Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 6 of 177 (543370)
01-17-2010 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Briterican
01-17-2010 3:52 PM


well, the whole problem stems from language, I guess.
Strictly speaking, abiogenesis means life from non life. In a scientific sense, however, it can only apply to natural causes, since that is all science can study.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Briterican, posted 01-17-2010 3:52 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 01-17-2010 11:16 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 15 of 177 (543458)
01-18-2010 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by slevesque
01-17-2010 11:16 PM


slevesque writes:
It's all a question of semantics, and Huntard put his finger right on the problem.
Why thank you.
In other words, when a scientist uses the word ''abiogenesis'', no one ever thinks he is referring to supernatural creation of life.
I don't know if no-one would think that. I certainly wouldn't
This is in fact the general understanding of the definition of the word as of today in both layman and scientific terms, and as Briterican said you should usually find this '... by natural processes' in the definition of the word.
I disagree. In laymen's terms, it still refers to life from non life. That's how I use it when talking to a layman, anyway. When talking to a scientist, I assume he means by natural causes, because, you know, that's what science studies. When talking to a layman, I use it to mean "life from non life", and so, that also includes creation.
The problem comes when a Theist uses the word and says something like ''abiogenesis is impossible'' etc. Someone is bound to bring up the argument that the greek origin of the word simply means life-from-nonlife and therefore a theists also believes in abiogenesis etc. etc. (This has happened to me the both times I got involved in an 'origin of life' thread, and so I stopped going into this area because of it unfortunately ...)
Of course I hope everyone can see the fallacy in this. They do not take into account that the definition of the word has evolved and changed, and that it is no longer this definition that applies.
Actually, that is the definition of the word. It's just used differently in science. "Abiogenesis" is not impossible, in fact, this is what must have happened. That the scientific use of the word only refers to natural causes is because that's all science can study, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't call creation "abiogenesis".
Think about it this way, talk to about any scientists today about abiogenesis, will a single one of them think you are talking about supernatural creation ?
If you're talking in a scientific context, then no, I don't think he will. Most people aren't scientists however, and don't talk about abiogenesis in a scientific context.
If not, then it shows that the meaning of the word has changed, and now means most probably ''life from non-life by natural processes''
No, it shows that when talking about it in a scientific context it refers to natural causes. When talking about it in any other context, it simply means "life from non-life".

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 01-17-2010 11:16 PM slevesque has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 17 of 177 (543537)
01-19-2010 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by slevesque
01-19-2010 2:36 AM


slevesque writes:
I do think a quick mulling it over will show that it is just plainly sensical both parties should be allowed to use the same words in the same way.
No they shouldn't. For with creationism and ID a supernatural abiogenesis is actually what they say happened. So, you can't exclude it from the meaning when discussing creationism or ID.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 01-19-2010 2:36 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 01-19-2010 1:34 PM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 26 of 177 (543640)
01-20-2010 3:12 AM


A compromise, perhaps?
{ABE}: Compromise withdrawn!
Ok, to finally get to the gist of this discussion,. can we all at least agree that for the sake of this discussion, "abiogenesis" refers to life from non life due to natural causes, and "special creation" to god creating/designing something, even if it is from non life?
At least we can then get on with it!
{ABE}: Compromise withdrawn!
Edited by Huntard, : Compromise withdrawn

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Iblis, posted 01-20-2010 3:20 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 29 of 177 (543647)
01-20-2010 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Iblis
01-20-2010 3:20 AM


Re: A compromise, perhaps?
Iblis writes:
Haha no, that's the whole discussion! There's nothing to the question beyond the concession you just made!
Oh yeah! Stupid me. See what happens when you post this early in the morning, your sleepy head forgets the actual gist of the topic, and ionvents one on its own.
Ok, compromise withdrawn

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Iblis, posted 01-20-2010 3:20 AM Iblis has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 36 of 177 (543701)
01-20-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
01-20-2010 9:28 AM


double post
Edited by Huntard, : double post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2010 9:28 AM marc9000 has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 37 of 177 (543704)
01-20-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
01-20-2010 9:28 AM


Hello Marc, thanks for your reply.
I agree with most of what you say however this bit:
marc9000 writes:
The scientific community wants the term abiogenesis to take on new vagueness, so it can be claimed as a fact.
Is just plain worng. I don't know of any scietist who will say that how abiogenesis happened (IE: what processes were involved and how it happened) is a fact. The reason we don't have a clear picture yet of how it happened is not a reason for you to go claim scientists want to keep it vague. They wouldn't be researching it if they wanted to do that.
They know that if it remains defined as it is, natural causes only, it is only speculation, ON THE SAME LEVEL AS INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Then why are they researching the subject? Also, it's nowhere near the same level as intelligent design. We have, for instance, up until now found that all natural phenomena we have investigated are due to natural causes (IE: Lightning, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions etc....), while we haven't observed a single instance of something just poofing into existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2010 9:28 AM marc9000 has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 89 of 177 (544248)
01-25-2010 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by marc9000
01-22-2010 8:44 PM


marc9000 writes:
Talkorigins, in a vague, general way, did just that — a website that is supposed to be made up of many scientists. A large part of the scientific community heartily endorses talkorigins as being a scientific website, a scientific reference
Actually, Talkorigins is an archive, not a website "made up of many scientists". Also, could you provide me a reference that shows thtat a large part of the scientific community regard it as a scientific website?
Sure they would, they would just research it in a less vague (naturalistic) way.
But, the only way for sceince to research something is in a naturalistic way. Do you want scientists to als research gravity in a "less vague (naturalistic)" way?
If it’s specifically defined as only naturalistic, the religious community can legitimately question if it’s criteria for study is an exercise in atheist philosophy, rather than legitimate science.
But athesim has nothing to do with it. Being a scientist (and thus examining the natural world) has nothing to do with being atheist. There are many religious scientists.
If its definition is vague, then the same atheist philosophy can be claimed to be pursuit of greater understanding of a fact.
But it's definition is not vague. In fact it is very precise. In science it means "Life from non-life through naturalistic ways", in all other uses it means "life from non-life".
Because most of the scientific community is made up of atheists, and no one is completely neutral and perfect.
Oh please. Being atheist has nothing to do with it. It's not because of atheism that science can only study the natural world. That's due to the fact that only the natural world can be studied reliably. Tell me, how would you study a supernatural world, where everything can change in a heartbeat and react completely different than the way it did before. There can never be reliable conclusions when studying the supernatural. And so, science cannot study it.
Not everything can be studied scientifically. Human behavior, love, lots of things.
Of course they can be studied, that's called psychology.
Origin of life may fall into that category.
Well, we won;t know unless we study it, now will we?
At a certain point, the scientific community leaves science and enters philosophy in the public establishment.
No it doesn't. Science doesn't do philosophy. It studies the natural world.
(education/university grants, etc.)
And what's that got to do with philosophy?
AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT, unless they point accusing fingers and haul into court others who seek to do it in a way that differs from a godless position.
They do those things because it's not science, but religion wanting to supplant science. Religion's fine, in religious classes, not in science classes. If they really are doing science, let them prove it by doing science, not by playing political games.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 8:44 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:12 PM Huntard has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024