Abiogenesis

[Jimmy]

so you do believe that life can not come from non life?

Is so, what life do you think the first life came from?

The world and existence appeared around 1980 in my belief

How does that statement address the question it is in reply to?

Idk bruh

 

[Subduction Zone]

My favorite offer of evidence for abiogenesis:

The theory of abiogenesis was proposed by Thomas Henry Huxley. The theory of abiogenesis states that the evolution of living forms from non-living matter is spontaneous. Example: Meat left open generates flies and maggots. This shows spontaneous generation.

<sigh> that is not a "theory". It is not even a hypothesis. Nor is spontaneous generation abiogenesis. That is quite a bit of wrong in a very short post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This has become an interesting thread for reasons other than intended.
Perhaps I should explain:
The OP was, I thought, a cute, if not too subtle, put down of the theory of abiogenesis. The quote is a favorite of mine because it seems so dumb. Which is of course my take on abiogenesis.

One should never call something that one does not understand "dumb". One can ask questions about it and perhaps even learn.

Do you realize that even creationists believe in an "abiogenesis" event?

 

[PureX]

One should never call something that one does not understand "dumb". One can ask questions about it and perhaps even learn.

Do you realize that even creationists believe in an "abiogenesis" event?

"Believing in" abiogenesis is as illogical as rejecting it. The fact is that we simply do not know how life came into existence. Or even what the structural parameters of it might be.

 

[ChristineM]

"Believing in" abiogenesis is as illogical as rejecting it.

Science can have a pretty good guess based on knowledge of the environment and available chemicals. Not enough to build a theory but some are trying.

So i guess it's less illogical the belief in god(s) yet billions of people do have belief that (at least their) god is real

 

[Little Dragon]

"Believing in" abiogenesis is as illogical as rejecting it. The fact is that we simply do not know how life came into existence. Or even what the structural parameters of it might be.

Yet on the balance of probability the three main competing hypothesis are examined, and only one stands out.

1) The untestable hypothesis that a non quantified supernatural entity, created, with un quantified process called magic God powers, all life on earth. Creationism.
2) The testable hypothesis that life originated on another planet and was relocated here via asteroid/comet impact. Panspermia.
3) The testable and now supportive evidenced hypothesis, that living chemical systems, arose from non living chemical processes. Abiogenesis.

1 Is just absurd. Irrational.
2. Just pushes the question back one step.
3. Is looking more and more likely, since the first Miller Urey experiment.

 

[PureX]

Science can have a pretty good guess based on knowledge of the environment and available chemicals. Not enough to build a theory but some are trying.

So i guess it's less illogical the belief in god(s) yet billions of people do have belief that (at least their) god is real

It's the belief, itself, that is foolish and unnecessary in my opinion. God is possible so far as any human can tell. Abiogenesis is possible so far as any human can tell. Many amazing things are possible so far as we humans can tell. What is not possible at present is our knowing the truth of these things. So why are we "believing in" them? Why are we insisting that these concepts of reality are reality when they are only possibly accurate theories of reality?

This "believing in" business looks a lot like delusional egotism, to me.

 

[PureX]

Yet on the balance of probability the three main competing hypothesis are examined, and only one stands out.

1) The untestable hypothesis that a non quantified supernatural entity, created, with un quantified process called magic God powers, all life on earth. Creationism.
2) The testable hypothesis that life originated on another planet and was relocated here via asteroid/comet impact. Panspermia.
3) The testable and now supportive evidenced hypothesis, that living chemical systems, arose from non living chemical processes. Abiogenesis.

1 Is just absurd. Irrational.
2. Just pushes the question back one step.
3. Is looking more and more likely, since the first Miller Urey experiment.

This is all just biased blather. (No offense.)

There are no probabilities but those your own bias is generating. The unknown is the unknown. It's not the "partially known" according to your bias agaist everyone else's bias. To claim that "God did it" is EXACTLY as plausible as claiming that the mindless forces of nature did it. In fact, to a lot of people, these would be considered to be the SAME CLAIM.

 

[ChristineM]

It's the belief, itself, that is foolish and unnecessary in my opinion. God is possible so far as any human can tell. Abiogenesis is possible so far as any human can tell. Many amazing things are possible so far as we humans can tell. What is not possible at present is our knowing the truth of these things. So why are we "believing in" them? Why are we insisting that these concepts of reality are reality when they are only possibly accurate theories of reality?

This "believing in" business looks a lot like delusional egotism, to me.

Good job science does not rely on your opinion then eh?

So belief in god(s) is foolish.

Not even theories but hypothesis

 

[PureX]

Good job science does not rely on your opinion then eh?

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

So belief in god(s) is foolish.

Yes. It is foolish.

Faith in God (or science), however, can be a very useful tool to us.

Not even theories but hypothesis

They are both postulations in the absence of actual knowledge.

 

[Father Heathen]

Mind creating mind makes more sense to me.

Why couldn't big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. have been god's process?

 

[Bthoth]

Why couldn't big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. have been god's process?

or another way to look at it:

All mass, all energy and all time, the totality of all that exist as 1 (god itself).

It combines the trinity (mass, energy, time)
It means, 'we' are all its children

all knowing at all time

and yes ""big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. have been god's process(es).


I made the adjustment almost 45 yrs ago and now it's easier to understand

 

[ChristineM]

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

Yes. It is foolish.

Faith in God (or science), however, can be a very useful tool to us.

They are both postulations in the absence of actual knowledge.

No idea? Enough said

A foolish tool?

There is some evidence (knowledge) for abiogenesis, environmental conditions etc? Although progress has been made in the lab showing at least some knowledge that knowledge is not complete.

As for gods, you are correct

 

[Father Heathen]

or another way to look at it:

All mass, all energy and all time, the totality of all that exist as 1 (god itself).

It combines the trinity (mass, energy, time)
It means, 'we' are all its children

all knowing at all time

and yes ""big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. have been god's process(es).


I made the adjustment almost 45 yrs ago and now it's easier to understand

Sounds like pantheism or panentheism.

 

[Bthoth]

Sounds like pantheism or panentheism.

Closer to a cosmological or simple scientific application.


for example: big bang is claimed to start the whole of everything. All mass, all energy and all time.
I grew up with both feet flat on the ground and learned to maintain a logical perspective of rational.

Combining the other systems of belief, is about natural even if esoteric.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Believing in" abiogenesis is as illogical as rejecting it. The fact is that we simply do not know how life came into existence. Or even what the structural parameters of it might be.

It appears that you did not understand that post. I was simply stating a fact. You probably believe in some sort of abiogenesis event yourself. I really do not know of any that do not accept one. We do know that there was such an event, even if we do not know how.

 

[Colt]

Why couldn't big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. have been god's process?

Did Ai happen spontaneously? Did it invent itself? For that reason!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did Ai happen spontaneously? Did it invent itself? For that reason!

I see. For poor reasoning. That is pretty lame. You took a process that you know was done by man and tried to apply it to a process that you know was not done by man. And this convinces you somehow?

 

[Colt]

I see. For poor reasoning. That is pretty lame. You took a process that you know was done by man and tried to apply it to a process that you know was not done by man. And this convinces you somehow?

IMOP mind created mind. Its you who claim that something like lightening stuck a mud puddle, after some time primitive life forms "happened' then fell uphill with no oversite for hundreds of millions of years until man could create Ai! Noah's ark makes more sense than that!

 

[Subduction Zone]

IMOP mind created mind. Its you who claim that something like lightening stuck a mud puddle, after some time primitive life forms "happened' then fell uphill with no oversite for hundreds of millions of years until man could create Ai! Noah's ark makes more sense than that!

An opinion is worthless if one cannot support it.