Abiogenesis

[AV1611VET]

When the Bible said that God formed man from the dust of the earth, that to me sounds like a model of abiogenesis.

Two questions:

1. What about the angels?

2. Does abiogenesis occur then just before birth? say, in the 3rd trimester?

 

[freezerman2000]

funny,we were not talking about Angels,were we?
The way Genesis is worded,there was no 9 months, so,the third trimester is a moot point.

 

[Michael]

I find that to be expected, not odd; what other ways would "aware" beings be, but aware.

If you had some examples of life not evolving in a way to facilitate that, it would be easier to comment on it through comparison. "Odd" only works, if there is a contrast.

There are certainly objects that lack any sort of overt signs of "awareness" as we perceive it, whereas in "contrast", life forms tend to facilitate the expression of awareness in ever more complex forms. If you read through the threads I suggested, you'll find all sorts of links to processes in spacetime that mirror in shape and function, neurons in living creatures. Are these simply "coincidences", or is there something there to consider?

As far as I can tell, the sole "purpose" of "living organisms" is to provide a "physical form" in which 'awareness" can manifest and "explore". Is that really something that forms on "accident", even if it did form "naturally"?

 

[AV1611VET]

funny,we were not talking about Angels,were we?
The way Genesis is worded,there was no 9 months, so,the third trimester is a moot point.

As I have pointed out before, all "abiogenesis" says, is that "it is not biogenesis."

That's like someone asking, "Who parked their car in my space?" and Fred saying, "Joe didn't."

 

[freezerman2000]

AV, look at it this way..Is dust living matter? No..Life from inert material is abiogenesis,is it not?

 

[Non sequitur]

There are certainly objects that lack any sort of overt signs of "awareness" as we perceive it, whereas in "contrast", life forms tend to facilitate the expression of awareness in ever more complex forms. If you read through the threads I suggested, you'll find all sorts of links to processes in spacetime that mirror in shape and function, neurons in living creatures. Are these simply "coincidences", or is there something there to consider?

It seems like you are offering an oversimplification or "other stuff". A quasi-false dichotomy, since your "other stuff" implies it could only be a deity-type thing.

I would say, complex things to consider.

As far as I can tell, the sole "purpose" of "living organisms" is to provide a "physical form" in which 'awareness" can manifest and "explore". Is that really something that forms on "accident", even if it did form "naturally"?

"Accident" is often associated with "random and without purpose". I would see it as an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance, possibly with lack of intention or necessity. (The definition of accident.)

 

[Michael]

It seems like you are offering an oversimplification or "other stuff". A quasi-false dichotomy, since your "other stuff" implies it could only be a deity-type thing.

Actually I was poking holes in your oversimplification fallacy. It's not really an either/or question to begin with. It's entirely possible that life formed completely "naturally", yet it could still involve "aware intent". It's not as simple of a question of you make it out to be IMO.

"Accident" is often associated with "random and without purpose". I would see it as an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance, possibly with lack of intention or necessity. (The definition of accident.)

This ultimately amounts to a "statement of faith" on your part. As I pointed out, even *if* life formed "naturally", that in no way implies that it was an "accident", or that the conditions "created" ever actually "lacked intention". We do not know that the universe ever lacked "awareness".

 

[Non sequitur]

Actually I was poking holes in your oversimplification fallacy. It's not really an either/or question to begin with. It's entirely possible that life formed completely "naturally", yet it could still involve "aware intent". It's not as simple of a question of you make it out to be IMO.

I made no oversimplification fallacy.

I was comparing like likelihood of two different things/scenarios, to each other. I wasn't solving for x.

This ultimately amounts to a "statement of faith" on your part. As I pointed out, even *if* life formed "naturally", that in no way implies that it was an "accident", or that the conditions "created" ever actually "lacked intention". We do not know that the universe ever lacked "awareness".

I was defining and re-clarifying the word you used, not holding it as my opinion.

Why are you playing devil's advocate with yourself, while asking me to comment on it?

 

[Michael]

I made no oversimplification fallacy.

You certainly seem to imply it was an "either/or" scenario when it fact more options are possible.

I was comparing like likelihood of two different things/scenarios, to each other. I wasn't solving for x.

I'm just pointing out that there are more than two possible scenarios.

I'm not playing devil's advocate, I'm simply noting that life could have formed "naturally", yet still not have been an "accident". There are simply more than two possibilities here to consider.

 

[Non sequitur]

You certainly seem to imply it was an "either/or" scenario when it fact more options are possible.



I'm just pointing out that there are more than two possible scenarios.

I'm not playing devil's advocate, I'm simply noting that life could have formed "naturally", yet still not have been an "accident". There are simply more than two possibilities here to consider.

I agree.

But you seem to be under the impression that I was discussing the validity of these two explanations, as the only explanations. I was not. I have even said I was not trying to solve for x, using solely these two statements because they are the best/only explanation.

I was just discussing the problem of one response, because of the (unintended) problem (of probability) it created about itself.

 

[Ken-1122]

Abiogenesis? I thought that theory has been discredited already! Are people still believing that theory?

Abiogenesis | Define Abiogenesis at Dictionary.com

Ken

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

Abiogenesis? I thought that theory has been discredited already! Are people still believing that theory?

For the thousandth time: You and your failed dictionary are confusing abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.

And unless you think life has existed since the "infinite past", there HAD to be a point in the past when the first life came from non-living ingredients. Indeed, most of the major religions teach that abiogenesis, as in Genesis 2:7 (life from non-life: the dust of the ground.)

Amazing. No matter how many times these things are explained, someone has to be reminded of the basics.

 

[AV1611VET]

For the thousandth time: You and your failed dictionary are confusing abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.

Speaking of failed dictionaries, do you agree with this statement as it stands?

Abiogenesis ... or biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter.

SOURCE

Just YES or NO please.

 

[Ken-1122]

For the thousandth time: You and your failed dictionary are confusing abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.

And unless you think life has existed since the "infinite past", there HAD to be a point in the past when the first life came from non-living ingredients. Indeed, most of the major religions teach that abiogenesis, as in Genesis 2:7 (life from non-life: the dust of the ground.)

Amazing. No matter how many times these things are explained, someone has to be reminded of the basics.

Okay; so the dictionary is wrong, and you are right? I think I'll take my chances with the dictionary.
What is wrong with believing life has existed since the "infinite past"? After all that is what you believe isn't it? We just disagree with the type of life that has always existed; you believe your God has always existed; I believe matter has always existed. What's the difference?

K

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Okay; so the dictionary is wrong, and you are right? I think I'll take my chances with the dictionary.
What is wrong with believing life has existed since the "infinite past"? After all that is what you believe isn't it? We just disagree with the type of life that has always existed; you believe your God has always existed; I believe matter has always existed. What's the difference?

K

The particular dictionary you referenced was not necessarily using the term as it is used in a technical sense. In a strict sense, when one completely ignores what "spontaneous generation" meant to the people who believed it in the 17th and 18th century, one might get away with conflating the two concepts, but clearly abiogenesis as most scientists use the term today is not the same as "spontaneous generation". The greatest difference being not only the mechanism but the application (in other words, no scientists believe there were rancid steaks laying around in the Paleozoic that gave rise to maggots.)

It is similar to the word "computer". In the days before the Cold War a "computer" was a person who did manual calculations. So if I were to say "I threw my computer in the electronic recycling bin so I could go buy a new one." Do you honestly believe I have taken an 80 year old woman who did manual calculations in WWII and not only "owned" her but literally threw her into a recycling bin with electronic equipment?

I hope not! I hope you would be able to draw a reasonable conclusion based on context.

 

[Ken-1122]

The particular dictionary you referenced was not necessarily using the term as it is used in a technical sense. In a strict sense, when one completely ignores what "spontaneous generation" meant to the people who believed it in the 17th and 18th century, one might get away with conflating the two concepts, but clearly abiogenesis as most scientists use the term today is not the same as "spontaneous generation". The greatest difference being not only the mechanism but the application (in other words, no scientists believe there were rancid steaks laying around in the Paleozoic that gave rise to maggots.)

It is similar to the word "computer". In the days before the Cold War a "computer" was a person who did manual calculations. So if I were to say "I threw my computer in the electronic recycling bin so I could go buy a new one." Do you honestly believe I have taken an 80 year old woman who did manual calculations in WWII and not only "owned" her but literally threw her into a recycling bin with electronic equipment?

I hope not! I hope you would be able to draw a reasonable conclusion based on context.

Okay; that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

K

 

[Non sequitur]

Speaking of failed dictionaries, do you agree with this statement as it stands?


SOURCE

Just YES or NO please.

STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD AND STAY ON THE TOPIC.