Truth...subjective or objective?

[2timothy316]

There are those that say, "This is my truth". What is truth? Does it even exist and how can you show evidence of 'your truth'? Is there any truth that everyone can agree on?

[brunumb]

The only way I'd accept abiogenesis as an objective truth is if I can observe it like I have observed biogenesis. Only rather than watching life make life, I can walk into a lifeless environment, an environment that was created by no one and watch as new life comes from non-living matter with no other life helping it in ANY way. I've been told I'm asking for the impossible. Then apparently abiogenesis is impossible.

If abiogenesis required a specific environment to occur, then it is unreasonable to expect to observe it in any other environment. Just because you have not observed this rare event does not mean it is impossible.

Have they found that environment other than in a lab yet?

You are just side-stepping the issue. There is a reasonable explanation for why you may not have observed abiogenesis, but you just don't want to accept it.

[2timothy316]

The only way I'd accept abiogenesis as an objective truth is if I can observe it like I have observed biogenesis. Only rather than watching life make life, I can walk into a lifeless environment, an environment that was created by no one and watch as new life comes from non-living matter with no other life helping it in ANY way. I've been told I'm asking for the impossible. Then apparently abiogenesis is impossible.

If abiogenesis required a specific environment to occur, then it is unreasonable to expect to observe it in any other environment. Just because you have not observed this rare event does not mean it is impossible.

Have they found that environment other than in a lab yet?

You are just side-stepping the issue. There is a reasonable explanation for why you may not have observed abiogenesis, but you just don't want to accept it.

Um because I haven't....
What is your definition for abiogenesis?
Autobgenesis or abiogenesis says that life comes about by itself without outside influence from another living thing. I have I seen this? No Never. Have you?

[otseng]

So, I think we've entertained him enough. Life is too short to play chess with pigeons.

Moderator Warning



Please debate without the personal comments.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[brunumb]

If abiogenesis required a specific environment to occur, then it is unreasonable to expect to observe it in any other environment. Just because you have not observed this rare event does not mean it is impossible.

You are just side-stepping the issue. There is a reasonable explanation for why you may not have observed abiogenesis, but you just don't want to accept it.

Um because I haven't....
What is your definition for abiogenesis?
Autobgenesis or abiogenesis says that life comes about by itself without outside influence from another living thing. I have I seen this? No Never. Have you?

Irrelevant. Even accepting the definition, you have been provided with a reasonable explanation for why you may not have observed abiogenesis. Therefore, your failure to observe it is not a valid argument against it happening.

[boatsnguitars]

If abiogenesis required a specific environment to occur, then it is unreasonable to expect to observe it in any other environment. Just because you have not observed this rare event does not mean it is impossible.

You are just side-stepping the issue. There is a reasonable explanation for why you may not have observed abiogenesis, but you just don't want to accept it.

Um because I haven't....
What is your definition for abiogenesis?
Autobgenesis or abiogenesis says that life comes about by itself without outside influence from another living thing. I have I seen this? No Never. Have you?

Irrelevant. Even accepting the definition, you have been provided with a reasonable explanation for why you may not have observed abiogenesis. Therefore, your failure to observe it is not a valid argument against it happening.

This is an exceptional point. Even under his definition, his request is remarkably ignorant. It's like saying, "I can't believe Jesus died on the cross unless I personally see him die on the cross." It's not just that seeing something is the only way to believe something. It not only that it's a rare event. It also that to ask to see it is literally incoherent; is literally incompatible with the basic facts of what you are asking.

"I can't believe the Miracle on Ice happened unless I personally witness the Miracle on Ice." One has to acknowledge that the whole point of the MoI was that it was a one-time event in history and can't be repeated. But, it appears, Christians think it's reasonable to expect it - or, they think it reasonable to not believe anything they haven't personally witnessed. (I'd love to see how this works in the real world for them, like getting paid for work: Boss says, "I didn't see you build that house, I'm not paying you.")

IMO, I think he knows this.

So, maybe the response is, "Timothy, is it true that "with God all things are possible?” Would that include abiogenesis, or can't abiogenesis happen with God?" (He'll say, "Oh, sure, if God allows it, it can happen." Suddenly, abiogenesis is just fine.)

[2timothy316]

If abiogenesis required a specific environment to occur, then it is unreasonable to expect to observe it in any other environment. Just because you have not observed this rare event does not mean it is impossible.

You are just side-stepping the issue. There is a reasonable explanation for why you may not have observed abiogenesis, but you just don't want to accept it.

Um because I haven't....
What is your definition for abiogenesis?
Autobgenesis or abiogenesis says that life comes about by itself without outside influence from another living thing. I have I seen this? No Never. Have you?

Irrelevant. Even accepting the definition, you have been provided with a reasonable explanation for why you may not have observed abiogenesis. Therefore, your failure to observe it is not a valid argument against it happening.

Its valid to me. I care not about what you feel is valid for me so you can dismiss your lack of being able to show an example of autogenesis. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it did happen and isn't evidence that it did. Your point is meaningless. The only point I take from this is that there are those that accept something they have never seen as true. That makes it subjective.

[TRANSPONDER]

If abiogenesis required a specific environment to occur, then it is unreasonable to expect to observe it in any other environment. Just because you have not observed this rare event does not mean it is impossible.

You are just side-stepping the issue. There is a reasonable explanation for why you may not have observed abiogenesis, but you just don't want to accept it.

Um because I haven't....
What is your definition for abiogenesis?
Autobgenesis or abiogenesis says that life comes about by itself without outside influence from another living thing. I have I seen this? No Never. Have you?

Irrelevant. Even accepting the definition, you have been provided with a reasonable explanation for why you may not have observed abiogenesis. Therefore, your failure to observe it is not a valid argument against it happening.

Its valid to me. I care not about you feel is valid for me so you can dismiss your lack of being able to show an example of autogenesis. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it did happen and isn't evidence that it did. Your point is meaningless. The only point I take from this is that there are those that accept something they have never seen as true. That makes it subjective.

No. Because you are misrepresenting the hypothesis of Abiogenesis in order to make it seem that it is some kind of faith claim. It may have been claimed uncautiously as 'It did happen' but it is 'only a theory' based on the projected evidence of evolution. That it isn't seen in nature is like refusing to believe the battle of Waterloo because it doesn't happen today. The conditions were different and DNA replication is there and doesn't need to be started again. I understand the incredulity just as in Cosmic origins but it is not going to debunk the hypothesis with the argument you give.

The hypothesis is objective in that it is understood that it is not proven and is just a hypothesis. And what it valid for you is irrelevant. As are your projected accusations of bias. It is rather your apologetic that is emotional, because you want to keep Biblegod as the only credible option.

And I'm willing to play this little game of trying to Get the Last Word indefinitely

[Goose]

No. Because you are misrepresenting the hypothesis of Abiogenesis in order to make it seem that it is some kind of faith claim.

As it relates to the idea that the first life emerged on earth from non-living material naturally, how is abiogenesis not "some kind of faith claim"?

[Bust Nak]

As it relates to the idea that the first life emerged on earth from non-living material naturally, how is abiogenesis not "some kind of faith claim"?

Quite simply because it is scientific claim, no faith required.

[Goose]

As it relates to the idea that the first life emerged on earth from non-living material naturally, how is abiogenesis not "some kind of faith claim"?

Quite simply because it is scientific claim, no faith required.

How is there no faith required? I don't follow you.