It doesn't matter where they draw the line between non-life and life as long as there's a line. If there isn't and everything from a water molecule and up is alive then you would have your biological evolution.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abiogenesis is evolution
- Thread starter ScottySatan
- Start date
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
That is a problem though. There is no 'line".
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
That's apparently debatable, hence the existence of this site!
And that is the point, we can't separate function and purpose as unrelated questions. If we could determine that the entire universe fluked itself into existence for no particular reason, then of course we could use that to make assumptions about the arbitrary nature of life also. Although even then, there are atheists like Hoyle who could conceive of a purposeless universe, but when it comes to life;
'one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...'
conclusions from observations
We are the only species asking these questions, amongst millions, amongst the 'great silence' of the galaxy. Dinosaurs ruled for millions of years, many with very large cranial capacity, and never acquired what humanity did in a blink of an eye. At the very least we can objectively observe that our intelligence is not the sort of think 'evolution' tends to inevitably achieve.
Had we found earth, the solar system, the galaxy to be teaming with sentient life all asking the same questions, I'd accept the implications of that, that we are apparently not the primary intended beneficiaries of the creation of the universe.
And I'm willing to accept the opposite implications also, those of observed reality
"The smallest contiguous unit of life is called an organism. Organisms are composed of one or more cells, undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, can grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce (either sexually or asexually) and, through evolution, adapt to their environment in successive generations." Wikipedia. I'll stick with this definition. No cell(s), no life.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
And what is the line between cell and not cell? If you want to stick to wikipedia then fine but just understand that it is no longer an educated debate on a much discussed topic in academic societies. By this viruses are not life. But they are obviously subject to evolution. Is the evolution of viruses biological evolution in your mind?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
like
'we don't know so we'll assume it was a fluke'
The difference being- theists recognize faith,
blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself
In all of observed reality we have never observed any gods. Are you willing to accept the implications?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
how about multiverses, big crunches, Membranes?
It is consistent with God that he would require faith, you cannot force a person to love you.
but for every atheist hypothesis to have disguised itself entirely beyond observation, would have to be chalked up to yet one more bizarre fluke
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
We have to assume random unless there is evidence for something else because that is what the evidence supports, not only evolutionary, but astrobiologically as well.
It doesn't matter what is in my mind. If the scientific establishment officially decrees viruses to be alive then they would be included in biological evolution. Abiogenesis would be the process that resulted in viruses.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
that's where assumptions get subjective
if you see the word HELP written in rocks, on a deserted island beach with no evidence of people around, do you assume the random action of the waves did it?
What's an "atheist hypothesis"?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
as above, big crunch, multiverses were posited to 'make God redundant' in Hawking's own words.
likewise with many static uncreated universe models (no creation = no creator)
Their atheist implications were what they were explicitly based on, certainly not evidence
I would assume that at some point people did it. I would certainly not assume that some god did it. Would you?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
.
so even though you are 100% granted a perfectly capable random generator (something we have no evidence for re. the universe)
and even though I concede no evidence of creative intelligence being present- only permitting the slightest chance of it -
you choose creative intelligence over chance, you assume it to be the best explanation even where it is not observed to exist and chance is.. because of it's vastly superior power of explanation, right?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
The scientific establishment's understanding of abiogensis and its classification has a general consensus of it being a part of evolution. However there is a debate on how much. You have already touched on some of the issues but I don't think you have actually understood the debate behind the issues. Or maybe you do and failed to communicate it effectively.
Like seismology were created by atheists to make Poseidon redundant and meteorology was created by atheists to make Thor redundant?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
no because seismology was supported by evidence, atheist creation myths were only supported by atheism, steady state and big crunches are Poseidon and Thor in this analogy.
earthquakes, volcanoes, meteors used to be used as atheist arguments for bad design 'pointless destruction' - until they were found to be vital to life on Earth.
The old atheism of the gaps
I assume a natural explanation for anything that is not clearly produced by intelligence because logic, reason and science and evidence has a vastly superior power of explanation than "some god did it."
Evolution or biological evolution? You still don't seem to distinguish between them.