Abiogenesis

[AV1611VET]

Is abiogenesis a theory?

If so, what would pwn it?

I contend abiogenesis is a lie of the devil.

How sayest thou?

 

[ChetSinger]

Is abiogenesis a theory?

If so, what would pwn it?

I contend abiogenesis is a lie of the devil.

How sayest thou?

Without God abiogenesis simply had to have happened. So I see as less a theory than a historical requirement of the Godless history of life.

Particular ideas about how it happened might be considered theories, but I'm more inclined to call them hypotheses.

The idea used to be called "spontaneous generation", and was common in ancient societies: rags begat rats, carcasses begat maggots, books begat worms, etc. If I remember correctly, it was Pasteur, a Christian, who put the final nail in its coffin.

It's clearly a non-Biblical idea: God takes credit for the creation of all life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Particular ideas about how it happened might be considered theories, but I'm more inclined to call them hypotheses.

What would pwn (falsify) it?

 

[selfinflikted]

I don't think it qualifies, at this point, as a theory. I think it's more likely a hypothesis. I could be wrong, though.

 

[ChetSinger]

What would pwn (falsify) it?

It's difficult for me to prove a negative. But it's been impossible for its proponents to prove a positive.

Afaik, it was the conundrum of abiogenesis that turned Antony Flew into a theist. It also convinced Eugene Koonin to turn to the "multiverse" as a solution (and that's the ultimate shifting of goalposts).

I think the structure of life is one of the clear evidences of God in this age. The more we learn about living things, the more difficult we understand their naturalistic creation to be.

 

[Ophiolite]

Is abiogenesis a theory?

No. There appear to be three major explanations for life in the universe:

1. Life has always been present.

2. Life arose through natural processes.

3. Life was created by a supernatural being.

All of these are - I would say - more categories than theories. Specifically abiogenesis covers a variety of plausible, but distinct, hypotheses. To call it a theory we would require a much wider range of theoretical and evidential support for one of those hypotheses, that provided a detailed account of the process.

If so, what would pwn it?

An emphatic demonstration that one or more steps in the proposed process was impossible.

I contend abiogenesis is a lie of the devil.

I bow to your expertise in the area of lies.

How sayest thou?

as above.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think it qualifies, at this point, as a theory. I think it's more likely a hypothesis. I could be wrong, though.

What would falsify it?

 

[selfinflikted]

What would falsify it?

I dunno. Finding evidence that a god created life?

 

[crjmurray]

What would falsify it?

Finding out that life was created by some sort of grandfather paradox.

 

[AV1611VET]

I dunno. Finding evidence that a god created life?

Some believe that falsifiability is a criterion for a theory or hypothesis to be valid.

Rabbits in the precambrian are supposed to be a valid criterion for falsifying evolution and whatnot -- but others say otherwise.

Personally, I think scientists don't know what they believe in this area.

It's clear (to me, anyway) that abiogenesis is a joke, as God created angels without requiring they go through this process -- not to mention the fact that God, Himself, didn't.

Neither did He send Adam & Eve through it, or any other life created in Genesis 1 by divine fiat.

 

[AV1611VET]

Finding out that life was created by some sort of grandfather paradox.

Do you think abiogenesis is a theory, hypothesis, or lie of the devil?

 

[selfinflikted]

Some believe that falsifiability is a criterion for a theory or hypothesis to be valid.

Rabbits in the precambrian are supposed to be a valid criterion for falsifying evolution and whatnot -- but others say otherwise.

Personally, I think scientists don't know what they believe in this area.

It's clear (to me, anyway) that abiogenesis is a joke, as God created angels without requiring they go through this process -- not to mention the fact that God, Himself, didn't.

Neither did He send Adam & Eve through it, or any other life created in Genesis 1 by divine fiat.

Well, there are other competing hypotheses, like the panspermia hypothesis. And yes, a theory and hypothesis should be falsifiable. My answer to your question was a bit tongue-in-cheek, btw.

 

[crjmurray]

Do you think abiogenesis is a theory, hypothesis, or lie of the devil?

Hypothesis

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, there are other competing hypotheses, like the panspermia hypothesis.

From Wikipedia:

Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its distribution in the Universe.

SOURCE

 

[Split Rock]

Is abiogenesis a theory?

No. Just as there is not an Intelligent Design theory, there is no abiogenesis theory.

If so, what would pwn it?

See above.

I contend abiogenesis is a lie of the devil.

You contend all sorts of weird stuff here.

How sayest thou?

"thou???"

What would pwn (falsify) it?

The finding that some part of the process required of abiogenesis was not possible.
The finding that life was indeed created here or moved here from somewhere else.

 

[AV1611VET]

The finding that some part of the process required of abiogenesis was not possible.

That's ... um ... a given -- is it not?

The finding that life was indeed created here or moved here from somewhere else.

Abiogenesis isn't universal? it only applies to life on earth?

 

[selfinflikted]

From Wikipedia:


SOURCE

While technically true, I thought we were talking about the origin of life on earth. My bad, if this assumption was incorrect.

 

[AV1611VET]

While technically true, I thought we were talking about the origin of life on earth. My bad, if this assumption was incorrect.

Well, for the record, I started this thread with that in mind, but I forgot about panspermia.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, for the record, I started this thread with that in mind, but I forgot about panspermia.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, for the record, I started this thread with that in mind, but I forgot about panspermia.

Which only pushes it back one step. Where if panspermia did life originate. There still needs to be a first cause.