How did life come to be? Abiogenesis or Divine Creation? Or Are They Both One and the Same?

[Phi for All]

I see no reason why abiogenesis can't be divine creation.

I've always wondered why this wasn't the default position for creator-believers.

[TheVillageAtheist]

No, you implied the Judeo-Christian creation myth didn't belong in this conversation. As this is the Religion forum, this is exactly where it belongs.

 

 

 

No, I did not. What I said was that I had a problem that he included the Judeo-Christian myth because of this specific reason. I made this plain in my post; I am not responsible for your reading comprehension level.

 

And I ask again: Do you plan on adding to this conversation, or are you just here to troll?

 

Dude chill. Attack less, discuss more.

 

Excuse you? I'm the one being attacked here. I'm simply defending myself.

[Alan McDougall]

A famous experiment revealed a major difficulty for undirected abiogenesisbecause life at the cellular level generally does not reveal a gradual increasein complexity as it allegedly ascends the evolutionary ladder from protozoa tohumans. The reason why the molecular machinery and biochemistry of modernorganisms is basically similar is that the basic biochemical requirements andconstraints are the same for all life.<a

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/abiogenesis/

Edited August 3, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

I see multiple people accusing each other of personal attacks. I don't care who started it, I don't care who should stop it.

It stops now. Get back on topic.

[JMJones0424]

OK, you've cut and paste from a site that can hardly be construed as an accurate representation of current knowledge. Do you have a particular question regarding the quote, or are you asserting it as fact? Do you understand why the quote is wrong? Also, do you understand the need to clearly delineate your own words from the text that you are quoting?

Edited August 3, 2012 by JMJones0424

[Moontanman]

A famous experiment revealed a major difficulty for undirected abiogenesisbecause life at the cellular level generally does not reveal a gradual increasein complexity as it allegedly ascends the evolutionary ladder from protozoa tohumans. The reason why the molecular machinery and biochemistry of modernorganisms is basically similar is that the basic biochemical requirements andconstraints are the same for all life.<a

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/abiogenesis/

 

 

The link you provided almost immediately gave misinformation, The summery it's self is very misleadign and asserts false assumptions from the very beginning., if the summery is false what does it say about the rest of the article?

 

Abiogenesis is the theory that under the proper conditions life can arise spontaneously from non-living molecules. One of the most widely cited studies used to support this conclusion is the famous Miller-Urey experiment. Surveys of textbooks find that the Miller-Urey study is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. Although widely heralded for decades by the popular press as ‘proving’ that life originated on the early earth entirely under natural conditions, we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible. This paper reviews some of the many problems with this research, which attempted to demonstrate a feasible method of abiogenesis on the early earth.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/abiogenesis/

 

Oxygen: enemy of chemical evolution

The researchers used an oxygen-free environment mainly because the earth’s putative primitive atmosphere was then ‘widely believed not to have contained in its early stage significant amounts of oxygen’. They believed this because ‘laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution, as accounted for by present models, would be largely inhibited by oxygen’.28 Here is one of many examples of where their a priori belief in the ‘fact’ of chemical evolution is used as ‘proof’ of one of the premises, an anoxic atmosphere. Of course, estimates of the level of O2 in the earth’s early atmosphere rely heavily on speculation. The fact is, ‘We still don’t know how an oxygen-rich atmosphere arose.’29

 

This is simply wrong, we do indeed know that an oxygen rich atmosphere is the result of biological activity. Oxygen is a highly reactive gas, it cannot exist long term in our atmosphere, only biological action can produce it and minerals formed at the time involved were oxygen poor and indicate the atmosphere did not contain oxygen.

 

Answers in genesis is nothing but misinterpretations, fabrications, and out right lies.

 

More from that one article

 

The chirality problem

 

The two enantiomers of a generalized amino acid, where R is any functional group (except H)

What Sarfati66 calls a ‘major hurdle’ is the origin of homochirality, the fact that all amino acid biomolecules with rare exceptions (such as some used in bacterial cell walls) are all left-handed; and with rare exceptions, all sugars, including those in nucleic acids, are right-handed. Those produced in a laboratory are a half left-handed and half right-handed mixture called a racemate. Even in the laboratory, chemists use pre-existing homochirality from a biological source in order to synthesize homochiral compounds.60 Chiral molecules are dissymmetric—they exist as mirror images of each other, just as the right hand is a mirror image of the left hand (the word chiral comes from the Greek word for ‘hand’). The problem is left-handed sugars and right-handed amino acids can be toxic and prevent abiogenesis. Furthermore, most all enzymes are designed to work only with right-handed sugars and left-handed amino acids. All attempts to solve the chirality problem, including magnetochiral dichroism, have failed.67

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#homochirality'>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#homochirality

 

Answers in Genesis simply do not tell the truth, they twist and spin any real information to fit their preconceived notions. They cannot be trusted, simple as that...

 

I will not go through the entire article and point out the mistakes and false assumptions but if you really want information about abiogenesis I suggest you go to http://www.talkorigins.org not a creationist site that has an agenda they cannot move away from because it's based in dogma not evidence...

[Alan McDougall]

One that shows it as evidence rather than as empty claim? The discussion started out asking if it could be that the creation stories are some sort of symbolic historical overview of creation, and in order to support this assertion (or deny it) one needs to support their claims with logic.

 

This might be the "religion" forum, but we're still in the logical realm of scienceforum. Something like 'it's true 'cause 90% of the population believes it' is not good enough.

 

On top of that, there are many religions around the world who do NOT believe God to be omnipotent, only super powerful. That is, they believe he or she (or they) are more powerful than humans but not infinitely powerful. Since the thread doesn't necessarily discusses a particular religion, you will need to consider your own belief might not be the only belief out there.

 

~mooey

 

 

 

Here's the cool thing about science: any claim made needs to be substantiated.

 

"X exists" is a claim.

"X does not exist" is not a claim, because it is without substance; nothing exists unless you show it to exist.

Petty: there are instances where 'x does not exist' is a claim, but this is not one of them, and if you insist, we can go into the philosophical argument of when these might be valid. It's besides the point because your claim ain't it.

 

If I say "Invisible elephants exist", would you ask me to provide evidence? I would hope so. If I tell you that you can't possible prove it wrong, I would be correct. That, however, wouldn't mean I'm right, or that invisible elephants actually exist.

 

Same goes to your claim about God; you are the one making the claim (or rather, the so-called 90% percent you tout as believers) -- therefore, you need to provide proof. Some cases are not all that hard to substantiate. Say, if I told you "the moon exists!" it would be hardly a problem to simply show it to be true the next night. Perhaps we would have to wait for the full moon if we wanted to be completely positive, and/or send a shuttle back there. It's something you can substantiate, though, and people have throughout the millenia.

 

There is no difference with this claim about the existence of God.

 

 

I think that's the main issue with the OP's claim about the creation stories. Could they represent some sort of "this is how it happened" story? Maybe, but what we do know about nature seems to be more against htis idea than for it. Before we can say yes to it, we need some more substantiation, and the main "argument" it seems to raise -- the existence of some higher power "intelligent designer" -- needs substantiation all on its own.

 

For that matter, abiogenesis requires no external beings and has more evidence to its side in terms of existence alone. We know each required step in abiogenesis process CAN exist (we've experimented and had repetitiveness in those experiments) unlike the creation stories that require a God or some supernatural power that in itself is not proven to exist.

 

Okham Razor suggests abiogenesis is preferable. Unless, of course, we find evidence that convinces us to the contrary -- but you need to SUPPLY this evidence, not just assume we just drop logic and jump on the bandwagon of supposed popularity.

 

~mooey

 

What you posted might be good logical thinking, but it does not prove the non-existence of God. To me God equates to existence and is not invisable, just pinch yourself and you are touching a piece of existence or God. Of course this is not proof of a supreme being, I dont think of God as some sort of a great entity, sitting on a throne somewhere in the universe. If the universe is everything then in my opinion it is God , because the universe gave us life by any process you want to prove it did!

 

 

Another view about God which I dont totally support is!

 

Gods Immanence

 

God’s immanence refers to His presence within His creation. A belief in God’s immanence holds that God is present in all of creation, while remaining distinct from it. In other words, there is no place where God is not. His sovereign control extends everywhere simultaneously.

 

You might then say what has this got to do with the ambiogeneses of life, if god were immanent he is interwined in the process of the evoluion of life. Dont jump me again this is not proof just an opinion of my own!

Edited August 5, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[mooeypoo]

What you posted might be good logical thinking, but it does not prove the non-existence of God.

It doesn't have to. You are the one who needs to prove God's existence, we're not under any obligation of logic or this discussion to prove his (or any other claimed-to-exist entity) existence.

 

You say God exists, you need to prove it. We're here to scrutinize the evidence, as is done in all science, all claims, without exception.

 

To me God equates to existence and is not invisable, just pinch yourself and you are touching a piece of existence or God. Of course this is not proof of a supreme being, I dont think of God as some sort of a great entity, sitting on a throne somewhere in the universe. If the universe is everything then in my opinion it is God , because the universe gave us life by any process you want to prove it did!

Great philosophy, but it has nothing to do with science or with realistic proof. You can believe whatever you want to believe, it's your personal choice. But the moment you claim that this is "more logical" than other claims, you are in need of substantiating that claim.

 

 

 

You might then say what has this got to do with the ambiogeneses of life, if god were immanent he is interwined in the process of the evoluion of life. Dont jump me again this is not proof just an opinion of my own!

I don't "jump you", I am merely stating this is not proof, and while the opinion is wlcome, it has no bearing in a scientific discussion.

 

You can believe whatever you want, but science isn't about opinions or beliefs; it's about observable reality.

 

The moment you put your claim in the context of science, you commit yourself to playing by the rules of science. And if you don't, we're here to remind you

 

~mooey

[Alan McDougall]

It doesn't have to. You are the one who needs to prove God's existence, we're not under any obligation of logic or this discussion to prove his (or any other claimed-to-exist entity) existence.

 

You say God exists, you need to prove it. We're here to scrutinize the evidence, as is done in all science, all claims, without exception.

 

 

Great philosophy, but it has nothing to do with science or with realistic proof. You can believe whatever you want to believe, it's your personal choice. But the moment you claim that this is "more logical" than other claims, you are in need of substantiating that claim.

 

 

 

 

I don't "jump you", I am merely stating this is not proof, and while the opinion is wlcome, it has no bearing in a scientific discussion.

 

You can believe whatever you want, but science isn't about opinions or beliefs; it's about observable reality.

 

The moment you put your claim in the context of science, you commit yourself to playing by the rules of science. And if you don't, we're here to remind you

 

~mooey

 

Thanks for the kind wink

 

If you had to pin me down my type of god is similar to that of Einstein, I know he was an atheist, but he also had difficulty rationalizing the amazing order he saw in the universe, without some sort of driving force behind it all

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Personal_God_and_the_afterlife

 

 

 

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.

 

In his 1949 book The World as I See It, he wrote: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."^[32]

 

Einstein referred to his belief system as "cosmic religion" and authored an eponymous article on the subject in 1954, which later became his book Ideas and Opinions in 1955.^[33] The belief system recognized a "miraculous order which manifests itself in all of nature as well as in the world of ideas," devoid of a personal God who rewards and punishes individuals based on their behavior. It rejected a conflict between science and religion, and held that cosmic religion was necessary for science.^[33] He told William Hermanns in an interview that "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified."^[34] He added with a smile "some centuries ago I would have been burned or hanged. Nonetheless, I would have been in good company."^[34

 

 

 

 

[mooeypoo]

Whether a specific scientist was an atheist or not has no bearing on the actual findings and evidence he formulated to support his theories.

 

I don't see the point even if Einstein was a devout religious Jew. He didn't pray to find the formulation of Relativity or any of his other science theories. What difference does it make even if he did, personally, think of God as a mystical being?

 

It proves nothing, and shows nothing about the existence of God - for or against it.

 

~mooey

[Alan McDougall]

Whether a specific scientist was an atheist or not has no bearing on the actual findings and evidence he formulated to support his theories.

 

I don't see the point even if Einstein was a devout religious Jew. He didn't pray to find the formulation of Relativity or any of his other science theories. What difference does it make even if he did, personally, think of God as a mystical being?

 

It proves nothing, and shows nothing about the existence of God - for or against it.

 

~mooey

 

 

We can see that many things in the universe tend toward increased order, the opposite of what, the second law of thermodynamics predicts. Life has evolved as atoms became molecules, then amino acids, proteins, cells, multi-cellular life, social systems, and so on. Definitely a process of increasing order, and against the flow of increasing entropy. This seeming paradox puzzled me?

 

[iNow]

We can see that many things in the universe tend toward increased order, the opposite of what, the second law of thermodynamics predicts. Life has evolved as atoms became molecules, then amino acids, proteins, cells, multi-cellular life, social systems, and so on. Definitely a process of increasing order, and against the flow of increasing entropy. This seeming paradox puzzled me?

The decrease in entropy was local, because energy was added from external (non-local) systems... like the sun.

 

Picking up the dirty laundry in your room increases local order, but the overall order of the larger system went down because you exerted energy to do so... your body digested and broke down food into usable energy like glucose... Likewise, shaping and firing a ceramic mug decreases the local disorder of the clay, and does so by adding energy and increasing disorder in the system of the furnace (which increases disorder of the wood, coal, or other fuel)... Just like the overall order of the sun when down when that energy went to earth and increased molecular order.

 

 

If you genuinely want to learn more and correct your misunderstandings, here is a good place to start:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

 

Creationists have long argued that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics and thus is impossible. The following FAQs address why that is not true.

[Moontanman]

We can see that many things in the universe tend toward increased order, the opposite of what, the second law of thermodynamics predicts. Life has evolved as atoms became molecules, then amino acids, proteins, cells, multi-cellular life, social systems, and so on. Definitely a process of increasing order, and against the flow of increasing entropy. This seeming paradox puzzled me?

 

 

Alan, the reason it seems this way to you is that you are misinterpreting this idea, in a closed system what you say would be true but the Earth is not a closed system. The Earth receives energy from within as chemical energy, radioactive energy and more importantly to us Complex life forms energy from the Sun. Remove these energy inputs and yes the Earth would indeed wind down, freeze and life would cease.

 

Just like a refrigerator generates a local reverse in entropy by using an outside energy source the Earth has outside energy sources as well.... it is these energy sources that allow for a localized increase in order at the expense of energy from the sun and internal chemical and radioactive energy sources...

 

sorry, cross post with iNow...

Edited August 7, 2012 by Moontanman

[mooeypoo]

We can see that many things in the universe tend toward increased order, the opposite of what, the second law of thermodynamics predicts. Life has evolved as atoms became molecules, then amino acids, proteins, cells, multi-cellular life, social systems, and so on. Definitely a process of increasing order, and against the flow of increasing entropy. This seeming paradox puzzled me?

 

Even if this is true (which as iNow pointed out, it is not quite) it does not prove an intelligent designer.

 

I am reiterating the point to make this clear: Even IF theory A is wrong, that does not mean theory B is true. Theory B must have its own, INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE evidence.

 

We can discuss the flaws in current science (or the explanations of them) -- but that's not evidence for intelligent design, or god. Since that was the idea of the previous post, I want to make this point clear.

 

~mooey

[Alan McDougall]

Even if this is true (which as iNow pointed out, it is not quite) it does not prove an intelligent designer.

 

I am reiterating the point to make this clear: Even IF theory A is wrong, that does not mean theory B is true. Theory B must have its own, INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE evidence.

 

We can discuss the flaws in current science (or the explanations of them) -- but that's not evidence for intelligent design, or god. Since that was the idea of the previous post, I want to make this point clear.

 

~mooey

 

A simple explanation of entropy by me below

 

As an Engineer I know a lot about entropy, and it is true within any system closedor otherwise, entropy can decrease within a sub- system of a greater system, like the earth or the universe.We see this in Power Generation, using huge quantities of coal, entropy in the boileris reduced to as low as possible to increase efficiency, but the overall increase inentropy of the universe continues nevertheless. The furnace, boiler, turbine,electricity grid, use up the suns energy stored in the coal, but the sun continues to shine slowely increasing the state of entropy of the whole universe, maybe even up to its heat death.

 

There is no way around it entropy always wins in the end and one cant use thecomplexity of life as a reason for the spontaneous evolution of life on earth.<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;">

[Moontanman]

A simple explanation of entropy by me below

 

As an Engineer I know a lot about entropy, and it is true within any system closedor otherwise, entropy can decrease within a sub- system of a greater system, like the earth or the universe.We see this in Power Generation, using huge quantities of coal, entropy in the boileris reduced to as low as possible to increase efficiency, but the overall increase inentropy of the universe continues nevertheless. The furnace, boiler, turbine,electricity grid, use up the suns energy stored in the coal, but the sun continues to shine slowely increasing the state of entropy of the whole universe, maybe even up to its heat death.

 

There is no way around it entropy always wins in the end and one cant use thecomplexity of life as a reason for the spontaneous evolution of life on earth.<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;">

 

 

So the example provided of the energy input of the sun and life has no meaning to you?

[Alan McDougall]

So the example provided of the energy input of the sun and life has no meaning to you?

 

Of course it does , I just indicated this to indicate that we have to regress entropy to the Big Bang for the moment when entropy was zero , and as the universe ages entropy slowly increases toward to the maximum in a far off heat death of the universe.

 

Without the sun, we would have no energy and without energy we would have no life.The sun contributes toward the heat death and advance of entropy of the universe.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[Moontanman]

Of course it does , I just indicated this to indicate that we have to regress entropy to the Big Bang for the moment when entropy was zero , and as the universe ages entropy slowly increases toward to the maximum in a far off heat death of the universe.

 

Without the sun, we would have no energy and without energy we would have no life.The sun contributes toward the heat death and advance of entropy of the universe.

 

 

I am sorry Alan, I thought you were saying that the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes abiogenesis, my mistake...

[seriously disabled]

We couldn't have come from only two ancestors because there is too much diversity between people.

 

Some people are much stronger, much more resilient and also better-looking (healthier) than others and this quite big genetic and molecular diversity between people proves that we could not all have come from Adam and Eve.

 

So abiogenesis makes much more sense to me than divine creation.

Edited August 21, 2012 by seriously disabled