1. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    11 Oct '17 02:19
    Is abiogenesis a scientific fact?

    Is abiogenesis required for life to exist?

    If you believe abiogenesis is required to explain life, does this mean you have faith in something you've never seen?
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    11 Oct '17 06:302 edits
    Originally posted by @eladar
    Is abiogenesis a scientific fact?

    Is abiogenesis required for life to exist?

    If you believe abiogenesis is required to explain life, does this mean you have faith in something you've never seen?
    Is abiogenesis a scientific fact?

    Yes.
    From evidence (life is here etc) + deduction.
    Is abiogenesis required for life to exist?

    In which universe?
    One can conceive of a universe where life always existed and no start of time (steady state universe) so abiogenesis not required for life to exist because no start for life required.
    If you believe abiogenesis is required to explain life, does this mean you have faith in something you've never seen?

    I assume you mean "explain the origin of the first life" from "explain life"?
    Providing that belief is based on evidence and/or deduction, no.
    Evidence (life is here etc) + deduction = no faith.
  3. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    11 Oct '17 09:26
    Originally posted by @humy
    Is abiogenesis a scientific fact?

    Yes.
    From evidence (life is here etc) + deduction.
    Is abiogenesis required for life to exist?

    In which universe?
    One can conceive of a universe where life always existed and no start of time (steady state universe) so abiogenesis not required for life to exist because no start ...[text shortened]... is based on evidence and/or deduction, no.
    Evidence (life is here etc) + deduction = no faith.
    Deduction based on assumption.

    Life could come from some god or it could come by nature without some god.

    One is no more proven true over the other.
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    11 Oct '17 10:042 edits
    Originally posted by @eladar
    Deduction based on assumption.

    Life could come from some god or it could come by nature without some god.

    One is no more proven true over the other.
    Deduction based on assumption.

    WHICH "assumption" ?

    Life could come from some god or it could come by nature without some god.

    Yes, anything that isn't logically self-contradictory is logically possible and both those things are logically possible.
    I make no assumptions regarding 'god' or lack of when looking at the evidence.
    Get it?
    The assumptions you claim we make we do NOT make.

    One is no more proven true over the other

    depends what exactly your are referring to. If you are referring to young-Earth and/or no evolution and/or no big bang, that assertion has long since been proven false by science. We have evidence (proof, in fact) for old Earth and evolution and big bang. We have NO evidence for young-Earth, no evolution and no big bang.
  5. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    11 Oct '17 10:08
    Originally posted by @humy
    Deduction based on assumption.

    WHICH "assumption" ?

    Life could come from some god or it could come by nature without some god.

    Yes, anything that isn't logically self-contradictory is logically possible and both those things are logically possible.
    I make no assumptions regarding 'god' or lack of when looking at ...[text shortened]... ion is proven false. We have evidence (proof, in fact) for old Earth and evolution and big bang.
    I can think of two different sources of life: a god or abiogenesis.

    Why is it deducted that we reject the god and make abiogenesis a fact?
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    11 Oct '17 10:188 edits
    Originally posted by @eladar
    I can think of two different sources of life: a god or abiogenesis.

    Why is it deducted that we reject the god and make abiogenesis a fact?
    NO, abiogenesis, does NOT reject god.
    Why cannot a god made abiogenesis happen?
    Why is it that you reject that logical possibility? (and I both assert and think that IS a logical possibility)

    As for deducing abiogenesis as a fact;
    There is NO logical contradiction between there being a god and abiogenesis happened.

    if a god exists then the very first life to ever exist came from non-life. If no god exists then the very first life to ever exist came from non-life. Therefore whether a god exists is irrelevant; the very first life to ever exist came from non-life. The very first life coming to exist logically implies there was a point of time when there was no life and then a point in time when there was life and, somewhere between those two points of time, since there isn't anything else life could have come from other than non-life, life therefore logically must have come form non-life. Life coming from non-life is, by definition, what we call abiogenesis. That is the deduction of abiogenesis as a fact.
  7. Standard memberwolfgang59
    invigorated
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    11 Oct '17 10:25
    Originally posted by @eladar
    I can think of two different sources of life: a god or abiogenesis.

    Why is it deducted that we reject the god and make abiogenesis a fact?
    A third alternative is sentient tea-cups from another dimension.

    Why is it that we reject that alternative?
  8. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    11 Oct '17 10:341 edit
    Originally posted by @humy
    NO, abiogenesis, does NOT reject god.
    Why cannot a god made abiogenesis happen?
    Why is it that you reject that logical possibility?

    As for deducing abiogenesis as a fact;
    There is NO logical contradiction between there being a god and abiogenesis happened.

    if a god exists then the very first life to ever exist came from non-life. If no god exists the ...[text shortened]... n-life is, by definition, is called abiogenesis. That is the deduction of abiogenesis as a fact.
    OK, it rejects a miraculous creation. Why is that rejected?
  9. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    11 Oct '17 10:36
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    A third alternative is sentient tea-cups from another dimension.

    Why is it that we reject that alternative?
    Sure, why not?

    All of it is faith based.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    11 Oct '17 13:466 edits
    Originally posted by @eladar
    OK, it rejects a miraculous creation.
    No, it doesn't. I (and science) only rejects any kind of creation that contradicts evidence, not miraculous creation.
    And if there was ever evidence of a goddidit then goddidit (and theism) would then just become part of science and I would believe goddidit.
  11. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    11 Oct '17 17:23
    Originally posted by @humy
    No, it doesn't. I (and science) only rejects any kind of creation that contradicts evidence, not miraculous creation.
    And if there was ever evidence of a goddidit then goddidit (and theism) would then just become part of science and I would believe goddidit.
    You have no idea what God created. How can his creation contradict what he did?

    He created it, but there is evidence built in that can be understood to imply that he didn't. This means you want to force everyone to accept that God didn't create the universe.
  12. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    11 Oct '17 18:55
    Originally posted by @eladar
    Is abiogenesis a scientific fact?

    Is abiogenesis required for life to exist?

    If you believe abiogenesis is required to explain life, does this mean you have faith in something you've never seen?
    Abiogenesis is a name for the process that led to life emerging on Earth.
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    11 Oct '17 19:286 edits
    Originally posted by @eladar
    How can his creation contradict what he did?
    Assuming he exists, he didn't create it in the way your particular religious beliefs say it was create because we have proof of that.

    He created it, but there is evidence built in that can be understood to imply that he didn't.

    NO, the evidence doesn't say a god/gods did NOT make the big bang thus the universe because that goddidit is currently impossible to prove or disprove.
    The evidence disproves YOUR exact religious version of creation, NOT any version of creation (theistic or otherwise) that is entirely consistent with all the currently available evidence.
    This means you want to force everyone to accept that God didn't create the universe

    No. I don't want to force anyone to believe anything; that is what you are apparently trying to do and inevitably and unsurprisingly failing terribly because what you don't get is that you need to show EVIDENCE for that, which you so far haven't.
    We can show evidence. The only way to counter evidence is with evidence.
  14. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    11 Oct '17 19:432 edits
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    Abiogenesis is a name for the process that led to life emerging on Earth.
    yes, and whether it happened with or without supernatural/god influence, its still validly call abiogenesis. That's one thing he doesn't get.
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    11 Oct '17 19:50
    Originally posted by @eladar
    You have no idea what God created. How can his creation contradict what he did?

    He created it, but there is evidence built in that can be understood to imply that he didn't. This means you want to force everyone to accept that God didn't create the universe.
    Why is it YOU think a god created the universe?
Back to Top