How did life started - the scientific answer!

by dark angle 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Larsinger58

  Lars - can you enlighten us - in a few sentences - how the scientific community ties evolution to abiogenesis?

  Hi Q. To my knowledge the "scientific community" isn't making that connection, the "spiritual community" is.

  But I get what they are saying. If the pre-biotic conditions are just right then they have observed the potential for spontaneous generation. When asked how they think the prebiotic state occurred, they say they don't know and don't care, the two are unrelated to what happens after the pre-biotic state occurs. That is like saying if a man has sex with a woman and has an ejaculation and thus deposits spermatozoa in her vaginal canal, then sperm might swim up the fallopian tube and when it is near it it just might "spontaneously" enter the ovum and then 9 months later a child is born. When we ask where the sperm and egg came from, we say we don't know and don't care because the two are unrelated. We just know if the conditions are right, sperm are observed to "spontaneously" fertilize ova.

  If evolution and abiogensis are unrelated then the video shouldn't have brought it up. But it gets brought up because some people, being logical, think the question is relevant when you put it into the context of the "origin of life." If evolutionists are going to hide from needing to explain the "origin of life" then they shouldn't bring it up in any way in connection with evolution. When they do, in this case, then creationists are going to call them on it and tell them they are in denial and stupid.

  One thing I've learned from years of debates is that everybody isn't all that bright and that influences just how in-depth you can go on some of these topics. Sitting in a university classroom long enough to get a degree doesn't seem to have much of an effect on that factor. Intelligence isn't intuition.

  LS
• 

  Larsinger58

  Lars - can you enlighten us - in a few sentences - how the scientific community ties evolution to abiogenesis?

  Hi Q. To my knowledge the "scientific community" isn't making that connection, the "spiritual community" is.

  But I get what they are saying. If the pre-biotic conditions are just right then they have observed the potential for spontaneous generation. When asked how they think the prebiotic state occurred, they say they don't know and don't care, the two are unrelated to what happens after the pre-biotic state occurs. That is like saying if a man has sex with a woman and has an ejaculation and thus deposits spermatozoa in her vaginal canal, then sperm might swim up the fallopian tube and when it is near it it just might "spontaneously" enter the ovum and then 9 months later a child is born. When we ask where the sperm and egg came from, we say we don't know and don't care because the two are unrelated. We just know if the conditions are right, sperm are observed to "spontaneously" fertilize ova.

  If evolution and abiogensis are unrelated then the video shouldn't have brought it up. But it gets brought up because some people, being logical, think the question is relevant when you put it into the context of the "origin of life." If evolutionists are going to hide from needing to explain the "origin of life" then they shouldn't bring it up in any way in connection with evolution. When they do, in this case, then creationists are going to call them on it and tell them they are in denial and stupid.

  One thing I've learned from years of debates is that everybody isn't all that bright and that influences just how in-depth you can go on some of these topics. Sitting in a university classroom long enough to get a degree doesn't seem to have much of an effect on that factor. Intelligence isn't intuition.

  LS
• 

  Larsinger58

  Thanks, marking for later.

  Sooner or later abiogenesis will be solved definitively and then creationists will retreat for a while to their final refuge cosmology.

  Lars demonstrates god of the gaps very eloquently.

  The problem is that evolutionists want to isolate and cherry pick to explain their beliefs, but others want to see how this all works in the broad picture.

  The other problem is that God reveals himself in the modern world to those he chooses to, so some of us have direct interaction and evidence of not just a god, but the God of the Bible. So even if some alternative theory of how life could begin alternatively seems logical or possible, it doesn't dismiss the reality of God and creation or the Bible's explanation of creation.

  The fact is, when presented as a potential explanation for the "origin of life", creationists can explain how life began but evolution cannot and doesn't feel obligated to. So evolution works if they don't have to explain how the pre-biologic state came about. So creationists think they are avoiding the obvious and are cop-outs.

  Creation explains all we see here now. They are not deluded into thinking we evolved from the ape.

  Anyway, lots of scientific questions will be answered when Armageddon starts, so not to worry.

  LS
• 

  NewChapter

  When asked how they think the prebiotic state occurred, they say they don't know and don't care

  So much wrong with what you are saying Lars. It's not that they don't care, it's that a different scientific discipline is working on those questions. You don't ask a lawyer to cure your cancer, and when he can't scream A HA CANCER CAN'T BE CURED! No, you take it to a doctor. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life---it investigates speciation through natural selection. It also doesn't measure the speed of light. That doesn't mean there is not some overlap, but FOCUS. No matter how life originated, evolution is what happened next---or perhaps before that is still being researched.

  And you don't get to win by default either. Just because evolution doesn't answer all your questions, you don't get to then say that your hypothesis is correct. The creation account in Genesis has INDEED been disproven. Evolution disproves it.

  NC
• 

  Knowsnothing

  I feel the analogy presented in the beginning isn't applicable. Of course no one would argue that the theory of relativity is wrong because it doesn't explain germs.

  But, abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably linked. If we go back in time and see the progress of evolution backwards, we are arguing that life came about from non-life processes.

  In this case, it really is abiogenesis OR creation. I'm just saying that if you defend evolution, you defend abiogenesis because by default you have already rejected creationism. So that means life must come about from non-life.

  I don't know why the guy in the video get's hung up about that.

  I think argument one is a valid question, because is there any evidence of non-complex life having ever existed? What is the most basic form of life we have today? In fact, he goes on to cite those scientists that disproved spontaneous generation and says no scientists today use spontaneous generation as an argument. Well, wtf is abiogenesis then, if not but a decorated version of spontaneous generation?
• 

  Qcmbr

  This video describes how you can get self replicating machines starting. Evolution describes how an imperfect started self replicating machine will change over time. I don't think we'd get so bothered about lumping the two into aspects of life machinery if creationists didn't use the current state of understanding of one to disprove the excellent and thorough understanding of the other.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Ok, the point I'm trying to make is that abiogeneis and evolution are naturally complementary disciplines, correct? And that accepting evolution naturally should require accepting abiogenesis.

  I am not here to argue creation. Merely the argument posed by this guy. His analogies at the beginning were absurd.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  The theory of evolution is far simpler than abiogenesis. We see evidence that life has evolved, so creationists sometimes attack the more difficult subject which we cannot find direct evidence of- the start of life.

  It would be similar if someone wanted to attack the theory of electricity. We benefit from evidence that the theory is correct and it is not so difficult to understand. So someone might have to attack the theories on the makeup of the building blocks of atoms themselves to go after electricity.

  Yes, it is a valid comparison. It's just that people don't attack the theory of electricity much anymore, so it seems ridiculous. Well, it is ridiculous to attack evolution.

  I wish believers would use the same critical opposition energy to scientific theory on their own theories.

  I think Qcmbr has it right above. I would think that science could lump the two things together if not for the opposition. Evolution could easily include the specialty field of how nonlife "evolved." But it's all just semantics.
• 

  dark angle

  The other problem is that God reveals himself in the modern world to those he chooses to, so some of us have direct interaction and evidence of not just a god, but the God of the Bible.

  Didn't God said that he wants all people to be saved? that he is the God of justice and fairness? why just favor few people to annouce is purpose while rejecting people demanding evidence and reason?
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Evolution could easily include the specialty field of how nonlife "evolved." But it's all just semantics. OTWO

  Exactly. That's all I'm essentially pointing out. Evolution and abiogenesis are one in the same, no less so than macroevolution and microevolution are the same.

  Or, with the new theory of everything science is trying to dish out; general relativity, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics are all the essentially the same, be it combined through any of the string theories.

  It's really all about the focus given on any particular discipline that leads us to semantics.

  And I agree that just because we don't know what the beginning conditions for life were, that we must immediately discard abiogenesis. I'm just saying that, of necessity, if you have already discarded a supernatural intervention for life, then you must advocate for abiogeneis. Unless you propose "sporing", which would involve aliens and such. Ultimately it boils down to if you believe life can form on its own, or it can't.

  Can I make myself any clearer?