zmweaver Posted July 19, 2005 Report Share Posted July 19, 2005 How did "life" come to be? An organism must first exist before it can reproduce or evolve. Something that does not exist cannot aspire to exist. Nothing will grow in perfect soil, full sunlight, and plenty of water without first, the organizational input of a seed. Regardless of your personal version of evolution or creation, I would not be writing this, nor would you be reading this, without first, external organizational input from somewhere and somepoint in history! Even if you believe this organizational input came from aliens, they must have got it from somewhere, at some point. My point is, once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted July 19, 2005 Report Share Posted July 19, 2005 How did "life" come to be? An organism must first exist before it can reproduce or evolve. Something that does not exist cannot aspire to exist. Nothing will grow in perfect soil, full sunlight, and plenty of water without first, the organizational input of a seed. Regardless of your personal version of evolution or creation, I would not be writing this, nor would you be reading this, without first, external organizational input from somewhere and somepoint in history! Even if you believe this organizational input came from aliens, they must have got it from somewhere, at some point. My point is, once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched.Welcome to hypography zmweaver, I'd suggest you go to our evolution forum and read up on what the members have already discussed about these issues. You will most likely find the answers your looking for at this location. Enjoy............................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted July 19, 2005 Report Share Posted July 19, 2005 Welcome to Hypography. At present I don't think anyone can answer the question, no one knows. I second infamous' recomendation though, there are plenty of existing discussions on the topic to join in on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guadalupe Posted July 19, 2005 Report Share Posted July 19, 2005 My point is, once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched. Hi! zmweaver and welcome to hypography. Albert Einstein once said that he believed, “that God does not play dice with our universe”. I believe that Albert Einstein’s statement meant that God is the God of all knowing and all seeing, otherwise, if God were to play dice with our universe, that would mean that the God of our universe is not all knowing and all seeing, but a god, with a small “g”, of chaos and doom, a god that would gamble with our lives and with our universe by leaving it all up to chance rather than by his own will. Of course, if the creation was by chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAHD Posted July 19, 2005 Report Share Posted July 19, 2005 abiogeneis is the coined term around here, try a forum search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skuinders Posted July 19, 2005 Report Share Posted July 19, 2005 Abiogenesis link:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 Yet another reminder that evolution and abiogenisis are NOT the same thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 Yet another reminder that evolution and abiogenisis are NOT the same thing...But didn't abiogenesis start evolution according to evolutionists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmweaver Posted July 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 But didn't abiogenesis start evolution according to evolutionists? That was my initial assumption as well. I think the vast majority of the population assumes that "Evolutionists" believe the existence of life is a result of pure chance. At some point, a distinction was made between "Evolutionists" that believe simple chemicals somehow became bacteria and those that don't. If an "Evolutionist" does not believe in abiogenesis, it seems a stretch to be sure humans evolved from apes. If one accepts the idea that some higher power played a hand in the existence of life, how can he discount the possibility that he was personally created by a Maker? Are concepts such as beauty, hate, after-life, guilt, and "consciousness" a result of evolution? It seems the distinct differences between us and the rest of the animal kingdom are as difficult to explain in terms of evolution as abiogenesis. Also, if an evolutionist does not believe in abiogensis, doesn't that make him a creation-evolutionist on a certain level? At the very least, a creation-undecided evolutionist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 EVolution is more propperly called common descent. This is the theory (that has reasonable evidence) that all life forms descended from a common ancestor. Many that support evolution also support "Miller-Urey"-type of early genesis of organic molecules. Yet this is another subject. Just as cosmology and solarsystem formation are vital to the formation of the earth, they are not neccessary to study geology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skuinders Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 EVolution is more propperly called common descent.Actually, that is a subdivision of evolution called 'macroevolution.' The general theory of evolution is 'a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations,' and is strong and easily demonstrable theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 Actually, that is a subdivision of evolution called 'macroevolution.' The general theory of evolution is 'a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations,' and is strong and easily demonstrable theory. True, but I was responding to the general association that was being asserted that evolution (be it macro or micro, PE or gradualism, etc.) involved abiogenesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shapedoctor Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 My point is, once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched. That is in no way a fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched.Life can exist as a result of chance: we are the proof. Belief in abiogenisis or evolution in no ways prevents belief in a creator. niviene 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmweaver Posted July 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Originally Posted by zmweaver"My point is, once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched."That is in no way a fact.Shapedoctor,My error. I unintentionally incorporated my particular viewpoint into a generalization. Replace "fact" with "possibility". Life can exist as a result of chance: we are the proof. Belief in abiogenisis or evolution in no ways prevents belief in a creator.Eclogite,Agreed, my diction was misleading. When I wrote, "... a result of chance", I was evidently unsuccessful at contextually implying there was NO creator/external organizational-input involved in this "result of chance". Obviously, by definition, we exist as a result of chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 Belief in abiogenisis or evolution in no ways prevents belief in a creator. But it sure makes it look foolish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 But it sure makes it look foolish.Foolish to who? I think it is MORE foolish to believe in your fairy tale, otherwise known as "Evolution." The theory is only provable by supposition and assumption. It has not been proved and never will be, it can't. Researchers have mixed together the chemicals they think composed the "primordial ooze" applied as much energy as they could, changed things, tried again and guess what... nothing. You may not know or see the watchmaker, but you look at a watch and KNOW its parts were not tossed into a bag, shaken and poured out as a completed working watch without the watchmaker's aid. You not knowing or seeing the watchmaker doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.