How Did Life On This Planet Begin?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Kodos

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]

Originally Posted by Kodos

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

True dat.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Kodos

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?

You are the wind beneath my wings.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by jeff061

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]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

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

I found this to be very funny. Well done, Rohirrim.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah I noticed it, that breakdown was inevitable, is there anyone who walks the line between the two schools of thought?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

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]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

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]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

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.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Kodos

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]

Originally Posted by Masked

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]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

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]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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]

Originally Posted by Masked

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. )

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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

Funny sequence of jokes, guys.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Simple as that.

No. It's not.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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]

Originally Posted by Kodos

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?

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]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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]

Originally Posted by cody8200

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.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by flounder

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]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

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]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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/regula.../a0000519.html

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by flounder

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]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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]

Originally Posted by flounder

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]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

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' )

[KWhit]

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

[flounder]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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.