RE: The origin of biology
March 17, 2016 at 2:26 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2016 at 2:35 pm by Simon Moon.)
(March 17, 2016 at 1:22 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: Hello everyone
Hope you're having a great day!
There is currently no evidence-based scientific explanation for the origin of life. There is, however, a few potential speculations (e.g. RNA world theory, clay hypothesis, self-replication, etc).
Sure there is evidence based explanations. Just not one specific one.
Atoms and molecules only can interact with each other in a limited number of ways. Whether we are talking about the clay hypothesis or RNA world, etc, the steps from non-living to biology can be shown.
But, there is nothing in the origin of biology that requires magical input.
Quote:Since there is no conclusive evidence for its origin, wouldn't the statement that ("life is only a natural phenomenon") be simply a belief?
The chemistry that could lead to life is pretty well understood. The fact that we do not yet have the exact steps that occurred on the early earth, does not mean that life being of purely natural sources then becomes a faith based belief.
Again, there is no step in what is now known, that requires a wizard's input.
Quote:How can an atheist claim that their world-view is based on evidence?
Because there is growing evidence to show who life could have started, and none for supernatural.
Quote:Doesn't this, at the very least, makes it simply equally possible for life to be either a natural or a super-natural phenomenon?
NO!
The fact that there are only 2 possibilities (natural or supernatural) does not make them a 50/50 proposition. This is a major logic 101 failure.
I am either going to win the lottery or I won't. WOW! I have a 50/50 chance! I'm already spending the money.
To calculate the odds of a proposition, multiple data points are necessary.
To figure out the odds of a natural origin of life, vs a supernatural one, you would need to compare the number of planets where life started naturally against the number of planets where life started supernaturally (data points). The greater number you compare, the more accurate your odds calculations become.
How many have you compared?
Quote:Now if someone chooses to reject the possibility of the super-natural because they don't like the idea of a super-natural being, then that's fine. But that can't be called evidence.
The supernatural is not rejected as an explanation because people don't like it. It is rejected because there is insufficient evidence to support it as an explanation in the first place.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
