Abiogenesis: The First Frontier

Information Central ^ | 2/28/2001 | Steven Sawyer, Jon Sarfati

[Fish out of Water]

index bump and fyi

[gcruse]

Abiogenesis is basically an attempt to explain the
origin of life while nullifying the possibility of a creator.

Well, that didn't take long.  You can
let me off here, driver.  If abiogenisis
is correct, there is no need to add the
extra layer of having a creator.  It
is not an attempt to repudiate creators,
tooth faeries, Santa Claus, or Tinkerbell.
If abiogenisis can be demonstrated, the
need to postulate primal chimera does not arise.

[Heartlander]

You have added nothing. Try reading the article and debating the issues rather than hurling insults. (that means reading past the first sentence)

[jwalsh07]

Now, deep beneath these ice caps are hydrothermal vents where nutrients and organic material are constantly being pumped out by the active volcanism below

Orhanic material is life. Life plus nutrients begat life? Pretty circular, no?

[Raymond Hendrix]

The Blind Atheist

[Heartlander]

Thank you sir.

[gcruse]

No need to read it. Any article that starts with the premise that the pursuit of scientific inquiry is a plot to dethrone the myths of milennia-gone desert dwellers doesn't deserve reading.

[Heartlander]

Free will...

[Raymond Hendrix]

In other words you cannot solve the problems of abiogenesis so you resort to ridicule.

[Ahban]

bump

[Sabertooth]

(((ping))))

[Dimensio]

. Abiogenesis is basically an attempt to explain the origin of life while nullifying the possibility of a creator.

I disagree with this statement. Abiogenesis is an attempt to explain the origin of life without considering the possiblity of direct intervention in this origin by a "creator", however it would not nullify the possibility that a "creator" existed for steps leading up to abiogenesis (such as creation of the cosmos, formation of the planets, etc).

[jwalsh07]

Ok, I'm waiting to be enlightened.

[RadioAstronomer]

however it would not nullify the possibility that a "creator" existed for steps leading up to abiogenesis (such as creation of the cosmos, formation of the planets, etc).

I agree completely. Science does not take a stand one way or the other on a creator. Science is creating the best model to fit the data discovered to date. As that data is revised and new discoveries are made, the models themselves must also be revised to incorporate the new data.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the ping, but I can't fight every swami-inspired thread that comes along.

[Raymond Hendrix]

Science does not take a stand one way or the other on a creator. Science is creating the best model to fit the data discovered to date. As that data is revised and new discoveries are made, the models themselves must also be revised to incorporate the new data.

That sounds real good and doubtless many scientists do just as you say, but the field of evolution and abiogenesis specificially excludes the possibility of a creator so the data is never revised in that direction regardless of the evidence.

The Blind Atheist

[Dimensio]

That sounds real good and doubtless many scientists do just as you say, but the field of evolution and abiogenesis specificially excludes the possibility of a creator so the data is never revised in that direction regardless of the evidence.

No, evolution and abiogenesis make no statements regarding the existence of any creators. The word "creator" does not appear anywhere in the theory of evolution or in any abiogenesis hypothesis. Evolution is a theory relating to a process in biological organisms and abiogenesis is the concept of "life" forming via some process from "nonliving" organic components. Neither idea exclude the possibility of a creator doing anything beforehand.