abiogenisis

[Elithium]

Just thought this was a good explanation. Worth watching. May help some of the theists with their misconceptions.
The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak - YouTube

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Abiogenesis, as it stands now, scientifically plausible as the origin of life on earth. In the past decade, there's been quite an advance in the field, up to the discovery of prebiotic syntheses of amino acids (even enriched in L-amino acids), polypeptides, nucleotides, and polynucleotides (enriched in the 3'-5' connectivity observed in modern life).

If anyone has additional interest, see: The Origin of Life

[Peter]

Good video. I'd like to hear from some of our resident theists who constantly put up the complex life springing from the primordial soup strawman. Anyone?

The more I learn about abiogenesis the more I'm convinced it's inevitable above a certain level of chemical complexity.

[Zeebadee]

Good video. I'd like to hear from some of our resident theists who constantly put up the complex life springing from the primordial soup strawman. Anyone?

The more I learn about abiogenesis the more I'm convinced it's inevitable above a certain level of chemical complexity.

Are you under the impression that, even if abiogenisis becomes an accepted theory, it somehow disproves the idea of a creator?

[Elithium]

Of course not. Creation of life and creation of the universe are not the same topic. However, it does show that denying abiogenisis is an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity.

BTW, stop using the words 'proof', 'disprove', and 'prove' in any context that doesn't evolve math. In any logic or scientific subject, they have no actual meaning.

Are you under the impression that, even if abiogenisis becomes an accepted theory, it somehow disproves the idea of a creator?

[Jack]

Are you under the impression that, even if abiogenisis becomes an accepted theory, it somehow disproves the idea of a creator?

The greater our understanding of the natural universe the less need there is to suppose a god. The more knowledge we gain from evidence-based investigation into the workings of nature, the fewer holes for the god-of-gaps to fill. The gods invented by unsophisticated and uneducated people thousands of years ago are becoming irrelevant as knowledge increases.

[grandpa]

The greater our understanding of the natural universe the less
need there is to suppose a god.
The more knowledge we gain from evidence-based investigation into
the workings of nature, the fewer holes for the god-of-gaps
to fill.

In my view, skepticism of religion grows because skeptics have been attacked so long.

It's like this old formula:
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon

I don't need a god to explain the universe, or to tell me whether someone should be
loved or hated. And where is this god anyway? I don't see his posts.
I can however see the writings of intelligent human beings. For example, it's said that black holes would have been a complete fantasy before Einstein. Now they're basically taken for granted.

Grandpa h.

[Charlatan]

Are you under the impression that, even if abiogenisis becomes an accepted theory, it somehow disproves the idea of a creator?

What about biogenesis?

[finder]

Of course not. Creation of life and creation of the universe are not the same topic. However, it does show that denying abiogenisis is an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity.

I can basically agree with that.

BTW, stop using the words 'proof', 'disprove', and 'prove' in any context that doesn't evolve math. In any logic or scientific subject, they have no actual meaning.

Actually he said "somehow" disprove...So it's reasonable to assume his intention was to point out that that doesn't mean a thing where God is concerned since he presented his objection to that in the form of a question. Perhaps Zeebadee will confirm his intent but for now I see no problem with the way he used "disprove." He obviously was saying science can't "disprove" God.

[finder]

The greater our understanding of the natural universe the less need there is to suppose a god. The more knowledge we gain from evidence-based investigation into the workings of nature, the fewer holes for the god-of-gaps to fill. The gods invented by unsophisticated and uneducated people thousands of years ago are becoming irrelevant as knowledge increases.

I disagree. The more we learn the more we can see the wonder of God's magnificence. That is if you have eyes to see. You seem to be making the argument that because people were not technically advanced, or well versed in modern scientific terminology, that they were automatically all "unsophisticated and uneducated" people not worth listening to. But the reason why we were able to advance is because of the accumulated knowledge from those in the past whom you dismiss so easily with a broad brush. Sure, they got some things wrong. That's why there are so many "gods" to choose from it would seem. And no, I don't believe Christianity has it perfect but they did put humanity on the right track by exalting truth above all things. When creationist assert something false, out of ignorance, it's just one more thing we as humans got wrong concerning God. As you should know, the bible instructs us to test all things so if something turns out to be true, then it can't possibly diminish God's presence in any way. It can only enhance it.

[finder]

In my view, skepticism of religion grows because skeptics have been attacked so long.

It's like this old formula:
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon

I don't need a god to explain the universe, or to tell me whether someone should be
loved or hated. And where is this god anyway? I don't see his posts.
I can however see the writings of intelligent human beings. For example, it's said that black holes would have been a complete fantasy before Einstein. Now they're basically taken for granted.

Grandpa h.

A very fine line is what separates a skeptical mind and a closed mind.

[truthreality]

And no, I don't believe Christianity has it perfect but they did put humanity on the right track by exalting truth above all things.

How did Christianity put humanity on the right track? What "truth" did they exalt?