Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
One has to know the difference in Scriptural genres. You do not as evidenced by your post.
Click to expand...
One has to know the difference in Scriptural genres. You do not as evidenced by your approach to Genesis.

To make my point more explicit. Nowhere in the Bible does it deny that trees have hands. It says trees have hands once.

How do we know that this passage is not literal? Because we use our observation of the material world to see that trees do not have hands and hills do not sing, so we use the evidence of the material world to interpret this Bible passage as poetry and not literal.

How do we know that Genesis is not literal? Because we use our observation of the evidence of the material world to see that the Earth is not as literally described in Genesis, so we use the material world to interpret Genesis passage as not literal.
 
I don’t know much about biology, but I do know something about math. I am fascinated by the idea that some people believe that if I roll a pair of dice often enough, I will eventually roll a 13. If I owned a casino I would love to take bets on a 13 and would offer a nice payout on it. Some things do not happen by chance because they cannot happen.
 
Wozza said:
40.png
Trader:
I don’t know much about biology…
Click to expand...
That’s all we need to know, Trader.
Click to expand...
Whatever.

I believe the post:
Trader said:
I don’t know much about biology, but I do know something about math. I am fascinated by the idea that some people believe that if I roll a pair of dice often enough, I will eventually roll a 13. If I owned a casino I would love to take bets on a 13 and would offer a nice payout on it. Some things do not happen by chance because they cannot happen.
Click to expand...
was in response to:
Wozza said:
If you want to use odds as a means to deny something happening in the universe, knowing that it has already happened once, then suggesting that the probability is ‘very, very low’ doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...
The fact is we don’t know abiogenesis happened once. That is an assumption you believe in that lacks any proof. That creation did take place does not mean that abiogenesis and evolution was the way it happened. The way chemistry and physics work, especially given the fact that there exist complex living beings whose traits transcend those of matter, suggest that abiogenesis is akin to rolling a 13.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
The fact is we don’t know abiogenesis happened once.
Click to expand...
We do know. God is alive, “living God” as the Psalm says. Or is your God a dead God, not a living God?

Given at least one living entity then abiogenesis has happened at least once.
 
Sorry, Al. Remember I said I wasn’t going to encourage you by responding? Still stands…

Well, apart from reminding you of course.
 
Rossum, natural selection cannot do what you have been claiming.

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process. https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/
 
Last edited:
I thought you said you reject the ToE because the church has rejected it. Now your claiming that the science isn’t complete? If science ever does completely understand ToE you will still reject it, right? So what does it matter what the science says?
 
buffalo said:
Rossum, natural selection cannot do what you have been claiming.
Click to expand...
Why do you forget big parts of evolution? Random mutation, natural selection, founder effect, genetic drift, HGT, sexual selection and other processes can cause macroevolution: the development of new species. Do I have to post about the Marbled Crayfish yet again?

You are pushing a strawman of evolution, with parts left out.
 
rossum said:
Why do you forget big parts of evolution? Random mutation, natural selection, founder effect, genetic drift, HGT, sexual selection and other processes can cause macroevolution: the development of new species.
Click to expand...
I am the one who has continually shown all those other mechanisms. Look up my posts from the past. They are all part of micro-evolution. Macro–evolution molecules to man does not happen.
 
Not a valid comparison. Another view. Atheists require evolution to be a non-God process. Any suggestion that God was involved would be a problem.
 
buffalo said:
You got that wrong. I reject macro-evolution because it is not empirically proven.
Click to expand...
The problem, buffalo, is that you speak in absolutes like “macro didn’t happen”. It’s one thing to propose and defend your theories, but when you speak in absolutes and claim the Church “has always taught” them you tread dangerous waters. I refuted all of your bullets last night and you didn’t even reply. You did leave a link to this fine document (The Replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission) today, which is more along the lines of what I expected you to produce at the start. I confess I was somewhat disturbed when I first read it as it uses very direct language. I’ve only recently returned to the Church after a long absence. One of the things that drew me back was the realization that the Church doesn’t require belief in things which almost certainly aren’t true. I’m so convinced of the authority of the Church though that I would be forced to accept your views if the Church said to. I briefly feared I was there. After rereading the doc though it’s clear this is another example of Catholic nuance. There’s actually nothing here that contradicts evolutionary creationism…and nothing that establishes your view either. The underlying themes are that we accept God’s involvement in Creation and that He would speak truthfully to us about it.

I’m still interested if you’re able to produce a Church teaching that denies macroevolution. In the meantime, it’s probably best to couch your beliefs as your own and not allow them to be confused with what the Church actually teaches.
 
Pope Benedict

In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
 
edwest211 said:
Atheists require evolution to be a non-God process. Any suggestion that God was involved would be a problem.
Click to expand...
Not all atheists would agree with that statement. I know several, including myself, that would be happy to accept it if the evidence showed it. It’s more accurate to say that atheists accept evolution because the evidence for it is overwhelming. God is a separate topic.
edwest211 said:
We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
Click to expand...
The same can be said for planet formation.
 
“planet formation” has nothing to do with what Pope Benedict said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top