How Did Life On This Planet Begin?

[SFL Cat]

To go along with the "Do You Believe in Evolution?" Thread.

link (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=45543)

Give reasons for your belief.

[Kodos]

I chose life arose from nothing, because it is science's best guess so far.

[sachmo71]

Probably wet and screaming.

[jeff061]

Not to sound like a creationist ;), but wouldn't Creation or Abiogenesis(or another theory) be needed to lead to Panspermia? I don't consider Panspermia to be a starting point.

[WSUCougar]

I always thought that Life began with $2000 and a car...

[Mac Howard]

I wouldn't call it a belief but an acceptance that, on the evidence available so far, life evolved from non-life.

[SFL Cat]

Not to sound like a creationist ;), but wouldn't Creation or Abiogenesis(or another theory) be needed to lead to Panspermia? I don't consider Panspermia to be a starting point.

Good point...I'll amend by saying "Life on this planet" rather than life in general.

[SFL Cat]

I wouldn't call it a belief but an acceptance that, on the evidence available so far, life evolved from non-life.

Interesting. What proof?

[KWhit]

Interesting. What proof?
Proof? Whatchoo talkin' bout Willis?

You may have missed the memo, but none of this stuff has any proof.

[Mac Howard]

Interesting. What proof?

I'm not a biologist but I accept the opinion of those with the relevant knowledge that that is so and I see no evidence whatsoever for the others.

[SFL Cat]

I'm not a biologist but I accept the opinion of those with the relevant knowledge that that is so and I see no evidence whatsoever for the others.

What biologist has observed or reproduced Abiogenesis in the lab?

[Ryche]

I have no idea, but I voted for life being seeded from space, because that what Star Trek says.

Actually, if that is the case, that still leads open the question of how that life began. While firmly believing life on earth evolved from pretty basic lifeforms, I really don't have any problem with the idea that someone else provided the starting push.

[John Galt]

What biologist has observed or reproduced Abiogenesis in the lab?

Since the process would likely take millions of years, of course the answer is no one.

[jeff061]

I really can't pick one, if I had to I'd probably lean towards Panspermia for Earth and Abiogenesis in general. Not enough evidence though.

I don't believe in creation, it's just too damn simplistic, there is no such thing as a divine being. Now I could accept the possibilty(emphasis on possibility) of a being having the ability to create life, but that being would need to come from somewhere as well.

[Kodos]

What biologist has observed or reproduced Abiogenesis in the lab?

They have formed amino acids (the building blocks of life) by simulating the conditions that were present from early on in Earth's existence.

[Mac Howard]

What biologist has observed or reproduced Abiogenesis in the lab?

I presume it comes from the fossil record as no biologist was presumably around at the time :)

But you miss the point: as there is absolutely no evidence for the other suggestions whatsoever then the "out-of-non-life" option is the acceptable one - it is the best option at this point in time.

[SFL Cat]

Since the process would likely take millions of years, of course the answer is no one.

Even in a lab under controlled conditions?

[SFL Cat]

I presume it comes from the fossil record as no biologist was presumably around at the time :)

But you miss the point: as there is absolutely no evidence for the other suggestions whatsoever then the "out-of-non-life" option is the acceptable one - it is the best option at this point in time.

There's no hard evidence supporting Abiogenesis either. So I'm assuming people are selecting choices to fit their world views (i.e., I believe there is no God(s), therefore life just happened).

[John Galt]

Even in a lab under controlled conditions?

No mainstream scientist believes we can pinpoint the exact moment life comes from non-life and/or what conditions make it occur. The theories presume a long series of changes and conditions which make the change from non-life possible. That is not possible to do in any lab setting at the present time.

[Mac Howard]

Even in a lab under controlled conditions?

I believe they have set up experiments along these lines but I don't know what the outcome was.

[st.cronin]

I wouldn't call it a belief but an acceptance that, on the evidence available so far, life evolved from non-life.

Interesting choice of words.

[jeff061]

I suppose, since he seems to be pro-evolution ;).

[cody8200]

Creation. The world and life is too complex for simple chance. Mathematically its very unlikely that all things arose by chance. I also believe that everything evolved and continues to do so. However, I am unsure as to where that process began for humans. I definetely do not believe we evolved from a single cell organism. That being said, I am a Christian, not a literalist Christian (in other words, I do not believe the Bible was written literally in areas.)

[Mac Howard]

There's no hard evidence supporting Abiogenesis either.

I think you'll find there is a fossil record.

So I'm assuming people are selecting choices to fit their world views

I'm sure the world view comes into it.

(i.e., I believe there is no God(s), therefore life just happened).

Not at all. I don't believe "there is no god" not do I believe there is. I don't know. Nor, in my opinion does anyone else. There is no evidence for god so he/she/it doesn't come into it.

The only evidence we have points to life springing from non-life - maybe non-life isn't as different from life as you think.

[jeff061]

Heh, to early. I meant to say Abiogenesis in my earlier post, not creation. Not surprisingly everyone's opinion on this will follow their religious beliefs. Not much to debate, either a God exists and created life, or a God doesn't exist and you accept the idea that we may just not know.

Not knowing means just that, it does not mean the simplest explanation must be true.

[John Galt]

I think you'll find there is a fossil record.



I'm sure the world view comes into it.



Not at all. I don't believe "there is no god" not do I believe there is. I don't know. Nor, in my opinion does anyone else. There is no evidence for god so he/she/it doesn't come into it.

The only evidence we have points to life springing from non-life - maybe non-life isn't as different from life as you think.

While I believe in life coming from non-life, I find your arguments a little odd, Mac. I don't know how the "fossil record" could ever establish this theory in anyway. If life came from non-life, there would be no fossilization of the initially created single cell organisms.

[WSUCougar]

The world and life is too complex for simple chance. Mathematically its very unlikely that all things arose by chance.
Mathematically it's very unlikely that someone wins the lottery, but they do. ;)

[jeff061]

Not sure how you quantify the chances of something, given an infinite amount of time and space.

[Mac Howard]

Interesting choice of words.

I did hesitate when I used the word and I'm not sure it's the right one. But I don't have a better one.

[Mac Howard]

If life came from non-life, there would be no fossilization of the initially created single cell organisms.

Why not?

[Ragone]

putting a trout option in your poll invalidates it to be honest :)

[John Galt]

Why not?

Single cell organisms don't produce fossils that I know of and I don't believe any fossils from that long ago have been discovered because of the various changes the Earth has undergone. Either way, fossils just show at some point life occurred. They don't do anything to explain the underlying cause.

[Kodos]

Creation. The world and life is too complex for simple chance. Mathematically its very unlikely that all things arose by chance.


This is the thing that I don't get. People see a world full of complex and varied life forms, so they try to explain how all these life forms came into being. Cleary, it's hard to explain. So what they do is develop a belief in the existence of an even more complex and hard-to-explain all-knowing, all-powerful being who must have created all of the complexity that they were having a hard time explaining in the first place. Isn't an all-knowing, all-powerful being even more difficult to explain than the life forms wee see on Earth? Isn't it even more mathematically unlikely? :confused:

[Sadalia]

Abiogenesis, because divinity, extraterrestrial seeding, and three-billion year old trout require the existence of something outside our current verifiable knowledge. Abiogenesis, however unlikely it may be to occur at any one given moment in time (however, it perhaps only had to happen once in a bilion years or so), is conceivable within our current understanding.

[miked]

Has nobody heard of the Miller-Urey experiments?

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html (Little summary) work safe, from the Duke Chemistry website. I'm not saying it's proof or anything, but they have tried to reproduce the early conditions in laboratories and found the building blocks of life could be created from gasses and electricity (simulating the harsh conditions on the primitive Earth).

Like I said not proof, but they have run experiments on abiogenesis.

[Kodos]

If life came from non-life, there would be no fossilization of the initially created single cell organisms.

This has no scientific basis at all. There are fossils of all sorts of stuff that never lived. It's just that fossils of old rocks or dirt aren't all that interesting, so we don't spend a lot of time collecting them.

[John Galt]

This has no scientific basis at all. There are fossils of all sorts of stuff that never lived. It's just that fossils of old rocks or dirt aren't all that interesting, so we don't spend a lot of time collecting them.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that fossils are just the "shadow" of bones left in rock. A single cell or even multi-cell organism without even a basic form cannot leave a fossil record.

[Kodos]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that fossils are just the "shadow" of bones left in rock. A single cell or even multi-cell organism without even a basic form cannot leave a fossil record.

Not true. There are fossils of leaves, fossils of simple organisms with no bones. Basically, if something can be encased in silt or mud, it can become fossilized.

[SFL Cat]

Has nobody heard of the Miller-Urey experiments?

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html (Little summary) work safe, from the Duke Chemistry website. I'm not saying it's proof or anything, but they have tried to reproduce the early conditions in laboratories and found the building blocks of life could be created from gasses and electricity (simulating the harsh conditions on the primitive Earth).

Like I said not proof, but they have run experiments on abiogenesis.

There was the short-lived euphoria over Miller’s prebiotic soup experiments in the 1950’s. Boiling and electrically sparking a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water produced some basic amino acids. But follow-up work only illuminated new barriers between complex chemicals and the simplest conceivable life. Finding the building blocks does not solve the problem any more than finding stones could explain the naturalistic production of an ancient cathedral.

Also as the article you linked points out..."There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced."

[John Galt]

Not true. There are fossils of leaves, fossils of simple organisms with no bones. Basically, if something can be encased in silt or mud, it can become fossilized.

Looking at google, I am apparently wrong. What would a single cell fossil look like? That seems amazing to me. It would decay completely and just leave an empty space that is extremely small. How would you know it was a single cell fossil? Fascinating.

[Mac Howard]

Single cell organisms don't produce fossils that I know of and I don't believe any fossils from that long ago have been discovered because of the various changes the Earth has undergone. Either way, fossils just show at some point life occurred. They don't do anything to explain the underlying cause.

As I said I'm not a biologist and don't pretend to know the fossel record - I accept the opinion of those that are experts. What we do have is that the earliest fossils are of the simplest kind - presumably single cell life. Prior to that we have nothing but non-life. This implies that either life came from this or something (a creator) introduced it at this point.

But there is no evidence whatsoever for a creator.

So I'm left with the move from non-life to life. As I said maybe non-life isn't that different from life - from complex molecules to slightly more complex molecules.

This argument reminds me of my 5-year old daughter's explanation when my newly laid lawn started to grow mushrooms. When I said I didn't know why she told me it was the fairies sheltering from the rain.

Now her explanation has reason behind it. The major problem with it was that there was no evidence for the fairies.

In the same way the argument for a creation of the life fails because it requires a creator and there is no evidence for such.

Life coming from outer space stands a better chance in my view.

[Sadalia]

This has no scientific basis at all. There are fossils of all sorts of stuff that never lived. It's just that fossils of old rocks or dirt aren't all that interesting, so we don't spend a lot of time collecting them.

Webster's definition of "fossil":

"a remnant, impression, or trace of an organism of past geologic ages that has been preserved in the Earth's crust."

So only living things leave fossils.

[KWhit]

This is the thing that I don't get. People see a world full of complex and varied life forms, so they try to explain how all these life forms came into being. Cleary, it's hard to explain. So what they do is develop a belief in the existence of an even more complex and hard-to-explain all-knowing, all-powerful being who must have created all of the complexity that they were having a hard time explaining in the first place. Isn't an all-knowing, all-powerful being even more difficult to explain than the life forms wee see on Earth? Isn't it even more mathematically unlikely? :confused:
Great point.

To those of you who disagree with "Life comes from nothing" - how did God come into being?

[Kodos]

Great point.

To those of you who disagree with "Life comes from nothing" - how did God come into being?

SuperGod?

[Mac Howard]

Webster's definition of "fossil":

"a remnant, impression, or trace of an organism of past geologic ages that has been preserved in the Earth's crust."

So only living things leave fossils.

No. There's no reason why anything with structure shouldn't leave a fossil. As long as it can leave an impression in the mud then you can have a fossil. I presume there's little interest in non-life fossils.

[jeff061]

SuperGod?I'm going with Joe Pesci.

[Kodos]

Webster's definition of "fossil":

"a remnant, impression, or trace of an organism of past geologic ages that has been preserved in the Earth's crust."

So only living things leave fossils.

Fine. Semantics. There are still old rocks encased in newer rocks that are for all purposes fossils of rocks from long ago. Your point proves nothing of substance in this thread.

[SFL Cat]

As I said I'm not a biologist and don't pretend to know the fossel record - I accept the opinion of those that are experts. What we do have is that the earliest fossils are of the simplest kind - presumably single cell life. Prior to that we have nothing but non-life. This implies that either life came from this or something (a creator) introduced it at this point.

But there is no evidence whatsoever for a creator.

So I'm left with the move from non-life to life. As I said maybe non-life isn't that different from life - from complex molecules to slightly more complex molecules.

This argument reminds me of my 5-year old daughter's explanation when my newly laid lawn started to grow mushrooms. When I said I didn't know why she told me it was the fairies sheltering from the rain.

Now her explanation has reason behind it. The major problem with it was that there was no evidence for the fairies.

In the same way the argument for a creation of the life fails because it requires a creator and there is no evidence for such.

Life coming from outer space stands a better chance in my view.

Actually there is more evidence, albeit anecdotal, to support fairies than Abiogenesis. Many people have claimed to see, interact, and in some cases, photograph fairies. As far as I know, no one has ever observed or been able to reproduce Abiogenesis. Not for lack of trying either. Science has been trying to produce Abiogenesis in the lab since the mid 1920s.

[Mac Howard]

Fine. Semantics. There are still old rocks encased in newer rocks that are for all purposes fossils of rocks from long ago. Your point proves nothing of substance in this thread.

That's right. The fossil record moves from only non-life fossils to the simplest life fossils. The implication is that the second comes from the first.

It must be remembered that there is nothing about the molecular structure of life forms that doesn't exist in the molecular structure of non-life forms. The first is merely more complex than the second.

[Kodos]

Actually there is more evidence, albeit anecdotal, to support fairies than Abiogenesis. Many people have claimed to see, interact, and in some cases, photograph fairies. As far as I know, no one has ever observed or been able to reproduce Abiogenesis. Not for lack of trying either. Science has been trying to produce Abiogenesis in the lab since the mid 1920s.

Nobody has been able to reproduce God in a lab either. I guess there is more evidence for fairies than God.

[SFL Cat]

Nobody has been able to reproduce God in a lab either. I guess there is more evidence for fairies than God.

unless you count angel-sightings. :)

[KWhit]

Nobody has been able to reproduce God in a lab either. I guess there is more evidence for fairies than God.
True dat.

[VPI97]

This is the thing that I don't get. People see a world full of complex and varied life forms, so they try to explain how all these life forms came into being. Cleary, it's hard to explain. So what they do is develop a belief in the existence of an even more complex and hard-to-explain all-knowing, all-powerful being who must have created all of the complexity that they were having a hard time explaining in the first place. Isn't an all-knowing, all-powerful being even more difficult to explain than the life forms wee see on Earth? Isn't it even more mathematically unlikely? :confused:You are the wind beneath my wings.

[st.cronin]

Not sure how you quantify the chances of something, given an infinite amount of time and space.

My understanding of math is that in an infinite universe, all things are not merely possible, but inevitable.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I always thought that Life began with $2000 and a car...
I found this to be very funny. Well done, Rohirrim.

[Kodos]

unless you count angel-sightings. :)

So you're saying that most scientific research should be conducted while you are stoned?

I guess that gets us back to the fossils!

[jeff061]

My understanding of math is that in an infinite universe, all things are not merely possible, but inevitable.That is my rudimentary understanding and belief as well.

[Mac Howard]

Actually there is more evidence, albeit anecdotal, to support fairies than Abiogenesis.

I shall stay up tonight with a flash light and catch the little sods - they're ruining my lawn!
:)

[BrianD]

Does it seem odd to anyone that the creator of this poll seems to be arguing a pretty specific point of view? I thought the point of a poll was to see what other people think.

[WSUCougar]

My understanding of math is that in an infinite universe, all things are not merely possible, but inevitable.
Hot damn! Eventually I really DO get to sleep with Nicole Kidman!

(my wife's gonna be pissed, but whatever)

[jeff061]

Does it seem odd to anyone that the creator of this poll seems to be arguing a pretty specific point of view? I thought the point of a poll was to see what other people think.Yeah I noticed it, that breakdown was inevitable, is there anyone who walks the line between the two schools of thought?

[st.cronin]

Hot damn! Eventually I really DO get to sleep with Nicole Kidman!

(my wife's gonna be pissed, but whatever)

Only if this universe is, in fact, infinite.

[Masked]

Actually there is more evidence, albeit anecdotal, to support fairies than Abiogenesis. Many people have claimed to see, interact, and in some cases, photograph fairies. As far as I know, no one has ever observed or been able to reproduce Abiogenesis. Not for lack of trying either. Science has been trying to produce Abiogenesis in the lab since the mid 1920s.Can your beliefs stand the same scrutiny? There is as much evidence for god as for fairies.

Any experiment that trys to test abiogenesis is not going to be able to mimic the exact conditions which existed when life emerged on earth. The process appears to have taken roughly a billion years. That doesn't lend itself to easy replication in any lab enviroment.

Lastly, what is life or more precisely for the purposes of abiogenesis, at what point do you call something alive? Is a virus a lifeform? A prion? Prions are not that different than what was created Miller-Urey experiments. They showed that under some extremely precise conditions, you could generate the building blocks of life. Is this what happened 3-4 billion years ago on Earth? No one knows, but it appears that abiogenesis is possible in some conditions.

[Kodos]

Hot damn! Eventually I really DO get to sleep with Nicole Kidman!

(my wife's gonna be pissed, but whatever)

In some other universe, Nicole Kidman is your wife.

I hope the Kodos who is with Natalie Portman is having a grand old time.

[SFL Cat]

Hot damn! Eventually I really DO get to sleep with Nicole Kidman!

(my wife's gonna be pissed, but whatever)

That is probably the proverbial exception to the rule.
:p

[WSUCougar]

I hope the Kodos who is with Natalie Portman is having a grand old time.
Prolly...as long as you don't mind watching Star Wars Episodes I-III over repeatedly. *gun shot*

[SFL Cat]

Can your beliefs stand the same scrutiny? There is as much evidence for god as for fairies.

Any experiment that trys to test abiogenesis is not going to be able to mimic the exact conditions which existed when life emerged on earth. The process appears to have taken roughly a billion years. That doesn't lend itself to easy replication in any lab enviroment.

Lastly, what is life or more precisely for the purposes of abiogenesis, at what point do you call something alive? Is a virus a lifeform? A prion? Prions are not that different than what was created Miller-Urey experiments. They showed that under some extremely precise conditions, you could generate the building blocks of life. Is this what happened 3-4 billion years ago on Earth? No one knows, but it appears that abiogenesis is possible in some conditions.

Since my belief is one of faith, it obviously doesn't pass muster with the scientific crowd. Of course if a scientific person believes in Abiogenesis, he must hold this belief to the higher requirements imposed by science...otherwise his belief is just as much a leap of faith as mine.

[SFL Cat]

Prolly...as long as you don't mind watching Star Wars Episodes I-III over repeatedly. *gun shot*

*DARTH VADER VOICE* NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO */DARTH VADER VOICE*

[Mac Howard]

Since my belief is one of faith, it obviously doesn't pass muster with the scientific crowd. Of course if a scientific person believes in Abiogenesis, he must hold this belief to the higher requirements imposed by science...otherwise his belief is just as much a leap of faith as mine.

There is no "belief" in science. The very essence of science is that, no matter how much evidence supports a theory, tomorrow may throw up evidence that refutes it - indeed modern scientific philosophy requires that experiments are set up precisely to refute theory. The theory is merely the best explanation for the evidence that we have.

Acceptance of a scientific theory is in no way similar to religious faith.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Can your beliefs stand the same scrutiny? There is as much evidence for god as for fairies.

Any experiment that trys to test abiogenesis is not going to be able to mimic the exact conditions which existed when life emerged on earth. The process appears to have taken roughly a billion years. That doesn't lend itself to easy replication in any lab enviroment.

Lastly, what is life or more precisely for the purposes of abiogenesis, at what point do you call something alive? Is a virus a lifeform? A prion? Prions are not that different than what was created Miller-Urey experiments. They showed that under some extremely precise conditions, you could generate the building blocks of life. Is this what happened 3-4 billion years ago on Earth? No one knows, but it appears that abiogenesis is possible in some conditions.
There's the rub. Many creationists demand that there be some sort of "smoking gun" peice of evidence to support evolution or abiogenesis or whatever. The problem is, that's not exactly how science works.

Arguably, every scientific experiment that's ever been done confirms the assertion that science needs to be based on empirically verifiable data.

The modern scientific method didn't come about because some guy came up with it one day and everyone took his word for it. The scientific way of doing things evolved out of countless early observations and experiments. Hypotheses that did not stand up to testing were weeded out - this is what I meant about science being self-correcting.

The implied hypothesis "I do not need to base my scientific experiments on empirically verifiable data" would not have stood up to scrutiny because experiments based on other kinds of "data" would not have had cohesive results and could not have been repeated by other scientists.

For example, pretend we're both ancient scientists testing a cure for a disease. You decide to base your experiments on observations you have made about this disease in the past, and I base mine on revelations from my dreams. Whose patient is more likely to die? And thus whose method is more likely to be repeated by other scientists?

Thousands of years of human curiosity and its consequences have honed and perfected the scientific method to be the way it is now; there is no one experiment you can point to to "prove" it. Very few ideas in science work on the "smoking gun" principle - instead they rely on a preponderance of the evidence. And I guess sometimes that evidence is so well-established and overwhelming that it appears to be "just the way things are".

Now, one could argue, that if you don't hold science to a "smoking gun" principle, why hold religion (or a belief in a higher power) to that same principle. I can only speak for myself on this, but I don't hold religious beliefs to a smoking gun principle. I hold them to the same test I use in evaluating every other claim to knowlegde I encounter in my life: logical conclusions based on observable evidence.

To me, it's not just that there is no "smoking gun" in favor of religious claims, it's that there is no evidence AT ALL in their favor. Saying "goddidit" is no different from saying "it was magic" (and trust me, after playing Dungeons and Dragons since I was 6 years old, nothing would make me happier. http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/wink.gif )

[Honolulu_Blue]

Since my belief is one of faith, it obviously doesn't pass muster with the scientific crowd. Of course if a scientific person believes in Abiogenesis, he must hold this belief to the higher requirements imposed by science...otherwise his belief is just as much a leap of faith as mine.
See my post above. I think it responds well to this claim.

[Kodos]

*DARTH VADER VOICE* NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO */DARTH VADER VOICE*


Funny sequence of jokes, guys.

[Kodos]

See my post above. I think it responds well to this claim.

Yep. SFL_CAT is trying to set up the rules of the argument so that the non-Creatonists can't win.

To which I reply: At least science tries to conform theories to the evidence, instead of trying to just find evidence for the theory.

[SFL Cat]

See my post above. I think it responds well to this claim.

We can argue all we want about how life got from point A to point B, but when it comes down to the actual origin of life, it all boils down to this: those of us who subscribe to religious tradition think that life on this planet was created by divinity; those who don't think it just spontaneously happened one day. At this time, neither can be proven in a way that would conclusively satisfy current requirements of scientific method, so it comes down to this......what do you believe? Simple as that.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Simple as that.
No. It's not.

[WSUCougar]

so it comes down to this......what do you believe? Simple as that.
I would counter that by saying it's more a question of "how do you believe."

[Masked]

We can argue all we want about how life got from point A to point B, but when it comes down to the actual origin of life, it all boils down to this: those of us who subscribe to religious tradition think that life on this planet was created by divinity; those who don't think it just spontaneously happened one day. At this time, neither can be proven in a way that would conclusively satisfy current requirements of scientific method, so it comes down to this......what do you believe? Simple as that.Science says that abiogenesis fits the available data better than does creation by divinity. So I could turn your line around on you, and say do you understand what science is or not? Simple as that.

Science and religion are fundementally different. You cannot choose between a religous idea and a scientific idea. I cannot prove the existence of God with scientific evidence, and you can't prove a scientific theorey with faith. God provides the best explanation in one realm and abiogenesis in another. Each fails when you try to evaluate it by the standards used to evaluate the other.

[Kodos]

"The healing power of the Grail is the only thing that can save your father now. It's time to ask yourself what you believe."

[Mac Howard]

At this time, neither can be proven in a way that would conclusively satisfy current requirements of scientific method

That is completely wrong. The scientific community is perfectly happy with the evidence. You're merely trying to hang on to your religious beliefs.

[cody8200]

This is the thing that I don't get. People see a world full of complex and varied life forms, so they try to explain how all these life forms came into being. Cleary, it's hard to explain. So what they do is develop a belief in the existence of an even more complex and hard-to-explain all-knowing, all-powerful being who must have created all of the complexity that they were having a hard time explaining in the first place. Isn't an all-knowing, all-powerful being even more difficult to explain than the life forms wee see on Earth? Isn't it even more mathematically unlikely? :confused:

Math doesnt matter when it comes to God. Since he is and always has been and always will be. It is difficult to wrap your mind around a God that has always been and will always will be. However, In my opinion trying to explain how life has evolved from nothing into something in infinetely more difficult.

Some scientists act as though just because they haven't found a way to quantitate something that it doesnt exist. As Einstein once said, "Not everything that can be counted counts ,and not everything that counts can be counted."

[flounder]

Why do we have to choose between Creation and Abiogenesis? Why can't it be both?

[Honolulu_Blue]

We can argue all we want about how life got from point A to point B, but when it comes down to the actual origin of life, it all boils down to this: those of us who subscribe to religious tradition think that life on this planet was created by divinity; those who don't think it just spontaneously happened one day. At this time, neither can be proven in a way that would conclusively satisfy current requirements of scientific method, so it comes down to this......what do you believe? Simple as that.
Mac has the right of it and I once again direct your attention to the following...

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

[Kodos]

Math doesnt matter when it comes to God. Since he is and always has been and always will be. It is difficult to wrap your mind around a God that has always been and will always will be. However, In my opinion trying to explain how life has evolved from nothing into something in infinetely more difficult.

Some scientists act as though just because they haven't found a way to quantitate something that it doesnt exist. As Einstein once said, "Not everything that can be counted counts ,and not everything that counts can be counted."

To me, this is a total cop out. "The rules don't apply in our case. God is special. No need for proof."

SuperGod was a much more eloquent solution to the problem. :p

[Mac Howard]

Why do we have to choose between Creation and Abiogenesis? Why can't it be both?

Because creation requires a being for which there is no evidence and, in the case of this discussion, for which there is no need.

[SFL Cat]

That is completely wrong. The scientific community is perfectly happy with the evidence. You're merely trying to hang on to your religious beliefs.

Because most of the scientific community proceeds on the assumption that there is no divinity, therefore there is no way said divinity could have anything to do with the origin of life, therefore it must have just spontaneously happened on its own.

[jeff061]

They also proceed on the assumption that there are no invisible elephants walking around dropping seeds of life that sprout every few billion years.

[SFL Cat]

They also proceed on the assumption that there are no invisible elephants walking around dropping seeds of life that sprout every few billion years.

Where did the elephants come from? Were they by-products of the mating Trout?

[Mac Howard]

Because most of the scientific community proceeds on the assumption that there is no divinity,

Divinity has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Scientific theories stand on the evidence not faith or belief either for or against god. You understand little of science and its criteria for validity.

therefore there is no way said divinity could have anything to do with the origin of life, therefore it must have just spontaneously happened on its own.

No. There is no evidence for that divinity so it shouldn't be used as an explanation. The theory as it stands explains the evidence. There is no need of supernatural beings at this point.

[flounder]

Because creation requires a being for which there is no evidence and, in the case of this discussion, for which there is no need.

Certainly from a scientific standpoint there is no evidence, but this is just compounding the problem that creates these debates in the first place: mixing physical and metaphysical questions. In a scientific context, it's appropriate to look for mechanisms that caused life to be created. It's not appropriate to speculate as to why life was created; that's a metaphysical issue. By the same token, we can talk about whether or not there is a God, but we can't let our belief (or non-belief) in God affect our view of the evidence for evolution and any future evidence for Abiogenesis.

So to me, I think the proper viewpoint is that scientifically life had to be created from non-life by some mechanism. This mechanism cannot include supernatural effects. However, that doesn't prohibit a supernatural creator from being responsible for the creation of life. There just will never be any scientific evidence for or against that creator's existence.

I ask again, why can't there be a divine creator that is the causal factor for the creation and proliferation of life in a manner that is perfectly consistent with evolution and abiogenesis? This is the position of a large number of scientists. A poll without that option excludes a lot of people from the debate.

[Kodos]

Because most of the scientific community proceeds on the assumption that there is no divinity, therefore there is no way said divinity could have anything to do with the origin of life, therefore it must have just spontaneously happened on its own.

It's not like all scientists are atheists. In fact, Darwin himself was religious to a degree and was troubled by the things that were suggested by his theory of evolution.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000519.html

[SFL Cat]

Certainly from a scientific standpoint there is no evidence, but this is just compounding the problem that creates these debates in the first place: mixing physical and metaphysical questions. In a scientific context, it's appropriate to look for mechanisms that caused life to be created. It's not appropriate to speculate as to why life was created; that's a metaphysical issue. By the same token, we can talk about whether or not there is a God, but we can't let our belief (or non-belief) in God affect our view of the evidence for evolution and any future evidence for Abiogenesis.

So to me, I think the proper viewpoint is that scientifically life had to be created from non-life by some mechanism. This mechanism cannot include supernatural effects. However, that doesn't prohibit a supernatural creator from being responsible for the creation of life. There just will never be any scientific evidence for or against that creator's existence.

I ask again, why can't there be a divine creator that is the causal factor for the creation and proliferation of life in a manner that is perfectly consistent with evolution and abiogenesis? This is the position of a large number of scientists. A poll without that option excludes a lot of people from the debate.

Interesting, but by the same token, if a divine creator was the causal factor, wouldn't we still be talking about a supernatural effect upon a natural process?

[flounder]

Interesting, but by the same token, if a divine creator was the causal factor, wouldn't we still be talking about a supernatural effect upon a natural process?

We would, but science would only be able to discuss the natural process. By definition, the supernatural effect is outside the realm of science.

[SFL Cat]

We would, but science would only be able to discuss the natural process. By definition, the supernatural effect is outside the realm of science.

Now that I think about it, I can see this analogy if you compare the divine creator to a programmer writing code for the universe (i.e., execute program "big bang"; line 120 -- life begins). There is no direct intervention (i.e. supernatural influence on a natural process), but things proceed as designed.

[Daimyo]

Who cares how life or the universe started?

[Marc Vaughan]

How about having the option on the poll to combine some of the theories (ie. God used science?).

[Bee]

How about having the option on the poll to combine some of the theories (ie. God used science?).

Or trout from outer space...

[Marc Vaughan]

Divinity has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Scientific theories stand on the evidence not faith or belief either for or against god. You understand little of science and its criteria for validity.
Most higher scientific theories - especially in physics rely upon faith because the theories are largely impossible to test outside of certain artificial conditions.

These theories then generate more theories which build on top of them, taking 'faith' that the original theories are correct.

(you might note that its 'Darwins THEORY of Evolution' not fact for instance)

No. There is no evidence for that divinity so it shouldn't be used as an explanation. The theory as it stands explains the evidence. There is no need of supernatural beings at this point.
Also it might be important to note that ID doesn't require an omnipotent God imho - its possible that the universe we live in is the school project of a much more advanced race than ourselves ...

(there was a great 2000AD comic strip years ago where scientists finally finished decoding the human DNA and found it indicated that we were 'evolutionary chess pieces' :D)

[KWhit]

I'm interested in hearing more about these invisible life-pooping elephants.

[flounder]

Now that I think about it, I can see this analogy if you compare the divine creator to a programmer writing code for the universe (i.e., execute program "big bang"; line 120 -- life begins). There is no direct intervention (i.e. supernatural influence on a natural process), but things proceed as designed.

Not to go all Tron on you, but yeah I think that's a good analogy. Whether or not that's the way the universe actually works is a matter of faith, but it does illustrate my major point. Regardless of what extremists on both sides say, there's nothing in evolution or any other branch of science that prohibits the existence of God. Accepting the evidence for evolution doesn't mean renouncing your faith, and neither does acknowledging that abiogenesis may have occurred.

[KeyserSoze]

I think that Abiogenesis and Creation are compatible. If there´s a creator it should have created life from non-life. By definition. So at the end the difference between this two theories is if you believe in god. And this is a question of faith, no a question of science.

[Icy]

Voted for B, but C could be a posibility too, underestanding as life any kind of organic matter.

[jeff061]

Also it might be important to note that ID doesn't require an omnipotent God imho - its possible that the universe we live in is the school project of a much more advanced race than ourselves ...I agree, but lacking that divine attribute of having existed since the beginning of time, something would have needed to happen for that advanced being to come into existence.

[Sadalia]

As I said I'm not a biologist and don't pretend to know the fossel record - I accept the opinion of those that are experts. What we do have is that the earliest fossils are of the simplest kind - presumably single cell life. Prior to that we have nothing but non-life. This implies that either life came from this or something (a creator) introduced it at this point.


You might be interested in this from Wikipedia's article on fossils:

"The oldest known structured fossils are most likely stromatolites. Now understood to be formed by the entrapment of minerals by mucous-like sheets of cyanobacteria, the oldest of these formations dates from 3.5 billion years ago..."

Particulary because I see you're in Oz, and there are actually living stromatolites in Western Australia, some of the best examples in the world I believe.

[Sadalia]

Originally Posted by Sadalia
Webster's definition of "fossil":

"a remnant, impression, or trace of an organism of past geologic ages that has been preserved in the Earth's crust."

So only living things leave fossils.

Fine. Semantics. There are still old rocks encased in newer rocks that are for all purposes fossils of rocks from long ago. Your point proves nothing of substance in this thread.

The correct use of scientific terms in an argument revolving around science is not mere semantics. It was not my intent to prove anything of substance, only to provide a clearer definition of a word with a rather precise meaning that was being used loosely. Chill out.

[flounder]

Most higher scientific theories - especially in physics rely upon faith because the theories are largely impossible to test outside of certain artificial conditions.

These theories then generate more theories which build on top of them, taking 'faith' that the original theories are correct.


I don't know of any commonly accepted theories in physics that haven't been rigorously tested by experiments. There are certainly fields such as string theory that haven't been tested, but they are regarded as speculative and anything that is derived them is considered speculative as well. There's nothing in mainstream physics that requires faith.

[Daimyo]

Also it might be important to note that ID doesn't require an omnipotent God imho - its possible that the universe we live in is the school project of a much more advanced race than ourselves ...
My understanding of ID is that the complexity of life is the main reason to believe in an "intelligent designer." The intelligent designer must be more complex than what it creates so, unless you assume divinity at some point, don't you just get into an endless loop of increasingly complex intelligent designers?

[kcchief19]

I bristle a bit at the notion of "non-life," since I think that single cells are in fact living in someway. A better explanation of abiogenesis would be non-biological, but that's splitting hairs.

[Kodos]

:D Or trout from outer space...

[Kodos]

The correct use of scientific terms in an argument revolving around science is not mere semantics. It was not my intent to prove anything of substance, only to provide a clearer definition of a word with a rather precise meaning that was being used loosely. Chill out.


I wasn't aware I was unchilled. Thanks, dictionary boy.

[WSUCougar]

I wasn't aware I was unchilled. Thanks, dictionary boy.
I prefer my aliens chilled, with some fava beans and a nice chianti

*slurping noises*

[PSUColonel]

Forgiveme if this wascoveredalreay(I dont havetime to review the entire thread) but I beleive in creationism, but who is to say wat tool or tools God ay have used to start life. That is where Panspermia may come in. The samecould be said for the creation of the world. I beleive God created the world, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be a scientific explanation for how he went about it, or what tools were used to create the earth and other planets. Look at protens and cells, tey are what we understand to be the basic building blocks of life and living organisms. They may very well be part of God's blueprint for life. There are many things we as humans don't understand, threre are many others we do, or even have a slight grasp of.

[sovereignstar]

my head hurts

[Kodos]

my head hurts

X 2

[JonInMiddleGA]

X 2

Cubed.

[Sadalia]

I wasn't aware I was unchilled. Thanks, dictionary boy.

Perhaps not unchilled. But definitely rude and arrogant.

[SFL Cat]

My new slogan: God is the programmer of the Universe. He's currently debugging the Beta.

[Raiders Army]

Somebody shat us onto this planet.

[Kodos]

Perhaps not unchilled. But definitely rude and arrogant.

Oh good! Then intent does come across on the internet! :D

It just seemed like the definition was not that pertinent to the discussion. John Galt was saying there couldn't be fossils before life complex life forms, and I was pointing out that there could be. While rocks apparently can't be classified as fossils, non-living stuff like doodoo can.


Tell me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that fossils are just the "shadow" of bones left in rock. A single cell or even multi-cell organism without even a basic form cannot leave a fossil record.

Not true. There are fossils of leaves, fossils of simple organisms with no bones. Basically, if something can be encased in silt or mud, it can become fossilized.

From wikipedia: "However, fossils may also consist of the marks left behind by the organism while it was alive, such as the footprint or feces of a dinosaur or reptile. These types of fossil are called trace fossils, as opposed to body fossils."

So I wasn't terribly off the mark like your post seemed to be saying.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My new slogan: God is the programmer of the Universe. He's currently debugging the Beta.

Beta? My ass. Alpha.

[SFL Cat]

Beta? My ass. Alpha.

Heh....time to junk this thing and start from scratch.

[jeff061]

Seems relevant:

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8507

Just noticed it over at Slashdot, not really trying to use it to back my view by posting it.

[sabotai]

I don't believe in creation, and I don't really know enough about Abiogenesis or Panspermia. Well, I once did, way back when, but I really haven't been keeping up with news and findings on these two ideas. So I can't really chooce one over the other.

I'm also not surprised that much of the argument in this thread seems to be really be centered around the fact that people approach "belief" differently. Just from the 1st page alone, it's obvious that SFL Cat approaches "belief" differently than Mac does.

Some people take belief as "This is my conclusion. This is fact. It's what I believe." Other approach it as "This is the best explaination right now. If evidence comes up to the contrary, I can change by belief."

Both approaches are perfectly fine, but a lot of the back and forth could be....more efficient if people would recognize that belief means something different to different people.

Just saying....

[famatu]

There are really only two options:

Life created itself from nothing

OR

Something (God) created life (and everything else)

People who aregue for the "life created itself" option would be really hard pressed to actually prove their point of view I think.

[famatu]

I wouldn't call it a belief but an acceptance that, on the evidence available so far, life evolved from non-life.

I kind of wonder what evidence would lead anyone (much less a scientist) to believe life "evolved" from non-life (er..death or something).

Do you have a link to that "evidence" so you could share it with the rest of us?

[jeff061]

People who aregue for the "life created itself" option would be really hard pressed to actually prove their point of view I think.I kind of wonder what evidence would lead anyone (much less a scientist) to believe life "evolved" from non-life (er..death or something).

Do you have a link to that "evidence" so you could share it with the rest of us?

Why is it that all the arguments Creationists make have already been answered and countered? Yet they still repeat it as if they haven't. Not to mention the quoted poster cites lack of evidence while believing in an invisble man in the sky that created the world inside of a week.