Science And The Bible - Introduction

[leo-rcc]

As for my fellow atheists that see abiogenesis as a fact, you would have to convince me to. I see there is good evidence, but not enough to convince me as a fact.

[CoxRox]

Hmmm, I don't understand why the two Lukes are 'separating' these two things. When I've read or watched stuff about evolution, it shows early 'matter' mixing like a primordial soup. The conditions were just right that this soup produced the earliest building blocks that then went on to produce living things. Did I take it in incorrectly? It seems you're moving the goal posts a bit here. I'm sure strictly speaking you are right. The two things are different, but surely you would realise that myself and Daystar, would be looking at the two and cannot separate the two. Well I can't anyway.

[LukeMC]

Hmmm, I don't understand why the two Lukes are 'separating' these two things. When I've read or watched stuff about evolution, it shows early 'matter' mixing like a primordial soup. The conditions were just right that this soup produced the earliest building blocks that then went on to produce living things. Did I take it in incorrectly? It seems you're moving the goal posts a bit here. I'm sure strictly speaking you are right. The two things are different, but surely you would realise that myself and Daystar, would be looking at the two and cannot separate the two. Well I can't anyway.

Yeah, it doesn't really matter. But you can't disprove evolution by saying "life can't have come from nonlife BECAUSE...." and go on to give explanations. Because you are no longer talking about evolution.

In every other sense, I don't think any of us really mind.

[leo-rcc]

There is an interlink, but strictly speaking the theory of evolution through natural selection and genetic mutation can only come into play when life is formed. Before that there is nothing to evolve or select or mutate.

[CoxRox]

There is an interlink, but strictly speaking the theory of evolution through natural selection and genetic mutation can only come into play when life is formed. Before that there is nothing to evolve or select or mutate.

I thought evolution was based on the theory that the big bang caused 'matter' to spew out into space. This formed planets, etc. The base elements on the planets, coupled with the electricity, sun etc, reacted with these elements to form things like amino acids and eventually enough 'building blocks' were formed to start binding together and forming life forms? Surely this is the fore-runner of evolution?

[LukeMC]

I thought evolution was based on the theory that the big bang caused 'matter' to spew out into space. This formed planets, etc. The base elements on the planets, coupled with the electricity, sun etc, reacted with these elements to form things like amino acids and eventually enough 'building blocks' were formed to start binding together and forming life forms? Surely this is the fore-runner of evolution?

Absolutely. But all of those things aren't evolution.
If we said evolution was "the story of the universe", then by disproving the something such as singularity, we would be able to say "I disproved evolution". But in reality, evolution is the gradual change in species over time, and has nothing to say about singularities.

Evolution slots in perfectly with all of these other theories, but it is still a seperate phenonema.

Okay this might explain what I mean a little better.

Ideas:
"Stripey men are all rich"
"Purple women are all rich"

*does tests*
New evidence shows that
"Stripey men are all poor"

But this doesn't mean that the statement about purple women was false? Because it is a seperate statement dealing with a seperate issue (even if they sometimes affect each other).



Poor analogy, I fail

[lukec]

CoxRox- not exactly. That is the laws of physics and chemistry working on the matter in the universe (I found out the other day that they've figured out down to a very small fraction of a second what happened right after the big bang. Isn't that neat?).

Biological evolution only has anything to do with living organsims. The primordial soup you're talking about? That is one theory of Abiogenesis, and is well (and simply) described by Dawkins, actually, in Selfish Gene. There's a whole chapter on it. And, it's a very elegant theory that relies only on energy (geothermic, solar, electrical) and the chemical composition of the earth at that time to explain the beginning of life. They have replicated this "soup" in laboratories, and in less than a week, organic molecules (not life, but the building blocks for it) were found in this soup. The experiment can and has been repeated. But this is only one theory of how life on earth got started- there's a rather unconventional one involving crystal lattices in clay, there's the idea of a meteorite seeding earth... etc etc, these are all ideas that scientists are investigating right now. But evolution has nothing to do with non-living organisms (except maybe viruses, which are not necessarily considered alive). So up until those building blocks actually formed a self-replicating... thing... there was no natural selection, simply because there could not be. Personally, I think the idea of primordial soup is probably the right one, but I agree with leo- it is not certain exactly how life started. What is certain is that as soon as it did, natural laws came into play.

[CoxRox]

I know those things aren't evolution However, there needs to be a foundation (the primordial soup thingy stuff) for it to rest upon or to arise from, surely, and the foundation will be discussed along side the 'workings' of life. I hope you see what I'm getting at.

---

Lukec, just saw your post. I'm beginning to see now, why there are people who have no problems with evolution, but attribute the origin of life to a 'creator'. Can 'evolution' be reversed, in the case of an experiment (model on a computer perhaps?) to show life being stripped back to simpler and simpler forms to see if we can find the initial living thing?

[leo-rcc]

Which is why I said that abiogenesis should be included in the discussion whether it is a fact or not, but should not be seen as a part of the theory of evolution.

[Edwardo Piet]

CoxRox- not exactly. That is the laws of physics and chemistry working on the matter in the universe (I found out the other day that they've figured out down to a very small fraction of a second what happened right after the big bang. Isn't that neat?).

I've heard on several occasions that the new evidence shows that the big bang is thought to actually expanding still rather than shrinking as it was thought before. AND the speed of the expansion is increasing at an exponential rate.
And apparently this means that in not too long a time (I'm not sure how long but this is what was said, paraphrased by me) there will be no evidence that the big bang ever occurred and nothing to measure anymore.
Tragic really.
Christopher Hitchens has talked about this. And I believe it was Lawrence Lawrence Krauss who did the calculations. If I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure thats what I heard.