Abiogenesis or God?

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Lets hear your imput on a theory or the Bible.

 

[Tomk80]

It seems like you're saying: abiogenesis=atheism. You do realize this is false, do you?

 

[Mistermystery]

Abiogenesis does not equal atheism.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

False dichotomy

 

[HRE]

Well, since Christians are very happy pushing their God of the Gaps further and further back, I suspect that if abiogenesis is soundly proven, they will simply say that God acted on it to occur. 'Nuff said.

 

[mark kennedy]

God and abiogenesis are mutually exclusive, there is no substantive difference between abiogenesis and materialistic atheism. Abiogenesis, by the way, doesn't even have enough demonstrated evidence to be considered a theroy. Its a fantasy like much of the rest of evolutionary theology, it excluded anything that might be understood to be God's handiwork.

 

[Tomk80]

God and abiogenesis are mutually exclusive the same way God and meteorology are mutually exclusive. Cut the false dichotomies Mark, they make you look bad.

 

[Dracil]

False dichotomy, as other people have been saying.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wrong answer! God is by definition alive, abiogenesis is the emergence of life from nonliving sources. Evolution, I might add, is a biogenesis model and the myth of abiogenesis has virtually no empirical proof that it is even possible. Abiogenesis is not only a rejection of God as a source for life, but life as a source for life. It has nothing to do with the large body of work that has grown up around evolutionary biology. It is natualistic methodology taken to its most impossible extreme both as science and theology. Calling it a false dichotomy is patently absurd and betrays a woefull lack of comprehension of how this undemonstrated, unfalsifiable hypothesis is nothing more then idle speculation.

 

[ScarabicAtheist]

it may be idle speculation, but it has been proven that basic biological molecules (does not equal cells by the way ) can be produced during conditions similar to the ones in primitive Earth, making it the hypothesis with the most backing from evidence currently available.

 

[Brahe]

Wrong answer! God is by definition alive, abiogenesis is the emergence of life from nonliving sources.

God is by definition alive? Does anyone else get the feeling that mark thinks that one can simply define things into existence?

Anyway mark, perhaps you could tell us what god eats, how your god defecates, and so on.

Evolution, I might add, is a biogenesis model and the myth of abiogenesis has virtually no empirical proof that it is even possible. Abiogenesis is not only a rejection of God as a source for life, but life as a source for life. It has nothing to do with the large body of work that has grown up around evolutionary biology. It is natualistic methodology taken to its most impossible extreme both as science and theology.

mark, do you even know what "myth" means? www.dictionary.com lists four definitions, and as far as I can see, evolution and abiogenesis isn't a myth by any of those definitions.

If abiogenesis is a rejection of anything, it's a rejection of the vitalistic spark that was thought to differentiate life from non-life. However, it's long been known that the chemisty in humans and other living creatures is entirely possible outside of living beings. Or do you think that urea can only be produced by "living" chemical reactions.

Science uses methodological naturalism, though I wouldn't say that the two are the same. By no means is methodological naturalism a theology. I would say that philosophical (or ontological) naturalism is a philosophical position, but not a theology.

Calling it a false dichotomy is patently absurd and betrays a woefull lack of comprehension of how this undemonstrated, unfalsifiable hypothesis is nothing more then idle speculation.

Ah, the pot calling the lightbulb black. mark, don't pretend to lecture your betters in matters which you clearly do not understand. If you merely misunderstand the topic, then you'll find that people are entirely willing to politely respond to correct you. But when you spurn help and take on the arrogance you ascribe to your god, it's an indication that you're invincibly ignorant.

 

[HRE]

Not to mention: how does God reproduce?

 

[notto]

Wrong answer! God is by definition alive, abiogenesis is the emergence of life from nonliving sources. Evolution, I might add, is a biogenesis model and the myth of abiogenesis has virtually no empirical proof that it is even possible. Abiogenesis is not only a rejection of God as a source for life, but life as a source for life. It has nothing to do with the large body of work that has grown up around evolutionary biology. It is natualistic methodology taken to its most impossible extreme both as science and theology. Calling it a false dichotomy is patently absurd and betrays a woefull lack of comprehension of how this undemonstrated, unfalsifiable hypothesis is nothing more then idle speculation.

What makes it unfalsifiable? Is everything that is undemonstrated not possible in your eyes?

 

[Tomk80]

Wrong answer! God is by definition alive, abiogenesis is the emergence of life from nonliving sources.

It's kind of sad to see you go wrong in the first sentence. God is not by definition alive, since he misses a lot of the defining characteristics of life. Even according to a lot of theologians in past and present, alive is an inadequate term to describe God.

 

[armed2010]

All things were created by Chiyo-Chan, so I choose other.

 

[Illogical]

God was created by abiogenesis.

 

[mark kennedy]

God is by definition alive? Does anyone else get the feeling that mark thinks that one can simply define things into existence?

Number one don't respond to my post by addressing other people. Thats what PMs are for, it rude and I don't appreciate it.

Anyway mark, perhaps you could tell us what god eats, how your god defecates, and so on.

God doesn't fit the general biological definition that His earthly creatures do. You insinuate that I just define God into existance and then you try to define Him out. Pedantic satire is not science, its circular sarcasm that makes a mockery of both religion and natural science.

mark, do you even know what "myth" means? www.dictionary.com lists four definitions, and as far as I can see, evolution and abiogenesis isn't a myth by any of those definitions.

Yes, I know both the popular usage definitions and the etymology of the word. Having had an academic interest in modern an anchient myticism for a number of years so I am well aquainted with the principles and particulars of mythology. You obviously are not.

If abiogenesis is a rejection of anything, it's a rejection of the vitalistic spark that was thought to differentiate life from non-life. However, it's long been known that the chemisty in humans and other living creatures is entirely possible outside of living beings. Or do you think that urea can only be produced by "living" chemical reactions.

If you are talking about the Krebs urea cycle its a product of metabolism. I have no idea what you are getting at here and I'm not sure you do either.

Science uses methodological naturalism, though I wouldn't say that the two are the same. By no means is methodological naturalism a theology. I would say that philosophical (or ontological) naturalism is a philosophical position, but not a theology.

Naturalistic methodology is a view that only naturalistic explanations in science are acceptable. Natural selection is a prime expression of this materialistic and atheistic world view. It is a catagorical rejection of anything theistic and this is obvious to even the most casual observer.

Ah, the pot calling the lightbulb black. mark, don't pretend to lecture your betters in matters which you clearly do not understand. If you merely misunderstand the topic, then you'll find that people are entirely willing to politely respond to correct you. But when you spurn help and take on the arrogance you ascribe to your god, it's an indication that you're invincibly ignorant.

Do you even know what abiogenesis is, how it would conceivably work, or what the major problems for it are in natural science and natural history. You have expressed an interested in writing scathing satire and mock theistic reasoning but as yet you haven't said anything about abiogenesis. You know nothing of religious thought, mysticism or other wise, and have succeded only in mocking things you know nothing about. Don't condesend to me, I've heard these childish headtrips before from far better read evolutionists then you.

 

[mark kennedy]

God was created by abiogenesis.

Really? Are you sure it wasn't Al Gore, because it makes about as much sense.

 

[Mistermystery]

God was created by abiogenesis.

This may be the best awnser of the thread.

 

[gladiatrix]

Ah, the pot calling the lightbulb black. mark, don't pretend to lecture your betters in matters which you clearly do not understand. If you merely misunderstand the topic, then you'll find that people are entirely willing to politely respond to correct you. But when you spurn help and take on the arrogance you ascribe to your god, it's an indication that you're invincibly ignorant.

Do you even know what abiogenesis is, how it would conceivably work, or what the major problems for it are in natural science and natural history.

I would as the same question of you because you obviously don't know what abiogenesis is or you wouldn't make such statements as this:

From Post #6:
God and abiogenesis are mutually exclusive, there is no substantive difference between abiogenesis and materialistic atheism.
1. Abiogenesis, by the way, doesn't even have enough demonstrated evidence to be considered a theroy.
2. Its a fantasy like much of the rest of evolutionary theology, it excluded anything that might be understood to be God's handiwork.(Numbering added to original)

A. With regard to your first assertion (1.): There is empirical evidence for abiogenesis.

• Abiogenesis--Part 1
• Abiogenesis--Part 2
• Abiogenesis--Part 3
  [*]to napajohn's questions

• following up on 3 posts about abiogenesis

• Then there's your own thread on abiogenesis, where it was explained to you by lucaspa.
  

Where is there any comparable evidence for your God? The reason I ask for comparable evidence is that you also speak of BOTH science and theological concepts like your God using methodological naturalism:

From Post #9:
Abiogenesis is not only a rejection of God as a source for life, but life as a source for life. It has nothing to do with the large body of work that has grown up around evolutionary biology. It is natualistic methodology taken to its most impossible extreme both as science and theology.

God ,by definition (invisible, "supernatural"-meaning outside of the NATURAL universe), CANNOT be studied by METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM which REQUIRES the use of empirical evidence (explained in the link). Science has nothing to say one way or the other about your god, simply because you concept is not testible using the tools available to science/methodological naturalism (MN). What you are doing is trying to conflate philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism and the just won't fly. Apparently you have forgotten that lucaspa explained this to you already.

In other words, you god is NOT "NATURAL", so for you to contend that BOTH science and theology come under the same heading as MN is quite ridiculous. However, since YOU have put your god into the same "class" (methodological naturalism) as science, I await your empirical evidence that your god exists (even one single solitary piece of empirical evidence). You dug yourself into this "methodological naturalistic" hole (so to speak), let's see you dig yourself out of it.

If you can't produce empirical evidence for your "NOT natural" being, then I strongly suggest that you stop

• claiming that science/methodological naturalism has/can come to any conclusion on the alleged existance of NOT NATURAL, THEOLOGICAL beings, concepts, realms.
• trying to claim that acceptance of evolution/abiogenesis NECESSARILY equates to acceptance of atheism.

But hey, do continue to show the poverty of your position to everybody by trying to conflate science, theology, your version of the Christian God to the forum (and to any lurkers just browsing for information).

B. This brings me to your second assertion==>"2. Its a fantasy like much of the rest of evolutionary theology, it excluded anything that might be understood to be God's handiwork."
I await your evidence that scientific theory is also "theology". Seems like you and your religious buds failed to do that before

• HERE is a typical exchange from you on the subject,
• also Evolution a religion?
• and Creationism in Public Schools?

Do realize that the notion that "only God can create a tree" (in various forms) has been around for a long time. You would doubtless have been arguing the validity of vitalism:

Carbon Chemistry--The Decline of Vitalism

Many chemists, at that time, considered life a special phenomenon that did not necessarily obey the laws of the universe as they applied to inanimate objects. A belief in this special position of life is called vitalism, and it had been strongly preached, a century earlier, by Stahl, the inventor of phlogiston. In the light of vitalism, it seemed reasonable to suppose that some special influence (a "vital force"), operating only within living tissue, was required to convert inorganic materials into organic ones. Chemists, working with ordinary substances and techniques and without being able to manipulate a vital force in their test tubes, could not bring about this conversion.

It was for this reason, men argued, that inorganic substances might be found anywhere; in the realm of life and in that of non-life as well, as water might be found in both the ocean and the blood. Organic substances, requiring the vital force, would be found only in connection with life.

This view was first disrupted in 1828 by the work of Friedrich Wohler (1800-1882), a German chemist, who had been a pupil of Berzelius. Wohler was particularly interested in cyanides and related compounds, and was engaged in heating a compound called ammonium cyanate. (This was widely regarded, at the time, as an inorganic substance, having no connection with living matter in any way). In the course of the heating, Wohler discovered he was forming crystals that resembled those of urea, a waste product eliminated in considerable quantity in the urine of many animals, including man. Closer study showed the crystals were undoubtedly urea, which was, of course, clearly an organic compound.

Wohler et al disproved the notion that some "vital force", outside of nature was necessary for the formation of organic compounds (those PREVIOUSLY only derived from living sources, but not after Wohler demonstrated otherwise). You seem to be stuck on the "vitalism" page with Berzelius and Co. Now that Wohler plugged that "gap" (can't hide your God there anymore), some theists have simply transferred their God to the final gaps in knowledge that haven't QUITE figured out ALL the parameters/chemistry that generated "life" (as biologists classify it) from "non-living" (also a human characterization) chemistry. The existence of protocells alone is enough to close that particular "God-did-it" gap (life only possible if God "zaps" it into existence) as far as I am concerned (just a few reasons):

1. Protocell chemistry and how they function (explained simply by lucaspa)

2. In this paper Pappellis and Fox petitioned to have protocells (as organisms) be designated as a new domain of life. "The paper also briefly discusses that certain types of proteinoid microsphere protocells -- called metaprotocells -- have been demonstrated to convert light into ATP, to use that ATP to make polynucleotides, and then to use those polynucleotides as templates to make polypeptides."
Pappelis A, Fox SW. Domain Protolife. Journal of Biological Physics 20: 129-132, 1994.

3. Lucaspa answers criticisms about protocells. He adds more reasons to argue that protocells should be considered alive.

Just so you can't claim that no one has gone to great lengths to explain it to you.....