Origins of life

[ilikeverin]

tell me again why most of you believe in abiogenesis when it has neither been observed in nature nor produced in the lab? 

For the same reason I believe in Proto-Indo-European when it has neither been observed in nature nor produced anywhere near anything with recording capabilities?

[useful idiot]

Dr. Mengele spent his working hours gathering evidence and performing experiments, that means nothing.

If you have to give in to Godwin's Law in the first sentence of your argument, I'm not sure I can take anything you have to say seriously. I mean really, you're comparing modern academics to a Nazi who can hardly be said to have followed anything remotely like the scientific method?

Sorry I broke one of your internet rules . The point was that there have been a lot of quack scientists throughout history who did experiments and gathered evidence. Did I say that modern scientists were Nazis? No, don't pretend otherwise please.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes but operating under the premise of a certain origin of life claim is hardly comparable to your brain in the vat theory. Although abiogenesis is almost just as ridiculous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh no. I said knowledge of the authenticity of the scriptures was subjective (dependent on god's will), not interpretation of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The evidence is shaky? Do you have some insider knowledge that they don't to show this? Please, share with us your vast expertise on the subject.[/quote]

What evidence is there exactly? We're not talking about micro-evolution of course, but the origin of life and common ancestry. There is NO HARD EVIDENCE, it's just hypotheticals and theory. No one was around for it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But if they realized that human mind is as flawed as it actually is, they would know not to trust in their collective understanding, or their ability to interpret scant evidence on this point. Now it's fine and dandy, and I'm thankful, that we have science. It has done wonderful things, when it stays out of theology (which is what origin of life science is), and sticks to things that are ultimately useful to society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I love it when non-Christians seek to label any crackpot that calls themselves a Christian as the genuine article and then try to smear everyone with that. Especially since non-Christians don't have that subjective experience to verify its authenticity. Just because you don't experience something doesn't mean its unreal. You obviously trust your mind, and put a lot of faith in your reasoning, but again, nothing is provable. You can only operate by trusting your mind, whether you're a non-Christian or a Christian. The difference is that a Christian has the ability to rely on something outside their mind because of an experiential shift in their thinking.

I can only judge things by their alignment with scripture, because of my own subjective experience. Seeing the Virgin Mary in toast, or any number of "miraculous" happenings that Charismatics or Catholics or cult members claim to happen aren't in alignment with the New Testament, so I throw those out.

[useful idiot]

Dr. Mengele spent his working hours gathering evidence and performing experiments, that means nothing.

What tripe. That's the equivalency of someone arguing about faith and someone saying 'Pastor X ( who as a person is dubious as he stole money/had affairs/molested children) spent his working hours preaching; that means nothing.' We can all find 'bad eggs' in any field.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is a misrepresentation of science. Science holds nothing to be 'truthful' as professionally it cannot. The Theory of Gravity is still just that. All theories are constantly tested and evolve as a result of constant professional scrutiny. It just so happens that the damn thing works in every scenario that faces scientists terrestrial or extraterrestrial. That makes it bloody convincing to the extent I would bet everything I had on it not being disproven. But it doesn't make it a 'truth' (and it is a step up from our previous western understanding of 'god wills things to the ground') Christianity deals in 'truths.' Science does not.

But you can't deny that scientists in the field of origins operate under the assumption that it is fact, and many of them have said outright that it is (including iirc Dawkins). Michael Ruse, well known evolutionist, has said that Darwinian evolution functions as a secular religion for most scientists.

Given that you can't test origins in a lab, it shouldn't be considered science at all by the standards of science. At most it's a philosophical belief pointed to by some of the inferences of collected data.

I'm certainly not saying that you can't believe in it, or that it can be proven that it is objectively false. I'm just saying that it can't be proven true, by science or any other method. If you don't want to believe in a God, then it's really the only other option.

[afleitch]

But you can't deny that scientists in the field of origins operate under the assumption that it is fact, and many of them have said outright that it is (including iirc Dawkins). Michael Ruse, well known evolutionist, has said that Darwinian evolution functions as a secular religion for most scientists.

Given that you can't test origins in a lab, it shouldn't be considered science at all by the standards of science. At most it's a philosophical belief pointed to by some of the inferences of collected data.

I'm certainly not saying that you can't believe in it, or that it can be proven that it is objectively false. I'm just saying that it can't be proven true, by science or any other method. If you don't want to believe in a God, then it's really the only other option.

I'm not talking about scientists but the scientific method. Scientists can be flippant and egotistical - they are people. But the scientific method stands. And the scientific method points to a form of abiogenisis as the likely origin theory. Your alternative, as a Christian is that the likely origin theory is 'your god' - as opposed to another god, a time traveller, a drunken frat alien, a space fish or a spoon. Even if the need for an 'designer' was ever found, it does not mean your god automatically qualifies as the designer.

[John Dibble]

Dr. Mengele spent his working hours gathering evidence and performing experiments, that means nothing.

If you have to give in to Godwin's Law in the first sentence of your argument, I'm not sure I can take anything you have to say seriously. I mean really, you're comparing modern academics to a Nazi who can hardly be said to have followed anything remotely like the scientific method?

Sorry I broke one of your internet rules . The point was that there have been a lot of quack scientists throughout history who did experiments and gathered evidence. Did I say that modern scientists were Nazis? No, don't pretend otherwise please.

You implied that they are quacks just like him and you're damn dishonest to pretend otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ridiculous how exactly? There's a good deal of solid evidence for it. Do you have an alternative theory that has better evidence, or are you just pulling things out of your posterior?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh no. I said knowledge of the authenticity of the scriptures was subjective (dependent on god's will), not interpretation of them.[/quote]

Again, how is that a positive thing?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For evolution we have a fossil record which improves every day, vast numbers of genetic comparisons that indicate common descent, ring species where we actually have all living relatives on the evolutionary branches, observed natural selection, artificial selection by humans - need I say more? At least go to Wikipedia and get the basics, man.

For abiogenesis we also have evidence, as well as simple facts. The fact of the matter is that our bodies are made of the same kind of matter that the rest of the world is made of - our fleshy vessels are just sacks of chemical reactions. Given that, it's hardly ridiculous to consider that there are ways for chemical reactions in nature to come together to form life. Experiments have shown that under the right conditions we can chemically generate molecules necessary to organic life which we don't normally see produced outside of life itself, like the one I showed earlier.

Also, your "nobody was around" objection is dumb. If nobody was around to witness a murder, that doesn't stop us from using evidence and reasoning to determine who the most likely culprit was, prosecuting him if we find out who, and throwing them in jail if the evidence is good enough. Or would you argue that using evidence and reasoning isn't good enough there, either?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But if they realized that human mind is as flawed as it actually is, they would know not to trust in their collective understanding, or their ability to interpret scant evidence on this point.[/quote]

Their collective understanding mitigates the flaws in the individual human minds - it greatly reduces the anomalies. That's why they rely on things like peer review and having other people try to replicate their experiments. A child would understand that, so why don't you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. No, it isn't theology. It's science just like any other kind, based on evidence.
2. Evolutionary theory and principles are extremely useful in medicine, agriculture, engineering, and much more. EDUCATE YOURSELF and stop saying such ignorant things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I love it when non-Christians seek to label any crackpot that calls themselves a Christian as the genuine article and then try to smear everyone with that.[/quote]

Who said anything about crackpots? I'm talking about normal, largely sane people. Or are you saying that jmfcst is a crackpot?

Again, as I said pretty much everyone experiences things that aren't real to some degree or another, including myself. People in every religion have claimed that these experiences have had something to do with their religion and is real - since religions contradict one another, have zero good evidence for them, and the human mind is flawed I don't see why I should take the claims of your particular experiences any more seriously than theirs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what can these Christians do to verify their subjective experience, exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And just because you do experience something doesn't make it real either. The important thing is how we determine the difference between what's real and what isn't, which is something you apparently don't get.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's obvious that you haven't been paying attention to a thing I've been saying. I only trust my mind to a certain extent because I know it is flawed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What evidence do you have for this thing outside of your mind that you're relying on? Obviously you're talking about God, so how do you know that's not in your head?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And on what basis do you think scripture is even worth using to judge any of this?

[Redalgo]

If I may, all the options are flawed and easier to challenge than to present a solid alternative to.

Those favoring abiogenesis and evolution generally look at this from a naturalistic point of view. The question is, "Using the finite amount of evidence and most objective means of estimating reality we currently possess, which explanation for why the phenomena occurred is best-supported?" I cannot speak for others, but my stance is fleeting - it will only exist for so long as somebody else cannot find a better-supported explanation. Religion offers shaky explanations since it insists on injecting claims that cross over into the supernatural. While major kinks in abiogensis have not been ironed out, and it may be ditched for another explanation someday, for now it is what evidence points to most as being plausible. I will never know to a point of certainty if the theory is true. That is an unfortunate inevitability.

One who favors intelligent design or creationism could thus drive home questions like:

1. How can the possibly be ruled out that a deity is at least partly involved in what occurred?
2. What if some scientists and their methods are too closed-minded to craft truthful theories?
3. You realize we've never seen nature create a living organism from dead, inorganic parts, ya?
4. If you do not personally have the evidence to present, how do we know how it is credible?
5. Why trust your methods when the results yielded are not always reliable and not faithless?


For those arguing on behalf of a religious explanation an entirely different approach to discovery is being used. By accepting ideas reliant on the supernatural a lot of extraordinary things suddenly become possible. Not all in nature is as it seems and one might be able to uncover clues leading to a higher understanding of reality than secular approaches could ever hope to find. A broader range of rationales is permissible this way. Mainstream science offers shaky explanations because it insists on rejecting claims that acknowledge the supernatural. While some explanations may seem a lot more likely than others, and the faith may change in time to make use of new revelations, for now it is what evidence points to most as being the truth. One will never know to a point of certainty if the faith is justified. That is an unfortunate inevitability.

One who favors abiogenesis would do well to ask:

1. If a deity was involved in what happened, where is your evidence to show us its likelihood?
2. What if some of religious faith are too closed-minded to reach conclusions with objectivity?
3. You realize we have never clearly witnessed a deity or the execution of any divine acts, ya?
4. If you don't present a detailed theory for how a deity did it, how do we know it is credible?
5. Why trust your methods when the results yielded are not always reliable and not faithless?


Help me out here, I am no expert in these matters, but I get the nagging suspicion that nobody here is going to reveal information or watertight arguments that will invalidate the core beliefs of or convert the adherents to an alternative point of view regarding the origins of life. Watching people going back and forth on the matter is intriguing to say the least and it is always nice to see a few misconceptions addressed, but at a fundamental level folks are trying to rationally use information on the premise of different assumptions about the world. Our perceptions of reality are biased and the merits of points made on behalf of any particular theory are subjective.

Am I far from the mark?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Option 1.

And this thread is in the wrong forum btw.

[John Dibble]

Hi Redalgo, welcome to the forum. I'll answer some of your questions from the perspective of the science side.

Those favoring abiogenesis and evolution generally look at this from a naturalistic point of view. The question is, "Using the finite amount of evidence and most objective means of estimating reality we currently possess, which explanation for why the phenomena occurred is best-supported?" I cannot speak for others, but my stance is fleeting - it will only exist for so long as somebody else cannot find a better-supported explanation.

In my view this is actually the strength of the scientific way of thinking - it allows for change and correction based on new evidence and ideas. There is no sacred dogma that is beyond question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't. Even Richard Dawkins, who is one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists and perhaps the most famous atheist on the planet, on a scale of 1 to 7 of belief to disbelief in a deity (1 being there is absolutely, 100% certainly a God, and 7 being 100% certainly that there isn't) puts himself at around 6.5 because as a scientist he has to be willing to consider the possibility since you can't prove that a deity doesn't exist.

The important thing though is that there's no evidence for the involvement of a deity, and thus no reason to believe that there's involvement. For this same reason you wouldn't believe that fairies, leprechauns, aliens, or anything else was involved, so why make a special case for God?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some scientists are that way - they are human after all. Fortunately, the scientific method demands certain things from theories and experiments (testability, repeatability, etc.) and the scientific community as a whole tends to do a pretty good job of enforcing these things through methods such as peer review.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We haven't seen a number of things, but quite often we accept them to be probably (if not absolutely) true or false based on the evidence for or against them. There is good evidence in favor of some form of abiogenesis, so for the time being we think that it's probably true. If there wasn't evidence, we'd treat it the same as any other claim without evidence and disbelieve it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As mentioned, there is a peer review process in the scientific community. In other words, people who are qualified analyze one another's evidence to determine whether it's credible. If that isn't good enough, we are free to go see these scientists and see their evidence for ourselves.

Also, this question would likely indicate a double standard. Most people will accept the credibility of forensic evidence in a courtroom, something which could determine whether someone is locked behind bars for many years, without having it personally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, we go back to something the scientific method requires - repeatability. If you do some kind of experiment and nobody can repeat your results or peer review finds a fatal flaw in your methods, your results are thrown out because they aren't credible. That means what we do keep is pretty reliable, and you trust the reliability of science every day:

When you turn on your TV you trust that the people who designed it understood how electricity and its applications.
When you get into a brand new car you trust that when you turn the key the engine will start because those who designed it understood combustion.
When you put something in your microwave to cook you trust that it will cook without harming you because you trust those who designed it understand how to keep the microwave radiation in the box.
When you get in an airplane you trust that it most likely won't crash to the ground and kill you because the engineers who built it understand aerodynamics.
When you reply to this post on your computer you trust that your post will also probably be posted properly because the people who designed the internet understood how to make it rather reliable.

Few people realize just how much they trust science to work reliably every day for them. Just think about how many things you use every single day that required men and women of science to create them and you'll realize how much you've taken science for granted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You would be correct in saying that nobody who is heavily invested in this debate would likely change their minds anytime soon. Many may never change their minds, but for others even just a small amount of doubt can lead them to change their views in the long term. Those who are already on the fence and are listening in might be more prone to being convinced by one side or another, though.

[anvi]

Option 1.

Evolution has a massive amount of empirical evidence to support it.

Abiogenesis is slightly more tenuous since we don't yet know how we got from amino acids to polymers to nucleic acids.  But if the biological definition of life, a functional definition which requires metabolism and reproduction, is reasonable, then studying abiogenesis puts us on the right track.

The problem with a traditionally theistic notion of the creation of life is that it claims, at least as far as I understand it, to be a causal process.  But if God is supposed to be timeless, invisible, intangible, inaudible and undetectable by any empirical means whatsoever, then it would be impossible in principle to locate at what point in the causal process such a deity influenced a universe which otherwise operates according to causal laws.  The theistic theory is for that reason always far weaker than the naturalistic theory if life is considered to have been caused. This is so because, while science may at any given time be unable to fill in all the causal gaps in the process, the theistic theory cannot, by definition, locate a supernatural divinity within the causal process, and so can give no empirical explanation of how a divine being supposedly created life. 

[feeblepizza]

Option 6 has most scientific backing.

[afleitch]

Option 6 has most scientific backing.

Please discuss how Young Earth Creationism has the most scientific backing.

[feeblepizza]

Option 6 has most scientific backing.

Please discuss how Young Earth Creationism has the most scientific backing.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

^ This discusses 10 good reasons why evolution is completely impossible. Please take the time to read it.

[afleitch]

Option 6 has most scientific backing.

Please discuss how Young Earth Creationism has the most scientific backing.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

^ This discusses 10 good reasons why evolution is completely impossible. Please take the time to read it.

Ah from the nuts website I had a look at it and had a bit of a chuckle. I don't have the time to shoot those points down at the moment but I might do so soon.

Quack science/opinions is not science

[ilikeverin]

Option 6 has most scientific backing.

Please discuss how Young Earth Creationism has the most scientific backing.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

^ This discusses 10 good reasons why evolution is completely impossible. Please take the time to read it.

That's... I can't... "Fact No. 2" doesn't even seem to contain a rebuttal to anything... I... I... I don't even...

[Associate Justice PiT]

Option 6 has most scientific backing.

Please discuss how Young Earth Creationism has the most scientific backing.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

^ This discusses 10 good reasons why evolution is completely impossible. Please take the time to read it.

That's... I can't... "Fact No. 2" doesn't even seem to contain a rebuttal to anything... I... I... I don't even...

     That's not even the most humorous one to me. I particularly like that No. 6 demonstrates ignorance of a basic facet of evolutionary theory that the writer actually got semi-correct in No. 1. Not to mention that it relies on a blatant mischaracterization of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which, if correct, would disprove the existence of every human trade ever.

     The worst though is No. 8, which couldn't even be construed as an attack on evolutionary theory were it not explicitly presented as such. Just because scientists don't know where matter comes from, doesn't mean that any of their theories rely on a supposition that it came from nowhere.

[John Dibble]

Option 6 has most scientific backing.

Please discuss how Young Earth Creationism has the most scientific backing.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

^ This discusses 10 good reasons why evolution is completely impossible. Please take the time to read it.

That's... I can't... "Fact No. 2" doesn't even seem to contain a rebuttal to anything... I... I... I don't even...

     That's not even the most humorous one to me. I particularly like that No. 6 demonstrates ignorance of a basic facet of evolutionary theory that the writer actually got semi-correct in No. 1. Not to mention that it relies on a blatant mischaracterization of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which, if correct, would disprove the existence of every human trade ever.

     The worst though is No. 8, which couldn't even be construed as an attack on evolutionary theory were it not explicitly presented as such. Just because scientists don't know where matter comes from, doesn't mean that any of their theories rely on a supposition that it came from nowhere.

No. 5 is blatantly contradicted by the existence of cancer.

[ilikeverin]

Option 6 has most scientific backing.

Please discuss how Young Earth Creationism has the most scientific backing.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

^ This discusses 10 good reasons why evolution is completely impossible. Please take the time to read it.

That's... I can't... "Fact No. 2" doesn't even seem to contain a rebuttal to anything... I... I... I don't even...

     That's not even the most humorous one to me. I particularly like that No. 6 demonstrates ignorance of a basic facet of evolutionary theory that the writer actually got semi-correct in No. 1. Not to mention that it relies on a blatant mischaracterization of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which, if correct, would disprove the existence of every human trade ever.

     The worst though is No. 8, which couldn't even be construed as an attack on evolutionary theory were it not explicitly presented as such. Just because scientists don't know where matter comes from, doesn't mean that any of their theories rely on a supposition that it came from nowhere.

Yes, I was writing a rebuttal to No. 6 before I just kind of went "...THIS MUST BE A JOKE" and decided not to respond.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Option 6 has most scientific backing.

Please discuss how Young Earth Creationism has the most scientific backing.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

^ This discusses 10 good reasons why evolution is completely impossible. Please take the time to read it.

I'm sorry, but this is com-plete and utter twaddle.

Young Earth creationism probably has the LEAST amount of scientific evidence...

[anvi]

Option 6 has most scientific backing.

Sorry, but on the other board, you said you were a Buddhist.  I am quite certain that Buddhists don't believe in creationism.

[Torie]

I don't have a clue, and nobody else does either. I kind of like panspermia myself (life arrived on an asteroid rock), but that leaves the question of just how organic matter transmogrified into life on some other planet.

[BenNebbich]

option 2.

God started it, of course.

How long does God exist? - He is going to tell you, later....

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

Option 6 has most scientific backing.

Please discuss how Young Earth Creationism has the most scientific backing.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

^ This discusses 10 good reasons why evolution is completely impossible. Please take the time to read it.

I was seriously considering making a point-by-point rebuttal of that list until I read some of the comments right after yours. Now I wonder if it's even worth it to shoot down this theory with the machine gun of science.