Abiogenesis or the Lord?

[YoursTrue]

Just reading a few of these posts, one definition of abiogenesis is (from wikipedia): "In biology, abiogenesis...or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds."

 

[YoursTrue]

I just know. Life will never be made in a lab

Not that I disagree with you, but I'd like to go over one definition of abiogenesis: In biology, abiogenesis ...is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. It seems highly unlikely that this could happen in a lab. Let's just say that is the correct definition of abiogenesis. I agree that it could never happen in a lab. OK, or anywhere else, such as on the earth. Or Mars. Or the moon. etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just reading a few of these posts, one definition of abiogenesis is (from wikipedia): "In biology, abiogenesis...or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds."

Yes, that is the most likely form of abiogenesis. Though even your God poofing life into existence by magic would still bee an abiogenesis event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not that I disagree with you, but I'd like to go over one definition of abiogenesis: In biology, abiogenesis ...is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. It seems highly unlikely that this could happen in a lab. Let's just say that is the correct definition of abiogenesis. I agree that it could never happen in a lab. OK, or anywhere else, such as on the earth. Or Mars. Or the moon. etc.

It probably cannot happen in a lab since it likely took millions of years on its own. There are some demands that only show how ignorant the person making the demand is.

 

[We Never Know]

We might. But does demonstration of abiogenesis rule out God?

It shows a god not needed. So there's that.

 

[We Never Know]

Life was never created from non living components in a lab

And we have never seen life created from non-living components in nature.. So there's that.

Its all what one chooses to believe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Care to present the evidence?

That is a game of what is taken for granted and ends up in philosophy in my sub-culture.
For others it is science and/or religion.
The problem in the end is that there is no one true science, religion or philosophy for all of the world.
But for all involved some in effect claim a fundamental dogmatic standard, that is not really that to them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I guess we’ll never know. Life has never been created in a lab from non living components. Did abiogenesis even occur 3.5 billion yrs ago? Maybe it took the hand of God to create life. I guess we'll never know.

Abiogenesis or the Lord?

I don't know and I don't care. I don't accept your framing of the question and do it differently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does it really matter? The fact is we're here. I knew an Eastern Orthodox priest who used to say that. The Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, could be the mechanisms God, whatever God or Gods one believes in, used to create. The only conflict is for those who take religious scriptures literally. Keeping an open mind eliminates that. There is a Hindu story that when Lord Vishnu woke up from a nap, a lotus sprouted from his navel, giving birth to Lord Brahma the creator god. Yeah I know, pretty far-fetched. But it's sometimes interpreted as the expansion of Lord Vishnu's navel being the Big Bang form which all of creation comes. But whether it's true or not doesn't matter, because we're here. Personally I think the idea of something, even a pretty lotus, growing out of someone's navel a bit off-putting. But, Hindu stories are nothing if not colorful.

Or take methodological naturalism literally as a fact about the world as such.

 

[gnostic]

It shows a god not needed. So there's that.

But that's not just Abiogenesis.

All Natural Sciences - physics, chemistry, Earth's science, astronomy and life sciences, and all fields and subfield in these respective science, only search for testable explanation of natural phenomena and their natural processes.

None of these sciences require god to explain the reality of nature.

Why is that people have the tendency to single out Evolution or the Abiogenesis not needing god, when god isn’t required to explain electromagnetism or particle physics or quantum mechanisms or relativity, chemical reactions, etc.

And sciences alone, aren’t the only ones that don’t required the idiocy of “god did it”, such as engineering, technology, medicine, etc.

Would “god did it” or any scriptures, help people to design roads and bridges, to build cars, ships or planes, to design & build computers, to write & test computer codes, to diagnose or to treat bacterial diseases, and so on.

None of the scriptures can teach, explain or train anyone, anything. Like, while the Bible may mention farming to grow food, it never teach or explain how...it’s vague on the details, as it never explain.

Like I said, why single out Abiogenesis? Do you see any physics or any chemistry, where teachers tell you to include god your solution?

If anything, religions and belief in god would only hamper learning sciences.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

we have never seen life created from non-living components in nature.. So there's that.

You probably meant that we haven't seen life arise from nonlife. When the grow and divide, living cells create life from nonliving ingredients in its milieu every moment of every day.

You probably weren't expecting to see nature repeat itself in your lifetime, either, even if naturalistic abiogenesis occurred. I don't think you make that kind of argument characteristic of creationists - if we don't see it now, it didn't happen then - but it's a common one.

Not that I disagree with you, but I'd like to go over one definition of abiogenesis: In biology, abiogenesis ...is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. It seems highly unlikely that this could happen in a lab.

Are you familiar with the incredulity fallacy? It's basically, "I don't see how it could have happened, so it didn't," or in this case, almost certainly didn't. The same argument can be made about a god, and it is equally fallacious. One of those two things happened, right? You probably think it's the god option, but what's less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated than a god? Try to imagine something more complex and therefore less likely than that.

And to do what? Arrange chemicals to organize into life? As I alluded above, they do that without intelligent oversight every moment of every day in almost every actively living thing (maybe not spores). All that is necessary for chemicals that can react to do so is that the reaction be spontaneous (negative free energy) and the components in close proximity and properly oriented. The solvent, water, facilitates the first, and the mass and charge distributions of the reactants determine their orientation as they approach.