Science And The Bible - Introduction

[LukeMC]

Just note: evolution does not say anything about abiogenesis, they are separate. I've said it before- evolution is simply the change of organisms over time. I'll post more later whoops I'm very late. Damn you Daystar and your interesting threads!

Surely you need to consider the two things together?

True, but that doesn't make them the same theory. We all know what Daystar means, but you have to make the distinction between the two phenomena. Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. It only deals with life which is already there.

Phenomena? Interesting choice of words.

I see the difference. This is why I posted an introduction before we get started. To get as much as this out of the way so that we know where we are each coming from.

With that in mind, knowing that we will have more time to discuss it in the future, I just would like to know if biogenesis is proven fact.

I say that God created life but I wasn't there and I can't demonstrate this. You say biogenesis is responsible. The details are not important at this time, but is biogenesis fact?

Biogenesis is an absolute, undisputed fact.
"Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders."

Abiogenesis as far as I'm aware is also a fact, but the theory behind it is still in debate.

[leo-rcc]

I just would like to know if biogenesis is proven fact.

I presume you mean abiogenesis, and the answer is no. There is some evidence to support it, but by no means is it as established as the theory of evolution.

[Daystar]

Nobody will debate with you if you're using that as your definition of evolution. You'll need to call it "abiogenevolution" or something, because you're fusing two separate theories.

I am primarily interested in what science minded atheists see as a conflict to the Bible. The Bible is the way I understand things, my perspective, so to speak. Call it what you will. The distinction is noted though.

And technically I should say that
Evolution = observed fact
Theory of evolution = our explanation of those facts.

But I can see that you're probably going to disagree with evolution being factual, so I look forward to your posts

Observed fact. Now was yesterday's observed fact today's folly? Because in a basic sense what you are saying is that there is no evidence for God, but evidence for Evolution observed fact seems to be mistaken for theory, and therefore based upon explanation. Speculation.

This is why, I think, most theist see theory as, to say the least, no more substantial than theism. The Bible seems to have gotten science right - in the few vague references to things where modern science may only seem to disagree.

Why wouldn't that be a viable theory? Don't say you can't test or observe or peer review because if today's evolution is tomorrow's folly all of that stuff wouldn't be terribly impressive in the long run.

---

I just would like to know if biogenesis is proven fact.

I presume you mean abiogenesis, and the answer is no. There is some evidence to support it, but by no means is it as established as the theory of evolution.

So then it isn't a terribly important part of this discussion, is it?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Biogenesis is an absolute, undisputed fact.

Yes, apart from nothing in science being absolute, biogenesis is an absolute, undisputed fact

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

I just would like to know if biogenesis is proven fact.

I presume you mean abiogenesis, and the answer is no. There is some evidence to support it, but by no means is it as established as the theory of evolution.

So then it isn't a terribly important part of this discussion, is it?

You were the one trying to merge the two together, don't go whining that you set your own parameters wrong.

[Daystar]

Biogenesis is an absolute, undisputed fact.
"Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders."

Abiogenesis as far as I'm aware is also a fact, but the theory behind it is still in debate.

So then Biogenesis is not in conflict with creation and a biogenesis isn't relevant to this discussion? I say not relevant because the issue with science and the Bible seems to be that Evolution is provable with solid evidence and creation is, not unlike a biogenesis, still in debate.

Please don't say it isn't even debatable.

---

You were the one trying to merge the two together, don't go whining that you set your own parameters wrong.

I'm leaving the parameters to you guys as well as myself. I don't know a biogenesis from my ass. I am asking you a question. Is it important to this discussion and why or why not?

[LukeMC]

Observed fact. Now was yesterday's observed fact today's folly? Because in a basic sense what you are saying is that there is no evidence for God, but evidence for Evolution observed fact seems to be mistaken for theory, and therefore based upon explanation. Speculation.

Allow me to disagree there. Evolution is an observed fact. Most if not all of biology is now based around the principles of evolution. It happens, we are a part of it. Think meiosis, think chiasmata, think substitution/addition/deletion. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming

---

Please don't say it isn't even debatable

It really isn't... I don't mean to be annoying.

[Daystar]

Allow me to disagree there. Evolution is an observed fact. Most if not all of biology is now based around the principles of evolution. It happens, we are a part of it. Think meiosis, think chiasmata, think substitution/addition/deletion. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming

If I am wrong in thinking this, let me know and why.

Does any of this you have mentioned regarding biology - meiosis, chiasmata, substitution/addition/deletion conflict with the Bible. Also of interest to me is how much of this depends upon speculation.

If you look at something and say - well that must be because of evolution (in whatever form) - how much does that have to do with it.

A bug thrives where others die and this is said to be evolution. A theist thinks - the germ was there from the start, it only 'evolved' only in that it had immunity to poison or environment etc. Just an example.

[leo-rcc]

Well abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules. If you want to discuss creation how life on earth started, then I'd certainly include abiogenesis as the opposing view. Evolution is what happened after that to create the diversity in life, with natural selection as the guiding force. Creationists debate that some evolution occurs (they call it microevolution) but I have no doubt that what they call macroevolution is a fact.

So its up to you, but I would include abiogenesis, and the theory of evolution, but try not to pull both together as one.

[LukeMC]

Does any of this you have mentioned regarding biology - meiosis, chiasmata, substitution/addition/deletion conflict with the Bible. Also of interest to me is how much of this depends upon speculation.

These processes are observable. They only conflict with the bible when you take into account how long they have been going for. If you refuse to believe that evolution has been going on for more than 6000 years you ought to date some fossils and check for yourself.

If you look at something and say - well that must be because of evolution (in whatever form) - how much does that have to do with it.

About as much as seeing a corpse on the floor with a bullet to the head and gun in their hand makes one say "there has been a shooting".