by dark angle 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
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?
He was citing the frequently used argument by creationist, the old anitquated experiments. he later shows the more updated view.
knowsnothing: 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.
Evolution and abiogenesis are one in the same...
.. accepting evolution naturally should require accepting abiogenesis.
False. The corollary may be true but what you state above is not absolutely necessary.
For the record, some deists, among others, may defend evolution as the most reasonable explanation for speciation while still entertaining the idea that some intelligence may have initiated life. (The nature of that "intelligence" as well as whether that "life" is thought to be single-celled organisms or a more complex form... all depends on the individual's beliefs.)
I'm not arguing whether the deist belief is right or wrong, only that a person may hold that life was kicked off by some intelligence and also accept evolution as the vehicle for speciation. Just because a person rejects the concept of the Judeo-Christian god or the Genesis account of creation, it doesn't mean he must acccept abiogenesis. Evolution should stand on its own regardless of arguments for or against abiogenesis.
Personally, I don't have enough knowledge regarding abiogenesis to form a proper opinion so I'm reserving judgment until I have a better grasp. But I do hate to see the theory of evolution misrepresented to include abiogenesis by default.
And I agree that just because we don't know what the beginning conditions for life were, that we must immediately discard abiogenesis
And we certainly don't need to discard evolution because of unanswered questions either. Which is often the creationist argument. "Oh you can't answer all of the questions, so none of your answers are correct. Creation wins by default."
Ridiculous. So let's go with connections then. We have found effective treatments for some cancers and not for others. Do we dismiss all of the answers we have found for Leukemia because we haven't made as much progress for pancreatic cancer? NO. We accept the answers we do have, and continue improving with that knowledge, and we continue trying to answer our questions about what we don't know about the other cancer. It is unlikely that the same researcher will be working to resolve both. So yes, there is overlap, and exchanging the knowledge could help both cases---but they are still handled separately.
NC
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.
In quest for a proper answer in nature, beliefs or strong beliefs, are null and not needed in science. what matters is evidence and what it most probbably imply. Infact, new fields of study in science such as Abiogenesis, string theory, ect... thier findings are probitionary in nature & are finely educated guesses until more observation, validation & test gives it more credit (or discredit). Science has the habbit of increasing the precision of its theories in time. there is no area for beliefs, faith & ultimate truths.
Creationism or ID could happily be considered if they would just make some damn predictions that could be tested but as long as they cling to faith then its not science.
Larsinger58 said:
Abiogenesis and evolution may not be connected in the world of evolutionists, but they are still connected in the real world, which completely disproves that incorrect theory. What evolutionists need to do is disprove the Bible, which they can't.
There is proof in this thread that Abiogenesis and Evolution are absolutely true 100%
If Larsiner58 DOESN'T believe it then it MUST be true!!
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?
That's the arrangement. To save ALL, a few are selected to be king-priests. They perfect the faith and then are able to help others. It's like saving a destitute nation. One doctor comes in and trains others, then those pass that on and train others and gradually you have enough trained people to make an impact. So God's plan includes ALL but not doing the same things. We are in the beginning of that process.
The kingdom is like a mustard grain. It starts very small, but then it grows and grows and grows into a huge plant. So it starts with one, Jesus Cririst, then the 12 disciples then the 70, etc. Like leaven, a little ferments the whole lump, eventually. God is impartial and wants all to live.
Ls
I would just like to frame the OVERVIEW here since the video did mention the Bible a couple of times. Here's the problem of evolution vs creation.
The Bible says that God created species in their original forms and purpose and that these species or "kinds" would reproduce after their kinds. That is what we observe in nature now. Cats have cats, dogs have dogs. Evolution presents that all things came from one cell, then branched out and eventually developed sexuality and began producing after their respective kinds. So that contradicts the Bible that God created these species independent of other species. Thus there is a conflict between the fundamentals of evolution and the Bible.
The other issue is the time involved. Evolution, since we can't see it occurring scientifically now, claims large amounts of time are required for observable evolution. So that's the other contradiction with the Bible. Creation of biological forms, that of plants, began the 3rd creative day. Each creative day is 7000 years long. So per the Bible, no biological form should be dated earlier than 28,000 years. Evolution, of course claims over millions of years. So that's a conflict.
On the other hand, there is no doubt there is a living God, because I've seen and spoken with him. I'm by far the exception, but that's the reality now. So I have to figure out why there is apparent conflict between science supporting evolution and the longer timeline vs. what the Bible says. But, of course, since we don't know all the details of creation and its processes, it is possible what God did in the past to speed up things might not be the same timetable we observe today. That's another problem. Science can only take what we have now and theorize, if it were a constant, what things were like in the ancient past. But they could be misreading the evidence if different laws or conditions were in place in the ancent past.
So in the end, the best I can do is admit that I understand why some people might be convinced by what scientists think they are seeing, especially since the Bible notes that Satan would create such destructive propaganda that it might even fool the elect. But in the meantime, the Bible remains true and the god of the Bible remains real. There has to be an explanation that explains why science is coming up with their theories that also recognizes creation and the God of the Bible. The direct appearance of God nullifies any potential claims that evolution disproves the Bible or God for the elect, even though it might seem so. Thus the elect, knowing God exists, must conclude that there is some reasonable explanation for the false-positive results science are coming up with.
Physical science is unable to look into the spirit world, so it can never provide all the answers to the world we know, which includes the concept of a spiritual world.
LS
God said that the earth was created in 7 days and adam was created from nothing more than dust... evolution proved god wrong.
