Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is it falsifiable? How can you prove or disprove that it happened?
If I'm not mistaken it simply proposes a mechanism, and that mechanism involves a progression of electrochemical reactions, which should be reproducible in the lab. It is not that anyone is trying to prove that it happened in a certain way, but that there is at least one mechanism whereby it could have happened. If at least one such mechanism can be determined and validated, then well and good. If not, the hypothesis will lose favor, beyond a certain point. That is how science works.
Other than argument from incredulity, what are you proposing, and how would IT be testable? You are proposing a creator, which is not testable. Don't blame science for looking elsewhere.
How is believing something that is impossible, and has NEVER been observed to have happened any MORE plausible to consider than that if we have a universe, something caused it?
I'm sorry Nate...I'm not that gullible.
Vizio, that is the point. It is NOT something to be believed, it is a position to start investigation...."What would have to happen for life to come about from inanimate materiels." It is "falsifiable" in that any theory could (in theory) be demonstrated by duplicating the posited conditions. The currently impractical capabilities to do so does not impact the point that under the conditions not yet attainable any theory of abiogenesis could be checked. At the current stage of investigation we are not able to talk in terms of anything but theoretical falsifiability. Soon, perhaps, we will be able to say that the deep ocean vents do not produce conditions capable of making reactions that could lead to life in spite of the fascinating chemistyr that goes on.....and so forth.
If I'm not mistaken it simply proposes a mechanism, and that mechanism involves a progression of electrochemical reactions, which should be reproducible in the lab. It is not that anyone is trying to prove that it happened in a certain way, but that there is at least one mechanism whereby it could have happened. If at least one such mechanism can be determined and validated, then well and good. If not, the hypothesis will lose favor, beyond a certain point. That is how science works.
Good points all, but even so there will never be a one-to-one replication possible. The problem is one of scale. We had the entire planet for a petri dish, a few billion years to let the experiment run, and all the energy that the Sun drops on the Earth. Replicating that in the lab is going to take a heckuva grant.
In other words, there will always be a gap for the Creator to hide in.
So, how do you know that the sun is actually a gigantic ball of flaming gas about which the earth rotates? What have you personally observed to convince you of this? Surely you don't simply trust what you've read in science books? Yet you are convinced that the sun is a huge ball of gas about which the earth rotates, are you not? Perhaps you still ascribe to the idea of Helios?
Thanks.
Your post makes no sense. My guess it is some kind of personal attack or anti-theist statement. Weird.
Your post makes no sense. My guess it is some kind of personal attack or anti-theist statement. Weird.
Hello again Mr5150.
I am merely asking a question...perhaps if you were more specific about what you do not understand I can clarify it for you, thereby dispelling your assumptions regarding my intent.
Since communication seems to be breaking down, let's take a step back.
I am merely asking a question...perhaps if you were more specific about what you do not understand I can clarify it for you, thereby dispelling your assumptions regarding my intent.
Since communication seems to be breaking down, let's take a step back.
What is the sun? How did you learn about it?
Thanks.
Teachers taught. Books were read. I accepted what I was told on faith since I could not personally verify what was said and written was true. Kinda like preachers and the Book.
I see no reason to doubt what was told. In either case. The only difference was I have personal experience and evidence with the latter.
Side note: I am good with evolution and a 4.3 billion year old Earth. I hope that does not mess up you train of thought. And BTW, the sun doesn't have flames in a literal sense. It is not burning Oxygen and a fuel.
If I'm not mistaken it simply proposes a mechanism, and that mechanism involves a progression of electrochemical reactions, which should be reproducible in the lab. It is not that anyone is trying to prove that it happened in a certain way, but that there is at least one mechanism whereby it could have happened. If at least one such mechanism can be determined and validated, then well and good. If not, the hypothesis will lose favor, beyond a certain point. That is how science works.
Other than argument from incredulity, what are you proposing, and how would IT be testable? You are proposing a creator, which is not testable. Don't blame science for looking elsewhere.
Even with a study showing that the proposed mechanism could have happened using what is available today . . . there would be no guarantee that what is available today even existed back then. It is the old canard . . . "okay make a human but first make your own dirt." Doctors are routinely stymied by instances where perfectly functional human bodies cease to live even when there is no known reason why. Everything that is physically necessary to life is there and in working order . . . but death ensues. That does not sound like evidence for a purely physical mechanistic explanation of life to me.
Your post makes no sense. My guess it is some kind of personal attack or anti-theist statement. Weird.
I think his point was that you accept a lot of other scientific ideas almost blindly, but that to this anti-abiogensis stance you must cling because you have attached special meaning to it that it doesn't have.
Like I said, any gods can make use of abiogenesis as the basis of their plan for life to come about; and human kind can still feel special by believing in a special creation for themselves, and they can still make sense of their pseudo-optimistic beliefs within this harsh, beautiful life by believing in a "fall of man."
Abiogenesis is hardly consequential right now.
My biology teacher barely spent 3 minutes on the "natural" idea of abiogenesis and because of this cursed reactionist culture, she had to spend 1 minute on intelligent design and how strictly religious and unscientific it was to have to even pre-emptively bring up that idea. My inorganic chemistry professor spent 2 minutes on it, my cell-&-molecular professor spent 30 seconds on it, my genetics professor spent 15 seconds on it, my organic chemistry professor spent likely 0 time on it. They all treated the idea of abiogenesis like it was taboo and had to be tread around lightly (probably because of the emotional fears and anger that a lot religiously-needy people had against it) even though it was what scientific findings pointed to.
Anyone with any real faith in their personal, family, and cultural gods has nothing to fear on whether or not abiogenesis is true or not (or considered either way by others).
Like any scientific idea, it can't tell you about your purpose or desires, those are things you have to choose yourself, for yourself.
I think his point was that you accept a lot of other scientific ideas almost blindly, but that to this anti-abiogensis stance you must cling because you have attached special meaning to it that it doesn't have.
Like any scientific idea, it can't tell you about your purpose or desires, those are things you have to choose yourself, for yourself.
Anyone who reads this post will conclude that you did not read my response to Hyker.
It's currently a scientific hypothesis. So it's a concept which has some scientific evidence along with models to support the idea at some level, but not enough evidence or tests to be considered a scientific theory. It may eventually graduate to a theory, it may be disproved and it may change entirely. All scientific theories start as a hypothesis and sometimes they take over a hundred years to be proven true (theory) or false. It's not just some crazy idea that someone thought of on a whim. It's depressing to see so many people misunderstand the basics of how science operates.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
