[Allheart]

I just have to say, you guys are just amazingly brilliant and handling this discussion in a way that all discussions like this, should be handled. Well done.

Again, you both are so gifted and bright.

Please forgive the interruption :).

[rudi_in]

The big bang has NOTHING to do with the formation of life.

Agreed

Only to the extent that it created a universe where life was possible.

Is it fair to say then that there was no life at some point after the big bang and before the first form of life?

This would imply that life came from the non-living.

This would violate the concepts that make up the law of biogenesis wouldn't it?

[NeedKarma]

So your view is that there was nothing at all and suddenly, out of thin air, every single species of animal including two humans suddenly appeared all at once?

[rudi_in]

Not all at once,

It happened over a period of 6 days.

It was God who created it though.

[Allheart]

Hi Need –

I know you weren't asking me, but just sharing my viewpoint. In a way….yes.

NK, to me, there will be things that you can not see, feel or touch, but yet you believe. Spirituality is one of them.

There are things in your everyday life that fall into this category. For example, your loved ones. Love is an emotion. You can't see it feel it nor does it really have to be proven, but yet you believe, trust and have faith that you are loved. Having faith in God and all that goes along with that, is pretty much the same thing.

[NeedKarma]

And Noah built an ark by himself and collected two of every species on earth? Including microscopic species?

[NeedKarma]

There are things in your everyday life that fall into this category. For example, your loved ones. Love is an emotion. You can’t see it feel it nor does it really have to be proven, but yet you believe, trust and have faith that you are loved. Having faith in God and all that goes along with that, is pretty much the same thing.

My love for the people that fit in that category does not include me to follow a book written over 2000 years ago. Other than that I agree with you.

[Capuchin]

The law of biogenesis applies very well at present and no evidence has been found to go against it. But that all it is. A law that applies here and now. It's very useful in medicine and other disciplines.

There is nothing about the law of biogenesis that says it has applied for all time, and that life was always impossible to originate from nothing, on another planet or on Earth from very different conditions that were present in the early Earth. It's not a universal law like that.

[rudi_in]

God told Noah how to make the ark.

The only animals that needed to be on the boat were the air breathing land animals.

There were actually 8 humans on the boat.

Noah and his wife, his three sons and their three wives.

[rudi_in]

There is nothing about the law of biogenesis that says it has applied for all time

Would we also say this of the many other laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and biology that we have come to know?

Everything in the universe is bound by some law.

It takes a specific chemistry for life.

The laws of chemistry were made just right by God so that it could work out that way.

He created the laws of physics just right so that the laws of chemistry could turn out the way they did.

Laws of planetary motion as Kepler describes them worked out the way they did for a reason.

Most laws of physics and others are mathematical in nature.
There are physical constants which are fundamental in nature.

The laws of logic were just right so that all the others would work out the right way.

Where do these laws come from?

From God.

We were made in his image and therefore have a small understanding of logic.

Laws don't just change. They will apply to the future just as they have in the past. This is basic to science. If it were not, then all of our experiments would mean nothing for the future.

All these laws depend on each other. If the laws change the system fails.

[Capuchin]

Every law has different ranges in which it will work.

Newton's laws only work for speeds much less than the speed of light.
The ideal gas law only works for a certain type of gas.
The law of biogenesis only works under the conditions that we have observed it to work.

They are only unbreakable within their own ranges.

Do you not believe that animals such as monkeys have some amount of logical understanding?

Statistics can easily take the role of God here.

[rudi_in]

Of course each law has its own unique parameters. Each of the laws out there have their effects.

We wouldn't use Newtons second law to explain the behavior of an ideal gas.

However, Newton's law and the Ideal gas law have always been there despite their unique parameters. We only became aware of them at different times.

The law of biogenesis has always been there too, the parameters being the inclusion of all life. We wouldn't use this law to explain gravitational force between objects either.

We cannot imply that the law just started at a time different than the others. They all began together at the creation.

Laws of nature don't just start and stop on their own.

[Capuchin]

However, Newton's law and the Ideal gas law have always been there despite their unique parameters. We only became aware of them at different times.

Of course they haven't. Firstly, the ideal gas law has never been here because there is no such thing as an ideal gas. To argue that such a law has been hard-wired into the universe is absurd.

In a similar way Newton's laws of motion have never been here, because some other higher law that we do not understand has created the motion. The motion of subliminal matter is described well by them, but the entire universe does not abide by this law. General relativity has managed to describe moving objects far better than Newton's laws. Newton's laws are not hard-wired in to the universe like you are suggesting. It is a human construct. Just like the Ideal Gas law is.

Similarly the law of biogenesis is a human construct. It is a law based on evidence gathered in the last few hundred years. It describes the situation that we have evidence of at the moment. If we recreate early Earth conditions, then maybe we can start to get an idea of how abiogenesis would come about. Is does not rule out the possibility of abiogenesis under different conditions, different times, or different places.

I also think you misunderstood me when I effectively said that "biogenesis has stopped". I obviously meant on Earth. There is nothing to suggest that life is not evolving from non-life on some other rock somewhere else where the conditions are right.

I am not trying to compare unlike with unlike, like you are suggesting I am.

[rudi_in]

The fact that it is called Newton's Law is just because it is named after Isaac Newton.

When it was realized that an object in motion stays in motion and an object at rest stays at rest unless an outside force acts on it we eventually put a name to it: Newton's First Law of Motion

In this sense it is human construct but Newton did not invent this behavior and put it into place.

This aspect of motion was there long before Newton.

If this condition was not always there...

Who originally made it that way then?

but the entire universe does not abide by this law.

What piece of matter does not follow the First Law?

[Capuchin]

Are you really arguing that the law of biogenesis was always there in all places and all conditions because it's been observable, on Earth, in the last 200 years?

[rudi_in]

I believe that life can only come from life.

I do not believe that any form of life could have arose from non-living materials on its own.

[Capuchin]

Because you believe that there is something more to life than just chemistry?

I have to sleep now, goodnight :)

[rudi_in]

Are you really arguing that the law of biogenesis was always there in all places and all conditions because it's been observable, on Earth, in the last 200 years?

Life coming from life has been observable for more than 200 years.

Are you arguing that abiogenesis exists when there has been no observations of it at all?

Because you believe that there is something more to life than just chemistry?

A double-edged sword. I do believe that there is more to life than chemistry, in a philosophical, moral, and spiritual sense of course.

I do believe in atoms of course which make up every cell in our bodies.

But what makes up our thoughts that lead to our decisions? Our consciousness? Knowledge?

Yeah, I think there is more.

I have to sleep now, goodnight

Sweet dreams, my friend.

It has been a good debate. It is good to be challenged from time to time.
I have learned much.

[manimuth]

I'm joining the discussion a little late but I wanted to make two points:

1) According to many believers (different denominations have disagreements over this) Jesus had two natures: Man and God. According to Jewish traditions, an animal was sacrificed as a way to "wash away" sins and transgressions. When the animal's life is given, the sinner can start anew, freed from his sins. So, God sent his own Son (who is essentially Himself) to be sacrificed- the ultimate scapegoat and sacrifice for humanity's sins. Many express the sacrifice this way: Humanity's debt was so big that the only payment enough to wipe the slate clean was God's life Itself. Christ, the Son of Man suffered, died, and was buried. I believe His suffering was just as painful and the temptations he faced just as real as if they were suffered or faced by us. He was Man but also God so He resurrected.

2) I define myself a scientist, with complete faith in the sciences and respect for the laws that govern what we can sense. But, I also strongly believe that science and God are two COMPLETELY different things. One cannot be used to define the other!
Science was created by man to explain and understand what he sensed with his 5 senses; to explain his past, present, and future. My humble opinion is that it is arrogant and erroneous to believe that something created by man can contain and explain (or refute) God.
I also do not believe that the Bible is a scientific book and I do not take everything, in it, literally. Men wrote the words, and granted the words are according to the inspiration given by God, but man can only write what his mind can grasp. If the only way a man can express or explain Creation was by breaking it down to days does not mean that this is a scientific fact. He can only use the vocabulary and range of thought available to him at the time.


By the way, I have no idea where I read this but is it true that Native Americans could not physically see Columbus's ships approaching because their minds never conceived or imagined such huge water vessels? And that it was the Shaman who noticed the difference in the tides and first "saw" the ships and described it so that the people started seeing them? Has anyone read or heard this? I cannot remember whether I read it or saw it in a documentary and cannot check on it now.
But, if it is true that our eyes cannot "see" what our minds cannot grasp, can you just imagine the implications!. and the importance of imagination!

[avenger9000]

Well said!! Lol Couldn't have said it better myself...

Ok I just realised something coming back from conference that I probably should have raised this a long time ago... But consider the following...

The claim of Jesus that He is God has the following possibilities or whatever word I should have used here:


1. That it is true
2. That it is false

Now breaking it down a bit further, if the claim is false, then there are two further possiblities:

1. That Jesus knew that it is false
2. That Jesus didn't know it was false

Ok if Jesus knew it was false, then he's a liar. But imagine this, if all He was was a liar, then how can it be that he chose to die on the cross?? All he needed to have said was " Hey you people, I am a liar, what I have claimed arent true, please do not kill me." But the fact he chose to go ahead with it rules out the liar argument.

Looking at the 2nd possibility, that Jesus didn't know that the claim is false. This means that he is a lunatic, but a thorough examination of all He has taught, said and claimed, it all seems to be consistent and actually makes quite a lot of sense!! Therefore, I strongly believe that this argument can also be ruled out. Thereby, by eliminating all the possibilities that are wrong, we can safely rule out that the claim is false (this is just my opinion). Thus, according to Sherlock Holmes, by eliminating all the wrong possibilities, what we are left with must be true, irrespective of how seemingly ridiculous it maybe on the surface.

Disclaimer:

This post is in no way intended to force you to believe that Christianity is true, and it is of the opinion of the author of the post. Reading this post is not and shall never replace looking further into the Bible, asking questions at church, talking to a qualified pastor etc.