Is Abiogenesis a faith based belief?

Is abiogenesis completely a faith based belief? The reason I ask is that is completely untestable, completely unproven, and completely unproveable. The reason I say it is untestable is the fact that even IF scientists were able to "create" real life in a lab, that does not mean that life came from non life. That part would be completely untestable. I say it is un proven because it is unproven. And it is unproveable insomuch as even if scientists were able to create life in a lab, all that would mean is that scientists can create life in a lab. And I do mean create, not recreate an organism already in existence, I mean create life that lives, breathes, eats, poops, reproduces, and all the other bells and whistles.

If scientists were able to actually create life in a lab, that would not mean that it could have happened on accident, it means that intelligent designers could create life. To really prove abiogenesis, it would have to be a case of life arising in the natural world completely free from any intelligent intervention.

That won't happen because abiogenesis is completely untestable, unproveable, and unproven. The only other option is a Creator and that is unthinkable to some.


In Christ, GB

No. It is a hypothesis.

Let me ask you a question: If we find life on another planet, how would you reconcile this with your beliefs?

Even if science could show life-from-dirt, one can add that discovery to the chain-of-evidence for/against creationism/naturalism. Pretend someone discovers a pond where life is starting from the chemical soup of the pond. That (pretend) fact would futher amaze me that the creation event of the Big Bang and all it's rather simple components are sufficient for life to come into existance 14B years after that event took place yet as a direct result of that event. All hypothetical, I know. . .but the more science reveals about how things work, the more impressed I become with God's ability

selfinflikted said:

No. It is a hypothesis.

Click to expand...

hy·poth·e·sis
<LI class=sb_ans> [ h&#299; póth&#601;ssiss ]

1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation
2. assumption:

It undountedly needs a whole lot of investigation! But I certainly agree with the second definition that it assumes a lot. But then, you and I both know what happens when one assumes.....

Let me ask you a question: If we find life on another planet, how would you reconcile this with your beliefs?

Click to expand...

Start a thread on the subject, invite me to it and I would be glad to discuss that with you.

Thank you for taking the time to input. God bless you.


In Christ, GB

good brother said:

It undountedly needs a whole lot of investigation!

Click to expand...

So are creationist organizations investigating abiogenesis? Do they have research programs in place that are actively testing hypotheses in the field of abiogenesis?

good brother said:

Is abiogenesis completely a faith based belief? The reason I ask is that is completely untestable, completely unproven, and completely unproveable.

Click to expand...

You haven't established that at all. We can test abiogenesis with the evidence we already have. If abiogenesis is true then the oldest fossil evidence should be single celled life, and that is exactly what we see. We do not see mammals or dinosaurs in the oldest sediments that have life. So we already have one test that abiogenesis has passed.

We should also observe that complex organic molecules can form form through abiotic processes. We observe just that. We observe that complex organic molecules can form in the absence of life.

The reason I say it is untestable is the fact that even IF scientists were able to "create" real life in a lab, that does not mean that life came from non life. That part would be completely untestable.

Click to expand...

So if scientists produce a lightning bolt in a lab this means that all lightning bolts in nature require an intelligent designer? That doesn't make much sense.

good brother said:

Is abiogenesis completely a faith based belief? The reason I ask is that is completely untestable, completely unproven, and completely unproveable. The reason I say it is untestable is the fact that even IF scientists were able to "create" real life in a lab, that does not mean that life came from non life. That part would be completely untestable. I say it is un proven because it is unproven. And it is unproveable insomuch as even if scientists were able to create life in a lab, all that would mean is that scientists can create life in a lab. And I do mean create, not recreate an organism already in existence, I mean create life that lives, breathes, eats, poops, reproduces, and all the other bells and whistles.

If scientists were able to actually create life in a lab, that would not mean that it could have happened on accident, it means that intelligent designers could create life. To really prove abiogenesis, it would have to be a case of life arising in the natural world completely free from any intelligent intervention.

That won't happen because abiogenesis is completely untestable, unproveable, and unproven. The only other option is a Creator and that is unthinkable to some.

In Christ, GB

Click to expand...

Abiogenesis is not "faith", it is a hypothesis based on the best of our knowledge. It might be unproven, but unlike creationism, abiogenesis certainly is testable and provable, just going to take someone to do it again in a lab. Here, let me break down the differences from you:

Abiogenesis: you either accept it or not based on the data you have. It can be tested in a lab and some day will be when we find the right conditions.

Creationism: you either believe it or not based on what you read in Genesis.

If scientists were able to create life in the lab with only chemicals and simulated conditions, the only thing that would prove is that it could have happened spontaneously in nature.

Loudmouth said:

You haven't established that at all. We can test abiogenesis with the evidence we already have. If abiogenesis is true then the oldest fossil evidence should be single celled life, and that is exactly what we see. We do not see mammals or dinosaurs in the oldest sediments that have life. So we already have one test that abiogenesis has passed.

We should also observe that complex organic molecules can form form through abiotic processes. We observe just that. We observe that complex organic molecules can form in the absence of life.

Click to expand...

You do realize that according to abiogenesis, one has to hold to a form of spontaneous generation, don't you?

So if scientists produce a lightning bolt in a lab this means that all lightning bolts in nature require an intelligent designer? That doesn't make much sense.

Click to expand...

No, because lightning doesn't breathe, eat, live, reproduce, etc, etc... All lightning is a ginormous spark.


In Christ, GB

good brother said:

You do realize that according to abiogenesis, one has to hold to a form of spontaneous generation, don't you?

Click to expand...

Not true at all. Spontaneous generation is modern, complex life arising from non-living matter in the span of a few days to a few weeks. That is not abiogenesis.

No, because lightning doesn't breathe, eat, live, reproduce, etc, etc... All lightning is a ginormous spark.

Click to expand...

Life is just as natural as lightning. The same logic applies to both.

CabVet said:

Abiogenesis is not "faith", it is a hypothesis based on the best of our knowledge. It might be unproven, but unlike creationism, abiogenesis certainly is testable and provable, just going to take someone to do it again in a lab. Here, let me break down the differences from you:

Abiogenesis: you either accept it or not based on the data you have. It can be tested in a lab and some day will be when we find the right conditions.

Click to expand...

And the awesome statement of the day goes to.....Cabvet for "It can be tested in a lab and someday will be [tested in the lab] when we find the right conditions [to be able to test it in the lab]." Because really, that's exactly what you have said there. You have said pretty dogmatically that it can be tested in the lab but at the same time we don't have the foggiest clue on what the right conditions are to be able to test it. You have no idea whatsoever if it is able to be tested in the lab or not as you (scientists, not you specifically) don't even know how to go about setting up the right conditions to even be able to begin to test it!

If scientists were able to create life in the lab with only chemicals and simulated conditions, the only thing that would prove is that it could have happened spontaneously in nature.

Click to expand...

Again, no. The only thing that would prove is that intelligent forces could design and create (like I said before, create, not recreate) life in a lab. For it to be proven that it could happen in nature it would have to happen in nature with no oversight by intelligent forces driving the outcome.

God bless you!

In Christ, GB

Loudmouth said:

Not true at all. Spontaneous generation is modern, complex life arising from non-living matter in the span of a few days to a few weeks. That is not abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

That is why I said "a FORM of spontaneous generation..." A FORM OF.

Life is just as natural as lightning. The same logic applies to both.

Click to expand...

Lightning cannot breath, cannot see, cannot hear, cannot taste, cannot feel, cannot remember, cannot think, cannot fight or flight, cannot have memories, cannot reproduce, cannot live at all. ALL lightning is is a giant spark. Please tell me you weren't serious with that statement, were you?

God bless you, my friend!

In Christ, GB

good brother said:

Is abiogenesis completely a faith based belief? The reason I ask is that is completely untestable, completely unproven, and completely unproveable. The reason I say it is untestable is the fact that even IF scientists were able to "create" real life in a lab, that does not mean that life came from non life. That part would be completely untestable. I say it is un proven because it is unproven. And it is unproveable insomuch as even if scientists were able to create life in a lab, all that would mean is that scientists can create life in a lab. And I do mean create, not recreate an organism already in existence, I mean create life that lives, breathes, eats, poops, reproduces, and all the other bells and whistles.

If scientists were able to actually create life in a lab, that would not mean that it could have happened on accident, it means that intelligent designers could create life. To really prove abiogenesis, it would have to be a case of life arising in the natural world completely free from any intelligent intervention.

That won't happen because abiogenesis is completely untestable, unproveable, and unproven. The only other option is a Creator and that is unthinkable to some.


In Christ, GB

Click to expand...

Using GB logic, murder suspects should be released because there's no way to re-murder their victims, thereby guilt cannot be reasonably established.

Way to go!

good brother said:

That is why I said "a FORM of spontaneous generation..." A FORM OF.

Click to expand...

They are still nothing alike. Abiogenesis does not have mice arising from wheat stores in a matter of days. Abiogenesis does not have flies arising from rotting meat in a week. Abiogenesis is not a form of spontaneous generation.

Lightning cannot breath, cannot see, cannot hear, cannot taste, cannot feel, cannot remember, cannot think, cannot fight or flight, cannot have memories, cannot reproduce, cannot live at all. ALL lightning is is a giant spark. Please tell me you weren't serious with that statement, were you?

Click to expand...

Why does that change anything? Please explain.

You are claiming that if humans create a phenomenon in the lab that this means that the same phenomenon in nature requires an intelligent designer. Are you withdrawing this claim or not?

good brother said:

Again, no. The only thing that would prove is that intelligent forces could design and create (like I said before, create, not recreate) life in a lab. For it to be proven that it could happen in nature it would have to happen in nature with no oversight by intelligent forces driving the outcome.

Click to expand...

That is not how the scientific method works. You don't have to recreate the hypothesis. You have to test the hypothesis. We don't have to reanimate a corpse for forensic science to work.

Yes, the questions about abiogenesis that scientists ask do constitute a hypothesis. We know that at one time no life existed. We know life exists now, So there must have been an event whereby life came into existence. This event, whatever it was, is know as the abiogenesis event, abiogenesis meaning roughly, "the beginning (or the origin) of life from non- (life)" We know that such an event happened. We know how the air and the water were different from today's air and water, and we can make decent guesses as to how those differences contributed to the emergence of life -- not that they were the cause of the abiogenesis event, but how the event would have been easier becuse of what was available to the emerging life.

Because it is a scientific hypothesis, it focuses on the parts of the event that science can investigate, which mainly means most of the "How." The "Why" and those parts of the "How" directly connected to it are beyond the purview of Science. While some people, including individual scientists, believe the Universe ultimately has no "Why," that is not what Science teaches. Science is merely silent on things beyond its scope. So no, Science is not faith-based.

As such, Science, including the Evolutionary Model and the abiogenesis hypothesis are perfectly compatible with many religious and philosophical positions, including most concepts of God creating and guiding life. YEC is only incompatible because of the age of the Earth. Even Gap is compatible because its proponents believe that the seven days of Genesis 1 describes the re-emergence of life after some sort of "nuclear winter" scenario, and not the abiogenesis event.

Yes there are details that are different, but they can theoretically be reconciled. There is no inherent incompatibilty

good brother said:

hy·poth·e·sis
<LI class=sb_ans> [ h&#299; póth&#601;ssiss ]

1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation
2. assumption:

Click to expand...

I have a real problem with the first definition. A scientific theory and hypothesis are two different things. A hypothesis can lead to a theory, true enough, but to say that a hypothesis is a theory is just wrong.

good brother said:

It undountedly needs a whole lot of investigation! But I certainly agree with the second definition that it assumes a lot. But then, you and I both know what happens when one assumes.....

Click to expand...

So, a hypothesis is an assumption. Big deal?

good brother said:

Start a thread on the subject, invite me to it and I would be glad to discuss that with you.

Click to expand...

Why should I have to start an entire thread on just one question aimed at one particular poster? You certainly don't have to answer, but I'd hardly consider it a thread derail if you did.

I don't believe an hypothesis is an assumption. An hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something not an assumption that, that explanation for something is necessarily the case.

grasping the after wind said:

I don't believe an hypothesis is an assumption. An hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something not an assumption that, that explanation for something is necessarily the case.

Click to expand...

A hypothesis is basically an assumption. It is an assumption made through observation or from some other data, so it is not just a guess. It's an "educated" guess, if you will.

selfinflikted said:

I have a real problem with the first definition. A scientific theory and hypothesis are two different things. A hypothesis can lead to a theory, true enough, but to say that a hypothesis is a theory is just wrong.

Click to expand...

And it is the (often deliberate) confusion between that common but unscientific use of the word "theory" as a synonym for hypothesis and the definition used by scientists that allows Creationists to blithely dismiss the Evolutionary Model as "just a theory." Aaaarghhh!!

selfinflikted said:

A hypothesis is basically an assumption. It is an assumption made through observation or from some other data, so it is not just a guess. It's an "educated" guess, if you will.

Click to expand...

no, it most certainly is NOT. If anything it is a conclusion, an attempt to explain current data and make a prediction. It is as far away from an assumption as you can get!