|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
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 handMy 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
Why thank you.
It's all a question of semantics, and Huntard put his finger right on the problem. 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 ...)
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".
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. 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 handMy 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
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 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. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
{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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Iblis writes:
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. Haha no, that's the whole discussion! There's nothing to the question beyond the concession you just made! Ok, compromise withdrawn
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
double post
Edited by Huntard, : double post
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello Marc, thanks for your reply.
I agree with most of what you say however this bit:
marc9000 writes:
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.
The scientific community wants the term abiogenesis to take on new vagueness, so it can be claimed as a fact. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
marc9000 writes:
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?
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 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024