Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
It wasn't designed to evolve/adapt beyond the simple life form it was created as. The only time a single celled creature grows beyond it's original state is when it is designed to do so. For example a single cell goes from that to a fully developed human in nine months because that was it's design.

That isn't evolution; that's a single organism developing. What makes it impossible for genetic code to change over time, resulting in different species?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
How would a supernatural origin of life prevent evolution from occurring?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
It wasn't designed to evolve/adapt beyond the simple life form it was created as.

How do you know this?

How do you know what it was designed to do?

Can you explain the science that proves this? Is there any such science?

If you can't explain it scientifically, could you at least explain it 'philosophically' (as you promised earlier to prove the connexion between abiogenesis and evolution -- but still haven't)?

Or, if you can't even explain it philosophically, could you at least direct us to the place in the Bible where it says this? Not that I'm going to believe it because the Bible tells me so, but because as far as I know the Bible does not tell me so.

Madness you remind of a certain Star Wars character, his name was Admiral Motti, do you remember what was said to him because he was so cynical?

You remind me of a Star Wars character, too. Guess which one.

reply to post by Astyanax

As spokesperson for the unfairly oppressed, I must speak up on behalf of Jar-Jar Binks. That much maligned individual, when questioned, presented a rational explanation as to why he was kicked out of his clan.

Mesa cause one, two-y little bitty axadentes, huh? Yud say boom de gasser, den crashin der bosses heyblibber, den banished.

If questioned about any other statement of his, I'm sure he'd offer a comparatively adequate explanation for that too.

Well, he'd at least try.

Anyway, this reference reminds me that your own experience proves Blue_Jay right.
Have you ever, even once, found little humans growing in your jar-jar of peanut butter?
Of course not. And "why?" you might ask.
Just as monkeys can only give birth to monkeys, (except for evolutionists,) peanut butter can only give birth to peanut butter. In fact, a peanut butter pig-out is proof of god. The spoon goes in, the spoon comes out, the spoon goes in .... and Never a Miscommunication!!!

Now the crux of the whole argument, as Blue_Jay has most valiantly attempted to avoid explaining, is that I've just proven I don't believe in abiogenesis. And, in some other thread, I've equally thoroughly proven I don't believe in evolution. This proves the two beliefs have something in common, my personal disbelief, and any two things that share a common denominator are inextricably linked.

So I've now proven the opening title, that Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy, is completely ...
Oh drat, even I can't prove anything about a statement made nonsensical by grammatical bloopers.

So I'll have to admit my brave attempt to support the downtrodden has ended in an epic fail.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
.....
paranthropus boisei is the one on that list that is the last true ancestor to homo sapiens. Homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis weren't our ancestors, but they were closely related to us.

...What? You thought showing us reconstructions of our preceding species would make us go "nuh-uh, we aren't descended from those!"?

Do you actually know anything about evolution?

As someone who doesn't know much about evolution, it's really mind-blowing to realise the abundance of different humanoid species which managed to evolve from our common ancestor, before one eventually "took off", acquiring that tiny degree of difference between our type of humans and all the other humans and humanoids from the past.

Obviously god wasn't too skilled at this, and had to put in a lot of practice before he got me just right.
I say, "me," because believing humans are the raison d'être of this great creation takes a certain degree of egotism. So it's natural to take such egotism to its logical conclusion and accept that I, personally, am the pinnacle of creation.

The logic off this is proven by the number of people who follow this line of thinking, certain their personal interpretation of their religion's scriptures is unquestionable and should be enshrined in law, and inflicted on believers and unbelievers alike.

I can't really comment on the op's topic because I'm fairly ignorant in this subject... The reason I clicked on it originally is equal parts humorous and embarrasing... I thought it said "Why ABORIGINES separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy" I'm thinking in my head , "wow , I've never heard of THAT before , let's check it out!" I need to go to bed!

reply to post by EyesWideShut


Good movie, text book hero quest, unfairly criticized.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

How would a supernatural origin of life prevent evolution from occurring?

I have answered this many times perhaps in other threads.

No, you haven't. It's why I've had to keep asking the damn question.

It wasn't designed to evolve/adapt beyond the simple life form it was created as.

Evidence needed.

The only time a single celled creature grows beyond it's original state is when it is designed to do so.

Evidence needed.

For example a single cell goes from that to a fully developed human in nine months because that was it's design.

Evidence needed of divine intervention there as we have a perfectly acceptable naturalistic explanation for how we went from single celled life to multicellular mammals in the course of 3 billion years.

Madness you remind of a certain Star Wars character, his name was Admiral Motti, do you remember what was said to him because he was so cynical?

Well, I do remember he got choked by Darth Vader, though the motivation for this wasn't a lack of religious faith but a lack of faith in the abilities of Vader himself.

Also, Vader is prone to choke people.

Did the man in his arrogant pride learn the hard way?

Ad hominem much?

That's just an idiotic comparison. How am I being arrogant or prideful? I'm asking a legitimate question in the light of there already being a naturalistic answer that is thoroughly proven.

Being confident in a demonstrable position isn't arrogant or prideful in any way.

You are a Star Wars fan so I am thinking you know exactly what I am talking about.

Yes, a religious believer telekinetically choking a guy. Great example of how religion works, innit?

Though I've always admired the sci-fantasy of Star Wars. The Jedi aren't a religious group, they have demonstrable abilities and it requires little faith to accept them.

If you don't, just ask me to post the video of the clip I am referring to.

No need, I know what you're getting at and it's a false and downright stupid comparison.

Of course, I'd just have to bring up my own Star Wars quote: Your overconfidence is your weakness.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Your overconfidence is your weakness.

That lightsabre cuts both ways

However

"I find your lack of faith disturbing" is one of my favorite lines from the entire Star Wars series, I was focusing on that line in my post, not the choking part. But some people can only learn the hard way, this is the lesson Vader was providing to the Admiral.
For those that don't know


And with that I will listen too Grand Moff Tarkins words of "This bickering is pointless"

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

If the admiral in this video represents Madnessinmysoul, who does Darth Vader represent?
You, your latest psychopathic fantasy, or your twisted notion of god?

I notice your sig refers to choking too.

reply to post by uva3021


In that case since it’s highly recommended by you, I’ll add it to my list of evolution websites. And being that it’s a government journal – I guess it’s more legit than say RichardDawkins.net or TalkOrigins.org or EVN, etc that are frequented by evolutionists.

Anyway thanks.

Now that we’ve established the fact, that there is no separation between abiogenesis and organic evolution, no gap – just one continues process (although different theories). Thus I would conclude that Blue_Jay33 had accomplished his goal as presented in the OP imho (unless someone still wants to question it).

Case closed!


So the question now is:

“How would a supernatural origin of life prevent evolution from occurring?”

Are we talking about “theistic evolution” – ala Ken Miller? A “supernatural” being with the power to create the universe and all things in it – whether visible and invisible yet used evolution as a means to advance life?

Then I can say this now - highly unlikely.

This is so because of the existence of his inspired word the Bible.

Just by the mention of one scripture will demolish this idea:

“And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.” -- Gen 1:27

Thanks,
edmc2

reply to post by Kailassa


Neither, the point is there are some things that although there is no empirical evidence, we at some point may be forced to acknowledge them, in relation to faith and the lack of it, and we may learn it in a very unpleasant way just like that Admiral did when he mocked Vader with "your sad devotion to that ancient religion".
The only reason I am using this is because I know Madness is a Star Wars fan.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Now that we’ve established the fact, that there is no separation between abiogenesis and organic evolution, no gap – just one continues process (although different theories).

If both abiogenesis and evolution occurred, then they occurred as a continuous process.

However there are some who say god created the initial structures of life. There are others who say the initial structures of life arrived here on a meteorite.

At this stage we cannot prove how life began. However we can prove evolution.
Evolution is what happened after the initial structures of life became present, and it happened without regard to the mechanism by which these initial structures became present. Thus, the theory of evolution is not dependant upon the theory of abiogenesis and the two theories are only intertwined if both actually occurred.

Which leaves me puzzled. Why are you, and ardent creationist, putting forth an argument that only makes sense if proposed by one who is certain both abiogenesis and evolution occurred?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Over and over and over people who believe in evolution keep saying they are completely separate topics of biology, this has developed in more recent years simply because it is an easier position to defend. However the two are intricately bound, without that first single cell prokaryotes, evolution is not possible, and evolutionists, sidestep that entire discussion by saying well it's a different field of biology, this is weak, very weak, and intellectual honesty must acknowledge that. To disregard the Abiogenesis as part of the foundation of evolution sidesteps and conveniently avoids a major issue that confronts a person that life came from nothing.

I am confused as to why you think that if the current theory of abiogenesis has been disproven, the theory of evolution is disproven?

Suppose some kind of god planted seeds from which life has arise from, would that disprove the theory of evolution?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Neither, the point is there are some things that although there is no empirical evidence, we at some point may be forced to acknowledge them, in relation to faith and the lack of it, and we may learn it in a very unpleasant way just like that Admiral did when he mocked Vader with "your sad devotion to that ancient religion".
The only reason I am using this is because I know Madness is a Star Wars fan.

it sounds to me, Blue_Jay, as though you are arguing against science because you believe god is like Darth Vader, and will choke you, (or worse,) if you don't display sufficient faith in him.

Are your arguments here based on fear-inspired "faith"?

Do you believe acknowledging both abiogenesis and the gradual evolution of man from a microbe constitutes denying god as creator?

What do you believe will happen to you if you deny god as creator?

reply to post by edmc^2

Now that we’ve established the fact, that there is no separation between abiogenesis and organic evolution, no gap – just one continues process (although different theories). Thus I would conclude that Blue_Jay33 had accomplished his goal as presented in the OP imho (unless someone still wants to question it).

Not so fast. No such thing has been established, except perhaps in your mind.

You are trying to make out that because the emergence of life from non-life may have involved natural selection, it is the same as natural selection. What nonsense.

The emergence of cake from non-cake involves baking. Does that make it the same as baking? Does it mean that you can't have baking without cakes? Have you ever seen a pork pie, or a brick?

Anyone that looks at this world and believes it was all created by chance, is truly blind (I don't say this to insult). Something is assembling trillions of atoms to form complex biological systems; something is not only building complex molecules that contain all the code to create our material being - it's also reading this code and building the aforementioned complex biological systems from it. What are we talking here? Gravity? Chemicals?

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
Anyone that looks at this world and believes it was all created by chance, is truly blind (I don't say this to insult). Something is assembling trillions of atoms to form complex biological systems; something is not only building complex molecules that contain all the code to create our material being - it's also reading this code and building the aforementioned complex biological systems from it. What are we talking here? Gravity? Chemicals?

Tons of different natural at forces at play here, so many different variables. And no one is claiming it was created by chance because no one can know if it was or wasn't. Fact is, we have ZERO objective evidence that would support creationism.

reply to post by edmc^2

Now that we’ve established the fact, that there is no separation between abiogenesis and organic evolution, no gap – just one continues process (although different theories). Thus I would conclude that Blue_Jay33 had accomplished his goal as presented in the OP imho (unless someone still wants to question it).

OMG, seriously, again?? Blue Jay claims it's one process, but it's not!! Abiogenesis is a prerequisite for evolution insofar as life is required for the theory of evolution to work. But to imply just because we don't know what caused life to come into existence in the first place, or even worse, claiming a god did it, clearly doesn't change anything when it comes to evolution. We know of evolution because the theory is based on OBJECTIVE FACTS. We KNOW it's happening, and it would still be totally valid if the spaghetti monster sneezed and created the first life.

Are we talking about “theistic evolution” – ala Ken Miller? A “supernatural” being with the power to create the universe and all things in it – whether visible and invisible yet used evolution as a means to advance life?

Then I can say this now - highly unlikely.

If you're talking about a god existing being highly unlikely...sure, given that we have zero proof of his/her/its existence you're right. If you're talking about evolution, well, you're wrong. We know that's how biodiversity works because we have facts to back it up...migratory trends, fossils, DNA, radiometric dating, and the list goes on. So claiming it's "highly unlikely" that a god would use evolution means only one thing...it's highly unlikely god exists

This is so because of the existence of his inspired word the Bible.

Bible as proof? How quaint

It was written by men, has numerous parts in it that are complete hogwash if you examine it scientifically/objectively, and most certainly isn't proof of anything, let alone god's existence. That is, unless you're a blind sheep and don't require hard evidence to believe in fairy tales

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Yes, the 'bickering' is pointless when I'm demonstrably right and you're demonstrably wrong. We've shown that you're wrong and I'm right.

reply to post by Robert Reynolds

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
Anyone that looks at this world and believes it was all created by chance, is truly blind (I don't say this to insult).

Chance? No, we can understand that it formed as a result of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology as they are. Chance merely plays a role.

Something is assembling trillions of atoms to form complex biological systems;

Yes, and that could be something we call 'nature'. And the initial biological systems weren't all that complex. Hell, it took over 3 billion years to reach the level of complexity that we're at.

something is not only building complex molecules that contain all the code to create our material being - it's also reading this code and building the aforementioned complex biological systems from it. What are we talking here? Gravity? Chemicals?

A combination of the natural forces. Why does it have to be supernatural? We can show that evolution results in the diversity of life, what's so hard to understand?

Oh, and 'chemicals' are the things that make up those "aforementioned complex biological systems". So yes, chemicals have a huge role to play. Your eyeballs? Chemicals. Skin? Chemicals! Spleen? More chemicals.