Questions for serious TE's

[Knowledge3]

1) Does life create life?

2) If life is organic and living, how then, did life come forth?

3) If evolution is the mechanism for biological life, what created or gave the instructions for life to create and evolve?

 

[Brownsy]

1) Does life create life?

if you you are referring to sexual or asexual reproduction, then yes, it does

2) If life is organic and living, how then, did life come forth?

very long answer short, by various elements combining to form organic compounds which ultimately combined to give rise to the first simple life forms (and yes I know this is boredering on criminally simplistic).

3) If evolution is the mechanism for biological life, what created or gave the instructions for life to create and evolve?

Ultimately God. If you want a scientific answer the I suggest some reading on abiogenesis, but as THEISTIC evolutionists, we ultimately beieve that the direction for life came fom God

Blessings to you all

 

[ebia]

1) Does life create life?

Yes.

2) If life is organic and living, how then, did life come forth?

We don't yet know in detail.

3) If evolution is the mechanism for biological life,

Evolution is the mechanism by which life, once it exists, becomes diverse.

what created or gave the instructions for life to create and evolve?

We don't yet know in detail.

 

[Crusadar]

3) If evolution is the mechanism for biological life, what created or gave the instructions for life to create and evolve?

Ultimately God. If you want a scientific answer the I suggest some reading on abiogenesis, but as THEISTIC evolutionists, we ultimately beieve that the direction for life came fom God

If God is an option then your answer would not be scientific. The only reason I suppose TE exists is probably because there is no evidence for abiogenesis - and God is ultimately appealed to as a last resort.

 

[PaladinValer]

It is still scientific. Science explains how, not why.

 

[Crusadar]

I'm not asking why, I'm asking how - how did God bring about the first life through naturalistic processes? TEs want their cake and eat it too, however God didit is not a scientific answer. So what "scientifc" evidence is available to show that life came about by natural processes?

 

[PaladinValer]

How life began has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with biogenesis. Evolution deals with life after the fact.

That's what YECs don't seem to get.

 

[Crusadar]

Just as I thougt, there is no naturalistic evidence for abiogenesis - hence the dodge.

 

[ebia]

I'm not asking why, I'm asking how - how did God bring about the first life through naturalistic processes?

Like I said, we don't yet know the details of abiogenesis. However, I see no reason to suppose that science won't solve that problem as it has solved all the others.

TEs want their cake and eat it too, however God didit is not a scientific answer.

Absolutely true, which is why most TE's don't say Godiddit.

So what "scientifc" evidence is available to show that life came about by natural processes?

Not much YET.

If God is an option then your answer would not be scientific. The only reason I suppose TE exists is probably because there is no evidence for abiogenesis - and God is ultimately appealed to as a last resort.

On the contrary, most TE's do not believe in a God of the gaps.

 

[Crusadar]

Like I said, we don't yet know the details of abiogenesis. However, I see no reason to suppose that science won't solve that problem as it has solved all the others.

More like nothing at all. Science may but at the direction of intelligence I hope.

Absolutely true, which is why most TE's don't say Godiddit.

Then who started life? Natural processes? And how did it do that? If you say God then you are in fact saying God did it! If you say not God then you are an effective atheist without even realizing it.

Not much YET.

The correct answer is - no more closer than when the search began.

On the contrary, most TE's do not believe in a God of the gaps.

Of course their god lives in a bottle labeled "Caution Keep Closed".

 

[philadiddle]

Then who started life? Natural processes? And how did it do that? If you say God then you are in fact saying God did it! If you say not God then you are an effective atheist without even realizing it.

An athiest without realising it? that's funny. you sound like Hovind. God accomplishes things through natural processes. science is to find out what those processes are. like the THEORY of relativity is thought to be the cause of gravity. Of course, God set up gravity to make physics function, but relativity is HOW we think He did it. Why don't you challenge that theory? read these links for some info on how life may have begun;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Of course their god lives in a bottle labeled "Caution Keep Closed".

Of course, if everyone throughout history saw God through your eyes, we would still think thunderstorms were a result of Gods anger at a king, instead of understanding pressure systems that cause weather. We'd also probably still bleed ppl when they got sick, to get the evil spirits out. You should read up on the dark ages. Not allowing scientific discovery in the "name of God" is so foolish and ignorant.

 

[Crusadar]

You should read up on the dark ages. Not allowing scientific discovery in the "name of God" is so foolish and ignorant.

Of course not as foolish and ignorant as not allowing God in the name of science. But you dont' have to take my word for it: "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." 1 Corinthians 3:19a

 

[Crusadar]

read these links for some info on how life may have begun;

Actually I already know how it didn't come about, what I wanted was TEs explanation of how it came about by the natural process that God has put in place.

 

[gluadys]

1) Does life create life?

Life reproduces life.

2) If life is organic and living, how then, did life come forth?

Unknown, as yet. But some interesting work is being done on that question. Some key words to use if you want to do a search are "proto-cells" "RNA world" "hypercycle" "abiogenesis".

3) If evolution is the mechanism for biological life, what created or gave the instructions for life to create and evolve?

Evolution is the process by which life diversifies. It is not about the origin of life, but about the origin of species.

It is God who creates. How he creates is what science seeks to determine. Scientists have figured out how the instructions for evolution work--at least on a simple level. There are still many details that are not fully clear yet. The answer to the origin of life, as noted above, is not yet scientifically available.

 

[gluadys]

read these links for some info on how life may have begun;

Actually I already know how it didn't come about, what I wanted was TEs explanation of how it came about by the natural process that God has put in place.

A TEs explanation is the same as the scientific explanation. That is what science does: discover the natural processes which God has put in place. (Even if the particular scientist does not believe in God.)

 

[PaladinValer]

Just as I thougt, there is no naturalistic evidence for abiogenesis - hence the dodge.

I didn't dodge a thing. You never asked for evidence for abiogenesis.

But then again, evolution isn't dependent on abiogenesis' validity, so once again, the TEs win.

 

[Crusadar]

A TEs explanation is the same as the scientific explanation. That is what science does: discover the natural processes which God has put in place.

As much as I like dancing this is getting to be absurd. So go ahead already and explain the TE version of how life came about - it is after all one of the points this thread. What does the "scientific" explanation have to say about how life arose from no life - of course keeping in mind that God can't be part of the answer since that would not be "scientific".

 

[PaladinValer]

Again, biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Even if TEs are wrong about their varying views of biogenesis (not all of them are abiogenesis, contrary to what the YECs think), that means nothing about their views on evolution. They are not the same topic, nor is one dependent on the other.

Stop trying to drill holes when there are no screws to drill with.

 

[Brownsy]

A TEs explanation is the same as the scientific explanation. That is what science does: discover the natural processes which God has put in place.

As much as I like dancing this is getting to be absurd. So go ahead already and explain the TE version of how life came about - it is after all one of the points this thread. What does the "scientific" explanation have to say about how life arose from no life - of course keeping in mind that God can't be part of the answer since that would not be "scientific".

Don't be absurd, of course God can be part of it. Just because science does not and can not sudy God's involvement in nature in no way implies that God has no part in it, merely that the study or discussion of this would come under a different field of study. To say that TE's cannot have God in their origin of life views beause we acknowledge the validity of scientifc research and findings is simply erroneous. Science is not an all-encompassing field and just because somethine lies outside of its scope does not mean that we, as TE's deny its validity.

Blessings to you all

 

[Crusadar]

I didn't dodge a thing. You never asked for evidence for abiogenesis. But then again, evolution isn't dependent on abiogenesis' validity, so once again, the TEs win.

Talk about dodging. Here are my exact words again:

"I'm not asking why, I'm asking how - how did God bring about the first life through naturalistic processes? TEs want their cake and eat it too, however God didit is not a scientific answer. So what "scientifc" evidence is available to show that life came about by natural processes?"

If the reason for any discussion is winning and that winning is done by saying nothing and hoping that it is enough - then I guess you win! Just one question though, what prize awaits you (or anyone for that matter) as the winner?

Perhaps that is the difference between why I am here and why you are here, winning has never been in my agenda - brotherly rebuke and spiritual correction has always been the reason I continue to hang around.