Abiogenesis

[ChetSinger]

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

I agree. The rules of chemistry appear to be the same no matter where we look.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I agree. The rules of chemistry appear to be the same no matter where we look.

Right, which also brings us to why there are rules in the first place. Who made up the rules?

 

[selfinflikted]

Right, which also brings us to why there are rules in the first place. Who made up the rules?

Why does a "who" have to be involved? Why can't the rules just be?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why does a "who" have to be involved? Why can't the rules just be?

Well certainly if you feel more comfortable thinking that the rules are just brute facts and just happened by accident that is fine.

 

[Oafman]

Well certainly if you feel more comfortable thinking that the rules are just brute facts and just happened by accident that is fine.

I don't see how anyone could claim either option. We really have no idea.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well certainly if you feel more comfortable thinking that the rules are just brute facts and just happened by accident that is fine.

Well, the rules have to be something. If they weren't what we see now, they'd be something else. I just hesitate to credit an intelligence, until evidence points in that direction.

 

[Ophiolite]

What would falsify it?

As I have noted, until it has developed beyond its status as a category, it cannot be falsified. Once it is a full fledged hypothesis, or theory, then demonstrating the impossibility of any step in the postulated process would falsify it.

I understand that this does not sit well with your amusing attempt to trap someone into proffering a "theory" that cannot be falsified, but those are the facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I have noted, until it has developed beyond its status as a category, it cannot be falsified. Once it is a full fledged hypothesis, or theory, then demonstrating the impossibility of any step in the postulated process would falsify it.

From an online dictionary:

abiogenesis:

1 the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
2. the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed from nonliving matter.

 

[selfinflikted]

AV, sources matter. Which dictionary did that come from?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, sources matter. Which dictionary did that come from?

dictionary.reference.com

 

[HitchSlap]

Is abiogenesis a theory?

If so, what would pwn it?

I contend abiogenesis is a lie of the devil.

How sayest thou?

Yes.

Life never having evolved.

What's a "devil?"

This is what I sayeth.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

That just moves the goal posts. There is not enough time for life
to accidentally develop, so we push back the time limits by saying
it came from space.

 

[AV1611VET]

Life never having evolved.

How would you know if life never evolved?

 

[AV1611VET]

That just moves the goal posts. There is not enough time for life
to accidentally develop, so we push back the time limits by saying
it came from space.

Correct!

 

[selfinflikted]

dictionary.reference.com

Interesting. I wasn't aware that the hypothesis had been "discredited" nor was I aware that this was ever a theory. I am incredulous. This doesn't seem legit.

abiogenesis:

1 the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
2. the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed from nonliving matter.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't see how anyone could claim either option. We really have no idea.

Which makes me ask why Abiogenesis being taught in the class room?

 

[selfinflikted]

That just moves the goal posts. There is not enough time for life
to accidentally develop, so we push back the time limits by saying
it came from space.

It has nothing to do with time, but rather as I understand it, origins. Life could have originated here (and there was plenty of time for this to happen), or it could have originated elsewhere, and brought here via comet, meteor, or other.

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting. I wasn't aware that the hypothesis had been "discredited" nor was I aware that this was ever a theory. I am incredulous. This doesn't seem legit.

Well, as I said in Post 10:

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

As they say:

If there's a mist in the pulpit, there will be a fog in the congregation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which makes me ask why Abiogenesis being taught in the class room?

Good question.