abiogenesis or special creation?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Helen, Feb 16, 2007.

  1. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is a subject that has come up in a variety of ways. Is creation/evolution an A/non-A proposition? Here is part of this discussion from the Evolution and Time thread:


    Originally Posted by tragic_pizza
    Are the only choices between an evolution free of Divine origin and an absolute, six-day, Genesis-style creation?

    Helen: In the long run, the answer is yes. Either naturalism is the rule of things, or God is. If God is, then He told us how He did it.

    tragic_pizza: to limit God to having acted within the confines of one of two literary/oral traditions is a bit short-sighted
    .

    Helen: here for this thread. The way I see it is that either mass/substance has existed forever and ended up forming intelligent life which in turn created the concept of a divinity, or, conversely, that God existed forever and created mass and us. That part is certainly an A/non-A proposition. If there is an alternative I would be fascinated to hear about it!

    The crux of tragic_pizza’s comments and question, however, has to do with, I think, trying to combine the Genesis account with the long ages evolution requires and atomic dating seems to indicate.

    Regarding origins, which tragic_pizza specifically refers to, since evolution is based on the presupposition that everything in our physical world has a natural/physical cause, then yes, there is a distinct choice to be made between God creating the first life and abiogenesis, or life from non-life. Many evolutionist apologists argue that origins is not part of evolutionary arguments. But they really cannot escape the fact that if they are going to claim naturalistic causes for everything, they cannot escape abiogenesis.

    The alternative to distinct, biblical creation is the on-the-fence idea of theistic evolution. That is the idea that God started it all off, front-loaded cellular structure to be able to mutate into all the forms we see today, and then let the natural forces alone after that.

    There are two basic problems with this compromise: first, the Bible specifically denies it and second, we see nothing like that happening in our world today. What we see is that basic types, or kinds, can vary within themselves, but that there is no evidence of any kind indicating a switching from one sort of organism to another sort.

    So that I why I told tragic_pizza that “In the long run… Either naturalism is the rule of things, or God is. If God is, then He told us how He did it.

    I would be interested in responses.
     
  2. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, if we insist on the Genesis accounts as historical, we have to choose which one, we have to reconcile light existing before the sun and moon, we have to explain how water was above the sky then but was not when space exploration began, we have to explain how there were women for Cain and Abel to marry, and so on.

    One can trust that God is the Creator of all tings, seen and unseen, without having to make a theological/literary text jump through historical and scientific hoops.
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    There is another problem with the atheist abiogenesis story telling. As it turns out - not only do we not "see it happening" today - but we can not artificially MAKE it happen in the lab.

    It is one thing to say "I do not see metalic ore today forming itsef into a chain-saw". But it is another thing to say "yes - AND not only that but given enough lab equipment we STILL can not turn those raw materials into a chain saw no matter how we manipulate and manufacture our results".

    So while a "story" about Ore self-organizing into a handy dandy chain-saw is facinating and stupid - it DOES have the advantage that we CAN make it happen in the lab without the "self organization" bit.

    We CAN't do that with abiotic material trying to MAKE it turn into valid organic material fit for living Eukaryote cells. So what we have is "debunked story telling" for the true devotee to atheist darwinism to believe in -- vs our Creator's Word in Gen 1-3.

    The good news in Gen 1 and 2 is that Gen 1-2:3 is a "chronological SEQUENCE" and Gen 2:5-end is NOT.

    Obviously - that means we are free to insert the ADDED DETAILS of Gen 2 into the one and only chronological sequence that God has given for Creation.

    Pretty easy - but some people are try to avoid "the details".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #3 BobRyan, Feb 16, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2007
  4. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Let's take those one at a time.

    light existing before the sun and moon -- the further out we go in space (and thus the further back in time, regardless of the time frame) the brighter we see the quasars are which are associated with the black holes in the middles of galaxies. Today we only have a black hole in the middle of our galaxy. But in the beginning, again regardless of the time frame, we also would have had an extraordinarily bright quasar in the middle of our galaxy. Astronomy notes that there are two general populations of stars. Population II stars are the older stars, and they are found in the middle of the galaxies and in their hubs. These may well be Job's 'morning stars', formed initially. Population I stars are those found in the spiral arms of the galaxies and are younger. Our star is a population I star, and is located in one of the galaxy arms of the Milky Way. Thus, not only was our quasar shining before the sun was lit, but the Population II stars were shining as well. So whether you go for a short or long time frame, the evidence shows that there was light before our sun was lit. This most certainly does not disagree with what the Bible says, for we see on day one that God says, "Let there be light."

    explain how water was above the sky then but was not when space exploration began -- there are a number of possible answers to this. First there is the old vapor canopy explanation. The evidence for this lies in the fact that there are still drops of water in the thermosphere and that this was quite a surprise to the folks running the first space flights when they took pictures of what what happening outside throughout the journeys.

    The second possible explanation has to do with a possible misunderstanding of what Genesis is trying to tell us. When we look out into space we see thousands upon millions of plasma filaments. If plasma was the way God used to form the cosmos, then what He did, biblically, was create ex nihilo both hydrogen and oxygen nuclei. A very hot water plasma will form all the known elements within an hour. That may be the water the Genesis account is telling us about. I dont' know.

    Either way, however, there is really not a problem with what science has found and what Genesis is saying.

    explain how there were women for Cain and Abel to marry, -- the first human beings had no genetic abnormalities. They married their sisters. Incest is not defined in the Bible until the time of Moses. You will also note that the early people after the Flood preferred marrying within the family unit. Abraham married his half-sister Sarah. Then he sent his manservant back to the home territory to find a wife for Isaac from the family group. When Isaac's older twin, Esau, married outside the family unit, the parents were upset and Jacob went back to the family home and married within the family unit.

    This idea of marrying within a certain group was maintained in European aristocracy, until very late, and resulted in the hemophilia which the royal families of Europe became famous for. In ancient Hawaii it was considered right and required for the heir to the throne to beget a child with his sister so that the royal line stayed 'pure.' These are remnants, as is racism, actually, of the ancient concept of marrying within the family group, which is what was not only common, but preferred, before genetic problems became to great to allow it.

    Now, is there an alternative to either abiogenesis or special creation?
     
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    The black hole at the center of the Milky Way is about 3 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less massive than the brightest quasars we can observe when we look out the furtherest in space. You have oftened suggested that such a quasar could have been as bright as the sun. Even the brightest known quasar, if placed at the center of the galaxy, would be far, far less brilliant than the sun here on earth. Not only would such a quasar be insufficient, but our black hole has no where near the necessary mass. The Eddington limit puts an upper limit on the brightness of a quasar powered by a given mass balck hole. Observation and physics say your assertion is not possible.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hence the notion of "dark matter"
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Now back to the story-telling myth - abiogenesis vs the Word of God in Gen 1-2:4 in His "account" of what He did.

    There is huge problem with the atheist abiogenesis story telling. As it turns out - not only do we not "see it happening" today - but we can not artificially MAKE it happen in the lab.

    It is one thing to say "I do not see metalic ore today forming itsef into a chain-saw". But it is another thing to say "yes - AND not only that but given enough lab equipment we STILL can not turn those raw materials into a chain-saw no matter how we manipulate and manufacture our results".

    So while a "story" about Ore self-organizing into a handy dandy chain-saw is facinating and stupid - it DOES have the advantage that we CAN make it happen in the lab without the "self organization" bit.

    We CAN't do that with abiotic material trying to MAKE it turn into valid organic material fit for living Eukaryote cells. So what we have is "debunked story telling" for the true devotee to atheist darwinism to believe in -- vs our Creator's Word in Gen 1-3.

    The good news in Gen 1 and 2 is that Gen 1-2:3 is a "chronological SEQUENCE" and Gen 2:5-end is NOT.

    Obviously - that means we are free to insert the ADDED DETAILS of Gen 2 into the one and only chronological sequence that God has given for Creation.

    Pretty easy - but some people are try to avoid "the details".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    It may be less now, UTE, but what was it then? Keep in mind that the quasars we see when we look out into the far reaches of space shine brighter than their entire galaxies do.
     
  9. DQuixote

    DQuixote
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't believe that these matters are worthy of discussion, but let me say, before I exit, what Helen said:

    That's the bottom line.
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Questions that ARE worth asking.

    #1. IS the Word of God true or false? Trustworthy or fairytale?

    #2. SHOULD you know how to READ the Bible without having an atheist darwinist tell you 'what it means'???

    #3. DO you EVER want to TIE the objective methods of exegesis to 'the current populare views in atheist darwinism' (for example imagine if Christians in the dark ages had done this to the Bible trying to make it fit with the alchemists of THEIR day the way some modern Christians trade in scripture for the current alchemists that we call "atheist darwinists").

    #4. IF the Bible is true - THEN is Romans 1 ALSO true where Paul tells us that the "Invisible attributes of God ARE CLEARLY SEEN" even by pagans "IN THE THINGS that have been MADE"?

    This is very important because there are some on this very board who will argue "IF God claims to have done it - then we should not expect what He has done to show up as actual FACT - clearly SEEN even by pagans".

    #5. (And this part is keyl) Do you know the difference between "junk-science thought experiments" when it comes to the story-telling of abiogenesis - and actual science? IF NOT then you have no business TRADING IN your Bible for an atheist-darwinist "story" - BENDING scripture in favor of a blind faith statement about origins that only has one purpose, one valuable contribution - and that is that "it is a story about origins that WILL FIT in nicely with atheism!"

    #6. When you insert atheist darwinism as your "Story for origins" INSTEAD of the Word of God -- do you know what that does to the Gospel? Have you thought it through???

    These are the questions that compromised views held by UTEOTW and others will seek to avoid at all costs. They will urge that YOU not think about these issues at all as you swallow the fables and failed doctrines of atheist darwinism. To be drawn into a Eukaryote discussion or a discussion on entropy or a discussion on the failure of atheist darwinists to solve the mono-chiral orientation needed for the amino acid chains in abiogenesis etc - is not necessary to address most of these questions. Certainly it matters not how "Distant" other Galaxies are to these key central questions. But to avoid asking yourself the central questions listed here - is to miss the boat entirely.

    But as it turns out - some questions ARE worth asking and worth answering!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #10 BobRyan, Feb 16, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2007
  11. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't even unstand what you are getting at.

    Are you seriously suggesting that our black hole has lost a couple of BILLION solar masses recently? How would that happen, might I ask? Hawking radiation at some fanatastic scale by some unknowable means?

    I think most people who know what a quasar is know that they can outshine their host. But still, the brightest quasars, those which are ORDERS of MAGNITUDE more massive than ours and which are shining at the theoriticl limit for even their great mass, still fall well short of what you assert.
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    PASADENA, CA. - A team of astronomers from the California Institute of Technology announced today that a recently detected cosmic gamma-ray burst was as bright as the rest of the universe, releasing a hundred times more energy than previously theorized.
    The team measured the distance to a faint galaxy from which the burst, designated GRB 971214, originated. It is about 12 billion light years from the Earth. (One light-year is approximately 5.9 trillion miles.) Combined with the observed brightness of the burst, this large distance implies an enormous energy release. The team's findings appear in the May 7 (1998) issue of the scientific journal, Nature.
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Questions that ARE worth asking.

    #1. IS the Word of God true or false? Trustworthy or fairytale?

    #2. SHOULD you know how to READ the Bible without having an atheist darwinist tell you 'what it means'???

    #3. DO you EVER want to TIE the objective methods of exegesis to 'the current populare views in atheist darwinism' (for example imagine if Christians in the dark ages had done this to the Bible trying to make it fit with the alchemists of THEIR day the way some modern Christians trade in scripture for the current alchemists that we call "atheist darwinists").

    #4. IF the Bible is true - THEN is Romans 1 ALSO true where Paul tells us that the "Invisible attributes of God ARE CLEARLY SEEN" even by pagans "IN THE THINGS that have been MADE"?

    This is very important because there are some on this very board who will argue "IF God claims to have done it - then we should not expect what He has done to show up as actual FACT - clearly SEEN even by pagans".

    #5. (And this part is keyl) Do you know the difference between "junk-science thought experiments" when it comes to the story-telling of abiogenesis - and actual science? IF NOT then you have no business TRADING IN your Bible for an atheist-darwinist "story" - BENDING scripture in favor of a blind faith statement about origins that only has one purpose, one valuable contribution - and that is that "it is a story about origins that WILL FIT in nicely with atheism!"

    #6. When you insert atheist darwinism as your "Story for origins" INSTEAD of the Word of God -- do you know what that does to the Gospel? Have you thought it through???

    These are the questions that compromised views held by UTEOTW and others will seek to avoid at all costs. They will urge that YOU not think about these issues at all as you swallow the fables and failed doctrines of atheist darwinism. To be drawn into a Eukaryote discussion or a discussion on entropy or a discussion on the failure of atheist darwinists to solve the mono-chiral orientation needed for the amino acid chains in abiogenesis etc - is not necessary to address most of these questions. Certainly it matters not how "Distant" other Galaxies are to these key central questions. But to avoid asking yourself the central questions listed here - is to miss the boat entirely.

    But as it turns out - some questions ARE worth asking and worth answering!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    In the last 8000 years certainly it has lost that much mass. According to Hawking, if you recall, black holes actually lose mass as they radiate. In addition, the jets which shoot out from the polar axis of the quasar are shooting out material, meaning they lose it. This is part of their brilliance. So yes, quite a bit of mass has been lost.

    Look at this thing logically. As we go out in space, further and further, the black holes get more and more massive, until by the time we come to the distance of quasar 3C273, we in fact have quasars INSTEAD of black holes. As we go further out from this, the quasars become more and more brilliant. As a consequence, if we look back in time to these quasars to the frontiers of the universe, we are looking back to the sort of thing that was happening with the quasar at the center of our own galaxy. This quasar -- our quasar -- during creation week was more brilliant than our whole galaxy of stars is at the moment, the same way the farthest quasars outshine their host galaxies.

    In other words, your objection is not based on observational fact.
     
  15. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are still making no sense at all.

    The polar jets eminate from the swirling disk of material OUTSIDE of the black hole. The jets carry no mass of the balck hole itself away AT ALL. Anything within the event horizon would have to move at greater than the speed of light to escape.

    Second, Hawking radiation occurs at a rate that is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole. The energy can be calculated by assuming a "temperature" of the black hole and using the formula for a black body radiating into space. The higher the mass, the lower the temperature you use. Even a black hole of a few solar masses has a lower temperature than the back ground of the universe and therefore gains mass from this radiant heat transfer. The larger the black hole, the more quickly it gains mass.

    You have no means under the physical laws of this universe for what you say to be true.

    (I have Hawking himself, or at least his words, on my desk as I type to get this. Surely Hawking should be trusted when discussing Hawking radiation!)

    But I am glad you you to finally admit, sort of, that our black hole is way short on mass to do as you say and that it would have by necessity been more massive to act as you describe. Too bad that you do not have a way to put SAG A* on a diet and make it lose the weight. From billions of solar masses to a few million solar masses.
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Abiogenesis is the story-telling that is done around atheist darwinist campfires where they engage in imgination contests - thought experiements of just how an atheist scenario for the origin of life would contrast to the one that God has given mankind in Gen 1-2:4.

    Now it is interesting that God IS the CReator and WAS there to see what HE REALLY DID in making this World - or Sun, or Moon and all life on this planet.

    Whereas the atheist darwinist just have their own stellar starting point "There IS NO GOD" and some Junk-science ideas to spin a few stories. And you have to give them credit for this - given that they have to opposed God Himself AND that none of their thought-experiment scenarios work in the Lab -- they have done a wonderful job of hoodwinking some Christians!

    They had almost nothing to work with and still - in a 2Cor 4:4 world - they managed to succeed. I say credit where Credit is due!

    NO viable proteins and enzymes to call their own - but STILL they press on!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is from Barry, UTE:

    Let me put a few bits and pieces together here. First, the polar jets in both quasars and pulsars and some stars are something of an enigma for the standard model. In addition, the accretion disc is something of a problem as well. The size of the black hole is measured by the rate of movement in the accretion disc around the central object, whatever that object happens to be. You see, there is one class of scientists who hold a minority opinion among astronomers that the black hole at the center of quasars is not quite what it is thought to be by those holding to the standard model. This group of scientists includes Halton Arp, Antony Peratt, Donald Scott, Eric Lerner, and over four hundred signatories who signed an open letter to the scientific community that was published in New Scientist. These scientists hold that the effects that we are seeing have been adequately explained by a plasma model.

    In the plasma model, the accretion disc is made up of a fully ionized plasma, and its rate of spin depends entirely on the electric fields involved. The stronger the electric field, the faster it spins, and, as a consequence, the more brilliant the light that arises from the turbulence in the disc. In this model the rate of spin of the disc has nothing to do with the mass of the central object, and all that science can currently measure is the rate of spin of the disc and the stars that are electrically and magnetically linked to it. Thus, the brilliance that we see in the quasars at the frontiers of the universe, on this model, is due to very strong electric currents, which were present in the early universe. As the universe aged, the currents died down and the accretion discs stopped spinning as fast, less light was produced, and, ultimately, all that was left was the central object.

    According to the plasma model, every major galaxy will have this central object, and will behave precisely in the way we have seen the quasars behave with their brilliance dying off as we come closer in time to our own galaxy. This plasma model accounts extremely well for the polar jets, which are an integral part of the whole process. Yet this is something which the standard model has problems with. Furthermore the rate of spin of the accretion disc is not necessarily giving us information about the mass of the black hole. All it does is give us information about the strength of the electric field that is spinning the disc.

    If this plasma model is correct, and I believe some form of it is, then there is no problem with the quasar in the middle of our galaxy having been extremely bright in the beginning and leaving only the black hole that is left now. And the fact is that the jets have been ejecting massive amounts of material.

    A lot of this is outlined in the new book "The Electric Sky" by Donald E. Scott.
     
  18. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know you know this, of course, but I just can't help myself....

    Rev. 21:23 "And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb."

    The light that shone before the sun and the stars was from God.

    I do believe in a literal six day creation, because that is how it is presented in scripture. Having said that, most scholars see parallel lines of thought between day 1,2,3 and 4,5,6 in Genesis 1.

    Day one: "Let there be light"....Day four: God created the sun and moon, etc.

    Day two: God created the "waters above" and "waters below" as well as the "firmament" or "sky"...Day five: God created creatures to live in the waters and birds to fly in the "sky".

    Day three: God created the dry ground and vegatation...Day six : God creates animals that eat the vegatation and live on the dry ground, including mankind.

    Chapter one is more poetry than narrative. Chapter 2 explains the creation of mankind in more detail, and becomes more of a narrative.

    One thing we should be able to agree upon is that Gen. 1 was not written my Moses as an apologetic for the theory of evolution. More likely, it was written by Moses (under the inspiration of God) as an apologetic against the gods of Egypt which the Hebrew people brought with them out of Egypt.

    That doesn't mean it can't be used to refute evolution. But we must be extremely careful not to go beyond what is written.

    This is what I fear has happened with some of the theories presented as biblical fact. The young earth theory is one of these. I don't know how old the earth is. The bible does not tell us how old the earth is. To assume the earth is 6000 years old by adding up "generations" is simply not valid.

    We don't know if the family trees presented in scripture are complete. My understanding is that oftentimes only the most famous or important members of a family line were mentioned. You see this readily when scripture says so-and so had "other sons and daughters".

    So, very likely, we have only partial lists of generations. How long is a generation? Some say 40 years. If you use 40 years, and add up all the generations, particularly in Luke, you still don't get 6000 years. So we round up or down, depending I guess on what theory you are trying to prove.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  19. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus taught that a seed falls to the ground and dies before it is able to sprout. If so, then every plant is a new creation.
     
  20. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, as always, we are back to fringe "science" that has been unable to gain acceptance among their peers. And even then, you extrapolate the ideas from the fringe much further than even they do. Please let me know when more than a few folks start accepting these radical interpretations. They do not seem to have convinced anyone yet but you are still comfortable taking the scientifically unaccepted ideas and wildly extrapolating.

    Even the offerred answers are inconsistent. Yesterday it was the polar jets somehow removed material from within the event horizon even though this is impossible without exceeding the speed of light and that Hawking radiation could remove mass from black holes too massive for Hawking radiation to work. Today that is completely abandoned and a completely new explanation, the quasars work much differently than science says, is offerred.
     
    #20 UTEOTW, Feb 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2007

Share This Page

Loading...