Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Abiogenesis split from Death thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Abiogenesis split from Death thread

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Nothing definitive in scripture, but there is more support for yea than there is for nay.
    There's no good reason to think eternal souls exist in any living creature including us, or that mind and body are essentially separate entities.

    For Example: the Evolution Religion's (not the Science's) assertion that spontaneous generation is the origin of life, perhaps?
    Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life...abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. There may be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life"
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    There's no good reason to think eternal souls exist in any living creature including us, or that mind and body are essentially separate entities.
    There's no good reason to think that scripture is entirely without veracity, but people do it anyway.


    Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life...abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. There may be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life"
    The faith claim is that abiogenesis is the only possible and logical explanation for the origin of life. Given that there is no evidence what ever to support such a claim, it doesn't even amount to a decent hypothesis. Until now I have never heard mention of any other hypotheses.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      There's no good reason to think that scripture is entirely without veracity, but people do it anyway.
      The historicity and veracity of scripture overall is a different argument. What I said was there's no substantive evidence for the existence of eternal souls existing in any living creature including us, or that mind and body are essentially separate entities.

      The faith claim is that abiogenesis is the only possible and logical explanation for the origin of life. Given that there is no evidence what ever to support such a claim, it doesn't even amount to a decent hypothesis. Until now I have never heard mention of any other hypotheses.
      The alternative is a “faith-claim” god-of-the-gaps argument. But in fact there is evidence supporting possible abiogenisis, whereby living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, although it’s not verifiable at this stage.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm not interested in this "God of the Gaps" by any means - whether by proponent or critic.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • #5
          The "Origins of Life" article is interesting. Full of ifs, buts, and maybes, but even with all that it seems that there are reasonable grounds for drawing up a hypothesis that abiogenesis is possible.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            The faith claim is that abiogenesis is the only possible and logical explanation for the origin of life. Given that there is no evidence what ever to support such a claim, it doesn't even amount to a decent hypothesis. Until now I have never heard mention of any other hypotheses.
            Here we go again . . . the word 'faith' in reference to the science, evolution, abiogenesis, and crept into the discussion concerning Global Warming.

            First, what are your credentials in science to make the above negative assertions concerning the science of abiogenesis other than a religious agenda? Have you actually studied the research in this field? What are you relying on to make these judgments.

            Second, there are at least several hypothesis concerning abiogenesis where the predictions of possible pathways of the evolution of non-life to life forms have been shown viable predicted ways for abiogenesis. Of course, not all the answers are in, but the above statements are not justified, nor is the science based on 'faith.'
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              I didn't say the science was a faith. I said that faith claims were being made in the absence of viable theories in the science. And I make no apologies for declaring Faith claims where they are supported by no more than hypotheses.

              Second, there are at least several hypothesis concerning abiogenesis where the predictions of possible pathways of the evolution of non-life to life forms have been shown viable predicted ways for abiogenesis.
              They are potentially viable - that is sure. Declaring "potentially viable hypotheses" to be fact is not science - it is faith. Declare it fact when there is a viable theory in place. However, I am satisfied that abiogenesis is reasonably likely and probably the course that actually did play.

              So - Where is this religious agenda of mine that you speak of?
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                I didn't say the science was a faith. I said that faith claims were being made in the absence of viable theories in the science. And I make no apologies for declaring Faith claims where they are supported by no more than hypotheses.

                They are potentially viable - that is sure. Declaring "potentially viable hypotheses" to be fact is not science - it is faith. Declare it fact when there is a viable theory in place. However, I am satisfied that abiogenesis is reasonably likely and probably the course that actually did play.

                So - Where is this religious agenda of mine that you speak of?
                It helps to know what "theory" and "hypothesis" mean in science, before claim that hypotheses are a matter of faith. Here's an introduction to the subject at a laymen's level:

                undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_19
                "Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic.

                [...]

                Theories, on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. They are concise (i.e., generally don't have a long list of exceptions and special rules), coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable. In fact, theories often integrate and generalize many hypotheses.

                [...]

                Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations."
                "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                Comment


                • #9
                  I am fully aware of the distinctions between hypothesis and theory in scientific terms.
                  A hypothesis is a reasonable explanation for observed phenomena.
                  Several competing hypotheses may be in play at any one time for a given set of observations.
                  Hypotheses have not been tested and found true.
                  Once they are tested and found true, they become theories.
                  Where a theory is generally true but for a limited number of anomalies, it remains a theory that needs refinement and adjustment.

                  I have no problems with a theory being declared fact. Declaring a hypothesis to be fact is a faith statement - faith is vested in the hypothesis before it has been tested and found true. Had the testing been conducted satisfactorily, it would no longer be a hypothesis.

                  Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations."
                  No reference to a theory was stated.

                  Abiogenesis is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. (Unless recent testing that I am unaware of has verified one of the hypotheses to be valid.)
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    I am fully aware of the distinctions between hypothesis and theory in scientific terms.
                    A hypothesis is a reasonable explanation for observed phenomena.
                    Several competing hypotheses may be in play at any one time for a given set of observations.
                    Hypotheses have not been tested and found true.
                    Once they are tested and found true, they become theories.
                    Where a theory is generally true but for a limited number of anomalies, it remains a theory that needs refinement and adjustment.

                    I have no problems with a theory being declared fact. Declaring a hypothesis to be fact is a faith statement - faith is vested in the hypothesis before it has been tested and found true. Had the testing been conducted satisfactorily, it would no longer be a hypothesis.

                    No reference to a theory was stated.

                    Abiogenesis is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. (Unless recent testing that I am unaware of has verified one of the hypotheses to be valid.)
                    This is an oversimplification, hypotheses are not plucked out of thin air as Jichard's link indicates: "Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic.

                    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0...cienceworks_19
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This is an oversimplification, hypotheses are not plucked out of thin air
                      Perhaps you should read what I posted, Tassman - or do you and I have different interpretations of what constitutes reasonable, perhaps.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        I didn't say the science was a faith. I said that faith claims were being made in the absence of viable theories in the science. And I make no apologies for declaring Faith claims where they are supported by no more than hypotheses.

                        They are potentially viable - that is sure. Declaring "potentially viable hypotheses" to be fact is not science - it is faith. Declare it fact when there is a viable theory in place. However, I am satisfied that abiogenesis is reasonably likely and probably the course that actually did play.

                        So - Where is this religious agenda of mine that you speak of?
                        This line does not help your case. Nothing in terms of theories and hypothesis are ever called a 'fact.' There are theories and hypothesis for abiogenesis in place and they are being tested in ongoing research. Your obviously confusing the layman's language of using 'fact' to describe the certainty of a theory. It is true that the overwhelming evidence of the science of evolution it is basically irrefutable beyond any reasonable doubt.

                        The religious agenda of accusing science of faith issues, and misusing the concept of 'fact' in a way that is not scientific.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          This line does not help your case. Nothing in terms of theories and hypothesis are ever called a 'fact.' There are theories and hypothesis for abiogenesis in place and they are being tested in ongoing research. Your obviously confusing the layman's language of using 'fact' to describe the certainty of a theory. It is true that the overwhelming evidence of the science of evolution it is basically irrefutable beyond any reasonable doubt.

                          The religious agenda of accusing science of faith issues, and misusing the concept of 'fact' in a way that is not scientific.
                          In layman's terms, theories are accepted as fact pending contrary data, therefore "I have no problem with a theory being declared a fact." I am not sure why you should think that there is any confusion about the issue: you have just said as much yourself.

                          However, I don't think that any demonstrable theory regarding abiogenesis is in place. Beyond the capacity to produce artificially a couple of amino acids, no experimental evidence is available, and nothing has been observed in nature that supports a conclusion that abiogenisis might be a viable hypothesis. It has not even been shown that the conditions set in the laboratory occur in nature. Always assuming of course, that I have not missed the latest information.

                          "Could have arisen" with hypothesising about what might have made it possible does not constitute a theory. Declaring abiogenesis to be a theory makes a claim that the science is in - it isn't. What it is, is a faith statement.

                          Trying to handwave my objections away as if they are prompted by a religious agenda - it is far too thoroughly demonstrated that I do nothing of the sort.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            In layman's terms, theories are accepted as fact pending contrary data, therefore "I have no problem with a theory being declared a fact." I am not sure why you should think that there is any confusion about the issue: you have just said as much yourself.

                            However, I don't think that any demonstrable theory regarding abiogenesis is in place. Beyond the capacity to produce artificially a couple of amino acids, no experimental evidence is available, and nothing has been observed in nature that supports a conclusion that abiogenisis might be a viable hypothesis. It has not even been shown that the conditions set in the laboratory occur in nature. Always assuming of course, that I have not missed the latest information.

                            "Could have arisen" with hypothesising about what might have made it possible does not constitute a theory. Declaring abiogenesis to be a theory makes a claim that the science is in - it isn't. What it is, is a faith statement.

                            Trying to handwave my objections away as if they are prompted by a religious agenda - it is far too thoroughly demonstrated that I do nothing of the sort.
                            Again and again and again, scientists do not consider the theories and hypothesis concerning abiogenesis a 'fact.' If you believe this is so please cite a reliable source that supports this, and avoid your own opinions.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Again and again and again, scientists do not consider the theories and hypothesis concerning abiogenesis a 'fact.' If you believe this is so please cite a reliable source that supports this, and avoid your own opinions.
                              To date, I haven't seen any scientific papers referring to abiogenesis as a theory. The most they say is hypothesis.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                              39 responses
                              185 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              132 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              428 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              305 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                              406 responses
                              2,517 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Working...
                              X