-
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 Highly Unlikely
- Thread starter Jimmy
- Start date
Sir Joseph
Member
A few of those I know to be true; the others I'll assume are, given the long list of supporting reasons for the Law of Biogenesis.
I'd question your first point though, countering that God seemingly created the universe for the purpose of mankind, not mankind to fulfill purpose for the universe. Consider which is more important: eternal souled mankind made for a Godly relationship or a temporary universe unable to interact with God? Shouldn't the lesser serve the purpose of the greater, regardless of which came first?
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
I never said people don’t interact with god
You have 2 threads going that seem to contradict each other. In one you ponder why people want evidence for God and now in this one you dismiss abiogenesis because you don't see any evidence for it
Pogo
Well-Known Member
That is all very nice,
Or are you just assuming your conclusion? very poor logic that.
Now if you would show us your probability calculations for this god which is so much more complex and hence improbable of arising.
Or are you just assuming your conclusion? very poor logic that.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Trained on creationist claptrap, maybe.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
There are many variations on the argument from ignorance.You have 2 threads going that seem to contradict each other. In one you ponder why people want evidence for God and now in this one you dismiss abiogenesis because you don't see any evidence for it
Absolutely!
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
God isn’t complex. He’s very straightforward and simple to comprehend.
Far from "unlikely", abiogenesis may be almost unavoidable.
Far from requiring a miraculous non-explanation, abiogenesis has been hinted at for decades now, and supported by findings such as that of the formation of coacervates (and significantly more since).
There isn't any good reason that is not of an aesthetical nature not to expect abiogenesis to have happened.
Far from requiring a miraculous non-explanation, abiogenesis has been hinted at for decades now, and supported by findings such as that of the formation of coacervates (and significantly more since).
There isn't any good reason that is not of an aesthetical nature not to expect abiogenesis to have happened.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Who says? What meaning is there that life exists? So single-celled life that formed automatically meant meaning suddenly formed too?
No Gods are known to exist, so what are you talking about? Nothing factual.
What God?
As it is abiogenesis is the only real and plausible explanation for how life was able to form.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Let's look at the points one by one.
#1 No experimental evidence.
Half true. We have evidence of blocks of life forming in very simple setups like the Miller-Urey experiments. We have evidence of life evolving complex functions from more simple organisms. There is a gap of unknown steps, but nothing that requires magic intervention, just the same processes as before and after the gap.
#2 Complexity of life.
This argument has been brought before for the eye, the blood clotting mechanism, the bacterial flagellum and others. All turned out to have pathways to evolve. There are so many examples that, by now, it sounds like the boy who cried wolf is swearing that this time it's for real.
#3 Thermodynamic equilibrium.
Not applicable as we are talking about a system that has an external influx of energy.
#4 DNA base pairing.
I know nothing about that. Can you point to a paper where that was calculated? Also, afaik, the helix structure depends on the sugar-phosphate backbone, not on the bases.
#5 & #6 Damage/Degradation
Duh! Something degrades after it's dead. Who cares if new molecules are formed constantly?
So, we have a boatload of examples of science explaining things and showing the evidence for it, and we have zero examples of magic intervention. With that track record, my money is on the science.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Your opinion is noted.
Your bare claim is noted.
Your loaded question is noted.
Your intellectually dishonest active search to find reasons to cater to your a priori bias, is also noted.
Now go and search for points in support of abiogenesis.
And use "Duck Duck Go" instead of Google to avoid Google's algorithms to serve you only with results that keep you inside your bubble of interest/bias.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Agreed, he is just a feel good story humans created to explain the unknown to children so they can sleep better.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Hi, Jimmy. It's not clear yet just how probable abiogenesis is and it seems like there are some advances in our conceptual/philosophical understanding of the question as well as technical abilities that we'll need before we can confidently begin to put numbers on it.
Also, it is worth noting that even if the probability of life arising according to known natural forces is vanishingly small we still might expect it to happen now and then given the size and age of the universe.
Maybe we'll find something that suggests abiogenesis is impossible, but we have no indication that this is the case at this stage. Best for all of us to proceed with an open mind.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
The irony.You have 2 threads going that seem to contradict each other. In one you ponder why people want evidence for God and now in this one you dismiss abiogenesis because you don't see any evidence for it