• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

About this abiogenesis stuff...

elliotfc

Master Poster
E
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
2,772
From a purely literal standpoint, abiogenesis means life from non-life. Doesn't everybody (even the young earth creationists) believe this?

Adam was made from non-life, and Eve was made from biological material. Are these incidents of abiogenesis?

Of course there is the tacit understanding that abiogenesis excludes supernatural intervention. I was just looking at the word from it's most literal meaning.

-Elliot
 
Well, for one thing abiogenesis doesn't inherently exclude a creator. Nothing in current evolutionary thought inherently excludes a creator.

As far as abiogenesis goes, there's a fascinating at Talk.Origins about the subject. I cite it every time abiogenesis comes up and have yet to receive a substantive reply.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Well, for one thing abiogenesis doesn't inherently exclude a creator. Nothing in current evolutionary thought inherently excludes a creator.

As far as abiogenesis goes, there's a fascinating at Talk.Origins about the subject. I cite it every time abiogenesis comes up and have yet to receive a substantive reply.
Click to expand...

I've read it. What are you looking for when you say substantive reply?

-Elliot
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Well, for one thing abiogenesis doesn't inherently exclude a creator. Nothing in current evolutionary thought inherently excludes a creator.

Click to expand...

Science requires the added veneer of materialism to absolutely exclude a creator.
 
hammegk said:
Science requires the added veneer of materialism to absolutely exclude a creator.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Science requires no philosophizing to deal with facts. Care to deal with the facts or do you just wish to offer more platitudes?

Yawn....
 
hammegk said:
Science requires the added veneer of materialism to absolutely exclude a creator.
Click to expand...
Does it? Science doesn't assume a supernatural influence, but how does it absolutely exlude it?
 
Upchurch said:
Does it? Science doesn't assume a supernatural influence, but how does it absolutely exlude it?
Click to expand...

Oh come one Upchurch... you know that in Hammy's mind anything that doesn't explicitly include a supernatural frame of reference is not only subject to depravity but inherently shouts "NO!" at the possibility of a supernatural influence.

Yawn....
 
UnrepentantSinner said:


Oh come one Upchurch... you know that {snip}
Click to expand...
Okay. Guilty. I do know better.

I was just playing a little Socratic Judo with hammegk in the hopes that he might deduce for himself that his preception of science isn't based on reality but on how he would like to believe reality is actually like.
 
Upchurch said:
Okay. Guilty. I do know better.

I was just playing a little Socratic Judo with hammegk in the hopes that he might deduce for himself that his preception of science isn't based on reality but on how he would like to believe reality is actually like.
Click to expand...

Well I just had to comment as me - UnrepentantSinnerAthest - acutally knows more theists who accept evolution IRL than non-theists.

I'll hold my breath for his comments though... someone promise to give me CPR after a few hours... I don't want to risk any more brain damage than I already have.
 
Upchurch said:
Does it? Science doesn't assume a supernatural influence, but how does it absolutely exlude it?
Click to expand...
It doesn't. Try reading what I said one more time, and maybe you will come to understand it.

US said:

Wrong. Science requires no philosophizing to deal with facts. Care to deal with the facts or do you just wish to offer more platitudes?
Click to expand...

I suggest your problem is you are "brain-washed" rather than brain-damaged, but who knows?
 
hammegk said:

It doesn't. Try reading what I said one more time, and maybe you will come to understand it.
Click to expand...
What? So now you don't want me to have to interpret your statements? :rolleyes:

Fine, I'll restate: Science doesn't assume a supernatural creator, but how does it absolutely exlude it?

edited to add
Science requires the added veneer of materialism to absolutely exclude a creator.
Click to expand...
Also, I thought you considered materialism to be a philosophical basis of science, not a veneer, which presumably would be something added after the fact to, in this case, "absolutely exclude a creator." If strict materialism were the basis of science, on the other hand, that would imply that science excludes the existance of a creator by its very nature. Which is it? Basis or veneer?

Regardless, how can you show that this is the case? Frankly, science itself says nothing about the existance of a creator, pro or con. It merely explains the universe based on emperical observations. If science has now evidence for or against a creator, at best that implies that there is no emperical observation for or against the existance of a creator.
 
elliotfc said:
From a purely literal standpoint, abiogenesis means life from non-life. Doesn't everybody (even the young earth creationists) believe this?

Adam was made from non-life, and Eve was made from biological material. Are these incidents of abiogenesis?

Of course there is the tacit understanding that abiogenesis excludes supernatural intervention. I was just looking at the word from it's most literal meaning.

-Elliot
Click to expand...


I thought that a long time before we got to the Adam and Eve stage, there was 'nothing' ?

So before we consider life evolving ( with Jehova's help or otherwise ) from non-life, shouldn't we deal with ' something out of nothing ' ?
 
UnrepentantSinner said:


Wrong. Science requires no philosophizing to deal with facts. Care to deal with the facts or do you just wish to offer more platitudes?

Yawn....
Click to expand...

But science is a philosophy.

-Elliot
 
Re: Re: About this abiogenesis stuff...

Diogenes said:



I thought that a long time before we got to the Adam and Eve stage, there was 'nothing' ?

So before we consider life evolving ( with Jehova's help or otherwise ) from non-life, shouldn't we deal with ' something out of nothing ' ?
Click to expand...

Maybe. I was talking about abiogenesis, which itself comes after a whole bunch of other stuff.

Let me restate. Take all of the origin of life theories. Are they ALL abiogenesitic? Yes, they are all literally abiogenesitic.

And my point is that the word abiogenesis carries with it a certain spirit that goes beyond the literal meaning of the word. If that's the case, that isn't necesarrily a good or bad thing.

-Elliot
 
Naturalism is nothing but a necessity,not a preferance (for an alternative opinion,be sure to ask the creation "scientists").
 
Yes, everyone goes on the defensive when they hear a word like "abiogenesis". They automatically assume you are involving a creator in the process. Nothing you can do but ride out the storm of controversy now.

Think of it like the old faux-paradox: "what came first, the chicken or the egg". The answer is probably "the egg". If you go back in time far enough, regardless of your definition of "chicken", you will find that the first chicken egg produced the first chicken, but was laid by a proto-chicken that was not 100% according to your definition of "chicken". Creationist might *imagine* that God created chickens, but they would be wrong since the chicken was actually the result of human domestication of a Malaysian jungle fowl. Same with mules vs. horses and dogs vs. wolves. The parent need not produce an offspring of its same kind or name. Just because it has been around for ages, we give them different names but they were definitely part of the same family of animals. Some languages might not differentiate. You can avoid talking about evolution and still answer "the egg".
 
Darwin said:
Naturalism is nothing but a necessity,not a preferance (for an alternative opinion,be sure to ask the creation "scientists").
Click to expand...

Necessity for what? Reality has already taken place, and does take place, regardless of theory.

Necessity for what exactly?

-Elliot
 
swstephe said:
Think of it like the old faux-paradox: "what came first, the chicken or the egg". The answer is probably "the egg". If you go back in time far enough, regardless of your definition of "chicken", you will find that the first chicken egg produced the first chicken, but was laid by a proto-chicken that was not 100% according to your definition of "chicken".
Click to expand...

If you go back in time far enough? Then this is a statement of faith.

-Elliot
 
Definitely it was the egg.
First egg probably appeared during carboniferous.
(hopefully,you found that funny).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom