Wiki the God of Scientism

[Darkstorn]

Of course no. The citation above clearly indicates that it a concept of God in Christianity.

If what you quoted there "clearly indicates" that it's a concept of God in Christianity, then why don't you extend the same courtesy to the article of abiogenesis? It's clearly about the concept of abiogenesis.

I think you're being selective in your subjective assessment.

 

[atanu]

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

Thank you for a nice opening. The scope of this thread was to examine the validity of Wiki definition of abiogenesis. But you have raised fundamental questions that I am interested to pursue. Due to an important assignment I will, however, be unable to attend to this for 5-6 days.

For now, I will say that the number 1 option (red highlight) can be dismissed right away. Option 3 (maroon highlight is hypothetical and has not been proven in laboratory and neither any falsifiable mechanism proposed.

To me the 2nd option is the most viable one. You will find that some quantum physicists will not be averse to this option. We are automatically attuned to the third option because of our materialistic genetic predispositions and beliefs. But there are some questions as to what exactly is that which appears as particle or as wave? But to even consider the second option you need to open up regarding what is life. What is life actually?

The diverse forms that is manifest and that we sensually see moving and recreating is life? Or the underlying conscious information mechanism is?

 

[atanu]

No one has ever claimed that all the questions have been answered. which is also true of evolution. ..

No. I do not agree to the red highlight above.

Friend, you can see diversifying fossils in earth's stata. You can see differences in biomarkers. Biomarkers for algae and for tertiary plants are different. Evidence that life forms have evolved is beyond doubt.

But there is no evidence of that kind for origin of life itself. Darwin wrote "Origin of Species".

Kindly read the post 82.

 

[atanu]

We have a very dead world all agreeing all is dead that's our crisis.

Some do not of course. I understand that the True never becomes untrue and untrue never becomes the True.

 

[David T]

Some do not of course. I understand that the True never becomes untrue and untrue never becomes the True.

Most certainly. Funny how that works isn't it. It's like pointing back at say the Catholic Church and asking what if it did not exist that evil place? The person asking the question doesn't realize they wouldn't exist to ask the question. "Through all things by all thing of all things" seems to be difficult to understand for us today. I suppose that's what lots and lots of education does. We tend to smart ourselves into distaster!!!! Look at the enviroment!

 

[shunyadragon]

No. I do not agree to the red highlight above.

Agree or not this the way of the science of abiogenesis and evolution, all the question concerning both are not answered yet, and they both are potentially falsified theories based on the evidence and objective scientific methods.

Friend, you can see diversifying fossils in earth's stata. You can see differences in biomarkers. Biomarkers for algae and for tertiary plants are different. Evidence that life forms have evolved is beyond doubt.

I will agree that evolution as a science has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, but there most definitely remains unanswered questions, and like abiogenesis work in progress. In fact I consider both disciplines a continuum of the natural processes of life on earth.

But there is no evidence of that kind for origin of life itself. Darwin wrote "Origin of Species".

Kindly read the post 82.

Read it so what?!?!?!?

I cannot believe you are citing Darwin and historical knowledge of science at the time and comparing it to the contemporary science of abiogenesis. This is not acceptable, an old outdated Christian apologist line, and it reveals an agenda that is not scientific.

There remains the problem of you claiming the extreme position that there is 'no biochemical nor geochemical evidence' for abiogenesis, and as matter of fact ignoring the references posted, nor presenting a scientific argument for your case. This assertion is patently false.

 

[shunyadragon]

To me the 2nd option is the most viable one. You will find that some quantum physicists will not be averse to this option. We are automatically attuned to the third option because of our materialistic genetic predispositions and beliefs. But there are some questions as to what exactly is that which appears as particle or as wave?

Quantum Mechanics question. Rather weak and murky, and not related to the question of Abiogenesis in the macro world.

But to even consider the second option you need to open up regarding what is life. What is life actually?

The diverse forms that is manifest and that we sensually see moving and recreating is life?

This falsifiable by scientific methods. and is close to the accepted scientific understanding of life.

Or the underlying conscious information mechanism is?

Theological/philosophical assumption related to the claims of Intelligent Design that cannot be falsified by scientific methods. Your injecting theology here into the discussion and questions concerning the science of abiogenesis.

 

[Grandliseur]

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?

I am not into debating with atheists.

However, here you say things that are illogical. God is not something dead; he is alive. That he would then take materials from this universe and engineer matter that would be given the spark of life, whatever that might be is not at all the same as if you shake chemicals around which come together by chaotic interactions to create a living cell with its DNA.

The two processes cannot be compared. It would be like comparing the engineering of a computer and its cpu, gpu with this same shaking up of chemicals in some large place, planet, (?) and expect a computer of highest quality to emerge from this chaotic interaction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not into debating with atheists.

However, here you say things that are illogical. God is not something dead; he is alive. That he would then take materials from this universe and engineer matter that would be given the spark of life, whatever that might be is not at all the same as if you shake chemicals around which come together by chaotic interactions to create a living cell with its DNA.

The two processes cannot be compared. It would be like comparing the engineering of a computer and its cpu, gpu with this same shaking up of chemicals in some large place, planet, (?) and expect a computer of highest quality to emerge from this chaotic interaction.

God is not alive by any biological definition. You are making an equivocation error. Biological life dies sooner or later, can your God die? And no one has identified the "spark of life". It does not appear to be a needed ingredient. Here is just one example of man made life. Where is the "spark"?

And man made life

 

[Curious George]

Panspermia (from Ancient Greek πᾶν (pan), meaning 'all', and σπέρμα (sperma), meaning 'seed') is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids, comets,[1] planetoids,[2]and also by spacecraft in the form of unintended contamination by microorganisms.[3][4]

"Within ghost hunting and parapsychology, electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are sounds found on electronic recordings that are interpreted as spirit voices that have been either unintentionally recorded or intentionally requested and recorded."

Ectoplasm (from the Greek ektos, meaning "outside", and plasma, meaning "something formed or molded") is a term coined by Charles Richet[1] to denote a substance or spiritual energy "exteriorized" by physical mediums.[2]

Psychokinesis (from Greek ψυχή "mind" and κίνησις "movement"[1][2]), or telekinesis[3](from τηλε- "far off" and κίνηση "movement"[4]), is an alleged psychic abilityallowing a person to influence a physical system without physical interaction.[5][6]

Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argumentfor the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins",[1][2] though it has been found to be pseudoscience.[3][4][5]

In many religious, philosophical and mythological traditions, there is a belief in the incorporeal essence of a living being called the soul.[1]

Soul or psyche (Greek: "psyühē", of "psychein", "to breathe") are the mental abilities of a living being: reason, character, feeling, consciousness, memory, perception, thinking, etc.

In mathematics, a function f from a set X to a set Y is surjective (or onto), or a surjection, if for every element y in the codomain Y of fthere is at least one element x in the domain Xof f such that f(x) = y.

Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun and the second-smallest planet in the Solar Systemafter Mercury.

So I looked up several items on Wikipedia to use as reference. They are listed here. Of the items that I searched Wikipedia does, IMO, use differing language to describe abstract concepts and concrete concepts. While I would have read the article on Abiogenesis and agreed that is what Abiogenesis is, I can see your point. The language that is used is different. I cannot say this is true for all or even most entries but I concede that there seems to be a linguistic difference in the way items are presented. To what degree this affects our perception is a different story. I do not read the first sentence of Abiogenesis and think it reads as Abiogenesis is proven. I do not think that it is something that deserves outrage. While I do recognizes that it deserves acknowledgment and critical thinking.

 

[LionLooking]

Why the accusation? I

My apologies. I assumed that, as you highlighted the word 'model' in your reply that you did not understand what it meant in the context I was using it in.
If you work in science than you do know what it means - which begs the question, why did you highlight the word?

 

[LionLooking]

I am not into debating with atheists.

However, here you say things that are illogical. God is not something dead; he is alive.

As we are discussing evidence, I take query with this statement.
Firstly, I am not an atheist. There is no scientific evidence that God exists, let alone that He is alive but I do believe He exists. That belief does not come from science though.
Secondly, living things are made up of cells, have metabolisms, grow, adapt to their environments, respond to stimuli and reproduce. Can you demonstrate that God ticks all these boxes - with evidence you can show us in the field or in the lab?

 

[Grandliseur]

As we are discussing evidence, I take query with this statement.
Firstly, I am not an atheist. There is no scientific evidence that God exists, let alone that He is alive but I do believe He exists. That belief does not come from science though.

The reason I answered that thread was because the person said this, ". . . Didn't God make Adam from clay? Clay is not alive is it? . . ."

Thus, answering as I did, it was with the implicit acceptance that God does exist. You can believe otherwise. That is not my problem. That you then say you do believe is interesting.

As stated, I am not interested in an atheistic debate on these issues. If you do believe in God, I don't mind answering questions, but why should he as the creator have any trouble with ticking all the little clicks in your boxes? If you look at my statements in the first post on this thread, you really think the god of chaos of atheists could accomplish the DNA programming which btw needs a DNA decoder in the cell to work in the first place!

But, on this thread, it is better to desist with the entire argument since atheists are going to butt in, and I. am. not. interested in that kind of discussion.

 

[LionLooking]

The reason I answered that thread was because the person said this, ". . . Didn't God make Adam from clay? Clay is not alive is it? . . ."

That person was me.

Thus, answering as I did, it was with the implicit acceptance that God does exist. You can believe otherwise. That is not my problem. That you then say you do believe is interesting.

I do believe in a 'God' but not the God of the Bible.

...why should he as the creator have any trouble with ticking all the little clicks in your boxes?

Because He cannot be studied. If you think He can then please invite him to any university where He can be examined to se how His metabolism works and what His DNA code is.

... you really think the god of chaos of atheists could accomplish the DNA programming which btw needs a DNA decoder in the cell to work in the first place!

Atheists have no god - of chaos or of any other description.
The wonders of nature never cease to amaze me, but we are getting closer to understanding them.

 

[Grandliseur]

That person was me.

I do believe in a 'God' but not the God of the Bible.

OK.
Doesn't have to be for this discussion.

Because He cannot be studied. If you think He can then please invite him to any university where He can be examined to se how His metabolism works and what His DNA code is.

Funny!

It then comes down to what your concept is of God. Mine is forced upon me by the fact that I believe that God created this universe, and all things in it, including all life. I view all things as still being part of God in a limited sense, but being part so that as I have been taught, if I saw him, it would cause my death. Why? Because seeing him would be seeing myself and all others, everything else at the same time. It would cause an overload that would kill me.

For this reason, studying his revelations about himself and creation in its many varied forms - is the only way to come to know God.

Atheists have no god - of chaos or of any other description.
The wonders of nature never cease to amaze me, but we are getting closer to understanding them.

That becomes a philosophical debate, it would seem.

 

[atanu]

If what you quoted there "clearly indicates" that it's a concept of God in Christianity, then why don't you extend the same courtesy to the article of abiogenesis? It's clearly about the concept of abiogenesis.
I think you're being selective in your subjective assessment.

I do not think that I am being subjective. Post 34 listed definitions from 6 standard sources and I am repeating them here for you to compare with the Wiki usage. Why is Wiki usage different?

(I do not feel happy to be repeating this).

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 from nonliving 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.
...

 

[atanu]

Secondly, living things are made up of cells, have metabolisms, grow, adapt to their environments, respond to stimuli and reproduce. Can you demonstrate that God ticks all these boxes - with evidence you can show us in the field or in the lab?

Living things are made up of many things but these things as a conglomerate do not constitute life, which is is the unifying aspect and the consciousness that constitute life. All these parts, although present in a dead a body cannot generate life. We do not know what consciousness or life really are. (We actually also do not know what actually is the true nature of the matter that is presented to us sensually).

Under such circumstances, claiming that abiogenesis is the natural process by which non living gives rise to living is, IMO, a hypothetical concept.

 

[Altfish]

I do not think that I am being subjective. Post 34 listed definitions from 6 standard sources and I am repeating them here for you to compare with the Wiki usage. Why is Wiki usage different?

(I do not feel happy to be repeating this).

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 from nonliving 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.
...

Abiogenesis is NOT a theory. It is a Hypothesis.
My wiki page says nothing about it being a theory, I'm looking here...
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Not sure where you are getting your quotes from.

 

[LionLooking]

Living things are made up of many things but these things as a conglomerate do not constitute life, which is is the unifying aspect and the consciousness that constitute life.

Not from a scientific viewpoint. Are bacteria conscious? Probably not, yet they are alive.

 

[Curious George]

Abiogenesis is NOT a theory. It is a Hypothesis.
My wiki page says nothing about it being a theory, I'm looking here...
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Not sure where you are getting your quotes from.

He is not talking about the article overall. He is talking about the word choice in the introductory sentence. Look through Wikipedia, and ask if there is a difference between how concrete factual concepts are introduced and how metaphysical concepts are introduced (now I suggest that most abstract concepts are introduced with a similar fashion that we see metaphysical concepts). Then look at how Abiogenesis is treated. There is no prepositional phrase which identifies a specific field as we see with metaphysical concepts like EVP. There is no mention of hypothetical in the first sentence like we see with panspermia. Now, looking at non metaphysical terms we see some abstract concepts such as surjective functions which are mathematical terms are treated like EVP where they are identified a prepositional clause identifying the field (in mathematics) and we see some concrete concepts such as Mars simply identified without such clauses ("Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun and...)."

Now you try some. See if the pattern holds. I posted the items I checked. there might be exceptions, but so far @atanu seems to be correct: There is a different handling with respect to Abiogenesis.

If you want to say this difference is subtle, I agree. Even if you want to argue that this difference means little given the context of the rest of the article, I agree. But, there is a difference. And we should not avoid the critical thought questions such as why, or what effect, if any, could this have?