Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.
But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.
Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.
In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.
Question:
Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?
Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?
Abiogenesis
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Re: Abiogenesis
Post #561[Replying to post 558 by rikuoamero]
I would ask, "Do you start with Faith in naturalism? That is, despite the difficulties, you "just know, deep in you heart" that there must be a natural explanation?
As an analogy: Given a dead corpse, how might the processes of decay naturally reverse into the processes of repair? Likewise, given a universe of "dead things", how do these things suddenly move in a direction towards life?
If there was life not at the BB but after, how?
Perhaps he would say, "it is not that I cannot find a natural origin of life; it is that I see there could not have been."Quote:
Ex-atheist anthony flew abandoned atheism and adopted theism (not Christianity) because of the problem of abiogenesis: that is, he could not account for the origins of life within a naturalistic framework. How would you respond to such a change?
I'll answer this. I'd ask him
"What prompted a positive belief in theism, when all you've told me is you for some reason cannot figure out the origin of life naturally?"
I would ask, "Do you start with Faith in naturalism? That is, despite the difficulties, you "just know, deep in you heart" that there must be a natural explanation?
I do not see how "time" has anything to do with this. The question is, how do we account for the birth of life naturally?Quote:
In other words, could organic life survive the conditions within which the expanse of the universe occurred (i.e., can life survive the big bang)?I'd like to know why you asked this question. Given that naturally speaking, the Big Bang happened about roughly 10 billion years before the earliest life forms arose (by whatever method) on Earth, this question is kinda poorly thought out in my opinion.
As an analogy: Given a dead corpse, how might the processes of decay naturally reverse into the processes of repair? Likewise, given a universe of "dead things", how do these things suddenly move in a direction towards life?
Apart from you, no. Perhaps there is a reason for that.has anyone ever suggested to you there was life in the initial moments of the universe, just after the BB?
If there was life not at the BB but after, how?
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Abiogenesis
Post #562[Replying to post 559 by liamconnor]
I'm eating a pizza right now as I type this. It would be quite frightening indeed if there was a possibility of the animals used to make the pepperoni just reversing the damage done to their cells and coming back to life.
I have never suggested life was around in the initial moments after the BB. The closest I got to saying that in my previous comment had to do with how sloppily worded your question was, in that you made it out as if the universe is no longer expanding (you said the expansion of the universe occurred, past tense).Apart from you, no. Perhaps there is a reason for that.
Since I have never claimed there was life AT the BB, I have no reason to answer this question.If there was life not at the BB but after, how?
We cannot do that, as of yet, although there are several promising leads. As I have described yourself in other places: are you going to be like a person in the year 1750, declaring that flight quite simply CANNOT be explained via a naturalistic process, only to have egg on your face when the first hot air balloon ride occurs a mere few decades later?I do not see how "time" has anything to do with this. The question is, how do we account for the birth of life naturally?
Of that specific body, then no, that process does not happen. Other animals may eat the corpse and digest the materials to use for food and repair of their own body, but the original body itself does NOT reverse back to life.As an analogy: Given a dead corpse, how might the processes of decay naturally reverse into the processes of repair?
I'm eating a pizza right now as I type this. It would be quite frightening indeed if there was a possibility of the animals used to make the pepperoni just reversing the damage done to their cells and coming back to life.
You mean, before life first started, how did it it begin? I don't know the exact steps, but it would have had something to do with chemistry and physics. Chemicals reacting in certain ways with other chemicals, like the amino acids in my body folding and joining together to form proteins.Likewise, given a universe of "dead things", how do these things suddenly move in a direction towards life?
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense