@Setanta,
Quote:Once again, "abiogenesis" is a meaningless term.
That statement is ridiculous but as you see from the definition you are making a very legitimate but, illogical point. There is no scientific word for intelligently generated life. Abiogenis is the word that describes spontaneously generated life.
definition
Quote:a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
ˌābīōˈjenəsəs/Submit
noun
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"
historical
another term for spontaneous generation.
The theories for intelligently originated life are classified as mythological creation stories or pseudoscience by the small group of scientists that make a living trying to prove the first life form came into existense spontaneously.
From Wikipedia,
Quote:Abiogenesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth.
But, when scientists classify them as myths they are automatically assuming they are wrong without doing the research to see if one of the so-called myths could be true as, the definition of myths reveals.
definition
Quote:
myth
miTH/Submit
noun
1.
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
synonyms: folk tale, folk story, legend, tale, story, fable, saga, mythos, lore, folklore, mythology
"ancient Greek myths"
2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.
Quote:As there was, at one point, a situation in which there was no life, and then life arose, any description of the rise of life--with or without magic sky daddies--is abiogenesis.
So that statement is wrong since, an explanation containing a Magic Sky Daddy, cannot be spontaneous and there is no scientific word for "intelligently generated life" thus revealing the scientific communities bias on the whole subject.
Quote:In this version of that fallacy, the assumption is that because some things are created (or designed) by humans, therefore everything must have been created (or designed) by someone--and we are then quickly lead back to the "god did it" complacency of the god squad. It is dull-witted, and it is fallacious
The fact that it takes intelligent scientists to make major changes to the complex system so that the changes actually lead to a system that works is just more evidence that it takes a Magic Sky Daddy to fill some of the gaps. The complacency and bigotry is in the scientific community reluctance to even contemplate and discus how an intelligence might have generated life in the ancient past as is revealed by this wiki article.
Quote:Origin of life
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Stromatolites from Bolivia, from the Proterozoic (2.3 bilion years ago). Vertical polished section.
Stromatolites growing in Yalgorup National Park in Australia
The origin of life on earth is a scientific problem which is not yet solved. There are plenty of ideas, but few clear facts.[1]
It is generally agreed that all life today evolved by common descent from a single primitive lifeform.[2] It is not known how this early form came about, but scientists think it was a natural process which took place perhaps 3,900 million years ago. This is in accord with the philosophy of naturalism: only natural causes are admitted.
It is not known whether metabolism or genetics came first. The main hypothesis which supports genetics first is the RNA world hypothesis, and the one which supports metabolism first is the protein world hypothesis.
Another big problem is how cells develop. All existing forms of life are built out of cells.[3]
Melvin Calvin, winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, wrote a book on the subject,[4] and so did Alexander Oparin.[5] What links most of the early work on the origin of life is the idea that before life began there must have been a process of chemical change.[6] Another question which has been discussed by J.D. Bernal and others is the origin of the cell membrane. By concentrating the chemicals in one place, the cell membrane performs a vital function.[7]
Many religions teach that life did not evolve spontaneously, but was deliberately created by a god. Such theories are a part of creationism. Some '"old earth" creationists believe in a slower creation that is generally more compatible with the known sciences of today. Other "new earth" creationists claim this happened within the last few thousand years, which is much more recent than the fossil record suggests. The lack of evidence for such views means that almost all scientists do not accept them.
There is no lack of evidence, only the refusal to accept certain kinds of evidence by the scientific community.
First of all, the only intelligence in the universe we can study the characteristics of, is human intelligence and there is a lot of evidence there. To ignore it and, the patterns we observe as humans create, is hardly scientific and doing so implies a bias in mainstream science.
Secondly, just because there isn't a legend that describes in scientific terms how an intelligence initiated life doesn't mean that one of the legands is not correct if properly translated to modern terminology or, a modern historical reconstruction of what happened cannot be accomplished. One thing is for sure, it won't be accomplished if good scientists are unwilling to look at all the data and make good logical interpretations of the data.
Quote:
One of the most painfully obvious examples of anthropocentric hebetude is the notion that because humans make things, therefore all things must have been made--or in the case of the IDiots, designed. Here is a description of this logical fallacy:
Quote:
The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.
If that is true nobody could ever prove something true on purely circumstantial evidence, a witness would always be needed. Your argument doesn't hold water here because the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming
because of the evidence provided by human intelligence which is:
1. We cannot replicate human intelligent creation of complexity by purely random actions. Never been done and never will. If you know of one please provide it.
2. We must use the philosophy of common sense realism to understand how intelligence does something because science has not and more than likely will not solve this problem using naturalism as was stated by wiki earlier
Quote:The origin of life on earth is a scientific problem which is not yet solved. There are plenty of ideas, but few clear facts.[1]
It is generally agreed that all life today evolved by common descent from a single primitive lifeform.[2] It is not known how this early form came about, but scientists think it was a natural process which took place perhaps 3,900 million years ago. This is in accord with the philosophy of naturalism: only natural causes are admitted.
It is only generally agreed upon by a small group of scientists with a bias that is perpetrated by career termination by their this same small group known as their peers.
Do you feel good that all you believe is based on peer pressure by a small group of people with a philosophical bias that has been very unsuccessful at solving a scientific problem that has been the center of research for centuries?
