F
farukmert
Guest
I’m asking for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer.
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
Good luck with that.
I notice you have put this post on the Abrahamic Religions board, are you only looking for answers from a monotheistic point of view or are you looking for something else?
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, farukmert, and welcome to CR!
Here goes: what you are asking is like asking how to skin a grape like a cat, so one can cook an omelet.
In short, you are scrambling together three distinct issues: creation, evolution and abiogenesis.
If you ever do arrive at a "brief, logical answer," please be kind enough to pass it along to the rest of us. I am certain there are many here who would love to hear it.
A brief and logical answer, hmmm...
Here goes: what you are asking is like asking how to skin a grape like a cat, so one can cook an omelet.
In short, you are scrambling together three distinct issues: creation, evolution and abiogenesis.
If you ever do arrive at a "brief, logical answer," please be kind enough to pass it along to the rest of us. I am certain there are many here who would love to hear it.
bruceg
Well-Known Member
Sure. Logical answer - the theory of evolution (more properly, natural selection) doesn't deal with beginnings - it deals with mechanisms for changes to produce observed differences in species - given that we see two different varieties of species, why do they differ, in a manner subject to test and validation from observed evidence.farukmert said:
Origins is another kettle of fish entirely.
The ground floor for the theory of natural selection is the scientific process, and genetics. It doesn't attempt to say how the first batch of critters got here - it says that given that there were some, how could they have diversified to produce the observed results. Later changes in species (e.g. the moths in the UK that went from primarily white to primarily black in less than 200 years) have tended to support the theory of adaptation to environment.
Get it? Got it? Good.
P
Popeyesays
Guest
farukmert said:
While I can think of no better description of the mechanism for the development of life than evolution, I know it must be flawed in some ways, those flaws will be found and developed and corrected. I think that viewing evolution as a mechanicl tool detracts not a single iota from the fact that God is the author of Creation.
However, you can build a house without a ground floor. Go to the Phillipines. Look at the houses built on stilts to keep down the number of creepy crawlies in the house and there you have your example.
Or live on a boat.
Regards,
Scott
You can build a building without a ground floor, but you can't build it without a foundation, expecting it to face the elements and to last.
Biological evolution has an imperceptible foundation. Its not strictly evolution, but intrinsically linked with it, chemical evolution, the necessary step for biological evolution to formulate....Abiogenesis, development of the first (highly complex) prokaryote cells. Self processing animate life from inanimate molecules.
The briefest and most logical answer that I can think of is....' Its impossible.'
Like love and marriage, they go together like a horse and carriage. You can't have one without the other.
Biological evolution has an imperceptible foundation. Its not strictly evolution, but intrinsically linked with it, chemical evolution, the necessary step for biological evolution to formulate....Abiogenesis, development of the first (highly complex) prokaryote cells. Self processing animate life from inanimate molecules.
The briefest and most logical answer that I can think of is....' Its impossible.'
Like love and marriage, they go together like a horse and carriage. You can't have one without the other.
farukmert said:
Oh, please forgive me all, at the risk of being rude, I must answer this exact question (engineer and all).
The answer is...yes, and it has been done...and it floats in space above us all... If you wish to use the foundation concept in the Bible to express your point, then I suggest you use it. And that means to follow up with your point. Or else some idiot like me will throw a monkey wrench in the works during your "pregnant pause".
v/r
Q
tectrikz
42!
E99 said:
Abiogenesis is not impossible just very very very low probability of happening but in the vastness of space who knows it may of happened only once and here on earth. Its the same as in physics, push on the wall in your room for a few billion years and you have a very low chance but it is possible to go right through the wall.
bob x
Well-Known Member
"how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer."It is not a very logical question. Is it possible to write a description of the history of modern Germany, without tracing the prehistoric origins of the Germans back to the first humans?
Hi Tectrikz...YOUR QUOTE:
Abiogenesis is not impossible just very very very low probability of happening but in the vastness of space who knows it may of happened only once and here on earth. Its the same as in physics, push on the wall in your room for a few billion years and you have a very low chance but it is possible to go right through the wall.
It is impossible.
Regarding the complexities resulting in development of inanimate life becoming animate life, many scientists use the word impossible as opposed to improbable.
Scientists consider an against probability factor of 10 raised to the power of 50 as being impossible. The formation of even a theoretical simple cell has been calculated to go infinately beyond this figure.
Abiogenesis .....the formation of the earliest bacterium singular cells by random selection of its ingredients do not even fall in the region of probable. Furthermore, if you mixed all the ingredients together necessary for a living cell to form, many of those ingredients would react together to prevent anything from happening. Also you have outside forces to contend with, the conditions have to be exact. Atmosphere, temperature, reactants etc.
To obtain, by chance a self replicating cell, DNA, enzymes etc. is infinately improbable, given the number of estimated years in which the universe has existed, and the miniscule area of the pre-biotic soup in which life had to form. Even if the whole known universe was a pre-biotic soup and given 15 billion years of existance, the correct combination still wouldn't form and hold together.
Functioning cells are extremely complex, as complex as your computer. If all of the components of a billion zillion computers mixed in a vat the size of the universe stirred for 15 billion years, you still wouldn't get a computer at the end of it.You'd be lucky to get one or two components in a correct order. Yet this is what atheistic evolutionists are saying, that the combinations of complex units by random processes do actually form. They use simplified (and lowered) numerical probability factors to explain the possibilities, where in fact the probability is infinately higher, and consequently impossible. They tend to avoid the limitations on probabilities such as time in which probability factors are up against.
Put in a little hand from a designer creator, and the construction becomes possible.
Abiogenesis is not impossible just very very very low probability of happening but in the vastness of space who knows it may of happened only once and here on earth. Its the same as in physics, push on the wall in your room for a few billion years and you have a very low chance but it is possible to go right through the wall.
It is impossible.
Regarding the complexities resulting in development of inanimate life becoming animate life, many scientists use the word impossible as opposed to improbable.
Scientists consider an against probability factor of 10 raised to the power of 50 as being impossible. The formation of even a theoretical simple cell has been calculated to go infinately beyond this figure.
Abiogenesis .....the formation of the earliest bacterium singular cells by random selection of its ingredients do not even fall in the region of probable. Furthermore, if you mixed all the ingredients together necessary for a living cell to form, many of those ingredients would react together to prevent anything from happening. Also you have outside forces to contend with, the conditions have to be exact. Atmosphere, temperature, reactants etc.
To obtain, by chance a self replicating cell, DNA, enzymes etc. is infinately improbable, given the number of estimated years in which the universe has existed, and the miniscule area of the pre-biotic soup in which life had to form. Even if the whole known universe was a pre-biotic soup and given 15 billion years of existance, the correct combination still wouldn't form and hold together.
Functioning cells are extremely complex, as complex as your computer. If all of the components of a billion zillion computers mixed in a vat the size of the universe stirred for 15 billion years, you still wouldn't get a computer at the end of it.You'd be lucky to get one or two components in a correct order. Yet this is what atheistic evolutionists are saying, that the combinations of complex units by random processes do actually form. They use simplified (and lowered) numerical probability factors to explain the possibilities, where in fact the probability is infinately higher, and consequently impossible. They tend to avoid the limitations on probabilities such as time in which probability factors are up against.
Put in a little hand from a designer creator, and the construction becomes possible.
tectrikz
42!
E99 said:
I see your point with it being impossible, and that atheistic evolution uses simpler calculations which put it at 1 in 4.29 x 1040. Which is less then 1.0 x 1050 and is therefore not impossible. You can argue it both ways but the ones with a lower numbers are trying to say is possible with simpler organisms that theoretically are no longer around today because they have been weeded out by evolution. The people who use the larger calculations are using the organisms that are around today assuming that they were the first and not weeded out by evolution to prove creation. Both have a point but both are trying to argue for their side so of course they want the calculations to work in there favor.
They problem with saying that life is impossible to come out of nothing is that if it did not and a God created life then - the oldest question of Atheists - who created God? Well you can say that God has always been there but maybe life has always been there. Each theory requires faith it just comes down to which you prefer to believe.