abiogenesis

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 truthI 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

Why thank you. I don't know if no-one would think that. I certainly wouldn't 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. 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". 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. 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 truthI 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

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 truthI 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

{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

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

double postEdited by Huntard, : double post

Hello Marc, thanks for your reply.I agree with most of what you say however this bit: 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. 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.

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? 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? 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. 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". 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. Of course they can be studied, that's called psychology. Well, we won;t know unless we study it, now will we? No it doesn't. Science doesn't do philosophy. It studies the natural world. And what's that got to do with philosophy? 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.

Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of belief in gods. But those facts don't show any gods active. Now or in the past. So this doesn't really make sense. We shouldn't teach "godless" things, yet the fats don't show a god. Strange reasoning. Of course they are. Are proclamations of the holocaust not fact because wee can't see, smell, hear, taste it? What about say, King Henry VIII? Nothing to see or smell or taste or hear there either. Absolutely no facts known about him? Do you really want to have this untenable position? The best way to do that is to actually show evidence for design. Since nobody so far has been able to do that, why should we even consider it? So? You're the one who wants to go with the facts. It's not science's fault when they don't support religious belief. There are tons of other facts that don't support religious belief. Say thunderbolts for example. They aren't from Thor. Should we stop examining lightning because it "strongly implies that religion is false"?

So, once they are all dead, no more evidence for the Holocaust, eh? That also goes for the these facts. The acceptance of their accuracy also almost always transcends worldviews. Evidenced by the fact there are many Christian, buddhist, moslem and so on scientists. The evidence for the holocaust goes against some worldviews as well, you know. We present the evidence we have, it's not our fault god is nowhere to be found in the evidence. An artists' rendition is not science. Source? And so what? I never claimed that it is science. Of course not, you have unscientific shit going on everywhere. This doesn't do anything to the accuracy of the actual science being done though. Which is also done by lots of religious people, who agree with the findings.

Ok. Just wanted to clear that up. So, you agree that we don't need witnesses alive or actually having witnessed something to know it has occurred, thank you. I don't worship science. Science however is the only thing I've seen that produces reliable results. So, if someone had written "the flu is caused by demons, and it's cure is an excorsism", and this is then accepted as fact, and is corroboratred by more writings, men looking through microscopes to find out that it's actually a virus are completely wrong? You have a strange worldview. 1) Because, apparently, you are old.2) See dwise1's Message 239

Actually, it is central. All you've said so far about ID and abiogenesis shows this to be the case. More on this later. The reason I don't "correct" him is because I agree with him. If he were wrong in my oppinion, I would point it out. I completely agree. Did you just say the human genome project was about "the simples forms of life"? Guess you did. You've made a couple of mistakes here that were pointed out to you upthread were wrong, yet you still use them. First of all, nobody is saying the first life was anywhere near as complex as what we see today, and second, Pasteur didn't investigate "spontaneous abiogenesis", but spontaneous generation of modern lifeforms (maggots from rotting meat, for example). This has nothing to do with abiogenesis. The discovery of regarding the simplest forms of life have no impact on abiogenesis whasoever, they're there for evolution to explain, which it idoes. That's simply not true. The scientific community deals with science, not with politics. Individual scientists might deal with politics, but that's on their personal behalf, and not on behalf of the "scientific community" of whom a majority are religious. It's not science's fault a litteral interpretation of the bible is not supported by the real world. It does not "destroy religion" it destroys narrow views of some "holy" texts. It's statements like these last few that clearly show how central your religious views are to your worldview. No facts remain hidden, even if someone were to attampt to hide them, they would soon be found out. There are only limited funds available, you know. And yet you were unable to do just that. Ah well, thanks for trying anyway.