Inevitable problem with abiogenesis

[Chriliman]

Its not possible to demonstrate that life came from non-life.

Think with me for a second: imagine scientists finally successfully demonstrate how life came from non-life and everyone celebrates the amazing proof for abiogenesis. What they may not realize is, had there not been a living conscious being to perform the demonstration then there'd be no demonstration, therefore the demonstration would actually prove life came from a living being, not non-life.

Now, despite this clear logic, you may still desire to believe life originated from non-life somehow, but you should realize that any demonstration showing life arise from non-life, actually logically requires an intentional living being as the cause.

Note: I'm not against evolution, so please refrain from discussing it on this thread. Thanks!

 

[Speedwell]

Its not possible to demonstrate that life came from non-life.

Think with me for a second: imagine scientists finally successfully demonstrate how life came from non-life and everyone celebrates the amazing proof for abiogenesis. What they may not realize is, had there not been a living conscious being to perform the demonstration then there'd be no demonstration, therefore the demonstration would actually prove life came from a living being, not non-life.

Now, despite this clear logic, you may still desire to believe life originated from non-life somehow, but you should realize that any demonstration showing life arise from non-life, actually logically requires an intentional living being as the cause.

Note: I'm not against evolution, so please refrain from discussing it on this thread. Thanks!

Supposing it was possible to create life under convincing circumstances that it could plausibly have happened in nature--to watch it emerge,of itself, in a suitable environment.

Even so, how could you rule out the possibility that God had taken exactly the same role (whatever that is) in your experiment as He had in the original abiogenesis event? No, I don't see as the discovery of a plausible mechanism for abiogenesis would shed any light on the question of God's existence, one way or the other.

 

[quatona]

Its not possible to demonstrate that life came from non-life.

Think with me for a second: imagine scientists finally successfully demonstrate how life came from non-life and everyone celebrates the amazing proof for abiogenesis. What they may not realize is, had there not been a living conscious being to perform the demonstration then there'd be no demonstration, therefore the demonstration would actually prove life came from a living being, not non-life.

Now, despite this clear logic, you may still desire to believe life originated from non-life somehow, but you should realize that any demonstration showing life arise from non-life, actually logically requires an intentional living being as the cause.

Note: I'm not against evolution, so please refrain from discussing it on this thread. Thanks!

Bummer. Past events cannot be empirically experienced or "demonstrated". Not that revolutionary an insight, I would say.
And yes (even though you don´t want to hear it): the same goes for the evolutionary state before humans had evolved. It cannot be "demonstrated" either - because no human was around to observe it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Think with me for a second: imagine scientists finally successfully demonstrate how life came from non-life and everyone celebrates the amazing proof for abiogenesis.

This is exactly what I think the antichrist is going to do: demonstrate abiogenesis on demand.

Revelation 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

What they may not realize is, had there not been a living conscious being to perform the demonstration then there'd be no demonstration, therefore the demonstration would actually prove life came from a living being, not non-life.

QV please:

According to a literal Genesis 1:1, Wedjat, which existed first --- life or non-life?

Abiogenesis is a joke.

 

[Chriliman]

Bummer. Past events cannot be empirically experienced or "demonstrated". Not that revolutionary an insight, I would say.
And yes (even though you don´t want to hear it): the same goes for the evolutionary state before humans had evolved. It cannot be "demonstrated" either - because no human was around to observe it.

While I agree we can't see how life arose back when it did, my point is that even if we replicated the conditions exactly and were able to make life from non-life, this would only prove life arose from an intential conscious effort.

Besides, you're presupposing life arose from non-life back then, apart from any intentional effort, when you know this can't ever be demonstrated to be true. Essentially, this means your belief can never be shown to be true, but it could be shown to be false, if indeed, an intential conscious being(God) is the initial cause of all life.

 

[Chriliman]

Dp

 

[Chriliman]

Supposing it was possible to create life under convincing circumstances that it could plausibly have happened in nature--to watch it emerge,of itself, in a suitable environment.

Even so, how could you rule out the possibility that God had taken exactly the same role (whatever that is) in your experiment as He had in the original abiogenesis event? No, I don't see as the discovery of a plausible mechanism for abiogenesis would shed any light on the question of God's existence, one way or the other.

The point is that if we were able to do that, it would only demonstrate that life arose through intentional conscious effort, not through non-intentional, mindless happenstance.

 

[Speedwell]

The point is that if we were able to do that, it would only demonstrate that life arose through intentional conscious effort, not through non-intentional, mindless happenstance.

And those are your only two options?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Its not possible to demonstrate that life came from non-life.

If a Miller-Urey type demonstration resulted in a new form of life, then yes, the ingredients and conditions and methods that went into the experiment were ordained by a living intelligence, but I think you have to be careful about equivocating on the meaning of "from life" or "from non-life". Life coming "from life" in the usual sense of a birth is very different from life coming "from life" in the sense of a living being putting inorganic ingredients in a sterile chamber and zapping it with electricity, and something living emerging from it. This would be a significant finding. And it does bear on the question of whether it could happen naturally. The experiments at Fermilab or CERN are ordained by the intelligences of many living beings, but the particles created there are also created by natural cosmic rays all the time through random processes.

As for a historical demonstration... there was a time when there was no biological life on earth. Now there is. At some point, life came from non-life.

 

[pshun2404]

Supposing it was possible to create life under convincing circumstances that it could plausibly have happened in nature--to watch it emerge,of itself, in a suitable environment.

Even so, how could you rule out the possibility that God had taken exactly the same role (whatever that is) in your experiment as He had in the original abiogenesis event? No, I don't see as the discovery of a plausible mechanism for abiogenesis would shed any light on the question of God's existence, one way or the other.

I am going to agree with Speed on this one because God could have done it in just that way (and of course He did, even in the creation story God takes the elements that were already created to give form to or make material the living forms or forms He made alive). The physical processes involved are not discussed. the only point of difference is that in this account "life" is something that is given (by God) to animate these forms...in the abiogensis story "life" is something physical (a property of matter)

 

[pshun2404]

Bummer. Past events cannot be empirically experienced or "demonstrated". Not that revolutionary an insight, I would say.
And yes (even though you don´t want to hear it): the same goes for the evolutionary state before humans had evolved. It cannot be "demonstrated" either - because no human was around to observe it.

Though the story is not a scientific account, it allows for the preceding possibilities when it aside from special creation (bara) events, it also says God commanded the seas to bring forth creatures and the earth to bring forth creatures ('asa and yatzar)...though in this account the life (nephesh or bios) is provided by Him, how the form development took place is not discussed (they would not have grasped it anyway) when it says He commanded the sea and earth it is referring to His giving laws and principles to be followed (I believe these are the laws of physics and chemistry)

 

[pshun2404]

If a Miller-Urey type demonstration resulted in a new form of life, then yes, the ingredients and conditions and methods that went into the experiment were ordained by a living intelligence, but I think you have to be careful about equivocating on the meaning of "from life" or "from non-life". Life coming "from life" in the usual sense of a birth is very different from life coming "from life" in the sense of a living being putting inorganic ingredients in a sterile chamber and zapping it with electricity, and something living emerging from it. This would be a significant finding. And it does bear on the question of whether it could happen naturally. The experiments at Fermilab or CERN are ordained by the intelligences of many living beings, but the particles created there are also created by natural cosmic rays all the time through random processes.

As for a historical demonstration... there was a time when there was no biological life on earth. Now there is. At some point, life came from non-life.

You do know that that is nothing like what happened in this experiment don't you?

 

[essentialsaltes]

You do know that that is nothing like what happened in this experiment don't you?

Sure, but that scenario seems to be what the OP is talking about.

 

[Speedwell]

Sure, but that scenario seems to be what the OP is talking about.

This whole conversation derives from the creationist straw man that if life arose through natural causes God could have had nothing to do with it. Nothing but humbuggery.

 

[dmmesdale]

there was a time when there was no biological life on earth. Now there is. At some point, life came from non-life.

The first cause of bio life here involves the intervention of a living Being. Not non-life absent a living source.

 

[AV1611VET]

The first cause of bio life here involves the intervention of a living Being. Not non-life absent a living source.

I don't think they can connect the dots without invoking their own invention (abiogenesis).

 

[Chriliman]

And those are your only two options?

Either God was somehow directly or indirectly involved or he had nothing at all to do with it.

What's your 3rd option?

 

[Speedwell]

Either God was somehow directly or indirectly involved or he had nothing at all to do with it.

What's your 3rd option?

None, now that you've divided indirectly from directly. But the usual creationist position is that God had to physically move the atoms into place to form the right organic compounds or He had nothing to do with it. That He might allow natural causes to do the heavy lifting seems anathema to them.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The first cause of bio life here involves the intervention of a living Being.

How do you know this?

 

[Chriliman]

This whole conversation derives from the creationist straw man that if life arose through natural causes God could have had nothing to do with it. Nothing but humbuggery.

Actually, I'm saying if life arose through natural causes and we were able to demonstrate how life came about in that way, then this would prove that life can arise through natural causes only if conscious effort is applied.