Login

Join for Free!
117523 members


biogenesis vs. big bang

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

biogenesis vs. big bang

Postby oCShxckzZ » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:33 am

Just a quick question, doesn't the big bang theory and evolution contradict the law of biogenesis?
A Christian
oCShxckzZ
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:16 am

Postby canalon » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:20 am

WTH is the law of biogenesis? And why does it need to be underlined?
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby JackBean » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:11 pm

How are big bang and evolution and biogenesis related? :roll:
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5672
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm


Postby factsfinder » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:07 pm

Yes,his question is clear and what he means is to say that there was no life before
the big bang started,but biogenesis says that life generated from existing life,
his question how biogenesis can be understood according to the big bang theory
and of course he is assuming that nothing can be alive during the great explosion.
factsfinder
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:44 pm

Re: biogenesis vs. big bang

Postby oCShxckzZ » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:44 pm

Thank you facts finder to make it clear to them that my question is sufficient. Canalon, if you don't know what the law of biogenesis is then you must be either poorly educated on the subject or stubborn to admit that I do my research. And please quit clouding the subject with questions, because mine never got answered. I was just making it clear that the law of biogenesis is scientific "fact," (though science changes it's facts all the time) and that the work of Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur is not just a bunch of jibber-jabber, that's why it was underlined. The law of biogenesis was adopted in the 19th century by scientists who were finally convinced after Francesco Redi proved that no living thing can come from anything non-living, his work is held in the Pasteur Institute in Paris if you ever go there. :lol:
A Christian
oCShxckzZ
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:16 am

Postby canalon » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:35 pm

Dear oCShxckzZ, what a thoughtful answer.
As it happens I had never heard of the law of biogenesis under that name. Maybe because I am not a native english speaker, and I did not study biology in english. Anyway, I still do not see the need to underline it.
As for your arguments, well I would be the first to admit that yes, the necessity that there has always been a need to break the law once to start that whole life thing. But you know laws can sometimes be broken (ask any policeman of your acquaintance). interestingly, even if we accept creation (any myth of your choice), the law was broken during the creation event and I am at a loss as how that could make a case in any direction.

As for your humor about the Pasteur Institute, you will find even more hilarious to learn that I actually worked and studied there (see, not in English), and I can assure you that all teaching dispensed there is fully in agreement with my views.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada


Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron