Life origins (aka creationism vs abiogenesis)

[Achilles]

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?

[Alexrd]

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?

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Alexrd

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

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.

Originally Posted by Alexrd

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

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.

[Alexrd]

Originally Posted by Achilles

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

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

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Alexrd

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.

[Alexrd]

Originally Posted by Achilles

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.

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.

[Totenkopf]

Now, that is irony. 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.

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.

Kind of like the anthropogenic global warming theory.