‘Informally’ refers to ‘origin of life’ as an alternate meaning for abiogenesis. Please check.
-
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
Altfish
Veteran Member
Wikipedia is NOT a science journal. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia (The clue is in the name) and in a science article it reflects the latest science thinking. If you struggle with that, maybe this is a better source of "pseudo" science for you...Then does the WIKI statement represent science or is another form of Biblical teaching?
Abiogenesis - Conservapedia
I do not understand.
Is the WIKI statement "abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter...", an established fact?
Altfish
Veteran Member
As has already been said, no, but it is currently the best explanation. What you quoted is the definition of abiogenesis; I've not checked but I'm sure if you look up (say) 'Homeopathy', wiki will start with a definition of what it is, what it means. That does not mean that it is true, it is an established fact. It is the starting point for an article on the subject.
In science, unlike religion, there is little that is certain. All science is up for debate, change, advancement, that is what makes it exciting, dogma and certainty are nothing to do with science; science looks forward, not backwards.
You can change articles on Wiki, so if you think you have a better idea, better explanation, change it. But don't forget you'll need good references.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
That sentence means.
The meaning of the word "Abiogenrsis" is the natural process by which life arises from non living matter.... This is TRUE.
If you prefer to believe that "God did it" The sentence is also true, with God as the natural process.
It would then have the meaning..... Abiogenisis is the natural process God uses by which life arises from non living matter.
e.g. making living man from clay.
Neither of these statements require you to know HOW it was done, to be true.
Thank you. Columbus also pointed this out. But can we compare the following two sentences and see how the two are different?
The meaning of the word "Abiogenesis" is the natural process by which life arises from non living matter.
Versus
Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arises from non living matter.
Last edited:
Standard dictionary definitions are compiled in post 34. Also please see post 46.
Last edited:
Wikipedia is just worded that way. Your actual argument is one of semantics. You've been explained, but you keep rattling on about them not clearly saying that it is talking about the concept of abiogenesis.
God in Christianity - Wikipedia
"God in Christianity is the eternal being who created and preserves all things."
Should this warn us about the fact that it's talking about the concept itself and not whether or not the concept is fact?
That's a good beginning to an article on abiogenesis - a definition of the commonest meaning implied when using the word. Others on this thread have included creation by a deity, which would be another usage of the word. I exclude that idea when using the word. That is not to say that I have or can rule out creationism, just that I am not speaking about it when I refer to abiogenesis, and neither are most other people
Somebody else called deistic creation natural. Once again, that is an atypical usage. Most people would exclude such a thing from their meaning of natural, which stands in contrast to supernatural, a vague and ill-defined term. Perhaps better adjective for referring to the origin of life without the aid of a creator would be undirected or spontaneous. I frequently use the word naturalistic.
There is the possibility that some readers will come away from that article with that misunderstanding. As another poster suggested, being Wiki, you can improve the article if you like.
I didn't see any such mention either. A full treatment of the topic would mention the status of the idea - hypothesis, and to put the hypothesis in context, it might also list competing hypotheses.
The article has some other flaws. As you implied, it does seem to dismiss the possibility of creationism, which I agree makes it an example of the softer form of scientism - the kind that simply assumes that the naturalisitic, scientific hypothesis is correct.
Another is that though the article mentions panspermia, its second sentence reads, "On Earth, the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event but a gradual process of increasing complexity." I consider you correct to object to that statement. It assumes too much. We do not know that (undirected) abiogenesis has ever occurred, and if it has, we do not know that it occurred on earth.
As has also been mentioned, this is an encyclopedia entry, not science. It is a report on something being investigated by scientists, but is not in itself science.
This a fairly accurate short definition of abiogenesis, and not scientism. This complaint resembles the fundamentalist Christians that assert that evolution is 'only' a theory, and is highly suspect of religious agenda that in and of itself is negative scientism. Actually, neither evolution nor abiogenesis are truly individual theories nor hypothesis. There are a number of hypothesis and theories involved with these sciences. Yes, these theories and hypothesis can be and are being tested by scientific methods, and all the questions concerning the sciences of evolution and abiogenesis have not been answered.
The most important issue is that considering the present state of the evidence and knowledge of science there are no competing explanations.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Thanks I guess, though I didn't need them since I already know how it's defined.
Different angles of the same thing, some better worded than others. I don't see the issue here, Wikipedia articles often begin with definitions. Go see their revision histories and "talk" to see discussions, if controversial.
My own opinion is that abiogenesis is hypothetical, not on the level of theory yet. Say compared to evolution there is nothing certain known yet.
It's pretty standard approach in an encyclopedia article. In my opinion it seems you're making an issue about how encyclopedias are not written to match opinions of some readers.
Then does the WIKI statement represent science or is another form of Biblical teaching?
No, but the Bible proposes a Creation form of abiogenesis.
There are no such thing as proofs in science. Some describe abiogenesis as the evolution of inorganic chemicals to the early life forms capable of replication. I have no problem with this, because it is more an issue of semantics.
I have the same view. Thanks.
Well I do find the living non living "scientific" definition statement to be in total agreement with creationism they only seem to disagree on the details. So I would say if I was a scientist I might want to re think that!!!! I would say to self absorbed idiotic narcissistic creationists and intelligent designists, how God awfully atheist of you. How stupid of you and you and your ideas are Irrelevant go hang out in science fiction world and stop with the nonsense in context to the bible. Please it's embarrassingly clueless and not remotely even christian
Where did you see a complaint? I requested for a discussion and not for redressal of any grievance. I am not a fundamentalist Christian either. Your grievance and allegation OTOH, belies a reluctance to talk of science. Why start a blame game?
TOE is solidly backed by verifiable evidences. What are the evidences for hypothesis of "Abiogenesis"?
I agree.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your OP was highly accusatory which was based upon quoting a Wiki article out of context. If you read the entire article it is clear that abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. Also you were given evidence for abiogenesis. If you want more evidence check out this site:
Szostak Lab: Home
Some of the current models are explained there. If you want something a bit more professional they link the recent articles that Szostak was part of:
Szostak Lab: Publications
Since you have already denied or ignored specific evidence that has been given to you I am not going to do the work of quoting examples. You can see that the evidence is out there is you look for it.
And once again when you say:
"What are the evidences for hypothesis of "Abiogenesis"?"
You are not asking for evidence. The word "evidences" means "shows" it is not the plural of 'evidence'. The plural of the word 'evidence' is the word 'evidence'. Just as the plural of the word 'sheep' is 'sheep'. 'Sheeps' would be a verb and not a noun, just as the word 'evidences' is a verb and not a noun.
'
The existence of life is the evidence that abiogenesis happened at some point, for some reason. The "how" abiogenesis happened is what scientists are still investigating.
There's no consensus about that yet, because there's simply not enough empirical data to reach the high standards of the scientific community. People are still working to accumulate that evidence, but it's a tough problem. It happened a long time ago and the evidence was ephemeral.
The "why" of abiogenesis isn't in the scientific questions being asked. People ask that question too. But there's no objective way to answer that, so it's not a possible scientific question. People can invent whatever answer that they personally like, and it's as good as any other answer because it's totally subjective.
Scientific method requires objectivity and reality based data. Religion relies on subjective opinions for data. That's why they're so different.
Tom