Creationism or Evolutionism? Or could it be a combination of both?

a reply to: UB2120

"Do you have an example of life that did not spring from life?"

I can offer no example, but your question gets to the heart of abiogenesis.

To me this is a classical dichotomy. Either God said "Let there be life."

Or the primordial soup of nature spawned life from that which was not alive.

I tend towards the second option, but I am quite willing to be convinced of the omnipotence of spiritual deity called God.

No true scientist will declare that God does not exist.

But please do convince me. I would welcome such a revelation.

a reply to: Diderot

It's not abiogenesis vs creation. There could be another natural process that explains life's origins other than abiogenesis. At no point does creation ever become an option on the table because it's not only not an explanation ("magic man did it" does not explain anything) but it's also untestable and unfalsifiable, ergo not science.

a reply to: GetHyped

"It's not abiogenesis vs creation. There could be another natural process that explains life's origins other than abiogenesis. At no point does creation ever become an option on the table because it's not only not an explanation ("magic man did it" does not explain anything) but it's also untestable and unfalsifiable, ergo not science."

Please do propose an alternative to abiogenesis that considers a natural process to explain life's origins.

My apologies if I implied that creationism is the foundation of my understanding.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: UB2120

"Do you have an example of life that did not spring from life?"

I can offer no example, but your question gets to the heart of abiogenesis.

To me this is a classical dichotomy. Either God said "Let there be life."

Or the primordial soup of nature spawned life from that which was not alive.

I tend towards the second option, but I am quite willing to be convinced of the omnipotence of spiritual deity called God.

No true scientist will declare that God does not exist.

But please do convince me. I would welcome such a revelation.

My faith in the fact that God has a process for initiating life on the worlds of space stems from my long standing belief that there is intelligent life on other planets throughout the universe. Going with that thought its hard for me to believe of an accidental, abiogenesis type of theory. It it were that common to randomly happen on, what I believe to be trillions of planets, then we should have found evidence of the process happening today.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Diderot

It's not abiogenesis vs creation. There could be another natural process that explains life's origins other than abiogenesis. At no point does creation ever become an option on the table because it's not only not an explanation ("magic man did it" does not explain anything) but it's also untestable and unfalsifiable, ergo not science.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe there is intelligent life on other worlds?

If no, then any possible theory could be plausible for life to randomly happen once on some planet and that we were the lucky one. I just don't see how it could be possible for life to develop on other planets if its a completely random event.

I think you also need to ask yourself, what is life? It seems so much more unlikely that some amino acids mixed in just the right amount and environment to start "life" and then culminate in a human and supply everything necessary to be self sufficient on the planet. We have only recently been able to see how our bodies replicate DNA (an amazing bio-mechanical process), the elegant yet complex code of DNA and how complex a single cell really is. It reeks of design, or programming.

The emergence of life is not a random event. It is an inevitable event aslong as the right conditions are apparent. Whilst there were probably hundreds of different factors that all had to be present for life to originate eg. temperature, level of gravity, presence of water, presence of certain elements etc... it still doesn't make it a random event, and life could theoretically still originate without some of the conditions that led to it on Earth.

originally posted by: UB2120

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: UB2120

"Do you have an example of life that did not spring from life?"

I can offer no example, but your question gets to the heart of abiogenesis.

To me this is a classical dichotomy. Either God said "Let there be life."

Or the primordial soup of nature spawned life from that which was not alive.

I tend towards the second option, but I am quite willing to be convinced of the omnipotence of spiritual deity called God.

No true scientist will declare that God does not exist.

But please do convince me. I would welcome such a revelation.

My faith in the fact that God has a process for initiating life on the worlds of space stems from my long standing belief that there is intelligent life on other planets throughout the universe. Going with that thought its hard for me to believe of an accidental, abiogenesis type of theory. It it were that common to randomly happen on, what I believe to be trillions of planets, then we should have found evidence of the process happening today.

We would have found evidence of abiogenesis happening on other planets? How would we have found this evidence exactly?

Also, if God could sprinkle magic dust or click his fingers or whatever he does to "initiate life in space" you would think it would be pretty common. Why haven't we found Gods handy work in space?

a reply to: Metallicus

I have never understood why these two positions are considered mutually exclusive. God uses evolution as part of ITs plan has always been my theory. In the end, I think most scientific and spiritual processes will come down to a synthesis of the two.

No one has ever made that claim (mutually exclusive except creationists/intelligent designers. There are many, many scientists who believe in creation and KNOW that evolution is scientific fact.

a reply to: Diderot

This is the classic God of the Gaps fallacy.

There was a time when plate tectonics was a hypothesis without any solid supporting evidence for it. Would the natural conclusion be "either plate tectonics is correct or god did it"? Of course not. Or let's take another example of a hypothesis that turned out to be wrong: "Either either is the medium which light propagates through or god pushes light along". There were no other explanations around at the time, yet in good time an alternative explanation was proposed that turned out to be correct.

"Abiogenesis vs God" is nothing but a creationist false dichotomy.

a reply to: GetHyped

It's not abiogenesis vs creation. There could be another natural process that explains life's origins other than abiogenesis.

While I understand the point you are trying to make, I must disagree with the way you have worded it.

The issue is natural vs supernatural. The word for natural is abiogenesis; the word for supernatural is creation.

There are many hypotheses about how abiogenesis occurred, however all of them are natural, and which ever one, if any, ever qualify as a theory, the others are all abiogenesis hypotheses.

There is not as yet, and may never be, a theory of abiogenesis. There will always be study into the natural beginnings of life. Abiogenesis is, by definition, the study of the beginnings of life. There is not "another natural process that explains life's origins other than abiogenesis" - all natural processes that explain life's origins are, by definition, part of the study of abiogenesis.

Do you see what I mean?

a reply to: rnaa

Yeah, perhaps my phrasing was a bit off. My point is that even if the mechanisms of current understanding turn out to be wrong (unlikely, but hey) there could still be other yet-to-be-discovered mechanisms for how life originated. But you're right, this is about natural vs supernatural. Just because we can't explain a natural process, we don't arbitrarily default to "the god of my personal religion did it". Even if we have absolutely no clue whatsoever where to go to next, "we don't know but we'll keep looking" will always be the more rational and intellectually honest position compared to [insert untestable, unobservable philosophically pleasing supernatural process here]. Once we start using magic to fill the gaps of our knowledge, our quest for knowledge becomes a farce and stops dead in its tracks. "Magic man did it" is not an explanation, it's the end of our quest for explanations.

a reply to: rnaa

No one has ever made that claim (mutually exclusive except creationists/intelligent designers. There are many, many scientists who believe in creation and KNOW that evolution is scientific fact.

OK, I'm responding to myself here.

I probably overstated the point in the link text in my post. People on both sides do indeed claim that the two are incompatible. However, most scientists understand the "belief" and "knowledge" are two different things. "Belief" happens and is a powerful motivator in spite of evidence to the contrary. "Knowledge" only happens in the presence of evidence. One of the defining characteristics of Human Beings is that they can hold two contradictory ideas in their mind at the same time.

There is nothing logical about that process, however, and Philosophers have indeed pointed out the illogic in trying to reconcile Creationism and Evolution. See: How Belief In “Theistic Evolution” Is Nearly As Much A Denial Of Science As Creationism

Never-the-less, it is almost exclusively the creationists who claim that you cannot believe in God and understand evolution as fact at the same time. Most scientists don't care one way or another, believe what you believe, just don't try to pass off belief as science.

originally posted by: helldiver

originally posted by: UB2120

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: UB2120

"Do you have an example of life that did not spring from life?"

I can offer no example, but your question gets to the heart of abiogenesis.

To me this is a classical dichotomy. Either God said "Let there be life."

Or the primordial soup of nature spawned life from that which was not alive.

I tend towards the second option, but I am quite willing to be convinced of the omnipotence of spiritual deity called God.

No true scientist will declare that God does not exist.

But please do convince me. I would welcome such a revelation.

My faith in the fact that God has a process for initiating life on the worlds of space stems from my long standing belief that there is intelligent life on other planets throughout the universe. Going with that thought its hard for me to believe of an accidental, abiogenesis type of theory. It it were that common to randomly happen on, what I believe to be trillions of planets, then we should have found evidence of the process happening today.

We would have found evidence of abiogenesis happening on other planets? How would we have found this evidence exactly?

Also, if God could sprinkle magic dust or click his fingers or whatever he does to "initiate life in space" you would think it would be pretty common. Why haven't we found Gods handy work in space?

Yes, you are right, life is pretty common. It is only a matter of time before first contact. Depending on who you talk to some would say first contact has already happened. On normally functioning worlds inter planetary communication is common, so the desire to explore space would not be as strong. Not to mention it is kind of a waste of resources. That time and energy could be directed to our more immediate needs.

The process of life initiation on a world of space is not magic. Just because the workings are beyond our comprehension level does not make it less real. Humans are pretty conceited in thinking that we have the mind capacity to understand all things and if we can't "prove" it, it didn't happen.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Metallicus

I have never understood why these two positions are considered mutually exclusive. God uses evolution as part of ITs plan has always been my theory. In the end, I think most scientific and spiritual processes will come down to a synthesis of the two.

No one has ever made that claim (mutually exclusive except creationists/intelligent designers. There are many, many scientists who believe in creation and KNOW that evolution is scientific fact.

Generally, those who support a creationist point of view are religious and seem to argue against evolution. Just like those who generally support evolution argue against intelligent design or the stories of creation as presented by most religions.

The aim of this thread is to discuss the possibility that the truth is a combination of both. That doesn't mean you take all points from each and mix them, but pieces here and there.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Diderot

This is the classic God of the Gaps fallacy.

There was a time when plate tectonics was a hypothesis without any solid supporting evidence for it. Would the natural conclusion be "either plate tectonics is correct or god did it"? Of course not. Or let's take another example of a hypothesis that turned out to be wrong: "Either either is the medium which light propagates through or god pushes light along". There were no other explanations around at the time, yet in good time an alternative explanation was proposed that turned out to be correct.

"Abiogenesis vs God" is nothing but a creationist false dichotomy.

Do you believe there is intelligent life on other planets? If so, then there are not many theories that make sense. If life could just randomly activate, blindly and without purpose you would think evidence of that would be plentiful. If you believe we are the only intelligent life in all the vast universe, then your suppositions are justified. Regardless of "proof" I find it completely impossible that there isn't life on other planets. Due to that I had the internal need to find an answer that made sense.

To me the only logical answer was life was purposeful. When I found the Urantia Book it helped in expanding my concept as it talks of a universe much larger than I ever imagined, teeming with life. There are vast orders of celestial beings who God created whole and fully developed. They can still grow, but started with a foundation. It would be like a human being created as a college graduate and all the knowledge that comes with that. Mortal life is intended to be something completely built from experience. As such we start life as a helpless babe and most acquire all knowledge.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: GetHyped

It's not abiogenesis vs creation. There could be another natural process that explains life's origins other than abiogenesis.

While I understand the point you are trying to make, I must disagree with the way you have worded it.

The issue is natural vs supernatural. The word for natural is abiogenesis; the word for supernatural is creation.

There are many hypotheses about how abiogenesis occurred, however all of them are natural, and which ever one, if any, ever qualify as a theory, the others are all abiogenesis hypotheses.

There is not as yet, and may never be, a theory of abiogenesis. There will always be study into the natural beginnings of life. Abiogenesis is, by definition, the study of the beginnings of life. There is not "another natural process that explains life's origins other than abiogenesis" - all natural processes that explain life's origins are, by definition, part of the study of abiogenesis.

Do you see what I mean?

The thing I find interesting is how nature and evolution are discussed in a way as if they are minded. That there is some collective consciousnesses. That it knows how to make a full ecosystem on a baron world from the protoplasmic slim it started as. What makes "life" have the desire to survive and adapt? What starts or stops the process of evolution? Who wrote the code for DNA?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: rnaa

Yeah, perhaps my phrasing was a bit off. My point is that even if the mechanisms of current understanding turn out to be wrong (unlikely, but hey) there could still be other yet-to-be-discovered mechanisms for how life originated. But you're right, this is about natural vs supernatural. Just because we can't explain a natural process, we don't arbitrarily default to "the god of my personal religion did it". Even if we have absolutely no clue whatsoever where to go to next, "we don't know but we'll keep looking" will always be the more rational and intellectually honest position compared to [insert untestable, unobservable philosophically pleasing supernatural process here]. Once we start using magic to fill the gaps of our knowledge, our quest for knowledge becomes a farce and stops dead in its tracks. "Magic man did it" is not an explanation, it's the end of our quest for explanations.

I don't think we should look at it as just "magic man did it", we should continue to try and understand the process God uses to create material life. I believe the more we begin to understand the process the more we will revere the creator. The level of intelligence required to design the process of life evolution is beyond our wildest imagination. That is in no way meant to be a cop out or to belittle scientific exploration.

If your personal theory of all things ends with life only existing on this one planet, then I can see why the concept of God creating life would seem weird. If you look up at the stars and believe that there could be other planets with intelligent life then there must be a process in place to initiate life. There must be a first cause.

a reply to: UB2120

What you are not getting is that there is no randomness in hypothesis of abiogenesis. If proven correct and becomes a theory, this would lead to believe that any system with correct condition can lead to life.

So to step back, and try to draw you how everything works - let's start from first stars. First stars after big bang formed and burned their fuel for billions of years, until all fuel is used. Collapse that leads to super nova explosion is how stars die, and this creates materials that at first did not exist (Iron for example) and from dust left after star explosion new stars forms (this is kind of history of our Sun and all planets in our solar system) as well planets that orbits. Some of them are made of heavier elements, while some are just big concentration of gas.

Sun gives its planet heat, as well gravity pull. Through forming planets become warm from all debris hitting them, and with bigger mass, comes more debris due to bigger gravitational pull. In our case, earth got hit by big object, that lead to formation of our moon, witch in beginning was much closer to earth, that lead to big activity on earth surface, due to gravitation. (waves that were 100-1000 times stronger then today for example). Just imagine how cool close moon would look.

But moon also started defending earth from some meteorites and started collecting more of it, pulling away from earth.

Now, this is where abiogenesis comes into play - conditions of earth at this point in time are most likely the same as conditions of many other planets that form around stars (some much before our) and if in correct proximity to their star - there is high chance that some of them have life, but what kind of life - it would solely depend on materials life had to form itself.

This is just 'bird view' of our beginning, Dr. Tyson and late Dr. Sagan explained this into much more details in their shows, as well many other scientist. I remember Dr. Sagan wondering what life would be like if it formed for example in Jupiter's moon Europe - and today we still don't know if there is life there or not.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: UB2120

What you are not getting is that there is no randomness in hypothesis of abiogenesis. If proven correct and becomes a theory, this would lead to believe that any system with correct condition can lead to life.

So to step back, and try to draw you how everything works - let's start from first stars. First stars after big bang formed and burned their fuel for billions of years, until all fuel is used. Collapse that leads to super nova explosion is how stars die, and this creates materials that at first did not exist (Iron for example) and from dust left after star explosion new stars forms (this is kind of history of our Sun and all planets in our solar system) as well planets that orbits. Some of them are made of heavier elements, while some are just big concentration of gas.

Sun gives its planet heat, as well gravity pull. Through forming planets become warm from all debris hitting them, and with bigger mass, comes more debris due to bigger gravitational pull. In our case, earth got hit by big object, that lead to formation of our moon, witch in beginning was much closer to earth, that lead to big activity on earth surface, due to gravitation. (waves that were 100-1000 times stronger then today for example). Just imagine how cool close moon would look.

But moon also started defending earth from some meteorites and started collecting more of it, pulling away from earth.

Now, this is where abiogenesis comes into play - conditions of earth at this point in time are most likely the same as conditions of many other planets that form around stars (some much before our) and if in correct proximity to their star - there is high chance that some of them have life, but what kind of life - it would solely depend on materials life had to form itself.

This is just 'bird view' of our beginning, Dr. Tyson and late Dr. Sagan explained this into much more details in their shows, as well many other scientist. I remember Dr. Sagan wondering what life would be like if it formed for example in Jupiter's moon Europe - and today we still don't know if there is life there or not.

How does the formation of nebula, solar systems or planets take God out of the equation? He created the environment and laws that enable these processes to take place. The universe is a time/space creation and therefore time is required for creation to unfold. It's like cooking, you mix the ingredients, but it still takes time and energy to cook.

If such a metamorphosis could not be seen, a scientist would be inclined to deny the possibility of developing a butterfly out of a caterpillar. Technical analysis does not reveal what a person or a thing can do. For example: Water is used effectively to extinguish fire. That water will put out fire is a fact of everyday experience, but no analysis of water could ever be made to disclose such a property. Analysis determines that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen; a further study of these elements discloses that oxygen is the real supporter of combustion and that hydrogen will itself freely burn.

Those who would invent a religion without God are like those who would gather fruit without trees, have children without parents. You cannot have effects without causes; only the I AM is causeless. The fact of religious experience implies God, and such a God of personal experience must be a personal Deity. You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction, or hold loving fellowship with a law.

a reply to: UB2120

You dismiss all other gods but yours. For the same reasons you dismiss the others, I dismiss yours. It's utterly absurd to believe that your personal god, for whom there is just as much evidence for existing as all the other gods humans have invented, has a hand in anything. I dismiss your god as an explanation for the existence of anything for the same reasons you dismiss Zeus. That is to say, there is absolutely no evidence and invoking some arbitrary god adds nothing to our understanding of anything. All this "there must be a first cause" is nothing more than you trying to reconcile your faith with reality. Why is Zeus not the first cause? When you reflect on the answer to that question you will understand why your god holds no special place.