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.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory (scientifically speaking).
I am not trying to be a Definition Nazi, it's just that the conflation of the scientific and colloquial definitions of the word "theory" is something we need to counter at every turn. Scientifically speaking, a "theory" is not a guess, it is an established and proven explanatory framework. Scientifically speaking, a guess or proposed idea or possibility is just that and no more unless it is falsifiable (= provable) at which point it becomes a scientifically valid hypothesis.
Abiogenesis is a possibility for sure. A hypothesis perhaps -- I am not familiar with proposed ways it could be tested but I think it's safe to say there are ways. A theory someday, maybe.
If nothing else, abiogenesis has going for it the fact that it is a naturalistic explanation that should be demonstrable in one of several ways empirically. Despite it being currently unproven, this puts it way ahead of baseless assertions, however ancient and venerable their pedigree, as baseless assertions from the supernatural are inherently unprovable.
Abiogenesis is purely a fantasy. There is no basis for it in science...except that someone got the idea that in order for life to exist, it had to start SOMEWHERE and it's easier for some people to believe that life came from this fairy tale process than it is to believe that a creator caused life to begin.
Abiogenesis is purely a fantasy. There is no basis for it in science...except that someone got the idea that in order for life to exist, it had to start SOMEWHERE and it's easier for some people to believe that life came from this fairy tale process than it is to believe that a creator caused life to begin.
Abiogenesis is falsifiable and therefore a valid scientific hypothesis. It has been neither proven nor disproven at this time. It is simply a prediction that there is a cascade of environmental and chemical interactions that could create primitive life from organic chemicals. It is not a suggestion that life came about because of a fairy tale or wishful thinking.
You are correct however that it is more plausible. It is not hard to see why.
1) An invisible being in the sky who some people assert but can't prove exists, created life from nothing
2) Life arose from raw materials given the presence of those materials, the right conditions and enough time
Abiogenesis is purely a fantasy. There is no basis for it in science...except that someone got the idea that in order for life to exist, it had to start SOMEWHERE and it's easier for some people to believe that life came from this fairy tale process than it is to believe that a creator caused life to begin.
Vizio, there is no fantasy when you talk about the concept of "abiogenesis." It is merely a reasonable position to start looking for possibilities or processes. Now some of the ideas concerning THOSE may be fantasies.
Abiogenesis is falsifiable and therefore a valid scientific hypothesis. It has been neither proven nor disproven at this time. It is simply a prediction that there is a cascade of environmental and chemical interactions that could create primitive life from organic chemicals. It is not a suggestion that life came about because of a fairy tale or wishful thinking.
You are correct however that it is more plausible. It is not hard to see why.
1) An invisible being in the sky who some people assert but can't prove exists, created life from nothing
2) Life arose from raw materials given the presence of those materials, the right conditions and enough time
I know which I find more plausible.
How is it falsifiable? How can you prove or disprove that it happened?
Vizio, there is no fantasy when you talk about the concept of "abiogenesis." It is merely a reasonable position to start looking for possibilities or processes. Now some of the ideas concerning THOSE may be fantasies.
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?
Abiogenesis is falsifiable and therefore a valid scientific hypothesis. It has been neither proven nor disproven at this time. It is simply a prediction that there is a cascade of environmental and chemical interactions that could create primitive life from organic chemicals. It is not a suggestion that life came about because of a fairy tale or wishful thinking.
You are correct however that it is more plausible. It is not hard to see why.
1) An invisible being in the sky who some people assert but can't prove exists, created life from nothing
2) Life arose from raw materials given the presence of those materials, the right conditions and enough time
I know which I find more plausible.
So what you saying that if one throws a bunch of bicycles parts (spokes, metal tubes, handlebar, saddle, etc.) into a bag. Then one shakes the bag; given enough time a fully functional bike will come to be. Oh that works for me.
Makes as much sense as a monkey banging on a word processor and "given enough time" will produce a well written novel.
Seems to be mostly speculation by those who do not believe in a Creator.
Well, we have no evidence of a Creator. We do have evidence of matter organizing itself in a self-replicating manner.
But it will probably remain forever speculative. Modern microorganisms have evolved (yes, they really have) to be damn good at squeezing energy from every chemical bond in their environment, and so if a new breed of self-replicating molecule arrived at he scene, chances are it would be gobbled up. Whereas an entire planet's worth of resources with no competition is somewhat more welcoming.
Saying "Oh, as long as we don't know, there must have been a Creator" is just a God-of-the-Gaps attempt at deducing positive data from negative information.
TL, DR: We don't know, that's fine, but us not knowing doesn't prove creation.
So what you saying that if one throws a bunch of bicycles parts (spokes, metal tubes, handlebar, saddle, etc.) into a bag. Then one shakes the bag; given enough time a fully functional bike will come to be. Oh that works for me.
Makes as much sense as a monkey banging on a word processor and "given enough time" will produce a well written novel.
Not only that...but that bike will be living, and breathing!
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.
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.
