That is equivalent of a proof of God.
-
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
That is equivalent of a proof of God.
In what way do you see that?
In a very real way, I agree. So, I am a deist. Reality is sufficient proof, to me, that something is god (sort of) . I am not a theist, because I simply cannot believe that the subjective opinions of other people are about God. Religion is about humans, not God. Science is the rigorous study of Reality, so science is about God.
Science tells us what Really is, religion tells us what we want to hear.
Tom
We have a very dead world all agreeing all is dead that's our crisis.
Your argument very strongly resembles that of a Christian apologist. I most definitely see a complaint in your reference to scientism, and odd chronic misuse of 'proof, which parallels Christian apologist arguments. If you were familiar with the philosophy of science and academic literature your questions would not be framed in this manner.
You have to read the literature yourself to understand the evidence. I have a strong back ground in biochemistry, and geochemistry as my education and work as 40 years as a professional geologist and soil scientist. Do you have the educational background to understand the literature if I cite it? Have you read any of the academic literature on the subject? These are critical questions if you are going to question the science of abiogenesis.
In brief summary of some of the recent achievements in the field of abiogenesis,
(1) They have found the fossils of the simplist of organism and early organic residue in ancient rocks at or close to when life first appeared on earth located in a hydrothermal vents. This clearly parallels the very primitive forms of life found around these vents today. This represents a continuous energy source for the first life forms to arise.
(2) In these hydrothermal vent environments there exists various minerals such as iron minerals that can serve as
catalyst environments where early proteins and amino acids can attach to form primitive RNA genetic material.
(3) Research has identified and replicated some of the steps required in the formation of early primitive RNA.
I just noticed that @Subduction Zone listed some excellent academic sources that I was going cite. Have you read these academic references?!?!?!?!????
Last edited:
You sound very didactic for a geochemist. Ha. Ha.
Just for your information, I am lead author of several International papers in AAPG, Organic Geochemistry, Marine and Petroleum Geology and in Computers and Geosciences. I lead a Geoscience R&D lab for earning.
You are naive. No geochemistry or biochemistry indicates that non living material became living. If you have such definite evidence you may please show them. If that was so, you may synthesise life in laboratory.
Why are you so angry when I say that Abiogenesis is a hypothesis?
It isn't so much that people are angry as they are frustrated.
Abiogenesis is not a hypothesis. It's a concept. People can invent hypothesis about it. But at the moment none have been demonstrated (tested) conclusively, so we simply don't know how abiogenesis came about. So there's no theory, either. Except in the informal sense of the word theory, which is more like the scientific term hypothesis.
Tom
I expected the strong words.
Of course no. The citation above clearly indicates that it a concept of God in Christianity.
Why do you disagree? I see the plethora of competing religions as solid evidence (proof) that religions are made up to tell people what they want to hear, or what the religious authorities want them to hear.
One of the biggest problems I have with religion is the huge tendency to teach people to submit to the human authorities claiming to speak for God.
Tom
Why do you say so? It is simply an assumption.
Informally means unofficial.
Not really. Different methods suit different people of different culture and of different levels. Teachings are designed to accommodate such variances. But ultimately all religions teach the same "Know Thyself".
I do not know of that at all.
Broad definitions like this do not determine what is' established fact.' Again this problem of word usage indicates an underlying problem of an agenda.
Facts in science are specific types of evidence. Such as a Quartz crystal consists of crystalline silica with a six sided structure.
You began by raging on a simple wikipedia definition with terminology that seriously resembles Christian apologist arguments. Your misuse of terminology brings to serious question your scientific back ground.
Last edited:
What is an assumption?
That life exists?
That non-living matter existed before life?
Those are, technically, assumptions I guess. Kinda a priori though.
There are three possibilities:
1) Life doesn't exist.
I dismiss that one due to evidence.
2) Life has always existed, as long as non-living matter has.
I see plenty of reasons to dismiss that as well, again due to evidence.
3) Life came into being when non-living matter developed the characteristics of being alive.
That's abiogenesis, regardless of how or why it came about.
Maybe it was God. Maybe it was a natural process. Maybe something we can't even imagine at this time, due to the limitations of our knowledge and mental functions.
But the only one we can objectively study is the "natural process" possibility. So that's what is being investigated.
Tom
What other possible explanation based on the existing evidence is possible except simply based on natural laws and environment, which abigenesis is based on?
Last edited:
No one has ever claimed that all the questions have been answered. which is also true of evolution. When a complete model of a possible natural process then they will do so in the laboratory. Your extreme position of 'No geochemistry or biochemistry indicates that non living material became living.' is too extreme a position based on the evidence and the results of current research. some of which @Subduction Zone cited. You have not presented any science to support your emotional extreme assertions,
For some reason you have an agenda against abiogenesis, and using non-scientific language raging against a brief definition.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that is a conflation of evidence and proof on your part.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Exactly... a correct hypothesis obviously IS both.
Actually I consider abiogenesis to consist of a combination of hypothesis that may be predictable solutions based on the evidence such as:
(1) The hypothesis of the source of energy required for abiogenesis to take place. Deep Sea vents have been an adequate energy source.
(2) Various hypothesis on formation of primitive RNA from amino acids such as iron compounds found around deep sea vents that act as catalysis for the formation of RNA.
(3) various hypothesis on the steps from primitive amino acid chains to replicable DNA and how the earliest replicable DNA of the earliest forms of life like viruses.
Abigenesis potentially may be called a theory that it may falsified by scientific methods that life originated from inorganic matter.
Last edited: