Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 140 (568017)
07-03-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:00 PM


Peg writes:
jar writes:
Of course abiogenesis is still significant. It happened. There is no doubt that abiogenesis happened. That is settled and a fact.
You've just answered your own question. This comment is exactly why creationists are still opposed to 'evolution'
If it was simply the theory of how animals change over time then i dont think that anyone would argue with that....but the fact is that its not only about how animals change over time...its about how evolutionists believe life got here in the first place as you have just demonstrated.
But Evolution is STILL not abiogenesis.
Evolution is simply change in populations over time. Abiogenesis is simply the beginnings of life.
Abiogenesis does not preclude "Special Creation". If some god or designer or magician breathes life into mud figures then that is still abiogenesis. The issue is finding evidence that supports some god or designer or magician breathing life into mud figures. So far no one has found such evidence.
The Theory of Evolution has shown how the diversity of life we see can be explained.
We are still very early in developing a similar understanding of Abiogenesis. Hopefully in less than the hundred and fifty years since Darwin first published On the Origin of Species we will have as detailed an understanding of abiogenesis.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:00 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:28 PM jar has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 17 of 140 (568018)
07-03-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
07-03-2010 10:14 PM


jar writes:
Evolution is simply change in populations over time. Abiogenesis is simply the beginnings of life.
yes, yet the two are still closely linked just as you have shown them to be.
jar writes:
Abiogenesis does not preclude "Special Creation". If some god or designer or magician breathes life into mud figures then that is still abiogenesis. The issue is finding evidence that supports some god or designer or magician breathing life into mud figures. So far no one has found such evidence.
You have said that abiogenesis happened, it is a fact and yet nobody saw it happen, nor can anybody reproduce it and so nobody has ever found the evidence that it happened the way they say it happened.
So why must one find evidence of God to believe he created life, yet they dont need to find evidence of abiogenesis to say that is how life got here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 10:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 10:42 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 28 by Larni, posted 07-04-2010 8:50 AM Peg has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 18 of 140 (568019)
07-03-2010 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by RAZD
07-03-2010 10:03 PM


Return to Sixty Mile???
Do we still have some geologists to help?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 07-03-2010 10:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2010 8:32 AM jar has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 140 (568020)
07-03-2010 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:28 PM


Peg writes:
jar writes:
Evolution is simply change in populations over time. Abiogenesis is simply the beginnings of life.
yes, yet the two are still closely linked just as you have shown them to be.
The only linkage is that things can only evolve after they exist.
Peg writes:
jar writes:
Abiogenesis does not preclude "Special Creation". If some god or designer or magician breathes life into mud figures then that is still abiogenesis. The issue is finding evidence that supports some god or designer or magician breathing life into mud figures. So far no one has found such evidence.
You have said that abiogenesis happened, it is a fact and yet nobody saw it happen, nor can anybody reproduce it and so nobody has ever found the evidence that it happened the way they say it happened.
So why must one find evidence of God to believe he created life, yet they dont need to find evidence of abiogenesis to say that is how life got here?
We can say abiogenesis happened because there is life here. It really is that simple.
No one has said "how" it happened yet. Understand the difference between the fact that abiogenesis happened and a Theory of Abiogenesis.
We are finding evidence of how life can come from non-life. As I said, we are still early in developing a Theory of Abiogenesis, but way further along than we were even 25 years ago.
I have little doubt that while I am still alive we will create life.
If you want someone to take Special Creation seriously then you need to do the same things, develop theories of exactly how the god or designer or magician turned mud figures into living things, theories just like what is being done in laboratories by scientists today.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:28 PM Peg has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 20 of 140 (568021)
07-03-2010 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:08 PM


Peg writes:
but he point is that they were not simply studying how animals change over time...they were also looking at how the first living things got started on the planet and so in that sense they very much discussed both topics under the same subject.
Both are still part of biology, and both are of interest to scientists. However, the distinction was recognized from the start.
I guess I am failing to understand why you think there is an issue here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:08 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 11:51 PM nwr has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 21 of 140 (568022)
07-03-2010 11:19 PM


Analogy time: Birth and the life that happens after
In this analogy:
1) Abiogenesis=Birth
2) Evolution=Life after birth.
Now we can assume that every living human went through a birth event. Then they had a life after that birth. Yes, the birth and the life after are explicitly connected events/processes.
Now, do we need to know anything about the details of the birth event, to be able to study and understand much of the later life? No.
For that matter, do we need to know anything about the first half of the lifespan, in order to be able to study and understand much of the later half of the lifespan? Again, no.
So, yes the parts are connected and related, but you don't need to know and understand everything to be able to know and understand at least some of the parts.
Or something like that.
Moose

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 22 of 140 (568023)
07-03-2010 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nwr
07-03-2010 11:00 PM


nwr writes:
Both are still part of biology, and both are of interest to scientists. However, the distinction was recognized from the start.
I guess I am failing to understand why you think there is an issue here.
i dont have an issue with it
but clearly there are a lot of creationists who continue to deny evolution based on abiogenesis and that is due to evolutionists because they have failed to 'really' separate the two subjects
to creationists who like to start at the very beginning, abiogenesis is the only beginning that evolutionists offer.
Imagine if I said the bible has nothing to do with God, they are two different subjects, unlinked. I doubt you'd believe me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 07-03-2010 11:00 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nwr, posted 07-04-2010 12:18 AM Peg has replied
 Message 24 by DrJones*, posted 07-04-2010 12:59 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 25 by bluescat48, posted 07-04-2010 1:26 AM Peg has replied
 Message 26 by Woodsy, posted 07-04-2010 7:08 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2010 8:59 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2010 2:39 PM Peg has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 23 of 140 (568026)
07-04-2010 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peg
07-03-2010 11:51 PM


Peg writes:
but clearly there are a lot of creationists who continue to deny evolution based on abiogenesis and that is due to evolutionists because they have failed to 'really' separate the two subjects
That's a strange comment. Evolutionists are very clear, over and over again, that abiogenesis is not part of evolution.
Peg writes:
to creationists who like to start at the very beginning, abiogenesis is the only beginning that evolutionists offer.
That's another strange comment. Creationists themselves believe in abiogenesis, though they insist it occurred as divine intervention rather than as a natural process.
Most evolutionists will also consider panspermia as an alternative source of life on earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 11:51 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:47 PM nwr has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 24 of 140 (568031)
07-04-2010 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peg
07-03-2010 11:51 PM


but clearly there are a lot of creationists who continue to deny evolution based on abiogenesis and that is due to evolutionists because they have failed to 'really' separate the two subjects
It can't be because there are a lot of creationists who are too ignorant to recognize the difference and too arrogant to admit it?

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 11:51 PM Peg has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 25 of 140 (568036)
07-04-2010 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peg
07-03-2010 11:51 PM


but clearly there are a lot of creationists who continue to deny evolution based on abiogenesis and that is due to evolutionists because they have failed to 'really' separate the two subjects
But that is the fault of the creationists, not the evolutionists. How can evolutionists be blamed for the ignorance of the creationists?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 11:51 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:51 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 26 of 140 (568054)
07-04-2010 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peg
07-03-2010 11:51 PM


but clearly there are a lot of creationists who continue to deny evolution based on abiogenesis and that is due to evolutionists because they have failed to 'really' separate the two subjects
to creationists who like to start at the very beginning, abiogenesis is the only beginning that evolutionists offer.
Imagine if I said the bible has nothing to do with God, they are two different subjects, unlinked. I doubt you'd believe me.
This just shows that religion impairs one's ability to think clearly.
Even in this thread, we see that no amount of explanation brings any improvement. It's rather like trying to teach someone who has lost the use of their limbs to high jump.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 11:51 PM Peg has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 140 (568066)
07-04-2010 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
07-03-2010 10:31 PM


Re: Return to Sixty Mile???
Hi Jar,
Roxrkool is still with us (not often but probably enough)
That leaves time for digestion.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 10:31 PM jar has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 28 of 140 (568070)
07-04-2010 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:28 PM


We know abiogenesis happened because we see evidence of life all around us.
We see no evidence of god, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:28 PM Peg has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 29 of 140 (568071)
07-04-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peg
07-03-2010 11:51 PM


Imagine if I said the bible has nothing to do with God, they are two different subjects, unlinked. I doubt you'd believe me.
If you had argued that disproving the earth and all life were created in 6 days does not disprove that different languages came as an act of divine will...I'm sure you'd get some supporters.
Sure - undermining the supernatural origins of life, might undermine the credibility of the source that also suggests a supernatural origin of languages...and if you disprove the natural origins of life by demonstrating its impossibility, that might lower your confidence in other natural explanations...but it doesn't disprove other natural explanations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 11:51 PM Peg has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 30 of 140 (568074)
07-04-2010 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
07-03-2010 10:05 PM


Re: Breathed
I dont think we can honestly know what he was thinking here in terms of creation....it may just have been an expression to describe the first matter comming to life.
He said it elsewhere in the Origins too:
quote:
"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one"
Darwin even referenced a Creator in some editions...
quote:
Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator.
From the second edition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 10:05 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 9:56 PM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024