Abiogenesis

[Loudmouth]

Is abiogenesis a theory?

If so, what would pwn it?

I contend abiogenesis is a lie of the devil.

How sayest thou?

Abiogenesis is a field of study. There are many working hypotheses right now, with the leading contender probably being the RNA World hypothesis.

RNA world hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RNA can act as both a genetic molecule and as a catalyst which means it can fill the roles of both DNA and proteins. This is what makes it an attractive molecule for abiogenesis researchers.

 

[quatona]

God isn't a theory or hypothesis.

Not even a hypothesis? "Wild guess", then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now that is what I call a cop out.

What irked me about your post is that you "conveniently" left out whether abiogenesis is a theory.

Then you wanted me to treat my belief in God by the same standards as science treats theories: that is, it's not really valid unless something can falsify it.

I'm not going to do that.

God is neither a theory, nor a hypothesis.

Since you insist on abiogenesis being false and that God created life then you have to play by the same rules you use on abiogenesis.

No, sir.

That is a rule of science; not theology.

I asked you the same question you did but supplanted the word abiogenesis with the word God.

I know what you did.

Now since I answered yours why do you shy away answering mine?

Because I can't.

God is neither a theory, nor a hypothesis.

 

[mzungu]

What irked me about your post is that you "conveniently" left out whether abiogenesis is a theory.

If it will make you happy; Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis and one day hopefully it will become a theory.

Then you wanted me to treat my belief in God by the same standards as science treats theories: that is, it's not really valid unless something can falsify it.

Welcome to the real world; otherwise fairies, goblins, little green men, all manner of deities etc. will have to be accepted as reality.

I'm not going to do that.

God is neither a theory, nor a hypothesis.

then God is just a lucky guess?

No, sir.

That is a rule of science; not theology.

I wholeheartedly agree with you here, so why don't you leave God in the spiritual world and leave science to do its work in the physical world?

I know what you did.

You offer an alternative explanation of how life began then you have to bring forth evidence of that process.

Because I can't.

God is neither a theory, nor a hypothesis.

Indeed you cannot simply because God and all the supernatural cannot be falsified. If you are asking us to show what would falsify Abiogenesis then you should not claim that the alternative must be some supernatural being creating life. You are mixing apples with oranges in case you were not aware of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Welcome to the real world; otherwise fairies, goblins, little green men, all manner of deities etc. will have to be accepted as reality.

No, I don't have to accept them.

You might think you have to; but I don't.

then God is just a lucky guess?

God is the object of my faith.

Not science, not fairies, not goblins, not little green men, not all manner of deities, not etc.

I wholeheartedly agree with you here, so why don't you leave God in the spiritual world and leave science to do its work in the physical world?

Because God is transcendent.

He can enter this physical world, or He can exit it. Whichever He chooses.

You offer an alternative explanation of how life began then you have to bring forth evidence of that process.

Pardon me, but abiogenesis is the alternative.

Creation was here first.

Remember those "ignorant, bronze age, goat-herding nomads"?

They came first -- then the Judas goats (scientists).

Indeed you cannot simply because God and all the supernatural cannot be falsified.

Sorry to disappoint you.

If you are asking us to show what would falsify Abiogenesis then you should not claim that the alternative must be some supernatural being creating life.

I'm not claiming God as an "alternative."

God was here first.

The Judas goats came later.

You are mixing apples with oranges in case you were not aware of it.

The two can co-exist in harmony.

 

[mzungu]

Pardon me, but abiogenesis is the alternative.

Creation was here first.

Remember those "ignorant, bronze age, goat-herding nomads"?

They came first -- then the Judas goats (scientists).

Sorry to disappoint you.

I'm not claiming God as an "alternative."

God was here first.

The Judas goats came later.

The two can co-exist in harmony.

No matter if your creation myth was first; you still have to bring forth evidence that creation myth is valid. All you have is your faith and I am sorry to say that that is not enough in the physical world.

Like you Yanks say "Show me the moneyyyyyyy".

Anyway you have the right to believe whatever you wish but when you decide to play on the science playing field then you need more than just faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

No matter if your creation myth was first; you still have to bring forth evidence that creation myth is valid.

How about I bring forth my apple challenge instead?

Then you can see how claiming something didn't happen can be wrong, despite the fact that it didn't leave any evidence behind.

All you have is your faith and I am sorry to say that that is not enough in the physical world.

It's not my faith that is supposed to convince you.

It's the word of God that does the job.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Like you Yanks say "Show me the moneyyyyyyy".

Your money is tied up in the halls of higher academia; and according to the Bible, that's where your heart (mind, will, emotions) is.

Anyway you have the right to believe whatever you wish but when you decide to play on the science playing field then you need more than just faith.

If I ever "decide to play on the science playing field," then I've got a problem, don't I?

I haven't made that decision in nine years here; and I'm not about to start.

 

[Davian]

...

If I ever "decide to play on the science playing field," then I've got a problem, don't I?

I haven't made that decision in nine years here; and I'm not about to start.

Wasn't that you playing science with the bible just a ways back?

Did the Bible predict electronic communications?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wasn't that you playing science with the bible just a ways back?

Did the Bible predict electronic communications?

I won't deny that there is science in the Bible.

But trying to use the Bible as a science book is like trying to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

 

[Davian]

I won't deny that there is science in the Bible.

But trying to use the Bible as a science book is like trying to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

Yet you did decide to try doing that, in that thread. Just to be clear.

 

[Loudmouth]

The details are different but concept is the same: life arising from nonlife. It's called "spontaneous generation" when referring to historical beliefs like worms arising from books, and "abiogenesis" when referring to the modern belief of cells arising from chemicals.

The details are completely different. RNA replicators are not maggots, and they are nowhere close to being the same.

Let's approach this from a different angle. Show us how Pasteur "disproved" abiogenesis. Show us how Pasteur's experimental set up would have reliably tested for RNA replicators and abiogenesis in general.