warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
If your answer to the "question of life" is the supernatural, it is no answer at all, since you have failed to explain the origin of said supernatural.
The Origin of Life
- Thread starter Thorvald of Lym
- Start date
Bast
Protector of Cats
If you all don't know, you should read widely, think, observe, think, discuss and come to a conclusion. Believing in something now doesn't mean you have to believe in it for the rest of your life. I sure have changed my thoughts on this and many other things throughout my life. It's all a part of the learning process.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Let me tell you a story...
you see, the fact of the matter is, in a manner of speaking, that basically states--that is, in effect--or, in otherwords, if you know what I mean.......
you see, the fact of the matter is, in a manner of speaking, that basically states--that is, in effect--or, in otherwords, if you know what I mean.......
AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
I believe in what ever the scientific community believes, for the moment evolution seems to be in the lead.
Why do we have to explain the origin of the supernatural? Isn't God, by definition, beyond the comprehension of man?
Actually, abiogenesis and evolution are entirely different theories.
Hence, voted "other".
Regards
.
Hence, voted "other".
Regards
.
Swedishguy
Deity
I think God suddenly turned up and created everything, uncle!
/
No, seriously, I believe in evolution even though it doesn't explain the origin of life.
Bast
Protector of Cats
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
classical_hero
In whom I trust
That is the main problem with evolution is that it does not have a workable theory on how life first started. Most evolutionist know that Abiogenesis is incorrect since it really does not explain properly how lifeless atoms came to suddenly become life. Which is why generally most evolutionist sun abiogenesis.Actually, abiogenesis and evolution are entirely different theories.
Hence, voted "other".
Regards
Really this thread should have been a discussion about Biogenesis vs Abiogenesis. Which one is more valid, life coming from life, or life coming from non-life. Naturally i believe
Bast
Protector of Cats
You can't explain origins of life from biogenesis.
It's abiogenesis or an alternative hypothesis vs. creationism.
If you want to subscribe to biogenesis theory then life must've originated from outside of Earth.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
How does one explain the origin of anything?
Up until I was about 6, usually with a song-and-dance routine.
No, it's not. This is just like saying that the main problem with engineering is the paradox of Zeno, which is strictly a problem of mathematics.
Evolution does not concern itself with how life begun. This is not even part of the theory. It just says that, once simple organisms exist, they develop through the process of natural selection. Now, whether these simple life forms came to be through another natural process, or were made by God, has no effect whatsoever in the evolutionary development.
There are many thesis for abiogenesis, my favorites being the "primordial soup" (#1) and the "clay hypothesis". However, abiogenesis is non-falsifiable, hence fail to get the the scientific status from Popper's criteria.
Nevertheless, still, this is a problem of abiogenesis, not one of evolution.
Biogenesis faces the exact same problem as abiogenesis - where the first form of life came to be. If we assume a supernatural force behind it, both are equally valid as well - either God (err..., intelligent designer) created the first life out of thin air or has mixed inorganic elements together until making a living creature.
Thing is that there are some viral beings which displays mineral qualities when in non-prolific environments, but suddently "come alive" and begin to show organic properties while inside other living organisms - IMHO, this shows that the line between living and not living may be blurred, when the life in question depends only of the most simple processes.
That was quite obvious.
Regards
.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
El, too bad you stopped, I could have used a partner on my upcoming Vaudevillian song and dance version of War and Peace.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Because the question is "What is the origin of life", and it would be hard to argue that an intelligent supernatural entity isn't life.
classical_hero said:
That doesn't make sense. A theory can't have another theory inside of it
The Theory of Evolution explains how evolution works. It makes no claims about how life got started.. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but, you can't point at a theory and claim it has shortfalls when the theory was never designed to explain said shortfalls.
It's like criticizing the Theory of Gravity for not explaining where the Universe came from.
Or plate tectonics for not explaining star formation! or star formation for cosmogenesis! Or, or . . .
You get the idea.
You get the idea.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Sigh. If you had a clue what you are talking about, you'd, among other things, realize that nobody with a basic understanding of the issue thinks that there is a clear line between life and non-life, and that thus they do not expect there to be an explanation of how lifeless matter suddenly to become alive, because they do not believe any such thing happened.
Further, that evolutionary biology does not, and need not, cover the origin of life has been explained to you ad nauseam. I can only interpret your continuing claims otherwise as deliberate dishonesty.
What's funny is that as Christians we don't believe life had an origin. In God, it has always existed. Just something that occured to me.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
The next person to use Evolution to explain the origin of life is going to be branded as silly and/or ignorant, by me.
Similar threads
- Poll
