The origin of life.

G

Grugore

Verified User
The more we learn about life, the worse it looks for the theory of abiogenesis. We now know the minimum requirements for life to exist, and scientists haven't got a clue how it could have happened. The only reason people believe in abiogenesis is because they want to. Because the alternative is abhorrent to them. A Creator who they will one day be accountable to. Here is an article that explains it all. And it uses science, not the Bible.

https://creation.com/origin-of-life
 
Grugore said:
The more we learn about life, the worse it looks for the theory of abiogenesis. We now know the minimum requirements for life to exist, and scientists haven't got a clue how it could have happened. The only reason people believe in abiogenesis is because they want to. Because the alternative is abhorrent to them. A Creator who they will one day be accountable to. Here is an article that explains it all. And it uses science, not the Bible.

https://creation.com/origin-of-life
Click to expand...
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis...not a theory. Do you even know what a scientific theory is? For that matter do you even know what science is?

I mean some of the stuff in the article is just beyond stupid. Probability of life? Obviously these folks either never studied statistics or failed the section on probabilities. Let me give you a math lesson. You can't calculate the probability of an event occurring that has already occurred. Life has occurred. It's probability of occurring, ergo, is unity. I.E. 1.

This is an article targeted at people of faith who are profoundly ignorant of science.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis...not a theory. Do you even know what a scientific theory is? For that matter do you even know what science is?

I mean some of the stuff in the article is just beyond stupid. Probability of life? Obviously these folks either never studied statistics or failed the section on probabilities. Let me give you a math lesson. You can't calculate the probability of an event occurring that has already occurred. Life has occurred. It's probability of occurring, ergo, is unity. I.E. 1.

This is an article targeted at people of faith who are profoundly ignorant of science.
Click to expand...

I am quite familiar with science and the scientific method. I'm also familiar with the law of cause and effect. Nothing can happen, or even exist, without something causing it to do so. So, I ask you. What caused the universe to exist? What about the universal physical constants? They are immaterial, yet they affect the material. Did they just pop into existence on their own? Also, where did energy come from? It exists, therefore something caused it to exist. What was it?
 
Grugore said:
I am quite familiar with science and the scientific method. I'm also familiar with the law of cause and effect. Nothing can happen, or even exist, without something causing it to do so. So, I ask you. What caused the universe to exist? What about the universal physical constants? They are immaterial, yet they affect the material. Did they just pop into existence on their own? Also, where did energy come from? It exists, therefore something caused it to exist. What was it?
Click to expand...

If you're so familiar with science why did you state that abiogenesis is a theory when it is clearly a hypothesis? I don't know what the ultimate source of the creation of the Universe is and the natural laws governing it. I wasn't there to observe it. No one was. Can you posit a scientific theory that explains the ultimate source of the origins of the universe that does?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
If you're so familiar with science why did you state that abiogenesis is a theory when it is clearly a hypothesis? I don't know what the ultimate source of the creation of the Universe is and the natural laws governing it. I wasn't there to observe it. No one was. Can you posit a scientific theory that explains the ultimate source of the origins of the universe that does?
Click to expand...

The law of cause and effect demands a Creator. An uncaused first cause. No other explanation is scientific, since it violates the law that all of science is based on.
 
Grugore said:
The law of cause and effect demands a Creator. An uncaused first cause. No other explanation is scientific, since it violates the law that all of science is based on.
Click to expand...
You don't even know what science is. Cause and Effect demands a creator? That may or may not be true. All science knows is Newton's Third Law is based on fact by empirical observation and not an argument from authority.

What is true is that to posit supernatural causation, as you are doing, places your entire line of thinking outside the scope of science. Science only proposes natural causation and natural causation only. Not Supernatural causation. Claiming some unidentifiable supernatural "Creator" as causation is, by definition, NOT SCIENCE. Call it what you will but it is not science.

So we have established that you not only do not know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and scientific theory. We have also established you do not understand even the fundamental basic definition of science.

This leads me to believe that you're some neophyte with no formal training in science. I mean you don't even know sixth grade basic science concepts and you wish to have an intelligent conversation about the hypothesis of abiogenesis? How? How is that possible when you don't even know what a hypothesis is?
 
Last edited:
aloysious said:
Where did you get that? Link? this is all I can find:
Click to expand...

You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. It's a scientific impossibility. There had to be a primal cause for everything that was not caused by something else. And that cause could not be physical in nature. What does that leave you with? A supernatural cause. That is scientific fact. It's the only explanation that makes any sense.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You don't even know what science is. Cause and Effect demands a creator? That may or may not be true. What is true is that to posit supernatural causation, as you are doing, places your entire line of thinking outside the scope of science. Science only proposes natural causation and natural causation only. Not Supernatural causation. Claiming some unidentifiable supernatural "Creator" as causation is, by definition, NOT SCIENCE. Call it what you will but it is not science.

So we have established that you not only do not know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and scientific theory. We have also established you do not understand even the fundamental basic definition of science.

This leads me to believe that you're some neophyte with no formal training in science. I mean you don't even know sixth grade basic science concepts and you wish to have an intelligent conversation about the hypothesis of abiogenesis? How? How is that possible when you don't even know what a hypothesis is?
Click to expand...

Cause and effect is the one law that defines science. It is uncontested. Everything requires a causative event. What caused the universe to exist? It can't be a natural physical event, because you would need a cause for that and a cause for that cause too, all the back into infinity. As I mentioned, such a thing is impossible. There had to be a primal cause that was uncaused. Since it can't be natural, it must be supernatural. Simple logic, based on science.
 
Grugore said:
Cause and effect is the one law that defines science. It is uncontested. Everything requires a causative event. What caused the universe to exist? It can't be a natural physical event, because you would need a cause for that and a cause for that cause too, all the back into infinity. As I mentioned, such a thing is impossible. There had to be a primal cause that was uncaused. Since it can't be natural, it must be supernatural. Simple logic, based on science.
Click to expand...
That's complete tripe. It's just one of a very large number of scientific theories that model natural behavior. It doesn't matter what the ultimate cause of something is. If it cannot be explained by natural causation it is not, by definition, a scientific definition.

Dude, there are people who like....make a living at this sciency thing. I am one of them. Now, I'm not one to judge your motives. You may be sincere for all I know in debating creationism and I can be a bit of a smug asshole, but dude...you really need to step up your game. That's circular reasoning. If I wanted a circular argument I'd go debate PiMP. He's much better at it than you and far more annoying than you. Which I mean as a compliment.
 
Grugore said:
You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. It's a scientific impossibility. There had to be a primal cause for everything that was not caused by something else. And that cause could not be physical in nature. What does that leave you with? A supernatural cause.
Click to expand...
One could assign a mathematical probability to that .
Grugore said:
That is scientific fact.
Click to expand...
No, it's a mathematical probability.
Grugore said:
It's the only explanation that makes any sense.
Click to expand...
To you maybe, not to me. There areother possibilities unknown to us because of more dimensions of space-time.
read more:
In spite of the fact that the universe is well described by four-dimensional spacetime, there are several reasons why physicists consider theories in other dimensions. In some cases, by modeling spacetime in a different number of dimensions, a theory becomes more mathematically tractable, and one can perform calculations and gain general insights more easily. There are also situations where theories in two or three spacetime dimensions are useful for describing phenomena in condensed matter physics.[20] Finally, there exist scenarios in which there could actually be more than four dimensions of spacetime which have nonetheless managed to escape detection.[21]

One notable feature of string theories is that these theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency. In bosonic string theory, spacetime is 26-dimensional, while in superstring theory it is 10-dimensional, and in M-theory it is 11-dimensional. In order to describe real physical phenomena using string theory, one must therefore imagine scenarios in which these extra dimensions would not be observed in experiments.[22]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Extra_dimensions
Click to expand...

A supernatural cause isn't even a scientific or mathematical theory, just a belief. But I suppose it may have a remote probability.
I actually know a guy who claims to believe in god to hedge his bets.
 
Grugore said:
The law of cause and effect demands a Creator. An uncaused first cause. No other explanation is scientific, since it violates the law that all of science is based on.
Click to expand...

Why did you state that abiogenesis is a theory when it is clearly a hypothesis?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis...not a theory. Do you even know what a scientific theory is? For that matter do you even know what science is?

I mean some of the stuff in the article is just beyond stupid. Probability of life? Obviously these folks either never studied statistics or failed the section on probabilities. Let me give you a math lesson. You can't calculate the probability of an event occurring that has already occurred. Life has occurred. It's probability of occurring, ergo, is unity. I.E. 1.

This is an article targeted at people of faith who are profoundly ignorant of science.
Click to expand...

it cannot, however, be a scientific hypothesis.....
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[1]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top