as the theory claims?

Very bad example. Gravity is a force that is constantly present.
With abiogenesis, more likely then not, we are looking for a rather rare bio-chemical process that will likely consist of various steps involving complex chemicals and specific conditions.

Again, I see no reason to assume that solving this puzzle should be "easy".

If the life form is not earth size, it should be possible to form in smaller place. I have understood that the first living things were really small. So it should be possible to create them in small laboratory, if it is really possible.

I agree it should be possible.

But there's a really big difference between "it should be possible" and "it should be easy".

Also, I don’t see any reason to assume that the first life form needed millions of years to begin to life. All life that we can observe is instant and lives only short time. It would not be reasonable to think that the first life form would have been much different.

That's kind of backwards... not to mention contradictory.

You first say that you don't see why it would take "millions of years" to GET TO a living thing... and as "argument" to support that you say that small living things have a short life span....

That makes no sense. The lifespan of the life form is irrelevant when discussing the process that leads to the creation of the life form itself.

 

[RickG]

​

I don't think that's accurate.

The atmosphere and overall environmental conditions on the planet today are vastly different then how it was 3.8 billion years ago.

Our environment is literally shaped by developing life forms. The oxygen we breath for example, is created by living things. The type of life that we know of today that enjoys the conditions on this planet, literally evolved to live under these ever-changing conditions.

Don't confuse the conditions that are "good" for life TODAY would be also just as good for ancient life of almost 4 billion years ago. Most likely even, the current conditions would be harmful to that "first" life. The process of abiogenesis that took place all those years ago, might even be completely impossible under the current conditions.

It's hard to say off course, since there is no real conclusive theory on how this process happened (that I know of, at least). But imo common sense would suggest that the present state of the planet is not a suitable one to complete that process.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the conditions of old are the required environment for that process to take place.

At best, we'ld find relatively similar conditions today in rather toxic environments like underwater volcano vents etc.


In any case......

My main point is that when you say that conditions for life are "exponentially better" today... You need to remind yourself that you are talking about life that has undergone 3.8 billion years of evolution to adapt to the ever-changing conditions on this planet.

You may be correct and I admit that biology is not one of my strong points. However, I look at it as a chemical process. Paleoclimatolgy and paleooceanography are areas I am familiar with, thus I do understand the environments under which abiogenesis had to occur. Having said that though, I seriously doubt that abiogensis was a single occurence. I also do not see why it could not have occurred throughout geologic time and continue even today. Keep in mind that experiments that attempt to replicate abiogenesis are based entirely on those primordial conditions. And certainly, it must have been a process that took significant time. Anyway, that's my opinion.

 

[Armoured]

Christianity claims that God actively creates us into new perfect beings. Im personally observing him doing that with me now. He's actively correcting me and teaching me what's right. This can be defined as a demonstration of what is true to me personally.

It would be the same if I actively observed life emerge from non-life. If I observed that, I wouldn't be able to rationally deny it.

That's not at all a disingenuous comparison.

 

[Chriliman]

That's not at all a disingenuous comparison.

All depends on what you want to be true.

Do you want abiogenesis to be true? If so, then you'd better expect to be able to observe life actively emerge from non-life, in order to know it's true.

Do you want God to re-create you into a perfect being? If so, then you'd better expect to be able to observe yourself being transformed into a new creation by believing in Jesus, in order to know this to be true.

It is quite similar

 

[Armoured]

All depends on what you want to be true.

Do you want abiogenesis to be true? If so, then you'd better expect to be able to observe life actively emerge from non-life, in order to know it's true.

Do you want God to re-create you into a perfect being? If so, then you'd better expect to be able to observe yourself being transformed into a new creation by believing in Jesus, in order to know this to be true.

It is quite similar

Keep stretching.

 

[Chriliman]

Keep stretching.

As a Catholic, do you believe God has the power to make you into a new perfect creation through your belief in what Jesus accomplished on the cross? Just curious as to why you claim to be Catholic.

 

[Michael]

This universe has an apparent beginning and I don't think God would allow that unless he was trying to tell us that he created the universe, not that he is the universe.

I'll spare you the details, but suffice to say that the belief that the universe had a beginning is actually very debatable, and it's based upon a very subjective "interpretation" of the photon redshift phenom

I go to scripture to figure out the truth and this is what I've found to support my position

Deuteronomy 10:14-16
"Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is."

This makes it clear to me that even the heavens above the universe belong to God. Meaning He is even above the heavens of the universe. He's making it clear that He is the highest possible being.

Revelation 20:11
"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

This makes it clear that when we are being judged by God at the end of time, God's presence will cause the earth and the universe to flee away. To me this means God can't possibly be the universe. He's is something entirely greater and more powerful.

You can interpret these verses however you want. But I think it's clear that God is trying to inform us that He is the creator of even the heavens of the universe, which are both greater than the earth.

You are certainly welcome to interpret the Bible as you see fit. I was simply noting (as was LM) that there are viable reasons why abiogenesis would *not* disprove the notion of God, or necessarily eliminate the need for God. If you believe this physical universe was created, just as LM noted, it could simply be that abiogenesis was also created in that very same creation process. The concept of abiogenesis is ultimately not an actual threat to the concept of an intelligent creator.

 

[Chriliman]

You are certainly welcome to interpret the Bible as you see fit. I was simply noting (as was LM) that there are viable reasons why abiogenesis would *not* disprove the notion of God, or necessarily eliminate the need for God. If you believe this physical universe was created, just as LM noted, it could simply be that abiogenesis was also created in that very same creation process. The concept of abiogenesis is ultimately not an actual threat to the concept of an intelligent creator.

I think I understand what your saying. God created the universe the way that it is so that abiogenesis could take place only once at a specific point in history which formed life. This processes may never be re-created, unless God allows it. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Jimmy D]

All depends on what you want to be true.

Do you want abiogenesis to be true? If so, then you'd better expect to be able to observe life actively emerge from non-life, in order to know it's true.

Do you want God to re-create you into a perfect being? If so, then you'd better expect to be able to observe yourself being transformed into a new creation by believing in Jesus, in order to know this to be true.

It is quite similar

I'm curious, if a place was found (let's say in the deep ocean for example) where abiogenisis was observable and happening today would that alter your views in anyway?

 

[Chriliman]

I'm curious, if a place was found (let's say in the deep ocean for example) where abiogenisis was observable and happening today would that alter your views in anyway?

It wouldn't alter my views because it would mean that God wants us to know how exactly He created life. Since I believe God exists then this emergence is actually because God, who is alive, allowed it to happen again. So I wouldn't actually be observing life emerging from non-life, I'd be observing life emerge from God creating it again. I just don't understand the point God would be making by allowing that because I already actively see him create new life in people around me who were dead to sin. It's called being born again.

Christianity is a very complex, but also simple belief system.