When it comes to creationism, how do you even define "life"?

[DetlefK]

Is it life when you have self-organized matter?
Well, we know and can build all kinds of molecular machines that move. Viruses and Prions are examples for molecular machines in nature. But does that make them alive?

Is it life when you have an organism?
Scientists have recently cloned a worm whose genome they puzzled together from scratch, just to see if they could. This worm has no ancestors and no relatives. It's entirely artificial.

Is it life if you have consciousness?
If you go by intelligence and level of consciousness, then an adult dog scores higher than a human baby.

Is it life if there is consciousness but no body?
What about Artificial Intelligence? We have predictive and self-teaching programs so smart, you would be shocked. We are only a few decades away from an actual self-aware, mentally independent Artificial Intelligence. But it would just be a computer-program without a fixed body. Would we even count it as "alive"?




When debating whether life comes from non-life, it's important to first define what "life" even is.

[rogerashton]

1. I'm not sure how this argues against creationism.

Or for it, for that matter. The creationist position would be that life, in all its complication and ambiguity, was brought into existence about six thousand years ago by an infinite intelligence. Evolutionary processes do seem to give rise to forms that are transitional and thus ambiguous, and that could be (inconclusive) evidence FOR evolution, but it does not attack the logic of creationism.

Indeed, your last comment seems to support creationism.

[DetlefK]

2. It's not meant to take any side on creationism.

It's about agreeing on a definition for "life" so both sides talk about the same when talking about how life came to be.



I have many times seen it (and heard from others) that people steeped in topics such as religion and philosophy prefer to talk about things without making it clear beforehand what these "things" actually are.
(It's simply a different way of mentally tackling a problem: It's easier to come up with new ideas that way, but it's harder to come to a decision that way.)

So, before actually debating creationism, we should make sure that we all use the same vocabulary.

[greymattermom]

3. Are sperm alive?

That's always my question.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. A sperm is a cell, not an organism.

It is alive in the sense your skin cells are alive.

[PJMcK]

4. If the rovers on Mars...

...found a single-cell organism, or a fossil of one, that would be evidence of "life." Nearly every scientist and headline would say as much.

As an atheist, I've always found Creationism to be odd. The idea that an infinite power created the Universe about 6,000 years ago is self-defeating: If the power is infinite, why would it use the wave of a magic wand for creation? That idea profoundly diminishes the power of the imagined creator.

Wouldn't a real super-power have much more complicated and wonderful ways of creation? And why would such a power limit itself to one lousy little planet in the rural outback of an unremarkable galaxy? Wouldn't that power want to exercise its creativity throughout the Universe?

The empirical evidence is so heavily weighted towards a very old Universe while there is no evidence of a young one.

However, as far as I'm concerned, to each his or her own. Live and let live.

[yallerdawg]

5. We have scientific definitions of what life is.

The whole argument for the Big Picture Evolution is that life would at some point come from non-life.

To date, this has not been reproducible in science. Why, given what we know, can we not duplicate the conditions that would create "life" out of the primordial ooze?

Why can't we reproduce that "spark?"

"We don't know" is not proof of God.

On the flipside, it is no irrefutable argument that there is no "creator" or "prime mover."

[edhopper]

7. That

is a God of the gaps argument.

There is zero evidence for an intelligent creator or prime mover.

Stop with the Fundie arguments. They are embarrassing.

[yallerdawg]

8. See, right there is the problem.

Your intolerance for other people's opinion - which the vast majority of Democrats believe, by the way.

This forum is for EVERY opinion regarding religion. If you argue that the opinion is wrong because you don't like it and you want to negatively label believers ( "Fundie" ) you are not making any real argument at all.

There is no 'god of the gaps' conclusion that can prove ultimately there is no god. This is exactly the same logic you want to dismiss, in support of another unprovable position.

[edhopper]

12. One does not have to disprove

something for which there is no evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Those making the claim should produce the evidence.

I did not say you are a Fundie, I said you are using the same argument as they are.

And science is not a matter of opinion.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Wrong, Evolution does not explain the origins of life. Only the vast diversity of life.

The terms you were looking for are the debate between Genesis and Abiogenesis.

[yallerdawg]

10. That's your opinion.

At some point, evolution and the forensic science inherent in it has to go back to the "origin of the species" (ever hear that term before? ).

Telling me what I get to say or explaining what I am saying is not an argument. It's a distraction.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. No, you're just wrong. It's not an opinion.

The Theory of Evolution does not speak to the actual start of life. Not even in your abused attempt to mis-quote a book on Evolution.

I'm not saying that what you said isn't an argument. I'm saying it's wrong, and it reveals your lack of expertise in this subject. In 'The Origin of Species' Darwin did make a passing comment on life being created, a word he regretted using. But TOoS is not about the start of life.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

Those are the two non-overlapping magisteria of the origins of life. Creation and non-created life.

[yallerdawg]

13. From your link:

There is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life. Scientists have proposed several plausible theories, which share some common elements.

There is no irrefutable proof, exactly as I said.

This is not a "magisteria (?)." This is a fact.

[edhopper]

15. God is a hypothesis

without any proof. Zero evidence. It is a concept that defies Occam's razor by adding an unnecessary level to an explanation without evidence for it.

There are numerous working models within science that lead to the origin of life. With evidence for all of them.
The correct one has not been discerned yet. That is how science works.

It doesn't look at 3000 year old books and just accept them without evidence.

[yallerdawg]

16. That is a plausible argument.

But not irrefutable fact or truth.

Occam's razor. From your source of expertise (Wiki):

Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.

To Ockham, science was a matter of discovery, but theology was a matter of revelation and faith. He states: "only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover."

[edhopper]

17. First

I didn't quote Wikipedia.

Second, you are just reiterating, "We don't definitively know, so why not God?"

Without offering a scrap of evidence for the God hypothesis.

It is exactly what the God of the gaps argument is.

To quote NDT:

“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on.”

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Correct, and that does not fix your broken claim.

ToE does not speak to the origins of life. Only to the diversity of life/species.

There are generally three possibilities on the origins:

1. Creation. (Genesis. The greek word, not specific necessarily to the Abrahamic Faiths/bible)
2. Natural Process. (Abiogenesis)

3. Other, like Panspermia, though, technically these all just kick the can down the road, and ultimately it comes back to 1 or 2.


Nobody said there was irrefutable proof. There are two camps. Both have theories. Both are seeking proof. Neither is the purview of the Theory of Evolution.

[edhopper]

14. For those who care about the actual science

behind the origin of life.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

[MineralMan]

19. But, see...that just proves that humans can't create life.

If they could, wouldn't they have done so already?

Oh, wait...billions of years. Millions of years. A vast assortment of unique environments on a new planet. Never mind...it wasn't humans doing it in the first place. Could it have been...the environment?

ETA: I see that someone has come long with my predicted statement while I was typing...right on time, eh?

[yallerdawg]

22. You're working on YOUR creationism story.

And SCIENCE is your God!

[MineralMan]

23. That's just silly. Science isn't a deity.

It's just people, working methodically to figure out how things work. Frankly, it hasn't been going on all that long. I have an old Natural Philosophy book from 1871. I just finished re-reading it. You'd be amazed at how little was known at that time. That just just less than 150 years ago. In that short time, we understand far, far more than we did even at that recent date.

I know of nobody who thinks "SCIENCE" is any sort of deity. It's a method for studying things.

Please don't insult our intelligence. It makes you look foolish.

[yallerdawg]

26. You just don't acknowledge the similarities!

I'm just making an observation.

You are projecting your faith that science WILL resolve this! While "we don't know" remains the scientific result.

You all are dead set in rejecting the one idea that is most common and inherent to the population of the planet!

[MineralMan]

27. Again, silliness. Your "observation" is simply false.

I think. Science gives me lots to think about. Religion? Well, it's been saying the same stuff for millennia without showing any proof. I prefer the scientific method, actually.

We know lots and lots of things we didn't know, even just 150 years ago, thanks to science. Religion knows nothing. It simply has "faith." There is a difference.

[Voltaire2]

32. Religion has added nothing to our understanding

of our physical universe over the last 2000 years. Nothing. Instead it’s major institutions have generally resisted progress in the accumulation of knowledge.

Also note that inserting “god did it” into various physical processes belies the claim that religion and science coexist as non overlapping magisterial.

[MineralMan]

35. Faith allows people to avoid trying to find answers.

"God did it" is all they need, and all they have, even a couple of millennia later. Science, on the other hand, asks "Why, How, and What?"

Then, it systematically works to find out the answers. Religion relies on pure "Awe." Science relies on wonder and hard work.

One is simple, and is enough for incurious fools. The other goes about the business of finding answers to difficult questions.

Which is superior? Well, the answer is clear.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Because it explains nothing. Not our origins, nor our place in the universe.

Your last sentence is textbook Argumentum ad populum. Just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it correct.

Science will, not faith-yness, but WILL eventually divine whether life is natural (and how) or that ultimately it must needs arise from supernatural control, and could not arise any other way.

It may take centuries to get there, but we will.

[MineralMan]

24. Weird. A duplicate reply.

[edhopper]

42. Straight out of

the Fundy playbook.

[mr_lebowski]

39. Not to mention 'use of the entire surface area including the seas water volume'

Of pretty dang sizable planet.

Pretty tough to replicate that alone in experimental conditions ... then add to it the effects of a couple billion years, and an endlessly changing and diverse set of conditions brought about by the sun, the moon, cosmic bombardment, the earth revolution and rotation ... oh, and trillions upon trillions of separate chemical reactions that occurred over those billions of years.

[yallerdawg]

20. Still not reproducible as a scientific event. Something continues to be missing.

Lots of plausible theories.

Still not scientific law.

The mystery remains.

[Voltaire2]

21. Plausible theories with evidence vs

implausible assertions that have no evidence and explain nothing.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. What happens to your faith, day zero after we DO reproduce it?

Just curious.

If we find that no interference, no 'creation' is needed to explain life, do you change your worldview?

[yallerdawg]

31. Still a little squishy on this "something from nothing" issue.

But that's another thread!

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Similar question.

Forget life. If we can model the origins of space/time/matter, perfectly, with enough precision to continue to accurately predict future states of the universe, that are verifiable, and the entire process from stem to stern requires no supernatural intervention... do you change your worldview?


I do, if the results show that the universe MUST have supernatural interference to exist, I will revise my worldview.

[yallerdawg]

36. I don't believe science alone will answer every mystery.

Science is, in fact, demonstrating to us that things are not as they have seemed to be - scientifically!

As of today, I see no irrefutable argument that there is NO "supernatural interference."

That is my point.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. We aslo have no irrefutable argument that a supernatural creator is required.

That said, you didn't answer my question.

[yallerdawg]

40. I DID answer your question.

I don't believe science will ever prove there is no God.

You're postulating that science will create a set of theories that it may be plausible to argue there is nothing supernatural regarding a creator or creative force. We already have that to your satisfaction. I'm merely reminding you it is unprovable.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. I asked what you would do if it did.

Not whether you thought it was possible.

You answered a question I did not ask and did not care about.

[yallerdawg]

43. Your question is about a "model," not provable fact.

We have a variety of "models" which do not require supernatural intervention.

Now, if you are asking if there was indisputable scientific proof and evidence proving there is NO God or some supernatural entity of any kind that that did anything, and every mystery and question was resolved - that filling in the "gaps in science" finally finished off the "god of the gaps" - THEN I would agree absolutely!

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Read more carefully.

A model can be proven fact.

your latter requirement is nonsensical. Suppose, there is a supernatural creator. It is infinitely powerful, infinitely capable, and infinitely knowing. Suppose further, that it does not wish us to perceive it. If that's the case, by definition, science cannot perceive it.

The bar you set is by definition, impossible and biased in favor of preserving your faith.


I asked about a scenario that is possible, and if it would be enough.

[yallerdawg]

45. Your 'model' is not presented as fact, and it was the premise of your conditions.

Now, if you are stipulating that science can never prove there is no God, then we are in agreement!

[AtheistCrusader]

48. This is why I suggest you read more carefully.

"If we can model the origins of space/time/matter, perfectly, with enough precision to continue to accurately predict future states of the universe, that are verifiable"

That would make it fact.

Again, you 'if' or 'so' my questions into different questions I did not ask. The idea of an omnipotent supernatural creator that does not wish us to perceive it, is not all possible incarnations of hypothetical gods.

A god with the same attributes I described earlier might exist, but it might wish for us to directly perceive it. if it did exist, and it did have those powers, it could not fail to be perceived by us.

So no, I do NOT stipulate that we can never prove there is no god. Please answer the question I actually asked.

Discussing these things with you is exhausting, like pushing a 200lb ball of Jell-O uphill, because you simply re-define everything I say, and give evasive answers to questions I never asked.

[yallerdawg]

49. Why don't you go ahead and answer your question for me...

since you want to tell me what I can plainly read, you don't like my direct answer, and disagree with everything I have to say.

You are specifying some predictive conditions based on the top already spinning, not what started it to spin!

Go ahead - give me my correct response, please!

[AtheistCrusader]

52. I see you have no intention of ever giving a straight answer to a simple question.

Goodbye.

[Voltaire2]

50. It seems pointless to try with that one.

There doesn’t appear to be any intention to rise above the level displayed by snickering emojis.

[yallerdawg]

53. I'm trying to express that I don't take or mean these comments to be...

disrespectful and meaning ill will towards anyone.

You all are entitled to your own opinion, I have a differing one, and we can disagree and debate.

Or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt but even I have limits.

[Voltaire2]

18. Your use of the term creationism is overloaded.

I think you mean “claims that some god or other intervened in the physical universe to create something” as in a typical “god of the gaps” argument for the start of the universe or abiogenesis- the start of living organisms.

But that word also refers to idiotic biblical genesis literalism regarding the creation of our planet.

On reflection, all these claims are not that much different and are equally ridiculous.

[world wide wally]

28. I always understood "living" as having the ability to reproduce

[Voltaire2]

34. There are replicating structures that arent alive.

Crystals, for example.

[MineralMan]

47. Crystals can even get infected by other minerals,

which replace the original, while retaining the original crystal form. Pseudomorphs, they're called. Sort of like viruses. They were one of my specialties as a mineral specimen dealer.

[Pope George Ringo II]

37. Metaphorically?

Just going off past experience here.

[procon]

46. I really don't care what creationists think.

They're already living in la-la land, so why does it matter what they have to say about anything?

[Act_of_Reparation]

51. Because their idiocy affects your life whether or not you elect to engage with it.

[edhopper]

55. Because they want it taught

in public school and are going to succeed unless we care and fight to stop them.

Or just "tolerate" their opinion about science and close our eyes.