Posted on 06/15/2017 12:50:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
As in which theory - Newtonian(probably not), Quantum or special relativity?
One must ponder the gravity of the situation!
“we mean Abiogenesis, then I think its clear the weight of evidence is against it being feasible (Abiogenesis means life first coming from the inorganic assuming the natural universe did not have outside help in producing life).”
Abiogenesis is evolution, it’s just the earliest form of it.
Really abiogenesis is not a real concept or theory scientifically. Means nothing other than a time before natural selection acts on living organisms and is impossible to define.
Abiogenesis is meaningless at best and is just another type of creationism if taken literally.
Special, of course - E being quantified state.
Our intuitive sensory anticipation is that if space is finite but endlessly expanding there must be a border. But there isn't, at least not one we can reach. Of if you like we are always at it.
Consider 2-dimensional people living on the balloon. The "border" is up or "down" but they have no intuitive notion of up or down. If they move around on the balloon and get back to where they came, it will appear to them that they went in a circle.
Space is "bent" in a way if you like, but not within our dimensions. And the amount of bending is different where there is gravity.
Thinking classically and using your balloon example, as space-time is expanding it is filling the nothingness — the nothingness that existed before the big bang?
The Big Bang model does not tell us of anything "outside" of it or "before" it. Now logically, since our universe seems to be made up of derivative things and any subset of all the things in this universe in aggregate are derivative, even as you get close to and include the entire universe in the subset, then the universe does not have the self existent quality that is called "Aseity" by those studying metaphysics and theology seriously. That is, the property where something itself does not need a "cause" and/or does not derive its existence from something external.
This is a subject, I have gone very deep on....and I don't want to write a book in a free republic post...but to jump to the end the evidence all points to a fully perfect all powerful monotheistic personal God similar to the one of Judaism and Christianity. And I am hardly alone concluding this, but am in the company of the founders of modern science.
If you reread my original post; you’ll find that I was careful to put in the qualifiers. That was my whole point. Too many people do lump the origin of life in with the origin of species — they’re two very different things. Without consistent definitions of terms; reasonable debate is impossible.
Darwin knew he had no ‘scientific’ answer to the question of the origin of life. Too many of his self-professed acolytes do not know that fact — and, therefore, make outlandish claims in Darwin’s name. Creationism is a Faith-based explanation — and so is every other explanation to date (and, perhaps for all time).
>>where there is gravity.
Which is, everywhere.
Both of you have mentioned abiogenesis and differentiated it from evolution.
Andy defines it thusly, “Abiogenesis means life first coming from the inorganic assuming the natural universe did not have outside help in producing life.”
Do you agree with this, USFRIEND?
Next, you made a big mistake saying inorganic, that makes no sense. Nonetheless, we can skip that.
The question why do you separate this life coming about from evolution?
The odds of there being a God are tinier.
If there is life on other planets
this is probably something we will never know; what we do know is that the planets in our own system are completely lifeless, even incapable of supporting life as we know it...this is an argument I hear in contradiction to an intelligent designer, and it is a compelling one...
then again, since nobody can pinpoint the origin of life, I retain an open mind...
“In all fairness, this is simply incorrect. It seems impossible based on your everyday experiences, but that’s because your everyday experience does not encompass processes that span millions or billions of years. So you have no frame of reference from which to analyze the situation. Just pointing out the logical fallacy.”
Thank you. A few still rely on reason.The zero chance malarky is about as correct as climate change.
“That was my whole point. Too many people do lump the origin of life in with the origin of species”
Was the first life not a species?
” believe that’s called Faith.”
For those who choose faith over reason, science and rationality....
God created life and that certainly was not accidental
I’ll try not to repeat what I said in other posts.
That definition seems reasonable to me (depending on how you define “inorganic”, which, in this case I take it to mean “not coming from life”).
It’s also important to note (as others here have) that ‘abiogenesis’ is not the only ‘scientific’ theory of the origin of life.
As for why to separate the origin-of-life from evolution (origin of species):
a) Darwin did — you simply cannot have a logical discussion about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, if you insist on defining ‘evolution’ differently than he did.
b) it opens up the possibility that “life” was created, by the Creator — but, the various forms of life are the result of evolution.
c) The Theory of Evolution is based on the notion of “natural selection” — which Darwin meant to compare with the planned selection used by breeders. Few disagree that selection (natural or planned) can create different breeds of a species (micro-evolution). The creation of different species through selection (macro-evolution) is another matter altogether. As is the creation of any life form from non-living material. IOW, you can believe in natural selection, without believing that it can result in new species. Similarly, you can believe in all of Darwin’s ToE, and simultaneously believe that the Creator created life from non-living matter.
“...those who choose faith over reason, science and rationality....”
And yet, when confronted with the mathematical improbability of life emerging spontaneously from non-life, do you still insist that life MUST have emerged naturally?
Is that reasonable and rational? Or is it FAITH-based?
Both of you have mentioned abiogenesis and differentiated it from evolution.
This sure sounds like evolution:
"those molecules which were protected from the elements survived longer and reproduced more."
"One theory goes like this:RNA, the compliment molecule to DNA, was the first to evolve naturally from materials already common in the pre-biotic Earth. Self-replication was achieved through catalytic actions in RNA-based molecules, called ribosomes, or possibly through an intermediary molecule.
This step still remains unverified to science as of this writing."
{ and after that miracle }
"Once self-replication had been achieved, the forces of Natural Selection took over. For example, those molecules which were protected from the elements survived longer and reproduced more. So, any molecules which found themselves with a lipid bubble (which also forms naturally) would have a better chance of reproducing. After many incremental steps, the lipid bubbles eventually became cell membranes, and the molecules DNA.
For more information on the probability of life forming this way, please see this article."
http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/how-could-dna-have-evolved
“Was the first life not a species?”
No, by definition. A “species” is a taxonomic term — used to distinguish one species from another. When there was just one life form, there were no ‘species’ of life — just life and not-life.
Your a, b and c are well stated and articulated.
A is not correct, but b and c are, in my opinion. Atheists or creationists may disagree.
No need to repeat this line of thought ad nauseam.
I am interested in an answer to the question.
“That was my whole point. Too many people do lump the origin of life in with the origin of species”
Was the first life not a species?
“No, by definition. A “species” is a taxonomic term — used to distinguish one species from another. When there was just one life form, there were no ‘species’ of life — just life and not-life.”
Why do you assume there was only “one life form”?
How do you define “just life and not-life”? (You see how invoking life vs non-life brings us back to a type of creationism).
We had a flood in Vermont. In a matter of an hour or so the water created a ravine 40 feet deep and several hundred yards long. Can you imagine a few days of constant water. The Grand Canyon could be formed. I loved it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.