Life origins: Metabolism before life began:

Originally posted by googlefudge
Um. no that's not right.



A scientific hypothesis is an explanation of a phenomena or set of phenomena.
It must be consistent with all known [relevant] data.
It must make predictions that can be tested.
It must be falsifiable.
It must explain the phenomena in terms of things we already understand.
It should be as simple* as possible.

*Simpl ...[text shortened]... esis of
Abiogenesis... Partly because we can see so many possible ways it could have happened.

Abiogenesis is simply the name for life coming from non-life. And is not a hypothesis.

True. I had noticed the semantic distinction between an abiogenesis hypothesis and abiogenesis a long time ago.
Those that say merely “abiogenesis is false” literally don't know what they are talking about! Abiogenesis cannot be true or false because, regardless of whether life did come from non-life, the definition of abiogenesis still stands regardless of whether the meaning of the word corresponds to anything in reality.

(just noticed in my next post a reason for thinking I just might be wrong about that above! )

In other words, the mere word 'abiogenesis' doesn't imply a claim just like the mere word “teacup” doesn't imply a claim thus it doesn't make sense to say merely “teacup is false”. Only a particular abiogenesis theory can be true or false because only then is that something that implies a claim and there can be a vast number/varieties of such theories with the only thing they have in common is that they all imply the first life came from non-life which, incidentally, must be true by definition of “first life” assuming there was a first life! The only way that could be false is if there is no such thing as the first life!

Here is some questions for creationists here:

1, was there a first life.

2, If answer to 1, is yes, did that life come from non-life?

3, If answer to 2, is yes, then the most basic abiogenesis theory (i.e. one that says nothing about how, where or when it happened -only that the first life came from non-life ) is correct by definition.

4, If answer to 2, is no, then that first life come from life -which is a logical contradiction because that would mean it came from life that was before that first life which means that first life was NOT the first life because there was life BEFORE that first life! So, how could that be true then?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Um. no that's not right.



A scientific hypothesis is an explanation of a phenomena or set of phenomena.
It must be consistent with all known [relevant] data.
It must make predictions that can be tested.
It must be falsifiable.
It must explain the phenomena in terms of things we already understand.
It should be as simple* as possible.

*Simpl ...[text shortened]... esis of
Abiogenesis... Partly because we can see so many possible ways it could have happened.

You'd have to agree that an hypothesis is only scientifically valid as long as no evidence
contradict it, though obviously (as I've pointed out elsewhere) it must be falsifiable (it must
suggest predictions that can be tested for truthness), or you really can't talk about
evidence supporting it or not.

Unless of course you mean that the hypothesis can be scientifically valid in that it fullfills
the demands for testability, but could be wrong, in which case I mean to say that it's only
considered wrong if there are evidence to contradict it.

I stand corrected on abiogenesis being a hypotheses though.

Just a question then, couldn't the same be argued for evolution? It's not a single theory but
more of an umbrella encompassing a great many different hypotheses and theories, all
relating to life changing over time.

Originally posted by Eladar
I think it is hilarious that since you know that certain aspects of your belief of how life came into being are so out there that you must rationalize two linked beliefs as being separate and distinct and validate one belief with you would scorn if used to validate the belief in God.

That's just it. I don't hold beliefs about how life started. I admit to not knowing that. How
life evolves once it's started however, is an entirely different subject. Surely you can see
the difference, and why it's important to recognise such differences?

Originally posted by C Hess
You'd have to agree that an hypothesis is only scientifically valid as long as no evidence
contradict it, though obviously (as I've pointed out elsewhere) it must be falsifiable (it must
suggest predictions that can be tested for truthness), or you really can't talk about
evidence supporting it or not.

Unless of course you mean that the hypothesis ca ...[text shortened]... ssing a great many different hypotheses and theories, all
relating to life changing over time.

Just a question then, couldn't the same be argued for evolution?

that is a thought! Didn't think of that one! That is awkward! But I think the way the word “evolution” is used, as far as I am aware, depending on context, it always means exactly one of two things; either “evolution process” or “evolution theory”.
Thus, if that is right, you can say “evolution is true” or “evolution is false” because it is made obvious from the context of the words “is true” or “is false” that you are talking about “evolution theory” and NOT “evolution process”. BUT, if that is true, then perhaps you, after all, CAN permit “abiogenesis is false” or “abiogenesis is true” because that context implies you mean the most basic theory of abiogenesis? If so, then I was wrong about that. -awkward semantics I think so not sure the correct answer for that.

Originally posted by C Hess
That's just it. I don't hold beliefs about how life started. I admit to not knowing that. How
life evolves once it's started however, is an entirely different subject. Surely you can see
the difference, and why it's important to recognise such differences?

Well then you have a rather strange point of view when it comes to origins.

I like your position, we simply do not know who things started. Of course if you don't know where something started you have no view of our origins at all. This is the proper scientific position. I applaud you on at least admitting this.

Originally posted by Eladar
Well then you have a rather strange point of view when it comes to origins.

I like your position, we simply do not know who things started. Of course if you don't know where something started you have no view of our origins at all. This is the proper scientific position. I applaud you on at least admitting this.

we simply do not know who things started

“who things started”? I assume you mean “how things started” although I am guessing you are subconsciously trying to imply there is a “who” involved.
We don't know exactly how the first life started just like we may not know exactly how a particular avalanche started -that doesn't stop us making perfectly valid rationally-based scientific theories with predictions that can be tested by simulating the early conditions and obtaining clues from ingenious scientific detective work done by qualified scientists that have studied the relevant sciences for most of their lives and know one hell a lot more about it than me and you (especially you -at least I know what science actually is + various university science qualification also does help rather ) . Eventually science will probably tell us how it probably happened in reasonable detail and we already have got a lot of clues of how it happened. For example, it probably happened within the brief (relatively ) window of opportunity in the geological period of just a few thousand or million years while the atmosphere still had very high levels of hydrogen gas in the early Earth and it definitely must have either occurred in the ocean or in a pool and, if a pool, probably a tidal pool -there are excellent scientific reasons to back up each and every one of these probabilistic scientific assessments.

Of course if you don't know where something started you have no view of our origins at all.

Rubbish! You obviously CAN have knowledge of how something started without knowing exactly where! -and there is no logical reason to think that the start of life is an exception. If science eventually tells us that life almost certainly must have started in a tidal pool, the exact location ( to, say, the nearest mile ) of the pool on Earth where it most likely started on Earth would still never be known and that would be completely irrelevant!
If an earthquake starts an avalanche, you my not know the exact location to the nearest foot of which part of the snow pack first started to move -but can still know that the earthquake probably started it if no other opposing hypothesis fits well with the evidence. This proves that you can know how something started without knowing where. I don't know the exact location of where my grandmother was born (and I also wasn't around then to observe it ) -so I cannot know that her birth didn't involve her coming out of her mother's body? -Some flawed logic.

Originally posted by humy

Abiogenesis is simply the name for life coming from non-life. And is not a hypothesis.

True. I had noticed the semantic distinction between an abiogenesis hypothesis and abiogenesis a long time ago.
Those that say merely “abiogenesis is false” literally don't know what they are talking about! Abiogenesis cannot be true or false becau ...[text shortened]... T the first life because there was life BEFORE that first life! So, how could that be true then?

i. Was there a first life? Yes
2. Did the first life come from non-life? No
3. N/A
4. No, because the first life always existed and is the source of all life.

Originally posted by RJHinds
i. Was there a first life? Yes
2. Did the first life come from non-life? No
3. N/A
4. No, because the first life always existed and is the source of all life.

1. Was there a first life? Yes
2. Did the first life come from non-life? Possibly
3. Is the simplest explanation the correct one? Most likely
4. Could the first life be uncreated? Unlikely

Originally posted by RJHinds
i. Was there a first life? Yes
2. Did the first life come from non-life? No
3. N/A
4. No, because the first life always existed and is the source of all life.

Can you say what you mean by life?

Originally posted by C Hess
1. Was there a first life? Yes
2. Did the first life come from non-life? Possibly
3. Is the simplest explanation the correct one? Most likely
4. Could the first life be uncreated? Unlikely

2. Possibly?

You are saying that it is possible that there has always been life? This is what you believe?

Originally posted by Eladar
2. Possibly?

You are saying that it is possible that there has always been life? This is what you believe?

"possibly" is logically consistent with "extremely unlikely". Believing something is possible doesn't equate with believing it is creatable.
It must be logically possible that I could play the lottery and win a jackpot 100 times in a row -but I don't believe I ever will because that is extremely unlikely i.e. just not credible.

Originally posted by humy
"possibly" is logically consistent with "extremely unlikely"

The question was not aimed at you.

Originally posted by Eladar
The question was not aimed at you.

But it is obvious what he meant so I can answer the question on his behalf. You asked the question as if it was a surprising fact that he thinks it is possible or at least that was my impression -so I assumed you equated "possible" with "credible". Did you?

Originally posted by humy
But it is obvious what he meant so I can answer the question on his behalf.

Really? Only a moron would believe that it is possible for life to have always existed if one believes in a natural explanation.

Originally posted by Eladar
Really? Only a moron would believe that it is possible for life to have always existed if one believes in a natural explanation.

wrong! Only a moron would believe that it is credible, NOT merely possible, for life to have always existed if one believes in a natural explanation. This is because the evidence extremely strongly points to there being a beginning of life and it would be EXTREMELY improbable that all that evidence is flawed BUT mathematically there must be a none-zero probability, no matter how improbable, that all that evidence is flawed (including the evidence for the beginning of the cosmos ) and that there was no beginning of life thus it is still logically “possible”. That is just how probability works.

It is also possible that all the evidence for and memories of yesterday are fake and, although there was an hour ago, there was no yesterday. But, because of Occam's razor, that is not credible thus I still believe there was a yesterday.