19 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually, there were "Christian" scientists at one time who tried an experiment to show that living things spontaneously generate from rotting food. They somehow incorporated this belief into their theology. Therefore, all I will say is that it would not destroy the Christian theology, rather, it would simply modify it. However, for myself it would give me pause, I would have to admit. The fact that life does not natually appear to come from nonlife is a problem. If I were an atheist, in fact, it would probably keep me up at night wondering why.
And why is abiogenesis incompatible with your beliefs? If God could create a universe in which life could evolve from a single celled organism into the vast array of life we see today why could he not create a universe in which abiogenesis could take place?
More importantly, if I can show conclusively that at least one life form has been created via abio ...[text shortened]... ians have in the past with other seemingly incompatible science) simply move the line once more?
19 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIt would prbably keep me up at night, except that your statement is not true. What is true is that life has yet to be proven to be creatable under laboratory conditions, fair enough. So we have no empiric proof for to show that life came from base state chemicals, but we have justification for believing it to be so. We also have parsimony; the alternative to abiogenisis is to believe that life was created by supernatural magic, clearly an abandonment of reason for the non-believer. I still wonder why it is that so many theists seem to equate the 'as of yet' nature of experimentation with a failure to prove.
The fact that life does not natually appear to come from nonlife is a problem. If I were an atheist, in fact, it would probably keep me up at night wondering why.
20 Dec 07
Originally posted by StarrmanWell on the one hand life is made of base state chemicals and we know this to be so, yet on the other hand, how do we get from nonliving chemicals to living cells?
It would prbably keep me up at night, except that your statement is not true. What is true is that life has yet to be proven to be creatable under laboratory conditions, fair enough. So we have no empiric proof for to show that life came from base state chemicals, but we have justification for believing it to be so. We also have parsimony; the alternativ ...[text shortened]... many theists seem to equate the 'as of yet' nature of experimentation with a failure to prove.
It seems to me that we should ask ourselves what occurs naturally in nature? Can we consider a process called abiogenesis that cannot apparently be duplicated now and has not been duplicated anywhere in the knowable universe a natural process?
Conversly, evolution appears to be a natural process in that it has traceable evidence via fossil records and such and is observable to some degree in this present world. Therefore, I have no problem calling it a natural process.
You say that I believe in supernatural magic and that I am the one abandoning reason by believing in God yet there is no scientific evidence for believing in abiogenesis other than pointing to the building blocks of life and saying that since we are composed of them then they just came together and formed life. Guess what, theists believe the same thing!! No one is saying that man was not composed of nonliving matter, rather, we both agree that man was formed from the dust of the earth, so to speak. The only question is how? For me, the supernatural is simply observing a phenomenon that violates the laws of nature or the observable natural order of things. Therefore, I think the origins of life fit the bill in this regard, however, it is only the theists who seem to acknowledge the reality of this fact.
20 Dec 07
Originally posted by whodeyCan we consider a process called abiogenesis that cannot apparently be duplicated now and has not been duplicated anywhere in the knowable universe a natural process?
Well on the one hand life is made of base state chemicals and we know this to be so, yet on the other hand, how do we get from nonliving chemicals to living cells?
It seems to me that we should ask ourselves what occurs naturally in nature? Can we consider a process called abiogenesis that cannot apparently be duplicated now and has not been duplicated an ...[text shortened]... n this regard, however, it is only the theists who seem to acknowledge the reality of this fact.
Well, considering how little of the universe we actually know, this is largely meaningless. And, considering the likelihood of finding life on Mars it may well be false, too.
there is no scientific evidence for believing in abiogenesis other than pointing to the building blocks of life and saying that since we are composed of them then they just came together and formed life.
Well, it is a parsimonious argument, especially under the environmental conditions at the time. In fact, all the evidence there is points to this position. You've got over evolution, I can't see why this is making you gag - there is a large amount of (admittedly largely circumstantial) evidence for abiogenesis.
20 Dec 07
Originally posted by whodeyThe first question to ask is what is the difference. I often find that most creationists do not really understand at all what life is and do not realise that it is a rather vague term (as with the word 'species'😉. For example are virus' alive or dead? If dead then are they a special type of dead or equivalent to other dead? Virus' do evolve.
Well on the one hand life is made of base state chemicals and we know this to be so, yet on the other hand, how do we get from nonliving chemicals to living cells?
It seems to me that we should ask ourselves what occurs naturally in nature? Can we consider a process called abiogenesis that cannot apparently be duplicated now and has not been duplicated anywhere in the knowable universe a natural process?
Man has not yet duplicated it - 'cannot' is too strong as no such claim has ever been scientifically proven.
Also your use of the word 'knowable' is outright wrong as what you mean is 'known' which is another matter altogether. We do know know whether or not life has appeared elsewhere in the past or present. It might exist on mars or other planets in our solar system and it might even have appeared (abiogenesis) multiple times on the earth (and this may even happen frequently - we do not know).
Conversly, evolution appears to be a natural process in that it has traceable evidence via fossil records and such and is observable to some degree in this present world. Therefore, I have no problem calling it a natural process.
So lack of evidence makes something supernatural? What a lazy way of doing things.
The only question is how? For me, the supernatural is simply observing a phenomenon that violates the laws of nature or the observable natural order of things. Therefore, I think the origins of life fit the bill in this regard, however, it is only the theists who seem to acknowledge the reality of this fact.
Abiogenesis does not violate the laws of nature. You have no valid reasons for thinking it does. You claim to 'acknowledge' it yet give no reasoning for why you believe it in the first place. Why should anyone 'acknowledge' something for which you not only have no evidence or reasoning but no valid reason whatsoever for even suggesting it in the first place.
To demonstrate - you walk out of an empty room. One week later you walk in. You find a chair in the room. You have come to the conclusion that the chairs appearance was supernatural. Any sensible person would look for a natural - more parsimonious explanation. But that might contradict your precious Bible so you go further and claim that a natural explanation is impossible but give no reason whatsoever for this.
20 Dec 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzI might be wrong. I'm an atheist.
Let me be the first to say it.
I might be wrong.
There may be a God. I could be completely mistaken in my atheistic lifestyle. I don't think I'm wrong. But, thinks I, the world is too crappy a place to be the work of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god.
But I might be wrong.
How many theists (and other atheists), I wonder, will ...[text shortened]... uivocally that they might be wrong about the whole God thing?
Consider yourself challenged.
20 Dec 07
Originally posted by Rajk999Christians are obnoxiously and aggressively political. I can't stand their need to criminalize things their religion says are sinful. They and their political allies even criminalize things like drugs that their religion says nothing about.
What I find to be a more interesting question is why do atheists feel the need to 'convert' theists and vice versa. Is it a complex of some kind?
That's why I try to weaken their faith.
20 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyExactly. That guy did NOT try to create life no matter who says he did. He synthesized a chromosome.
The last time I talked about abiogenesis some yahoo gave me a wealth of articles about man trying to create life and swore that they had, in fact, already done so. In fact, as I recall you were part of that discussion and you correctly identified that he was full of it, so to speak.
I have never seen a recipe for making cells from basic chemicals.
20 Dec 07
Originally posted by whodeyBut that's just it, abiogenesis, demonstrable under lab conditions or not, does not violate the laws of nature! God does. There's no reality whatsoever in replacing natural processes with a supernatural entity. How do the origins of chemical based, naturally occurring life fit the bill in regards to supernatural magic?
For me, the supernatural is simply observing a phenomenon that violates the laws of nature or the observable natural order of things. Therefore, I think the origins of life fit the bill in this regard, however, it is only the theists who seem to acknowledge the reality of this fact.
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThey don't. But who says they do?
But that's just it, abiogenesis, demonstrable under lab conditions or not, [b]does not violate the laws of nature! God does. There's no reality whatsoever in replacing natural processes with a supernatural entity. How do the origins of chemical based, naturally occurring life fit the bill in regards to supernatural magic?[/b]