The more we learn about life, the worse it looks for the theory of abiogenesis. We now know the minimum requirements for life to exist, and scientists haven't got clue how it could have happened. The only reason people believe in abiogenesis is because they want to. Because the alternative is abhorrent to them. A Creator who they will one day be accountable to. Here is an article that explains it all. And it uses science, not the Bible. https://creation.com/origin-of-life
please cite an actual peer reviewed scientific paper if you are going to post in the science forum. If you want to talk about your imaginary sky fairy friend, please post it in the appropriate forum. Science isn't it.
Why is it, do you think that there are separate terms and fields? We accept the likelihood of abiogenesis due to verified data that supports it.
Even our most simple life has been evolving for 4 billion years so the first life probably was vastly simpler than our simplest bacteria. We have found that RNA strands, proteins, and self-replicating proteins can form in early-earth conditions. So how do you know we won't find some self-replicating RNA that can develop in early-earth conditions? And evolution is separate from abiogenesis because they are. Evolution can happen if God made the first life not abiogenesis. And abiogenesis can happen even if evolution is impossible.
The more we learn about life, the worse it looks for the theory of creationism. We now know the minimum requirements for life to exist, and creationists haven't got clue how it could have happened. The only reason people believe in creationism is because they want to. Because the alternative is abhorrent to them. No creator who they will one day be saved by.
You know all we need is proof of life forming on one other biosphere OR proof of one or more other lines of Earth life not using current DNA (scientists are looking for that is areas hostile to ordinary life on our planet) and Abiogenesis is proven and life forming becomes mechanical whenever the elements are there. But it doesn't matter we don't need to understand how the universe began to study how stars form. How life began and how life developed after the fact are separate issues.
Looks like they took a cell, replaced its dna with dna a computer(intelligence) put together and the cell operated and replicated. And as your video said, scientists will be debating if they actually created life. They didn't create the cell wall, they simply used an intelligence to create a different dna and replaced the old dna. Still, quite an achievement which may have some beneficial and well as nefarious applications. Perhaps one day they will create the self replicating molecule which then evolves into a single cell organism, which means it would have to create the cell wall. Using intelligence of course. Then all they have to do is to convince the skeptics that you take away the computer(intelligence) and it will happen on it own, by randomness and chance. But I do agree, this is getting closer. But there is still a vast distance here which must be traveled.
When you can create cellar life in your test tube in the bio lab, science will be able to prove they have "created" life. Until then, it is simply a hypothesis. For science to "recreate" the moment of "life", they have to be able to demonstrate that in a natural environment, the right set of chemicals came together to "create" the structure that became life. So far, no dice.
Doing that would show that it COULD happen. But, it's not clear that it would show what DID happen. More broadly, I'm bothered by this idea that finding or creating life could possibly "prove" anything about religious concepts of any kind at all. I don't know of a religion that makes absolute statements about life NOT being in other places in the cosmos or that humans CAN'T create life. It's still just a fact that science has no way of addressing the supernatural. The supernatural is specifically excluded from science in its very definition. And, it's still a bad idea to present science and religion as being irreconcilable opposing forces - that one must either abandon their religion or abandon science.
I really love that you have to go all the way back to abiogenesis to make your argument. Even if we grant that abiogenesis is impossible without some sort of god (while just fiating the existence of that god, because the rules for proving that a god exists obviously do not meet the scientific rigor that you insist from abiogenesis), then we are still left with the conclusion that evolution happened from that point on. So whatever god you're talking about, it sure ain't the God of the bible, because that god didn't just create RNA strands and call it done. THAT god created fully formed humans, plants, and animals.
I have two degrees in biology (B.S (1987) and B.A in Marine biology (1991)). Abiogenesis has not been considered part of the theory of evolution in that whole time. Why? There is not enough evidence of it to make a scientific conclusion. Nothing to do with anything else. We don't have much of a clue, because there isn't much evidence. Science works on evidence. Without it, we don't try. I thoroughly believe that evolution exists. I also thoroughly believe that the Christian trinity exists. I believe that people who think that evolution is counter to the belief in God are wrong, whether they be atheists or fellow Christians. The evidence for evolution is clear. The evidence for creationism is not. The Old Testament is not a scientific history. It is tales about the relationship between God and man. It is closer to parable than history. In fact, I think people who look at the Old Testament as history are pretty close to being heretics.
People who believe in abiogenesis are no different than people that believe that the world was created in seven days or that Atlas holds the sky up with his arms. They both are religious zealots who put their faith blindly in a theory with no evidence.
Abiogenesis is just a name for whatever process led to first life. I would say there is no theory of abiogenesis. Theories in science require a description of a mechanism - they answer "how" questions. Also, they have to be stated such that there are ways of attempting to prove them false. "Life happened by natural causes" just isn't good enough to be a theory. Scientists are looking for how things happened due to natural causes, because there is no way for science to include the supernatural. There are scientists of every religion. It's not some atheist plot. Let's not hyperventilate over this. No real god is being threatened in these experiments.
Evolution requires life to exist. It doesn't matter if life started as self replicating organic molecules, was seeded by aliens, or was created by God. It explains how life changes. If we somehow found out the "Big Bang" never happened it wouldn't discredit general relavity.
Lets postulate that some Alien Civilization started spamming Earth with possible life forms, and various diverse life forms failed, so perhaps not really Evolution, just Eons of Bio-Experimentation, that would explain much, and better too.
Evolution as described by the Theory of Evolution is a statistical effect, it happens to populations; it is irrelevant to Abiogenesis until the point that a population of imperfect replicators comes to exist.
Science doesn't know everything. There are a myriad mysteries. Science is simply a way to observe, analyze and test toward an explanation of what is observed. It doesn't always succeed. It sometimes has to change its mind. It is a process, not a universal truth. There is no reason to criticize it for what it isn't.
The male dominator god perception of reality is nothing but what someone decides they want to believe in.
No, but this thread is all about your fear that there is no god. I realized many years ago that there is an interesting difference between religious men and religious women. The men go around trying to prove their beliefs to everyone else. In fact they are trying to prove it to themselves. But of course it can never be proven so its a bottomless pit. So men waste god knows how many hours of their life [and other peoples] trying to confirm their own faith by taking a thousand roads to nowhere. Worst of all, they can rationalize being as annoying and arrogant as they want because they are doing god's work. That is really just an excuse to be a jerk. Women tend to be more accepting and don't feel the need to prove their beliefs.
I'd expand that to include all human understanding as being flawed - religious or not. We're humans. Science has an explicit process for change. In fact, that could be considered the primary focus of scientific process, depending as it does on evidence, repeatability, review, etc. The process for change in religion is not like that. But, the plethora of answers are strong evidence of human fallibility including in religion.
At the risk of being pedantic, I see the point you're making, but I'm pretty sure that relativity theory would be seriously re-examined if the Big Bang was proven to have never happened. As I understand it, the Big Bang model relies on general relativity (the very notion of a "singularity" where space is highly warped and time is dilated) and relativistic physics is what points the finger to the supposed location of the Big Bang.
Every sentence in this post is plain wrong, and "creation.com" isn't exactly the go-to source for information about life's origins. Of course, it is difficult to understand in detail how exactly life got its start on Earth when it happened long before any surviving geological (ergo fossil) record, and simulating this would call for conditions that are likewise not precisely understood and probably a considerable amount of time - too much for a laboratory to simulate sufficiently. Yet we do know that the vast majority of species that ever lived are now extinct, and that the vast majority of life's history on Earth was microbial: https://www.astrobio.net/origin-and-evolution-of-life/multicellular-life-evolve/ The first known single-celled organisms appeared on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago, roughly a billion years after Earth formed. More complex forms of life took longer to evolve, with the first multicellular animals not appearing until about 600 million years ago. So, it took a BILLION years just to get to single-celled life, and then another 2.4 or so BILLION MORE years before life even began to resemble something like a sponge. Whereas the alternative explanation, which is no explanation at all, is that a big ol' angry sky fairy magicked life into being, yet did so in such a way that it appears to have spent an unimaginably vast amount of time evolving from simple to more complex forms and to lost the vast majority of its species at one time or another many, many, many millennia before anything even resembling a human even existed.
That was Ridiculous. Using Ridicule and emotional hyperbole to discount anything. By your definition, computers could not exist, because a "is that a big ol' angry sky fairy magicked "computers into being"... Humans created computers. We may have been successively created over Millions of years or created initially, and evolved over Millions of years. Pet theories notwithstanding, science is based on facts, msths, and solid foundations and proof, not ridiculous insults and hyperbole. Technology is based on science, physics, chemistry, without science, no Technologies no important discoveries. Science is the basis of all life, nothing is possible without science, biochemistry is how life began, science.
Einstein developed Relativity without any consideration of the origins of the universe. What points to the big bang is that everything is moving away from everything else. Run it all backwards in time and it goes back to a single point. Relativity is used to quantify how the universe evolved because that is how physics works. We take known laws and apply them to observables in order to make predictions, or to deduce what processes have taken place and how they produced what we observe.