Can raw energy create Order

[John V]

Do you understand how two concepts can be related without being connected?

No.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/related?s=t

re·lat·ed
adjective
1.
associated; connected.

Without one depending on the other?

Evolution surely depends on abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is the best current theory for the origins of life, in that it has some degree of theoretical scaffolding and experimental results to its name. Evolution is the- entirely confirmed and factual- theory regarding the diversity of extant life; to the degree that they are connected at all in a scientific sense, it is down to this.

Are you saying that abiogenesis is entirely confirmed and factual? You did call it a theory.

Creationists tend to conflate the two and somewhat dominate the conversation about evolution in the public sphere, but they are different concepts for those with intellectual honesty.

It would depend on the abiogenesis model. If the model involves something that's self-replicating, then abiogenesis and evolution are part of the same continuum, with a somewhat arbitrary dividing line called "life" drawn in somewhere. If you're intellectually honest.

[downbeatplumb]

Do you understand how two concepts can be related without being connected?

No.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/related?s=t

re·lat·ed
adjective
1.
associated; connected.

Without one depending on the other?

Evolution surely depends on abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is the best current theory for the origins of life, in that it has some degree of theoretical scaffolding and experimental results to its name. Evolution is the- entirely confirmed and factual- theory regarding the diversity of extant life; to the degree that they are connected at all in a scientific sense, it is down to this.

Are you saying that abiogenesis is entirely confirmed and factual? You did call it a theory.

Creationists tend to conflate the two and somewhat dominate the conversation about evolution in the public sphere, but they are different concepts for those with intellectual honesty.

It would depend on the abiogenesis model. If the model involves something that's self-replicating, then abiogenesis and evolution are part of the same continuum, with a somewhat arbitrary dividing line called "life" drawn in somewhere. If you're intellectually honest.

You have a point to a certain extent BUT:

A: Abiogenesis: How life started from non-life
B: Evolution: What happened next.

So evolution does not rely on abiogenesis because you could insert some other thing at A and not invalidate B.

We know B happens and were pretty certain A happened but we don't have proof of A just theories and a few experiments that support the idea and what do we like before we believe in something.
Starts with an E you've heard us mention it before.

[Bad Wolf]

I'd like to think you are being stupid on purpose John but based on previous experience with theists on this forum, i believe you are actually this stupid

[ThomM]

Can raw energy create Order? Evolutionist theory has no answer.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/758/233/

What order?

Current Astronomical data shows that the Universe is FAR less orderly than is claimed by theists to begin with

Whole Galaxies are on collision courses with Other Galaxies - stars a violently formed - and die in violent ways. There are massive Black Holes that are taking in large portions of Galaxies as well

The universe turns out to be a far less ordered and far more violent place than was previously considered

[Esquilax]

No.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/related?s=t

re·lat·ed
adjective
1.
associated; connected.

How about instead of quibbling over definitions, you just take my point that evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing?

Evolution surely depends on abiogenesis.

Nope: evolution can take place even within the constraints of an intelligently designed system. That's why we can breed dogs. Theistic evolution is a thing many christians accept, and there's also the idea of directed panspermia. The fact that evolution takes place isn't in doubt; it's confirmed, it's directly observable, and can be reproduced by anyone given enough inclination and money. Abiogenesis doesn't have the same level of support, which should be your first hint that they do not rely upon one another.

Disproving one would not disprove the other.

Are you saying that abiogenesis is entirely confirmed and factual? You did call it a theory.

No, I'm saying that evolution is entirely confirmed and factual, and it is: Check it.

And don't get me started on this theory/fact crap again: Educate yourself.

It would depend on the abiogenesis model. If the model involves something that's self-replicating, then abiogenesis and evolution are part of the same continuum, with a somewhat arbitrary dividing line called "life" drawn in somewhere. If you're intellectually honest.

Hmm... kind of. I'm actually having a hard time putting my objection here into words, but I think the issue here is that the two processes that really aren't alike; evolution is a thing that only happens to living organisms, after all. By definition, it's a process that occurs within already formed life, whilst abiogenesis is all about the formation of life.

The moment that life starts replicating, it starts evolving, but there's still no direct requirement that both be present for evolution to be true.

[Zone]

Perhaps the universe itself is some kind of vast sentient brain and we're little compartmentalizations of this vast network of intelligence or some shit like that.



You see there how the structure of the universe and the structure of the brain are both very similar in composition. Though I'm making a wild assumption based on practically no evidence and my own imagination here. You don't go from complex organised structure straight to the Bible or the Quran those can still easily be human made inventions. If a genuine supreme being did author the Bible I can't help but think it would be something vastly more impressive in scope rather than limited to the small geocentric flat Earth worldview of the people alive at the time.

[Angrboda]

Oh God, not this shit again.

[Zone]

When it come to the ultimate questions of why the universe exists at all, why the universe ended up the way it did, how did the very first lifeforms emerged from non-living material the fully orthodox atheist position is this.



We don't know and we don't mind not knowing. Potentially in the future we may get to find out at least some of these answers for definite which is exciting. Just saying "God created the first lifeform by magic" isn't very interesting and we wouldn't be bothered to get off our asses and find out if we just assumed that. Everything else in the universe was created through a complex natural process so we can assume life was as well. We understand how the organic compounds formed at least that's a start. If there was intelligent design/intention involved it could be something like the film Prometheus for all we know.

[ThomM]

Can raw energy create Order? Evolutionist theory has no answer.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/758/233/

Can creationism create order? - Creationists cannot point to any such thing as well

All we need do to look at ORDER is look at the "ORDERLY HISTORY" of the supposed Holy Land itself - which has been under an almost constant WAR for the last 3000 years to point out that the idea that gods create order is NONSENSE

Evolution is simply the PROVEN (Through genetic research) way life expanded on the earth. It is no longer a theory - nor is it in question even from the religions that make up the majority of the xtians of the earth as well.

THE largest xtian religions have already accepted that Evolution is the reality and the fairy tales of the bible are just that - fairy tales.

[MindForgedManacle]

No.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/related?s=t

re·lat·ed
adjective
1.
associated; connected.

They are associated, NOT the same. Learn what words mean.

Evolution surely depends on abiogenesis.

Only in the sense that for biological evolution to take place there needs to have been an abiogenesis event. However, that still shows your original statement that abiogenesis and evolution are the same is clearly false.

Are you saying that abiogenesis is entirely confirmed and factual? You did call it a theory.

If he called it a theory - in the scientific sense - then he's wrong. It's a hypothesis with several different propositions as to how it took place and has growing evidence for it, but a hypothesis nonetheless.

It would depend on the abiogenesis model. If the model involves something that's self-replicating, then abiogenesis and evolution are part of the same continuum, with a somewhat arbitrary dividing line called "life" drawn in somewhere. If you're intellectually honest.

"Part of the same continuum" is not equivalent to "are the same thing" as you earlier claimed. The problem is that (in the abiogenic models I've seen anyway) what is self-replicating are somewhat complex molecules behaving in ways predictable by chemical law. It's not clear when something 'becomes' alive, but that sort of vagueness is observable with many definitions of phenomena.

A good intro. series to the subject:

"The Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) - Dr. Jack Szostak":