Originally posted by tabibito
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Abiogenesis split from Death thread
Collapse
X
-
The science of abiogenesis is in reality young, because without the detailed knowledge of the genetics of life, like the details of DNA and RNA, that is known now, all that was done were crude experiments of the possible source from primal non-life slime. It was after the science of Genetics provided the ground work for possible mechanisms and sources of the building blocks that the possible theories and related hypothesis could be developed and tested.
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe science of abiogenesis is in reality young, because without the detailed knowledge of the genetics of life, like the details of DNA and RNA, that is known now, all that was done were crude experiments of the possible source from primal non-life slime. It was after the science of Genetics provided the ground work for possible mechanisms and sources of the building blocks that the possible theories and related hypothesis could be developed and tested.
And even this atheist site doesn't go so far as to claim that abiogenesis is a theory. The site does point out, quite rightly, that origin of life and evolution are not the same subject, for all that they have association.
While Greg Laden disagrees with the claim that abiogenesis and evolution are a single subject, he also states that while abiogenesis is necessary, the processes are not understood.
And From Quarks to Quasars, another site that uses "theory" in the generally accepted sense rather than the scientific, list seven hypotheses for origin of life as abiogenesis. The site also declares that abiogenesis is simply inevitable. From Quarks to Quasars is generally a good place to start for basic information presented in simple terms.
So - we have no theory (by scientific definition of the term) in place. Only the claim that abiogenesis is the only viable explanation for the origin of life - with nothing more than hypothesising about how it happened by way of evidence in support of the claim.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostThe article you linked to uses "theory" in what sense? It is not a scientific article, and it links to an article that makes mention of three competing hypotheses, none of which has any hard evidence to support it. All the article can point to is plausible scenarios.
And even this atheist site doesn't go so far as to claim that abiogenesis is a theory. The site does point out, quite rightly, that origin of life and evolution are not the same subject, for all that they have association.
While Greg Laden disagrees with the claim that abiogenesis and evolution are a single subject, he also states that while abiogenesis is necessary, the processes are not understood.
And From Quarks to Quasars, another site that uses "theory" in the generally accepted sense rather than the scientific, list seven hypotheses for origin of life as abiogenesis. The site also declares that abiogenesis is simply inevitable. From Quarks to Quasars is generally a good place to start for basic information presented in simple terms.
So - we have no theory (by scientific definition of the term) in place. Only the claim that abiogenesis is the only viable explanation for the origin of life - with nothing more than hypothesising about how it happened by way of evidence in support of the claim.
more to follow . . .
Comment
-
This reference describes only one of theories concerning Abiogenesis.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140...heory-of-life/
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostreasonedMerriam Webster Dictionary: FAITH
: strong belief or trust in someone or something
Merriam Webster: expanded explanation
belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof.
The relevant subdefinition only - Faith can also refer to trustworthiness or loyalty.
Hypotheses are (usually) derived from logical deduction based on observations, but they frequently fall apart under rigorous testing. Theories are derived from observation that rigorous testing has confirmed the hypothesis.
Abiogenesis? Even allowing that it is a hypothesis rather than a guess, has not been successfully tested and found true. Until hypotheses have passed into the realm of theory, any assertion that they are accurate is based on faith.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostMerriam Webster Dictionary: FAITH
: strong belief or trust in someone or something
Merriam Webster: expanded explanation
belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof.
The relevant subdefinition only - Faith can also refer to trustworthiness or loyalty.
Hypotheses are (usually) derived from logical deduction based on observations, but they frequently fall apart under rigorous testing. Theories are derived from observation that rigorous testing has confirmed the hypothesis.
Abiogenesis? Even allowing that it is a hypothesis rather than a guess, has not been successfully tested and found true. Until hypotheses have passed into the realm of theory, any assertion that they are accurate is based on faith.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post
Hypothoses have not been established as empirical truths - they are reasonable and logical extrapolations supported by evaluation of observed phenomena.
When you assert that a hypothesis is an established truth, you are relying on logical extrapolations and interpretations for making the claim.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostWe agree on what hypotheses are - you fail to grasp the meaning (in the relevant sub-definition) of faith. It is a subjective assurance of the truth: whether grounded in empirical truth, pure speculation, or something between the extremes is irrelevant.
Hypothoses have not been established as empirical truths - they are reasonable and logical extrapolations supported by evaluation of observed phenomena.
When you assert that a hypothesis is an established truth, you are relying on logical extrapolations and interpretations for making the claim.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe science of abiogenesis is in reality young, because without the detailed knowledge of the genetics of life, like the details of DNA and RNA, that is known now, all that was done were crude experiments of the possible source from primal non-life slime. It was after the science of Genetics provided the ground work for possible mechanisms and sources of the building blocks that the possible theories and related hypothesis could be developed and tested.
A lot of what is speculated on has been known for quite some time. If you consider things that were learned in the 1950's to be young, then I have no objection to it being classified this way.
I believe that it is correct to label descriptions / idea regarding abiogenesis as hypotheses and not theories. From what I have read, there is no consensus regarding which of the competing hypotheses are more likely to be correctly describing abiogenesis as each have problems associated with them. Therefore, there is no well substantiated consensus that provides enough scientific groundwork for it to be a theory.
That being said...I would not say that a hypothesis is a faith based idea. It is an idea that provides a possible explanation that is testable.Last edited by element771; 01-09-2017, 03:26 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThis reference describes only one of theories concerning Abiogenesis.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140...heory-of-life/Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostThis is still not a theory in the scientific sense, it is speculative. It may be a hypothesis, but it is not a theory.
Though . . . in this case I do not object to calling it a theory, because in is commonly described this way. It does not make it any less grounded in legitimate science to be described as a hypothesis.
More to follow . . .Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-09-2017, 05:48 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostWhy do you classify the details as being young?
A lot of what is speculated on has been known for quite some time. If you consider things that were learned in the 1950's to be young, then I have no objection to it being classified this way.
I believe that it is correct to label descriptions / idea regarding abiogenesis as hypotheses and not theories. From what I have read, there is no consensus regarding which of the competing hypotheses are more likely to be correctly describing abiogenesis as each have problems associated with them. Therefore, there is no well substantiated consensus that provides enough scientific groundwork for it to be a theory.
That being said...I would not say that a hypothesis is a faith based idea. It is an idea that provides a possible explanation that is testable.
The beginning of the science of abiogenesis 'origin of life by abiotic processes' began when viable hypothesis could be made to falsify the origins of primative life and RNA/DNA genetic material from non-organic proteins by abiotic (inorganic) processes. This did not begin until we had knowledge RNA/DNA genetics, nor were there any significant research in this field before this. The Oparin-Miller proposals and experiments in the 1920's were significant at the time, but no specific hypothesis for these origins that could demonstrate the actual process were forthcoming unti recent knowledge of RNA/DNA genetics.
The first true abiogenesis hypothesis began here:
Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-09-2017, 06:24 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI do not consider the speculation in the 1950's and earlier, as Darwin proposed, as the beginning of the science of abiogenesis any more than I consider the speculations concerning evolution over the centuries before Charles Darwin as the beginning of the science of evolution.
The beginning of the science of abiogenesis 'origin of life by abiotic processes' began when viable hypothesis could be made to falsify the origins of primative life and RNA/DNA genetic material from non-organic proteins by abiotic (inorganic) processes. This did not begin until we had knowledge RNA/DNA genetics, nor were there any significant research in this field before this. The Oparin-Miller proposals and experiments in the 1920's were significant at the time, but no specific hypothesis for these origins that could demonstrate the actual process were forthcoming unti recent knowledge of RNA/DNA genetics.
The first true abiogenesis hypothesis began here:
The idea of the RNA world is a relatively new one but this is not the only idea on the block. You can't arbitrarily set a date on what you consider the first true hypothesis.
The Urea Miller experiments where in the 50's
The Structure of DNA was in the 50's
The central dogma of molecular biology was in the 50's.
The RNA world hypothesis was proposed in the 60's.
The finding of the ribozyme (early 80's) lent support for the RNA world hypothesis of course.
But it is not like we just started to RNA / DNA genetics...what ever the hell that means.
Are you referring to the structures of RNA / DNA, their properties, how they function in the cell as far as genetic information?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
398 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
|
||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
168 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
271 responses
1,227 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
207 responses
997 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
|
Comment