I will concede that we have not (yet) observed an instance of abiogenesis while it is going on. However, and this is a crucial "however," this does not mean that Christianity maintains Creationism on faith while science maintains abiogenesis on faith, that religion and science are merely alternative faiths.
There is still a very big difference. Abiogenesis offers a plausible and testable mechanism how life could get started without recourse to magic. That is not faith; that is simply admitting that we don't yet have all the data to fill in every last detail of the procedure. Goddidit offers no mechanism at all how it happened, only magic. That is superstition: belief in imaginary causes.
The issue between abiogenesis and Creationism is simply the next stage of a long and protracted battle of reason against dogma which started round about the time of Galileo. The Christian churches fought Galileo's claim that the Earth moves, fought it tooth and nail until it became patently obvious to all that Christianity had gotten it wrong. Galileo was rehabilitated only by Pope John Paul II, 350 years too late. Dogma lost to reason.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
Christianity resisted Copernicus's claim that the Earth is not the center of the universe; the church's arguments against Copernicus were based on Scripture and Aristotle. Copernicus's work, De revolutionibus, remained on the forbidden books index until 1758. The removal from the index occurred only because Copernicus added a statement to the preface stating that the idea was merely a 'theory' not a fact. Christianity got it wrong again. Dogma lost to reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium
Same case with Darwin. The church denied it until it became patently obvious that the physical evidence in favor of evolution was overwhelming. Dogma lost to reason.
So now we're simply fighting the next stage, how life got started. Evolution does not explain this. Abiogenesis does, and it is supported by an increasingly coherent body of evidence. This is not to say that we have seen every single detail of the process from beginning to end.
There was a time when we had not yet seen the planet Neptune. There was a time when we had not yet seen Higgs bosons. There was a time when we had not yet seen gravitational waves. But we had a good solid theoretical framework, supported by massively coherent evidence, which strongly indicated that Neptune, and gravitational waves, and Higgs bosons really existed. And we found them, with patience and diligent investigations. The same is very likely to be true of abiogenesis; we haven't yet seen it actually happening, but we have a solid theoretical framework, consisting of geology, biology, genetics, paleontology, chemistry, botany, etc. etc., and a massively coherent body of evidence strongly indicating that such a thing very probably happened at least once and may be going on even now.
We can state quite definitively that the evidence does not support Creationism as set out in the Book of Genesis. The evidence is indisputable that all life did not appear, fully formed (simple as well as complex forms), at the same time on Earth, whether it was 6 thousand or 6 million or 6 billion years ago. Simple forms came first, then more complex forms. This evidence clearly supports the claim of abiogenesis, that life developed in gradual increments from simple building blocks, and utterly refutes the Creationist claim that fully-formed complex life forms appeared suddenly (as if by magic).
Dogma is going to lose this one, too. The dogmatists just haven't realized it yet; it will probably take another 300 years or so, if past performance is any guide.
Miracles do not explain how life got started. Resort to miracles is a flat refusal to even try to understand how life got started; it is throwing up one's hands and exclaiming, 'We don't know and we never will.' Resort to miracles to 'explain' something is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy. So, we continue in the spirit of Galileo and Copernicus and Darwin to try to understand our world and not retreat into magic whenever we run up against a problem which has no quick-fix solution. If there is any faith in science, it is faith in our ability to learn and understand. It is the exact opposite of the faith which is religious faith.
Originally posted by @moonbusI never said that science is an alternative to Christianity.
I will concede that we have not (yet) observed an instance of abiogenesis while it is going on. However, and this is a crucial "however," this does not mean that Christianity maintains Creationism on faith while science maintains abiogenesis on faith, that religion and science are merely alternative faiths.
There is still a very big difference. Abiogenes ...[text shortened]... bility to learn and understand. It is the exact opposite of the faith which is religious faith.
I'd argue that it is your ilk's position that Christianity is an option as opposed to science. I have been told by multiple people in this forum that I reject science because of my religious beliefs.
Because I question what has not been observed I reject science. Because I recognize the difference between natural laws and how things interact as opposed to assumptions based on science, I am told that I reject science.
What we are actually discussing is worldview.
So what would you call it when people assume that abiogenesis is absolutely true without need to see it?
A true scientist would simply say we don't know how life came into being.
So what name would you call this psudo scientific belief that abiogenesis must be true.
A hypothesis is not believed to be absolutely true, just something to be tested. So far the hypotheseis of abiogenrsis has failed. Realistically there is no way to prove it false.
Originally posted by @eladarI mean that the repeatability of the outcome of the differ versions of the Miller-Urey experiments prove that abiogenesis is a viable theory of reality. I should be more specific and clear over this and so I stand corrected.
Perhaps you can site a specfic example of abiogenesis.
😵
Originally posted by @black-beetleSo you don't need an actual successful experiment in artificial conditions to demonstrate that a natural process exists.
I mean that the repeatability of the outcome of the differ versions of the Miller-Urey experiments prove that abiogenesis is a viable theory of reality. I should be more specific and clear over this and so I stand corrected.
😵
All you need is close enough for people who already believe it is true, so looking for the outcome they want.
Originally posted by @eladarI don't think any scientist would claim that abiogenesis is absolutely true. It is however the best available hypothesis, given what we know about micro-biology, genetics, chemistry and so on, and given the evidence available to us. Abiogenesis gives us a very good idea where to look for the process actually happening: in a sort of 'primordial soup.' Given that theoretical framework, we can start tinkering with parameters until we get them right. The right constituent chemicals, the right jostling to get the chemicals in physical contact ("shaken not stirred" ), the right type and quantity of energy (heat, or light, or electricity/lightning, or some combination), etc.
I never said that science is an alternative to Christianity.
I'd argue that it is your ilk's position that Christianity is an option as opposed to science. I have been told by multiple people in this forum that I reject science because of my religious beliefs.
Because I question what has not been observed I reject science. Because I recognize the diff ...[text shortened]... far the hypotheseis of abiogenrsis has failed. Realistically there is no way to prove it false.
Astronomic theory and careful observations of other planets' orbits gave us a very good idea where to point a telescope to sight Neptune. The theory told us it must be there in order to account for perturbations of other planetary orbits. Would you say that we didn't really know Neptune existed until it was actually sighted? I say we knew before that. Sighting Neptune was merely the final confirmation of what we already knew, based on reasoning from laws of nature.
The same applies to the recent detection of gravitational waves. Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted them a hundred years ago. It took a long time to construct a detector capable of delivering the final confirmation. But we knew that there must be gravitational waves before they were actually detected.
The problem with Creationism as science is that it doesn't give any idea at all where to look for creation ex nihilo actually happening. Nor does it predict when God is likely to create something ex nihilo, as astronomy, for example, can predict eclipses.
Let us know when you get a God-detector up and running. That will up the ante significantly in favour of Creationism being real science.
Originally posted by @moonbusYou play word games.
I don't think any scientist would claim that abiogenesis is absolutely true. It is however the best available hypothesis, given what we know about micro-biology, genetics, chemistry and so on, and given the evidence available to us. Abiogenesis gives us a very good idea where to look for the process actually happening: in a sort of 'primordial soup.' Given ...[text shortened]... up and running. That will up the ante significantly in favour of Creationism being real science.
I and perhaps one other in this thread would question the validity of abiogenesis.
Perhaps you could list the people in this thread other than me who does not accept abiogenesis as the souce of life in this universe.
Originally posted by @eladarIt seems to me you need to understand that the results of the experiment along with considerable geological, biological and chemical evidence are supportive to the theory of abiogenesis, according to which the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions😵
So you don't need an actual successful experiment in artificial conditions to demonstrate that a natural process exists.
All you need is close enough for people who already believe it is true, so looking for the outcome they want.
Originally posted by @black-beetleYou need to understand the difference between known facts and theories which require belief without actually being experienced.
It seems to me you need to understand that the results of the experiment along with considerable geological, biological and chemical evidence are supportive to the theory of abiogenesis, according to which the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions😵
Belief is belief no matter what it is rooted in. The field of science has been allowed to be corrupted by belief in an effort to deny certain Christian beliefs.
As some around here like to say, it has been weaponized. Since it is your weapon, you see nothing wrong with it.
Originally posted by @eladarScience does not do what it does in order to deny Christian dogma. It simply does what it does, and Christian dogma discredits itself by refusing to accept evidence contrary to dogma.
You need to understand the difference between known facts and theories which require belief without actually being experienced.
Belief is belief no matter what it is rooted in. The field of science has been allowed to be corrupted by belief in an effort to deny certain Christian beliefs.
As some around here like to say, it has been weaponized. Since it is your weapon, you see nothing wrong with it.
Originally posted by @moonbusYou act as if science is an entity. It is a field of study.
Science does not do what it does in order to deny Christian dogma. It simply does what it does, and Christian dogma discredits itself by refusing to accept evidence contrary to dogma.
Those who embrace evolutuion and abiogenesis simply embrace one small part of the field.
The inclusion of that one field is indoctrination into a belief which is used by people in this forum to refute religious beliefs.
You included, so how can you do anything other than deny it without admitting hypocrisy. It takes a very rare person who is willing to admit being a hypocrite.
Originally posted by @eladarYou are not questioning Abi on the basis of science, you are clearly coming from a religious POV. In that regard, your stance can never change. Urey-Miller style experiments continue to advance in complexity and continue to show very complex molecules formed, even the original Miller was re-examined with more advanced technology and found to have produced much more complexity than they first listed.
You play word games.
I and perhaps one other in this thread would question the validity of abiogenesis.
Perhaps you could list the people in this thread other than me who does not accept abiogenesis as the souce of life in this universe.
So as time goes by, Abi gets closer to proven while religious objections are stuck in the mud, unable to change, eventually to be cast to the dust bin of history.
And of course you are free to scoff since science, even though several hundred years old, is still in kindergarten in terms of knowing all there is to know.
Not even 1/100 th of a percent is known yet so you are in fact berating kindergartens for not knowing calculus.
Come back in a hundred years and things won't be so easy to dismiss about Abi.
Originally posted by @eladarDo you think there is some sort of indoctrination ritual to gain access to scientific evidence regarding biology, abiogenesis, and evolution, an indoctrination which involves renouncing religion? Not so. The information is available to anyone who cares to examine it, just as the fossils in every museum in the world are on display to anyone who cares to look at them. Everyone is free to draw his own conclusions, or to withhold judgment until further evidence is available.
You act as if science is an entity. It is a field of study.
Those who embrace evolutuion and abiogenesis simply embrace one small part of the field.
The inclusion of that one field is indoctrination into a belief which is used by people in this forum to refute religious beliefs.
You included, so how can you do anything other than deny it without admitting hypocrisy. It takes a very rare person who is willing to admit being a hypocrite.
As to what goes on at this forum: it is after all the science forum, not the spirituality forum. But the camp which supports Creationism is well-known for having a quite specific religious agenda (or 'worldview' as you earlier suggested), and so anyone who posts here and suggests that the Creationist viewpoint is on a level with the scientific viewpoint is bound to be assumed to embrace that religious agenda. I suppose it is possible for someone to espouse Creationism without having a religious agenda, but I haven't come across one yet. If I have misrepresented you, then I apologise.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraNothing said intimated a burn in the sense of a wood burn.
I'm not "being clever," just pointing out that you are wrong. The surface of the Sun consists of hot plasma; nothing is burning there.
According to what we think about the sun, its burning as a result of nuclear reaction.
Which is producing flares.
Which is also producing heat.
Originally posted by @humyIt will be a shame when the sun burns out, don't you think?@kazetnagorra
There are no "flames" or "fire" on the surface of the Sun.
response;
[quote]
Originally posted by @freakykbh
Tell that to the sun.
https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7338/27191404926_f58fae2ee3_o.jpg
And, lest you think you're being clever by drawing a distinction between words meaning the same thing: [/quote ...[text shortened]... tps://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question36.html
The Sun does not "burn",
You know: when the sun finally sets for the last time, when we've seen our last sunrise.
Don't get your panties in a wad, kid.
It's not the end of the world just yet.
Originally posted by @moonbusRight.
Science does not do what it does in order to deny Christian dogma. It simply does what it does, and Christian dogma discredits itself by refusing to accept evidence contrary to dogma.
Because no one in the field--- or, better: claiming to represent the field--- could ever, ever be subjective.
Could ever, ever have an agenda.
Why, they're scientists!
Sworn to objectivity in everything they do!
By way of example, think of the priest who takes a sacred oath to celibacy, to never enjoy the pleasures of the flesh for their entire lives.
They're bound by their oath, so we can totally trust that anyone in the priesthood is a good as gold when it comes to anything of a sexual nature.
Saying a scientist might lack objectivity is like saying a priest might want to have sexual relations with children!
Do you see how ridiculous it would be to even suggest that a scientist might be less than human?
Think about it...