Didn't see any trace of bias? OK.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Wiki the God of Scientism
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
-
- Tags
- abiogenesis scientism
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What "shows"? Do you realize that is what the word "evidences" means. When one is talking about evidence the plural of evidence is evidence. But as you see you have been given some of the evidence that supports the claims.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It's the former. See below,
abiogenesis | Definition of abiogenesis in English by Oxford Dictionaries
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
For the same reason as there is the word consciousness and multiple scientific theories about the workings of consciousness.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You seem to have forgotten that you asked for evidence.
Once again, you asked for evidence.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
My point was that an something can be both correct and a hypothesis.
So once again, why can't it be both?
I don't understand you. But maybe that's because of the bad cold I have caught.
LionLooking
Member
Firstly, nothing in science is 'proof'. The best we can hope for is evidence which supports a theory. Few things are 100% guaranteed in science - it alters its ideas based on new evidence.
If the examples I gave are true (currently they are the best models we have) then they are 'proofs' (in simple terms) that life arose from non-living things as life could not exist under those conditions.
No, but through common sense, it supports the belief that life arose from non-living things. DNA and RNA are non-living molecules and evolution suggests that life began because of them.
Absolutely not - I was trying to play devil's advocate by saying that even the non-scientific accept that life came from non-life.
That was a mistake because, as you rightly say, they are not proofs - merely beliefs of primitive men.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I don't understand you. But maybe that's because of the bad cold I have caught.
You said that the definition of abiogenesis given was correct. The OP then said this:
"There is no mention that this is a hypothesis or a theory.
Is this science? Discuss please."
It is obviously science. Not only that many hypotheses are correct and most theories are correct in the explanations that they give. That is why I asked why can't both the definition be correct and why can't it be science, even though abiogenesis is still in the hypothesis stage.
The OP indicates the poster does not understand what a hypothesis is much less what a scientific theory is.
How abiogenesis could happen is indeed a legitimate scientific field.
Yes. I have seen that. But possibly you have not checked the sentence below that:
Life's alleged origin from lifeless chemicals is commonly called chemical or prebiotic evolution, or abiogenesis.’
See what many others say:
1. Definition of ABIOGENESIS
:specifically : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth : organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances
2. Abiogenesis | biology
Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex.
3. Abiogenesis: Definition, Theory & Evidence - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
Abiogenesis is a scientific theory which states that life arose on Earth via spontaneous natural means due to conditions present at the time. In other words, life came from non-living matter.
4. the definition of abiogenesis
....the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed fromnonliving matter.
5. Abiogenesis definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
Also called: autogenesis
the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from nonliving matter
6. abiogenesis
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneousgeneration.
...
It surprises me no end that Wikipedia is now the standard of science and english.
Okay. Models.
The point of the thread was that Wiki makes abiogenesis a fact by stating: iAbiogenesis is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter".
The statement should, IMO, include that it is hypothetical, a thinking, a theory etc. etc.
LionLooking
Member
Yep - just like the models describing spherical Earth orbiting the Sun, or gravity, or electricity, or atoms, or just about anything else in the natural world.
Highlighting a word or making it bold because you don't understand its meaning doesn't make it less valid.
Why do you distrust science so? Do you think we'd be better off without it? Please tell - I'm curious. The only others I've ever come across who are so anti-science are Biblical creationists which you obviously are not.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wikipedia is not the standard. It is merely a good starting point.
And your source that called it theory was clearly wrong and did not understand what a scientific theory is.
Wikipedia is a very good general source. When it comes to settled science it is very reliable.
Why the accusation? I know I am illiterate. Please educate me without accusations.My profession is science and I do not distrust science . I am pointing out the usage in Wikipedia, which is obviously misleading, as shown by definitions from standard dictionaries in post 34.
In gravity, electricity, kinetics, thermodynamics, quantum physics etc. we can compute predictions and test them. We have samples with which we can calibrate. There is no such evidence for abiogenesis. It is a scientific hypothesis and a field of enquiry wherein studies are ongoing.
Wikipedia usage: "biogenesis is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter", seems to imply that it is already established scientifically that life originates from non living matter.
Notice when it says “or informally”.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Allow me to explain. You rudely put a word in bold print as if you were making a point You only demonstrated your ignorance when you did so. The proper action to take when you do not understand something is to ask questions politely and /properly.
I find that rather doubtful. Please elaborate.
Half right, and your and your response adds to the doubt /about your profession. Abiogenesis is in the hypothetical stage. That does not mean that there is no evidence for it.
That is only because you insist one quoting out of context. A proper scientist would know better. The Bible says at least twelve times that there is no God if you allow quoting out of context.