A Bio Genesis

@kellyjay said
"The conflation of abiogenesis with evolution is what bothers me the most. What part of evolutionary theory requires abiogenesis?"

The beginning is either through natural process or not, if not what does that say about the process?

No offense, but that is silly and nonsensical. Evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of life. Gravity doesn't explain the origin of life either, but that isn't a reason to disavow the theory.

I think there's a false perception that the theory of evolution was an attempt to disprove God. Evolution only deals with how life developed. If interested in some summer reading, read Darwin. His findings are based entirely on meticulously-gathered empirical evidence. No other conclusion could be reached based on the data. Obviously, no person was there when life arose (and no evidence remains), so empirical evidence is not possible. It's a logical fallacy to suggest that if evolution can't explain origins then it's not a valid theory. You can understand how a tree grows and reproduces and evolves without knowing where the first seed came from.

Also, the scientific assumption that supernatural things don't cause things to exist (or don't sufficiently explain things) is perfectly falsifiable. All that would be required was a reproduction of that magical thing. By contrast, God as creator is not falsifiable, which is why it's (unfortunately) not a valid scientific theory. The scientific method is not suited for those analyses.

@kellyjay said
If you actually accept that as a possible explanation you are putting faith into it. Faith is not blind it’s something we rely on, an unfaithful husband or wife are people trusted and fail, while a faithful one is relied upon.

Just a refresher for you I'm sure, but a scientific hypothesis is an integral part of the scientific method. It is not faith based, but can be described as a guess based on existing evidence and knowledge. A hypothesis must be testable.

The scientific method provides a different way (but not the only way) of thinking. Theology has it's own strengths, too, but is not very malleable to new ideas. In science, theories are well-founded in many lines of evidence, and can be falsified or superseded by new evidence.

So, sonhouse is not believing in any scientific idea to explain life's origin. He is presenting them as hypotheses to be tested. A strong hypothesis on the origin of life as a topic would not actually attempt to define the origin of life (because that is impossible) but to describe a way in which life can arise. Hopefully you can appreciate the distinction.

They should teach this in school.

@wildgrass said
No offense, but that is silly and nonsensical. Evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of life. Gravity doesn't explain the origin of life either, but that isn't a reason to disavow the theory.

I think there's a false perception that the theory of evolution was an attempt to disprove God. Evolution only deals with how life developed. If interested in some summe ...[text shortened]... nfortunately) not a valid scientific theory. The scientific method is not suited for those analyses.

So you have a process without any reason to exist, a process without cause doing highly complex work and you believe it’s just is, and the how and why are all meaningless or nonsensical? Amazing!!

@kellyjay said
So you have a process without any reason to exist,

You are talking about evolution, right?
Assuming you are;

If what you mean by "reason" above is "purpose" that implies intent involved, why should a natural process have a "purpose" that implies intent involved to be able to happen?

a process without cause

The process of evolution, just like all continuous processes, has a cause that makes it continue. In the case of evolution, what causes it to continue is mutations and natural selection. Although science hasn't yet work out the details of the origin of life (NOT to be confused with evolution), there must also have been causes for the origin of life and evolution doesn't in anyway imply there isn't. So I don't know what you mean by the above.

@kellyjay said
So you have a process without any reason to exist, a process without cause doing highly complex work and you believe it’s just is, and the how and why are all meaningless or nonsensical? Amazing!!

Did you ever take a course called "biology"? What did your teacher tell you?

We know the how, not the why.

How makes a lot of sense. Cell division via meiosis, mitosis, heritable genetics, cell nuclei and membranes and mitochondria, anatomy and biology and phylogeny, natural selection, anthropology and sociology and archaeology and geology. It's all pointing arrows in the same direction.

Why? I dunno. I'll leave that question to the clergy and philosophers.

@humy said
You are talking about evolution, right?
Assuming you are;

If what you mean by "reason" above is "purpose" that implies intent involved, why should a natural process have a "purpose" that implies intent involved to be able to happen?

a process without cause

The process of evolution, just like all continuous processes, has a cause that makes it continue. In ...[text shortened]... life and evolution doesn't in anyway imply there isn't. So I don't know what you mean by the above.

Reason can be with intent or not, if a rock becomes dislodged and rolls down a cliff and destroys a new car, the reason is not that the cliff, rock, plus gravity conspired to destroy the car.

I believe you are only thinking in terms of defending evolution. That puts blinders on you!

Origin of life sets up all biological processes that follow!

@wildgrass said
No offense, but that is silly and nonsensical. Evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of life. Gravity doesn't explain the origin of life either, but that isn't a reason to disavow the theory.

I think there's a false perception that the theory of evolution was an attempt to disprove God. Evolution only deals with how life developed. If interested in some summe ...[text shortened]... nfortunately) not a valid scientific theory. The scientific method is not suited for those analyses.

People not science has huge blinders on, there are many things it cannot be validated, but that doesn't stop of us as accepting somethings as true anyway. All we need is a little justification, not much, just a little, and we think we know what occurred billions of years ago, millions of years ago, and so on. Yet, even with more evidence to show somethings are real, they can be denied, with just a little justification as well. Our issues are can we clearly see what is before us, or are we only seeing what we want?

@kellyjay said
People not science has huge blinders on, there are many things it cannot be validated, but that doesn't stop of us as accepting somethings as true anyway. All we need is a little justification, not much, just a little, and we think we know what occurred billions of years ago, millions of years ago, and so on. Yet, even with more evidence to show somethings are real, they can ...[text shortened]... on as well. Our issues are can we clearly see what is before us, or are we only seeing what we want?

Your question relates to subjective human nature not science. Supernatural explanations regarding life's origins cannot be disproven, so they are fundamentally unscientific. Logically, its not either/or. Any science claiming otherwise is dishonest. Perhaps that is why we are discussing a propaganda video instead of data.

An understanding of evolutionary theory can coexist with religious faith. I've seen it and experienced it. If the Pope is on board with this, why aren't you?

@wildgrass said
Your question relates to subjective human nature not science. Supernatural explanations regarding life's origins cannot be disproven, so they are fundamentally unscientific. Logically, its not either/or. Any science claiming otherwise is dishonest. Perhaps that is why we are discussing a propaganda video instead of data.

An understanding of evolutionary theory can coexis ...[text shortened]... religious faith. I've seen it and experienced it. If the Pope is on board with this, why aren't you?

Actually everything we look at we do it with the human frailties in play, no one can escape that, so you ruling out the supernatural or allowing for it comes with cause not necessarily good reasons. You want to leave the supernatural out of all possible equations and if your wrong, you will miss it always. Where would you see the supernatural would be in places and ways that the natural cannot explain anything.

Have you bothered to listen to even the 5 minutes of the first lecture, if you cannot be bothered than you are here why? The lecture revolves around science and the universe we find ourselves in, it doesn't ask for leaps of faith, it points out some pointed issues there are with life starting by non-biological means. You dismiss the video without watching as propaganda when it is all about data!

Do you do the same each time an Atheist speaks on the same topic giving his world view, I doubt that and what would that make you?

@humy said
You are talking about evolution, right?
Assuming you are;

If what you mean by "reason" above is "purpose" that implies intent involved, why should a natural process have a "purpose" that implies intent involved to be able to happen?

a process without cause

The process of evolution, just like all continuous processes, has a cause that makes it continue. In ...[text shortened]... life and evolution doesn't in anyway imply there isn't. So I don't know what you mean by the above.

This discussion is about abiogenesis, evolution was brought up by another. With respect to the topics evolution and life start another thread.

@kellyjay said
This discussion is about abiogenesis,

so are you saying that when you said;

"So you have a process without any reason to exist," (your quote)

You were not talking about evolution but abiogenesis?
It makes no difference which of those two processes you were talking about either way as my question is valid for either, which was, exactly as I asked before which was;
If what you mean by "reason" above is "purpose" that implies intent involved, why should a natural process have a "purpose" that implies intent involved to be able to happen?

and, in response to were you said;

" a process without cause"(your quote)

Regardless of whether you were talking about evolution or abiogenesis, can be;
The process of either abiogenesis or evolution, just like any process, has a cause and nothing in science implies it should have NO cause. So I STILL don't know what you mean by the above. So your statements appear to me nonsensical either way.

Would you care to clarify to show us how you are making any sense here?
Exactly what is it you are saying has no cause and according to who or what? Science? And how so?

@humy said
so are you saying that when you said;

"So you have a process without any reason to exist," (your quote)

You were not talking about evolution but abiogenesis?
It makes no difference which of those two processes you were talking about either way as my question is valid for either, which was, exactly as I asked before which was;
If what you mean by "reason" above is "purpos ...[text shortened]... ?
Exactly what is it you are saying has no cause and according to who or what? Science? And how so?

In response to someone else taking about evolution. If you want to change the subject, change the subject in a OP of your very own. Instead of trying to get me on something I say while engaging in several conversations at once, don’t be a troll!

If you want to discuss the point of this OP watch at minimum the first 5 minutes of the first lecture to see if what this is about is purely faith or science! If you believe it is anything other than verifiable conclusions, by all means highlight the your reasoning!

@kellyjay said
In response to someone else taking about evolution. If you want to change the subject, change the subject in a OP of your very own. Instead of trying to get me on something I say while engaging in several conversations at once, don’t be a troll!

If you want to discuss the point of this OP watch at minimum the first 5 minutes of the first lecture to see if what this is abo ...[text shortened]... believe it is anything other than verifiable conclusions, by all means highlight the your reasoning!

I gather you completely dissed the idea of interstellar clouds of organic chemicals seeding the solar system. Not even possible in your universe?

@kellyjay said
Actually everything we look at we do it with the human frailties in play, no one can escape that, so you ruling out the supernatural or allowing for it comes with cause not necessarily good reasons. You want to leave the supernatural out of all possible equations and if your wrong, you will miss it always. Where would you see the supernatural would be in places and ways that ...[text shortened]... n Atheist speaks on the same topic giving his world view, I doubt that and what would that make you?

He's framed his lecture as a false dichotomy between "highly-evolved pond scum" and "child of God". After talking a lot about how science tests things, he puts forward an untestable (and therefore pseudoscientific) premise to explain life's origins.

From what I can gather, the rest of his lecture addresses the current unknowns. Anyone can poke holes in our existing knowledge about complex systems. Climate deniers do this all the time in an attempt to disprove things we do know. But it does not logically follow that what we don't know means that what we do know is wrong. Other than poking holes he does not propose any means to test his hypothesis, does he?

The science vs. religion debate is divisive and unnecessary, which is why his lecture boils down to sophisticated propaganda. He's right about what science is though. It's a method. Since you cannot test or disprove the supernatural hypothesis, it is not a valid scientific question. He is using the wrong tool for the job.

@wildgrass said
He's framed his lecture as a false dichotomy between "highly-evolved pond scum" and "child of God". After talking a lot about how science tests things, he puts forward an untestable (and therefore pseudoscientific) premise to explain life's origins.

From what I can gather, the rest of his lecture addresses the current unknowns. Anyone can poke holes in our existing knowl ...[text shortened]... ernatural hypothesis, it is not a valid scientific question. He is using the wrong tool for the job.

You watched the whole thing?