Wiki the God of Scientism

[atanu]

This thread is related to another thread 'Science and Scientism'.

On Abiogenesis, Wikipedia begins as below:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

Abiogenesis (British English: /ˌeɪˌbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnɪsɪs, -ˌbaɪə-/, /-ˌbiːoʊ-, -ˌbiːə-/[3][4][5][6]), biopoiesis,[7] or informally the origin of life,[8][9][10] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[8][9][11][12]

Many readers, particularly some who are not of science background, will imagine that it is well proven that life arose from non living things. There is no mention that this is a hypothesis or a theory.

Is this science? Discuss please.

...

 

[LionLooking]

Many readers, particularly some who are not of science background, will imagine that it is well proven that life arose from non living things. There is no mention that this a hypothesis or even a theory.

Is this science? Discuss please.

...

Unless life was present at the beginning of the universe (unlikely, as the conditions then were probably not compatible with life - to say the least!), then life did indeed arise from non-living things.
Even if the Bible is true and the Big Bang is false, this would still stand. Didn't God make Adam from clay? Clay is not alive is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread is related to another thread 'Science and Scientism'.

On Abiogenesis, Wikipedia begins as below:



Many readers, particularly some who are not of science background, will imagine that it is well proven that life arose from non living things. There is no mention that this is a hypothesis or that this a theory.

Is this science? Discuss please.

...

Abiogenesis is not a theory. If that was the case it would be well proven. It is still in the hypothetical stage. Many of the problems of abiogenesis have been answered, but not all of them.

Do you have a problem with abiogenesis? It is still the only concept supported by any scientific evidence at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unless life was present at the beginning of the universe (unlikely, as the conditions then were probably not compatible with life - to say the least!), then life did indeed arise from non-living things.
Even if the Bible is true and the Big Bang is false, this would still stand. Didn't God make Adam from clay? Clay is not alive is it?

Many creationists do not realize that they too believe in abiogenesis. They use magic where other claim it was a natural process.

 

[atanu]

Unless life was present at the beginning of the universe (unlikely, as the conditions then were probably not compatible with life - to say the least!), then life did indeed arise from non-living things.
Even if the Bible is true and the Big Bang is false, this would still stand. Didn't God make Adam from clay? Clay is not alive is it?

Then does the WIKI statement represent science or is another form of Biblical teaching?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then does the WIKI statement represent science or is another form of Biblical teaching?

I represents science, but just like the Bible you cannot quote it out of context. After all, if you can quote a source out of context then at least twelve times the Bible says "There is no God".

 

[LionLooking]

Then does the WIKI statement represent science or is another form of Biblical teaching?

As I said earlier, we know that life originated from non-living things - even the Bible agrees with this.
The Wiki article goes on to outline the many, many scientific hypotheses which may explain exactly how this happened.
That's what science is about - people come up with theories which can then be tested to see if they work or not via experimentation.
It's a very interesting article showing how ideas have evolved since Aristotle's day up to the present.

 

[sayak83]

This thread is related to another thread 'Science and Scientism'.

On Abiogenesis, Wikipedia begins as below:




Many readers, particularly some who are not of science background, will imagine that it is well proven that life arose from non living things. There is no mention that this is a hypothesis or a theory.

Is this science? Discuss please.

...

The wiki is correct. Abiogenesis is indeed the above defined process. The question is whether it happened or not and, if it happened, how.

 

[columbus]

This thread is related to another thread 'Science and Scientism'.

On Abiogenesis, Wikipedia begins as below:




Many readers, particularly some who are not of science background, will imagine that it is well proven that life arose from non living things. There is no mention that this is a hypothesis or a theory.

Is this science? Discuss please.

...

You could take the word "natural" out of the meaning given, and insert "magical" if you wanted to be religiously inclusive. But then Creationists wouldn't have anything to complain about.

As has been pointed out, everybody believes in abiogenesis. The difference between Creationism and everything else is that Creationism stops with what can be found in Scripture, "God just did it, nobody knows how." Everybody else, including lots of devout religious folks, accept the value of finding out how abiogenesis came about There are no firm conclusions yet, so of course there's no theory. There are not even testable hypothesis yet, but lots of work is being done on that subject.

At this time the only honest answer to the question "How did abiogenesis happen? " is "Nobody knows for sure. But people are working on it." Scientists will have more and more information to work with as time goes on. Creationists never will really, because "God did it." doesn't help you figure out anything.
Tom

 

[George-ananda]

Wikipedia begins as below:

Wikipedia is now a so-called Skeptical organization on any subject related to the paranormal or spirituality. Apparently its atheist founder Jimmy Wales is on-board with an organization called Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia.
I used to see balanced articles but no more.

Reader, know what you are getting on Wikipedia. I have seen Wikipedia criticized by many sources recently because of this. 'Buyer beware' when reading this atheist skewed website.

 

[atanu]

The wiki is correct. Abiogenesis is indeed the above defined process. The question is whether it happened or not and, if it happened, how.

That is not the point, I am afraid.

The Wiki page says: Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter,

Is that statement accurate? Is it already established that abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter?

Or, is abiogenesis a scientific hypothesis that life arises from non-living matter?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wikipedia is now a so-called Skeptical organization on any subject related to the paranormal or spirituality. Apparently its atheist founder Jimmy Wales is on-board with an organization called Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia.
I used to see balanced articles but no more.

Reader, know what you are getting on Wikipedia. I have seen Wikipedia criticized by many sources recently because of this. 'Buyer beware' when reading this atheist skewed website.

Only people that do not understand the scientific method tend to do this.

For many concepts Wikipedia is an excellent starting point. They link many of their sources. I would not say that they are definitive, but they are right far more often than they are wrong.

And if anyone is interested in seeing the current state of abiogenesis this is perhaps one of the best sites to use:

Szostak Lab: Home

Jack Szostak is a Nobel Prize winning biologist that is on the cutting edge of abiogenesis research.

 

[atanu]

You could take the word "natural" out of the meaning given, and insert "magical" if you wanted to be religiously inclusive. But then Creationists wouldn't have anything to complain about.

As has been pointed out, everybody believes in abiogenesis. The difference between Creationism and everything else is that Creationism stops with what can be found in Scripture, "God just did it, nobody knows how." Everybody else, including lots of devout religious folks, accept the value of finding out how abiogenesis came about There are no firm conclusions yet, so of course there's no theory. There are not even testable hypothesis yet, but lots of work is being done on that subject.

At this time the only honest answer to the question "How did abiogenesis happen? " is "Nobody knows for sure. But people are working on it." Scientists will have more and more information to work with as time goes on. Creationists never will really, because "God did it." doesn't help you figure out anything.
Tom

Please see post 11.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not the point, I am afraid.

Te Wiki page says: Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter,

Is that statement accurate? Is it already established that abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter?

Or, is abiogenesis a scientific hypothesis that life arises from non-living matter?

The Wiki page is describing the common definition of "abiogenesis". Why can't it be both? You do realize that many scientific hypotheses are accurate, don't you? They are merely not supported strongly enough to be called "theories" at this time.

An idea being only a hyopthesis, and remember a hypothesis is still supported by evidence, does not mean that it is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, "scientistm" is usually a false attack by creationists on the sciences. It is usually best to avoid the word. The OP was clearly wrong in using that word.

 

[atanu]

As I said earlier, we know that life originated from non-living things ....

How? What are the evidences.? Can you list some?

 

[George-ananda]

Only people that do not understand the scientific method tend to do this.

Do what?

Did you check my link on guerilla skepticism? Wikipedia can no longer be considered a fair and neutral website on paranormal and spiritual subjects. Their articles have been heavily edited by that group in the last two to three years. I have seen articles presenting both sides get edited.

But many like a bias favoring their position. That is not a true scientific attitude.

 

[columbus]

Or, is abiogenesis a scientific hypothesis that life arises from non-living matter?

That is just what the word means.
4.5 billion years ago the earth was ball of molten rock. It was utterly sterile. The outer layer cooled some and now there's living things. All abiogenesis really means is "life arising where there didn't used to be living things. The Bible describes that as well, when God formed living things. Scientists look for natural causes, Creationists settle for not knowing because there's no way to look for nonnatural causes for whatever obviously did happen. If some currently unimaginable process is actually what caused life, then that process would become natural. We would just expand what we know about nature.
Tom

 

[LionLooking]

How? What are the evidences.? Can you list some?

The Big Bang
Geological conditions on early Earth
Evolution

Even from a non-scientific, religious POV (which I see as the precursor to philosophy, itself a precursor of science) -
Genesis
Theogeny
Norse Myth
Heck - ALL mythologies that I know of

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do what?

Did you check my link on guerilla skepticism? Wikipedia can no longer be considered a fair and neutral website on paranormal and spiritual subjects. Their articles have been heavily edited by that group in the last two to three years. I have seen articles presenting both sides get edited.

But many like a bias favoring their position. That is not a true scientific attitude.

No, I did not check it out. Should I ? I just took a quick glance at it and found nothing of value.