Yes James I see the absence of the word theory...I also see the statement highlighted in red. Note the little word "has" not may have or possibly have, but has. The reason why it has James is because Abiogenesis is the only scientific process [see what I did there] we have for how life arose. Now that methodology may yet be in question, but we do have the little warm pond and lightening, or deep under sea vents, or even possibly Panspermia. You do accept that life arose from non life James? Isn't that what we call Abiogenesis?
. Unfortunately, that begs the question in a discussion with ID proponents or similar. That is: In other frames, such as the ID and similar creationist ones, abiogenesis is the engineered or purposeful process by which an intelligent or otherwise deity-resembling entity manipulates non-living matter so as to produce a living being from it. The Judeo-Christian monotheistic tradition, for example, posits a single omnipotent deity who molds the physical form of a living being in a clay medium and then infuses it with a vaguely described but apparently material pattern called "breath".
So we have some unscientific claim or myth, with regards to some eternal omnipotent all powerful deity, up against the chemical Abiogenesis process? Yes I went to a Catholic school and know all about Adam and Eve.
Yes. I see you almost managed to bring yourself to concede that there is no scientific theory of abiogenesis. But your ego wouldn't let you go all the way, as usual. Yes. I do not accept there is a theory that described how that happened. Surely you can't still be confused about my position on this, after all this time? Which chemical abiogenesis process? Be specific, if you can. Go on, I dare you.
No ego involved James, just fact. Abiogenesis is the only scientific process we have for the arising of life. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thank you. Why would you dare me James? That sounds rather childish. Abiogenesis is the arising of life from non life. There are afew possibilities how that happened as I have already listed...the old warm pond and lightening...the under sea hot vents process...Panspermia. It all comes under the banner of Abiogenesis.
We cannot be certain as yet. Any unscientific claim for ID, by its very nature is unscientific and creates more problems.
You referred to "The" chemical abiogenesis process. What were you referring to? Abiogenesis is not a "scientific process". The Creationist and Intelligent Design versions are usually not "scientific", for starters. Yep. Even the ones specifying abiogenesis.
They're just above, in the posts you responded to. I had assumed you read them. Here: - - As you have agreed, we don't have one of those. Here's you, agreeing:
The only thing I'm agreeing to is that we do not know the exact pathway of the process of Abiogenesis, the only scientific process we have for explaining life.
Are you sure that what we don't know isn't the exact process of the scientific pathway of "Abiogenesis", the only scientific pathway we have for explaining life? Ahh, never mind. Apparently I'm just hammering on a terminally jammed knot. No point in that.
Highlighted...that should be "is" Have you any reputable link to say otherwise? Just don't get too tired with all the hammeringPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The problem at hand [well your problem] is that I'm not real sure what you are trying to convey, and perhaps you aren't either. I'm saying Abiogenesis is the only scientific process we have for explaining life. I'm also saying any claim of ID or creationism is unscientific by definition.
IMO, we can also safely say that abiogenesis was a chemical process, regardless when and where it started.
"Is" wouldn't make sense. I have no idea who you think would be checking your posting here, or mine. I don't know how to find a link to them, if they exist. And I'm pointing out that Abiogenesis is not a scientific process. So there it sits. Other than the fact that I have posted examples and illustrations of unscientific abiogenesis, which in normal circumstances of discussion would settle the matter, it's an impasse.
And I see that as wrong. You have posted examples of unscientific myth, nothing more nothing less. OK, its an imppase, but I know you prefer the accepted chemical process of Abiogenesis over the myth.
It's an axiom! Unless all of our science of cosmology is wrong, it is a self-evident fact, just as chemical self-organization is an axiomatic process. This needs not be formalized into a theory of individual processes (except for human convenience). It is what it is, no more, no less.
They were unscientific myths of abiogenesis. Hence their support of my observation: abiogenesis is not a scientific process.
Stop being so obtuse. Abiogenesis is the only scientific process to how life came to be. Any non scientific myth you feel the need to install is just that...unscientific. Reminds me of a bloke when I was doing my apprenticeship and somehow the conversation got round to stars/ the Sun actually. When I asked him what the Sun was [another star] his reply was oh a large bit of coal burning! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Of course we havn't managed to bring back a piece of the Sun yet to verify what actually powers it, have we? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [But we are pretty confident of nuclear fusion]
I'm starting to think that Paddoboy isn't interested in "abiogenesis" so much as he is in trying to make a metaphysical claim in the guise of science, slipping something in at the beginning as an assumption, then triumphantly pulling it out at the end as the conclusion. Here's how I think it works in his Wikipedia quote and why I think that he thinks that it supports him even when (as JamesR points out) it doesn't. In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL), is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown,... So I think that for Paddoboy, the value of "abiogenesis" is that it's a way to sneak in the word "natural" as a purported item of knowledge with all of the authority that he believes science possesses. That's why I think that he repeats over and over that "abiogenesis is the only scientific process" and ignores the objection that if science doesn't know how life originated and only has a whole lot of not-always-consistent hypotheses about small parts of it, the scientific picture can't truthfully be called a process at all. Certainly not a known process. So if it's an unknown process that still remains to be discovered, what kind of qualities can we confidently say that the process has? What does attaching the word "scientific" add to our understanding? I don't know who wrote this Wikipedia article or who edited it subsequently, but I'd guess that the word 'natural' was inserted in there to indicate science's methodological naturalism, in effect to say that if an answer isn't a natural answer, it wouldn't be a scientific account of life's origins. Religious creationism wouldn't qualify as 'abiogenesis' in this sense even if it does purport to give an account of life's origins, since its proposed answer to how life originated isn't a naturalistic answer. Of course that doesn't exclude the possibility that life might have had a supernatural origin. It's just saying that if it did, that supernatural origin would be outside the scope of science and wouldn't qualify as a scientific account of life's origins (as abiogenesis in this sense). But Paddoboy wants more than that rather uncontroversial observation. He seems to me to be implicitly claiming that science somehow guarantees that the origin of life can only have been a natural process. Hence science falsifies any other possibility. So the question that anyone who thinks this way needs to answer is how anyone can be so sure that any unknown that's still to be described and explained, such as the origin of life in this case, really was a natural process and falls within the scope of science. It's a working assumption in how science proceeds, an assumption that's served science very well so far, but it isn't something that people actually know. Metaphysical naturalism, the conviction that the scope of science is coextensive with reality itself and that nothing can exist that falls outside the scope of science, is an article of faith and would seem to be unknowable in principle. Introducing implicit metaphysical naturalism seems to me to be the agenda in these kind of arguments. But the question remains: how does observing that a proposed account is unscientific exclude it as a possibility?
