Life origins (aka creationism vs abiogenesis)
 

It is an unfortunately reality that many people consider the scientific theory of evolution to be a life origins topic. The reality is that the theory of evolution makes no claims regarding life origins. The theory states that all life sprung forth from single-celled organisms and over a period of billions of years, evolved into the various flora and fauna that we see around us today.

What it does not do is make definitive statements regarding where those single-celled organisms come from. Some theists that accept the theory of evolution are likely to state that god created them and that evolution is part of his/her/its plan. Others consider abiogenesis to be a promising hypothesis while other who are more honest and less brave simply opt to cast their vote for "I have no idea".

Before we kick things off, I'd like to establish some ground rules for this thread:

1) This is a life origins thread. Discussion regarding the theory of evolution should probably go into one of the evolution threads. This is about how life started, not about whether or not life changed.

2) "god of the gaps" is not allowed. In other words, the christian god will not be declared winner by default just because "science doesn't know". Of course religious figures and themes will be welcome, but "goddunit" is not.

That's it! So, creationism vs abiogenesis - what are your thoughts?

I believe on creationism "and" abiogenesis, instead of "versus".

And picking the subject of the other thread, what's the science's answer to the question: Why are we here?

I guess I would need to understand how you are defining those terms before I could fully grasp the argument.

If life popped into existence, fully formed, per creationism, then that would seem to run counter to abiogenesis (life from non-living matter).

Similarly, if life could have evolved from non-living matter, then how is a creation hypothesis even necessary?

I'm not sure we can have both at the same time.

IIRC, the question I offered to discuss is "how did we get here", not "why are we here". If you'll recall, I indicated that I consider the latter to be something of a silly question.

Regarding the former, I recommend this.

Indeed. When you say abiogenesis, are you talking about the "soup" theory?

I'm assuming that you're referring to "primordial soup"? The concept is a little outdated, but essentially, yes: abiogenesis is the study of how living matter could have evolved from non-living material. The video that I linked to earlier has more details.

I know what abiogenesis is. But since the concept includes many theories, as there is many types of creationism, I though you were talking about the most known theory of abiogenesis, which is the primordial soup and the formation of monomers.

As for Creationism and Abiogenesis; I believe that for the appearance of monomers there are certain conditions needed such as temperature, chemical compounds, etc... Such conditions are very rare on the Universe, and I believe that something(chance, luck, God, destiny, whatever...) should have created these conditions so that life could be created.

As for the video, I'll watch it now. ;)

First, I think the word you're looking for is hypothesis, not theories.

Second, as I stated earlier, "primordial soup" is an outdated concept, so I'm not sure that I agree that it should be equated with "abiogenesis".

Really? According to whom?

I'm having some difficulty parsing this out. I don't think you'll find much argument that "chance", "luck" (which I would consider to be synonymous with chance), or "whatever" were a factor. What I find interesting is that you consider both "chance" and "god" to be viable options. One of these options is pretty obvious while the other comes loaded with all kinds of unfounded assumptions and baseless assertions. I'm not sure where we go from here.

Enjoy! :)

Not equal, but connected or associated with.

According to what we have seen so far. I'm not sure we've found life outside Earth.

Which one is pretty obivous and which one is loaded with all kinds of unfounded assumptions and baseless assertions? How can you claim that those assumptions are unfounded?

You said:

"But since the concept includes many theories, as there is many types of creationism, I though you were talking about the most known theory of abiogenesis, which is the primordial soup and the formation of monomers."

So which is it? Are you equating "primordial soup theory" with "abiogenesis" or aren't you?

That doesn't tell us anything at all about how rare those circumstances are or are not.

You're suggesting that because we only know about life in one place that it must therefore be a rare occurence. Considering the overwhelming lack of data, I don't know how (or why) you feel this assumption is justified.

"Chance" is the obvious one. Go back and re-read your sentence with each of your options and tell me how this sounds:

"I believe that chance should have created these conditions so that life could be created."

vs

"I believe that God should have created these conditions so that life could be created."

I hope this helps.

Because one of these things is not a scientific hypothesis. Since it doesn't have any supporting evidence and cannot be falsified, it doesn't tell us anything useful. If you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to correct me where I am wrong.

Now, that is irony. :D How anyone jumps to a conclusion being obvious in the face of a dearth of facts and claims to be "scientific" in their approach is ironically astounding. Also, the juxtaposition of these two comments was too rich to pass up. ;)


Kind of like the anthropogenic global warming theory. :devsmoke: