Abiogenesis

[Gabethewiking]

Mestemia, you *******!!!

I got terrified seeing a small bug that got inside my monitor (I got a touchscreen tabletop) and I started to squish to kill it and then realize, if killsing it i will have a big stain on the monitor so I stopped, and I looked, and I was like ***!!!! and then realized it was your logo... *******...

 

[Gabethewiking]

Sigh...cos I was thinking, for us/all life to have evolved to where it is now, it would have to have evolved from non life to life. So even at that level, evolution had to have taken place, no?

I will give a better response later more specifically about the topic, Mestemia's logo made me lose my thread here. Anyway, I am wondering, would you consider Humans Superior to other life forms or animals? Could you explain your answer as well.

 

[meogi]

Sigh....I've been taking a kicking in other threads on the subject of evolution. I KNOW THAT EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABIOGENESIS! But what I'd like to know if, of those who subscribe to the general ToE, how many would accept these options:
1. We were created by a divine creator/being ie God
2. We came about by natural means yet to be discovered
3. We came about by other means

I chose all (I love multiple choice polls ).

I would accept all those possibilities. The thing is, we have very few leads to go on. And they are mostly a choice based upon the person's own worldview.

I KNOW THAT EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABIOGENESIS!

Then please take it a step further and realize that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. They are separate entities. Abiogenesis has the downfall of very little information, coupled with difficult test experiments and the general hypothetical (not theoretical) nature of how to formulate these tests.

The Theory of Evolution, however, does not.

And if I may comment on Mestemia:
I believe his I don't know and don't care statement is merely pointing out that:
1) Evolution has no relevance to any origins argument.
2) He isn't concerned with the origins of life, but rather the diversity.
3) He is questioning your concern with the origins of life, and how you're associating it with anything involving Evolution.

I apologize if I misinterpreted you're meaning, Mestemia.

 

[Willamena]

Sigh....I've been taking a kicking in other threads on the subject of evolution. I KNOW THAT EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABIOGENESIS! But what I'd like to know if, of those who subscribe to the general ToE, how many would accept these options:
1. We were created by a divine creator/being ie God
2. We came about by natural means yet to be discovered
3. We came about by other means

1. Ok.
2. Yup.
3. Most likely.

 

[Willamena]

So thinking, inteligent scientists had to help the process? Not entirely unaided then...:sarcastic

Please, as a personal favour to me, don't listen to Silver.

 

[Tiapan]

If god=natural universe (ie god is Entropy+matter+electromagnetic+weak+strong+gravity) then all are true, so why personalise the universe as some sort of humanoid when in fact it is a universe, mostly empty space with rocks dust and a few zillion hotspots, not some bloke with thongs long hair that can defy gravity and have intellectual discussions with manic depressants like Moses and Noah.

If you are saying the universe is somehow intelligent and deliberately created or alters its self to appease us humans on this tiny planet on the fringe of a rather ordinary galaxy, then I would have to totally strongly disagree. God could be Dark matter, but if we are made in his image then "we have a problem Houston".

Cheers

 

[Alceste]

I accept the fact of evolution. I picked the middle option but it's not quite right. There are quite a few workable hypotheses relating to the origins of life, which to me indicates we've gone some way to understanding the relevant natural processes. Is it a closed case? No, but it has certainly been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the beginning of life is possible based solely on known properties of the relevant chemicals. I'm confident that the efforts of scientists working in this area will eventually bear fruit and settle it once and for all (at least for everyone who is able to accommodate facts that conflict with their religious myths). Since we have several plausible abiogenesis scenarios based on chemical properties alone, no divine agency was required. Therefore it does not matter if you believe in a creator or not as far as understanding the origins of life is concerned. Personally, I don't see the point.

 

[Halcyon]

God may have given us the keys to create our own heaven:-

If future scientists can work out how to time travel,
then they can travel back through time and upload the minds of every individual just before death, to a virtual reality like an advanced 'Second Life'.
That way we can achieve immortality.

Perhaps they already did that, we'd never know the difference.

I voted for the second option, although we do know basically what must have happened for life to arise from non-life, we just aren't sure of the specifics.

 

[Jose Fly]

Truthseeker,

Your question asks, "how many would accept these options", the important word there being "would". I would accept any of those, depending on the evidence. I currently subscribe to a natural origin of life because that's where the data leads. Current hypothesized scenarios all involve organic chemistry, and when we look at life forms--from the simplest to the most complex--that's all we see going on: chemistry.

I would think that if a god were required for life, then when we looked at life we would see something going on that defied natural mechanisms. But we don't.

 

[Kerr]

Sigh....I've been taking a kicking in other threads on the subject of evolution. I KNOW THAT EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABIOGENESIS! But what I'd like to know if, of those who subscribe to the general ToE, how many would accept these options:
1. We were created by a divine creator/being ie God
2. We came about by natural means yet to be discovered
3. We came about by other means

It is my personal assessment that the second option is more likely.