All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled"

[nostatic]

Can we all agree that evolution has a ton of scientific evidence behind it? I think we can all accept that (well, a few won't but we'll ignore that for the moment).

Abiogenesis can be thought of as a logical (or illogical) extension of evolution. And there have been experiments that hint at random assembly, etc. So at least there is science leading in that direction.

ID says "God did it" but there is zero empirical evidence for that. The bible is not empirical evidence.

For me it is pretty easy to determine which should be taught as science and which as belief. And I can *believe* that "god" (however you find her) set things into motion and abiogenesis happened. But at least there is some scientific evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by IROC

When the supposition that the origin of life was god (call him what you want - a "creator" or a "designer") then it is religion.

No it isn't. Believing that creator should be worshiped and takes an interest in our daily lives is religion. Simply saying that life may have been created by a higher power isn't religion.

[Nathans_Dad]

Agree that there is some evidence for limited abiogenesis. Compounds being synthesized in sulfur vents and such. What there is no evidence for is those very simple compounds coming together into any sort of higher life form. I know the answer will be "deep time" but isn't that akin to "God did it"?

[kstar]

What are the different thoughts on how life started?

I am aware of abiogenesis and panspermia (exogenesis) and of course "God". "God" could be one of the religious gods or some single or group of highly evolved, super-intelligent beings or being-made machines. Or the "simulation" hypothesis.

When there's no evidence to go on, we could just make up other things too.

Best,

Kurt

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Agree that there is some evidence for limited abiogenesis. Compounds being synthesized in sulfur vents and such. What there is no evidence for is those very simple compounds coming together into any sort of higher life form. I know the answer will be "deep time" but isn't that akin to "God did it"?

Rick, coming from you I'd have no problem with equating those two at this point of scientific history, because you understand some of the subtleties. The issue comes with the dogmatics who can't see shades of gray, and will insist that ID is right, evolution is evil, and the bible is a literal non-fiction work.

[Nathans_Dad]

Well panspermia doesn't really address the issue which is how did life start. Just saying life rode in on a asteroid doesn't cut it. Where did that life come from?

If you don't believe that life was somehow created or set into motion then you are basically left with abiogenesis, life out of nothing.

[Nathans_Dad]

Well, Nostatic I can't argue for them, I can only argue for me

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

No it isn't. Believing that creator should be worshiped and takes an interest in our daily lives is religion. Simply saying that life may have been created by a higher power isn't religion.

Put it this way - would this thread exist if it wasn't for religious beliefs that differ with scientific findings? Why are you not arguing against gravitational theory? Or the theory of electromagnetism?

As for the possibility that "god did it" - why jump to that conclusion when there has been no other instance in the history of mankind where "god did it" was the answer?

[nostatic]

well, I don't think we really have much of an argument

[Jim Richards]

Butt darts.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Thwart.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by nostatic

The bible is not empirical evidence.

Now, don't tell trekkor this!

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Simply saying that life may have been created by a higher power isn't religion.

Based on no evidence to support this higher power, it is on equal scientific footing with FSM, Zenu, Zeus, Russell's Teapots, etc. Try bringing one of them to the scientific community and see what happens.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Well panspermia doesn't really address the issue which is how did life start. Just saying life rode in on a asteroid doesn't cut it. Where did that life come from?

Good point. I was thinking narrowly - just Earth.

If you don't believe that life was somehow created or set into motion then you are basically left with abiogenesis, life out of nothing.

Creation or abiogenesis are the only options then. Or, like Todd said, a creator that triggered abiogenesis. I would also include the holographic simulation as another option, where these same issues would be germane within the simulation, but more a function of the "programmer".

Best,

Kurt

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by IROC

Put it this way - would this thread exist if it wasn't for religious beliefs that differ with scientific findings? Why are you not arguing against gravitational theory? Or the theory of electromagnetism?

Yes, the thread would exist because man would still want to know how and why life started at all. Besides, I think man is an innately religious creature. Whether that is because man was created or whether it is an evolutionary adaptation to soothe man's feeble mind is another debate.

Originally Posted by IROC

As for the possibility that "god did it" - why jump to that conclusion when there has been no other instance in the history of mankind where "god did it" was the answer?

Well, if the creator set things in motion that would end in the result that it intended, would there ever have to be another instance? No.

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Well panspermia doesn't really address the issue which is how did life start. Just saying life rode in on a asteroid doesn't cut it. Where did that life come from?

If you don't believe that life was somehow created or set into motion then you are basically left with abiogenesis, life out of nothing.

Abiogenesis is a young field of science that does not have an overreaching theory like the "Theory of Evolution". ID is used as a blunt instrument against the "Theory of Evolution" with abiogenesis used as a straw-man argument.
Where did life come from? There is certainly more evidence in support of abiogenesis than ID or directed evolution.

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Well, how life began IS a scientfic question and one that we don't have an answer for yet. My whole point is that it seems unless you espouse abiogenesis your thoughts on the origins of life don't seem to be welcome in the scientific community.

They are always welcome if they are scientific in origin and come with supportive empirical data and testable hypotheses. ID is a negative argument, not a testable hypothesis.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by sjf911

There is certainly more evidence in support of abiogenesis than ID or directed evolution.

With all due respect, there is zero evidence for abiogenesis on a scale that would be needed to result in spontaneous life.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Well, if the creator set things in motion that would end in the result that it intended, would there ever have to be another instance? No.

Since there is no evidence that your "creator" exists, I think your point is moot. Might as well be advocating the FSM. Same amount of evidence.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Well, if the creator set things in motion that would end in the result that it intended, would there ever have to be another instance? No.

Only in the movies. V-GER: