Abiogenisis

[Brian2]

Nothing is. There are just gradations of evidence.

And I guess some people would accept less evidence and be convinced. Some people would just not worry about the evidence and say that God is not real so abiogenesis without God must be true.
But of course even if it did end up working it does not eliminate the need for God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't really want to say that chemicals cannot be mixed together and zapped and produce life, God did say "Let the earth bring forth........life" after all.
If science however has not produced life chemically and observed it and repeated it etc then it is just an assumption that life is chemicals and chemical processes.

No, that is simply wrong. And that is shown by how they are addressing this problem. When one has a difficult problem one breaks it down into parts. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a scientific possibility because there is no verified evidence, but it is a possibility. Science cannot say yay or nay to God or the existence of spirit.
Even if science ended up saying that as far as it knows life is chemical in nature, that does not mean it is true, so the theological claim can be true but science does not know because it sees and analyses chemicals and physical processes only.

I do believe that @Valjean already said this. Even if it is shown that life could arise naturally that does not mean that God did not take a shortcut. But that only leads to Lastthursdayism.

 

[Brian2]

What is the competing hypothesis? How is an unevidenced, theological claim a possibility?

Trans-dimentional constructor mice is a "competing possibility." It is just as well evidenced as Goddidit.
Why is "theology" being compared to science? One is pure, unevidenced folklore. The other is based on observable, testable, repeatable, evidence.

So you reject all evidence for God as being evidence for God. I suppose you have to do that because just one bit of reasonable evidence for God is pretty much proof of God.
But trans-dimensional constructor mice is no more than something I can wave my hand at and it will disappear.

 

[Brian2]

No, that is simply wrong. And that is shown by how they are addressing this problem. When one has a difficult problem one breaks it down into parts. Does that make sense to you?

Yes it makes sense to address issues separately. And once answers start popping up for those issues then it could be said that it is a bit more than an assumption.
Let's say that all the problems end up with answers. That would probably mean that science will say we have solved all the problems for life and abiogenesis has been shown to be true. And we can even solve the problems again and again and show other scientists how it was done so they can do it etc etc
Does that really mean that it has been shown that life is chemically based and that life could be made out of just a bunch of chemicals? I would say not until life is made out of a bunch of chemicals.
Science is just studying the material side of life and presuming that is all that life is. Science is unable to study any spirit side to life if it exists so cannot say that the spirit side does not exist, and this would be even more so when we consider the consciousness side of life.

 

[Valjean]

It's not a scientific possibility because there is no verified evidence, but it is a possibility. Science cannot say yay or nay to God or the existence of spirit.
Even if science ended up saying that as far as it knows life is chemical in nature, that does not mean it is true, so the theological claim can be true but science does not know because it sees and analyses chemicals and physical processes only.

So we should treat the transdimensional creator mice hypothesis as equally plausible? Is there not an evidence based plausibility hierarchy?
The creator mice are just as well evidenced as Goddidit; precisely equal. Science cannot say yay or nay to either of them.

 

[Valjean]

And I guess some people would accept less evidence and be convinced. Some people would just not worry about the evidence and say that God is not real to abiogenesis without God must be true.
But of course even if it did end up working it does not eliminate the need for God.

What need for God?
God not being real does not affect the abiogenisis theory a whit. It's not based on God. It's based on empirical evidence.

 

[Valjean]

So you reject all evidence for God as being evidence for God. I suppose you have to do that because just one bit of reasonable evidence for God is pretty much proof of God.
But trans-dimensional constructor mice is no more than something I can wave my hand at and it will disappear.

Show me evidence for God.

 

[exchemist]

Ok @Subduction Zone. I bowed out of that other thread. Lets take it up here.

Show me evidence abiogenisis actually happened(not a few things might be possible or maybe's). or admit defeat. Your choice.

Did the Miller Urey experiment produce life?
Yes or no!

The Miller Urey experiment was not intended to produce life. It showed that amino acids could in principle be produced naturally from inorganic starting materials.

The evidence for abiogenesis is the evidence that once there was no life on the early earth. As there now is life, then, scientifically speaking, abiogenesis must have occurred.

Contrary to what you may read on poorly written internet sites, abiogenesis is not a theory. It's just a label for an event, or process. At one point there was no life. Later, there was. That change is called abiogenesis. We have no theory of abiogenesis as yet. We have some hypotheses for parts of the process and some evidence to support them.

 

[Nimos]

Science is just studying the material side of life and presuming that is all that life is. Science is unable to study any spirit side to life if it exists so cannot say that the spirit side does not exist, and this would be even more so when we consider the consciousness side of life.

This is kind of irrelevant, science only works with the natural world not the supernatural. And so far no one has demonstrated that a spiritual side even exists or even defined what it is supposed to be.

What science is trying to figure out or demonstrate is how life could come into existence through natural means, nothing else.

 

[exchemist]

I don't really want to say that chemicals cannot be mixed together and zapped and produce life, God did say "Let the earth bring forth........life" after all.
If science however has not produced life chemically and observed it and repeated it etc then it is just an assumption that life is chemicals and chemical processes.

In a way you are right. But then that is the working assumption of science. It is called methodological naturalism and is fundamental to science. Science looks for explanations of nature in nature itself, rather than invoking supernatural influence.

So science looks for natural means by which inorganic starting materials could have led to living organisms, just as it looks for natural explanations of earthquakes, or why the stars shine, or why iron rusts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes it makes sense to address issues separately. And once answers start popping up for those issues then it could be said that it is a bit more than an assumption.
Let's say that all the problems end up with answers. That would probably mean that science will say we have solved all the problems for life and abiogenesis has been shown to be true. And we can even solve the problems again and again and show other scientists how it was done so they can do it etc etc
Does that really mean that it has been shown that life is chemically based and that life could be made out of just a bunch of chemicals? I would say not until life is made out of a bunch of chemicals.
Science is just studying the material side of life and presuming that is all that life is. Science is unable to study any spirit side to life if it exists so cannot say that the spirit side does not exist, and this would be even more so when we consider the consciousness side of life.

Good, we agree then that abiogenesis is more than an assumption. As I have said, I recently heard a biologist claim that biologists have solved eight out of ten of the major problems in abiogenesis.

And it is best to say that there is strong evidence that life is just chemical in nature. Have they proved it? No, science does not prove things. Science does not study the spiritual side of humanity since it does not appear to exist. At least not in more than a concept


But you once again try to shift the burden of proof. That burden is on the believers in spirits. The problem is that most do not seem to understand the burden of proof and the few that do cannot think of a proper way to treat their beliefs. It seems that you want scientific evidence for your beliefs. That means you need to come up with a valid way to test your beliefs. How would you test what you believe? What reasonable test could possibly refute your beliefs?

 

[Brian2]

So we should treat the transdimensional creator mice hypothesis as equally plausible? Is there not an evidence based plausibility hierarchy?
The creator mice are just as well evidenced as Goddidit; precisely equal. Science cannot say yay or nay to either of them.

Now you're catching on. But the mice thingi has absolutely no evidence except it's mention by people who do not believe it exists. God otoh has plenty of evidence, just not evidence that science can use.
So are you saying that it is impossible that God gave life because science cannot see or analyse spirit? That doesn't make sense. It might make sense if you think that only science can tell us about the world, but we know that is not true, so it does not make sense.

 

[Brian2]

What need for God?
God not being real does not affect the abiogenisis theory a whit. It's not based on God. It's based on empirical evidence.

That's the whole point. God is left out of the picture altogether.
So when could it be said by science that abiogenesis has been shown to be true?

 

[Brian2]

Show me evidence for God.

Life exists, the universe exists, hundreds of Biblical prophecies have come true, Witnesses say they saw Jesus alive and well 3 days after he was crucified.

 

[Brian2]

This is kind of irrelevant, science only works with the natural world not the supernatural. And so far no one has demonstrated that a spiritual side even exists or even defined what it is supposed to be.

What science is trying to figure out or demonstrate is how life could come into existence through natural means, nothing else.

And all it can do is show how bodies might have evolved from chemicals, that is what the natural world is. After doing that, does that mean that abiogenesis has demonstrated how life could come into existence through natural means?

 

[Brian2]

In a way you are right. But then that is the working assumption of science. It is called methodological naturalism and is fundamental to science. Science looks for explanations of nature in nature itself, rather than invoking supernatural influence.

So science looks for natural means by which inorganic starting materials could have led to living organisms, just as it looks for natural explanations of earthquakes, or why the stars shine, or why iron rusts.

That is true, and would it take till life is made artificially to show abiogenesis is true or does the naturalistic methodology govern things to the extent that once the physical hurdles are overcome in abiogenesis then abiogenesis would be seen to have been shown to be correct?

 

[Brian2]

Good, we agree then that abiogenesis is more than an assumption. As I have said, I recently heard a biologist claim that biologists have solved eight out of ten of the major problems in abiogenesis.

And it is best to say that there is strong evidence that life is just chemical in nature. Have they proved it? No, science does not prove things. Science does not study the spiritual side of humanity since it does not appear to exist. At least not in more than a concept


But you once again try to shift the burden of proof. That burden is on the believers in spirits. The problem is that most do not seem to understand the burden of proof and the few that do cannot think of a proper way to treat their beliefs. It seems that you want scientific evidence for your beliefs. That means you need to come up with a valid way to test your beliefs. How would you test what you believe? What reasonable test could possibly refute your beliefs?

No I don't want scientific evidence for my beliefs.
When would abiogenesis be thought of as scientifically true do you think?

 

[Nimos]

And all it can do is show how bodies might have evolved from chemicals, that is what the natural world is. After doing that, does that mean that abiogenesis has demonstrated how life could come into existence through natural means?

Yes, that is correct.

 

[Audie]

Per your rules... You do not deserve answers for dodging questions. You lose. Move on or answer the OP.

Short goodbye thrre