Why evolutionists are trying to exclude abiogenesis from evolution.

Discussion in 'Science' started by Grugore, Mar 6, 2018.

  1. Grugore

    Grugore Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The more we learn about life, the worse it looks for the theory of abiogenesis. We now know the minimum requirements for life to exist, and scientists haven't got clue how it could have happened. The only reason people believe in abiogenesis is because they want to. Because the alternative is abhorrent to them. A Creator who they will one day be accountable to. Here is an article that explains it all. And it uses science, not the Bible.

    https://creation.com/origin-of-life
     
  2. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    44,914
    Likes Received:
    2,912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    please cite an actual peer reviewed scientific paper if you are going to post in the science forum. If you want to talk about your imaginary sky fairy friend, please post it in the appropriate forum. Science isn't it.
     
  3. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    22,342
    Likes Received:
    4,857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why is it, do you think that there are separate terms and fields? We accept the likelihood of abiogenesis due to verified data that supports it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
  4. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    5,283
    Likes Received:
    1,726
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even our most simple life has been evolving for 4 billion years so the first life probably was vastly simpler than our simplest bacteria. We have found that RNA strands, proteins, and self-replicating proteins can form in early-earth conditions. So how do you know we won't find some self-replicating RNA that can develop in early-earth conditions?

    And evolution is separate from abiogenesis because they are. Evolution can happen if God made the first life not abiogenesis. And abiogenesis can happen even if evolution is impossible.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
    WillReadmore and tecoyah like this.
  5. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    10,204
    Likes Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The more we learn about life, the worse it looks for the theory of creationism. We now know the minimum requirements for life to exist, and creationists haven't got clue how it could have happened. The only reason people believe in creationism is because they want to. Because the alternative is abhorrent to them. No creator who they will one day be saved by. :D
     
  6. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You know all we need is proof of life forming on one other biosphere OR proof of one or more other lines of Earth life not using current DNA (scientists are looking for that is areas hostile to ordinary life on our planet) and Abiogenesis is proven and life forming becomes mechanical whenever the elements are there. But it doesn't matter we don't need to understand how the universe began to study how stars form. How life began and how life developed after the fact are separate issues.
     
  7. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    22,342
    Likes Received:
    4,857
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Lipids also make the walls
     
  8. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    15,075
    Likes Received:
    4,848
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Looks like they took a cell, replaced its dna with dna a computer(intelligence) put together and the cell operated and replicated. And as your video said, scientists will be debating if they actually created life. They didn't create the cell wall, they simply used an intelligence to create a different dna and replaced the old dna. Still, quite an achievement which may have some beneficial and well as nefarious applications.

    Perhaps one day they will create the self replicating molecule which then evolves into a single cell organism, which means it would have to create the cell wall. Using intelligence of course. Then all they have to do is to convince the skeptics that you take away the computer(intelligence) and it will happen on it own, by randomness and chance. But I do agree, this is getting closer. But there is still a vast distance here which must be traveled.
     
  9. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    6,719
    Likes Received:
    4,402
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you can create cellar life in your test tube in the bio lab, science will be able to prove they have "created" life. Until then, it is simply a hypothesis. For science to "recreate" the moment of "life", they have to be able to demonstrate that in a natural environment, the right set of chemicals came together to "create" the structure that became life. So far, no dice.
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    20,455
    Likes Received:
    2,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Doing that would show that it COULD happen. But, it's not clear that it would show what DID happen.

    More broadly, I'm bothered by this idea that finding or creating life could possibly "prove" anything about religious concepts of any kind at all.

    I don't know of a religion that makes absolute statements about life NOT being in other places in the cosmos or that humans CAN'T create life.

    It's still just a fact that science has no way of addressing the supernatural. The supernatural is specifically excluded from science in its very definition.

    And, it's still a bad idea to present science and religion as being irreconcilable opposing forces - that one must either abandon their religion or abandon science.
     
  11. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,209
    Likes Received:
    631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I really love that you have to go all the way back to abiogenesis to make your argument. Even if we grant that abiogenesis is impossible without some sort of god (while just fiating the existence of that god, because the rules for proving that a god exists obviously do not meet the scientific rigor that you insist from abiogenesis), then we are still left with the conclusion that evolution happened from that point on. So whatever god you're talking about, it sure ain't the God of the bible, because that god didn't just create RNA strands and call it done. THAT god created fully formed humans, plants, and animals.
     
  12. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    23,442
    Likes Received:
    2,463
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have two degrees in biology (B.S (1987) and B.A in Marine biology (1991)). Abiogenesis has not been considered part of the theory of evolution in that whole time. Why? There is not enough evidence of it to make a scientific conclusion. Nothing to do with anything else. We don't have much of a clue, because there isn't much evidence. Science works on evidence. Without it, we don't try.

    I thoroughly believe that evolution exists. I also thoroughly believe that the Christian trinity exists. I believe that people who think that evolution is counter to the belief in God are wrong, whether they be atheists or fellow Christians. The evidence for evolution is clear. The evidence for creationism is not. The Old Testament is not a scientific history. It is tales about the relationship between God and man. It is closer to parable than history. In fact, I think people who look at the Old Testament as history are pretty close to being heretics.
     
  13. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    7,987
    Likes Received:
    924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People who believe in abiogenesis are no different than people that believe that the world was created in seven days or that Atlas holds the sky up with his arms. They both are religious zealots who put their faith blindly in a theory with no evidence.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    20,455
    Likes Received:
    2,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Abiogenesis is just a name for whatever process led to first life.

    I would say there is no theory of abiogenesis. Theories in science require a description of a mechanism - they answer "how" questions. Also, they have to be stated such that there are ways of attempting to prove them false. "Life happened by natural causes" just isn't good enough to be a theory.

    Scientists are looking for how things happened due to natural causes, because there is no way for science to include the supernatural. There are scientists of every religion. It's not some atheist plot.

    Let's not hyperventilate over this.

    No real god is being threatened in these experiments.
     
    One Mind and Cosmo like this.
  15. tharock220

    tharock220 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    399
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Evolution requires life to exist. It doesn't matter if life started as self replicating organic molecules, was seeded by aliens, or was created by God. It explains how life changes. If we somehow found out the "Big Bang" never happened it wouldn't discredit general relavity.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  16. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,400
    Likes Received:
    3,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lets postulate that some Alien Civilization started spamming Earth with possible life forms, and various diverse life forms failed, so perhaps not really Evolution, just Eons of Bio-Experimentation, that would explain much, and better too.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  17. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,433
    Likes Received:
    594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Evolution as described by the Theory of Evolution is a statistical effect, it happens to populations; it is irrelevant to Abiogenesis until the point that a population of imperfect replicators comes to exist.
     
  18. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,759
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science doesn't know everything. There are a myriad mysteries. Science is simply a way to observe, analyze and test toward an explanation of what is observed. It doesn't always succeed. It sometimes has to change its mind. It is a process, not a universal truth. There is no reason to criticize it for what it isn't.
     
  19. Fenton Lum

    Fenton Lum Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The male dominator god perception of reality is nothing but what someone decides they want to believe in.
     
  20. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    14,196
    Likes Received:
    7,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, but this thread is all about your fear that there is no god.

    I realized many years ago that there is an interesting difference between religious men and religious women. The men go around trying to prove their beliefs to everyone else. In fact they are trying to prove it to themselves. But of course it can never be proven so its a bottomless pit. So men waste god knows how many hours of their life [and other peoples] trying to confirm their own faith by taking a thousand roads to nowhere.

    Worst of all, they can rationalize being as annoying and arrogant as they want because they are doing god's work. :rolleyes: That is really just an excuse to be a jerk.

    Women tend to be more accepting and don't feel the need to prove their beliefs.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018

Share This Page