Origins of life - a discussion with Gemini

[SibTiger]

I just had a fascinating discussion with Google Gemini. I'll just post the conclusion of it for your consideration with minor edits for readability.

Intelligent Design:  Intelligent design currently lacks testable predictions.  It doesn't specify the mechanism by which an intelligent being created life, making it difficult to design experiments to prove or disprove the theory scientifically.

Abiogenesis:  Abiogenesis does make testable predictions. These predictions focus on the conditions and processes that could have led to the origin of life on early Earth. 

However, as you pointed out, these predictions haven't been supported by evidence yet. There are significant gaps in our understanding of the transition from non-living to living systems.

Agree or disagree with my conclusion: At least as of now, both Intelligent Design and abiogenesis by natural processes require faith in view of the lack of scientific evidence.

[Alan Wostenberg]

I am struck by that sentence "significant gaps in our understanding of the transition from non-living to living systems".... non-living to living systems... living systems.

I'm reading a science fiction book that talks about living metal.

I read about living water last Thursday.

I ate a new kind of bread yesterday -- living bread.

Living system? What is that? Am I one? You?

[LL LL]

On Sep 7, 2024, at 2:51 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:



I am struck by that sentence "significant gaps in our understanding of the transition from non-living to living systems".... non-living to living systems... living systems.

I'm reading a science fiction book that talks about living metal.

I read about living water last Thursday.

I ate a new kind of bread yesterday -- living bread.

Living system? What is that? Am I one? You?

What they  are saying is that life can't spring out of non-living matter. They are against the idea of evolution.  Their position is that  only god can create life and evolution is a failed theory.  

Lois

On Friday, June 14, 2024 at 9:11:12 AM UTC-6 SibTiger wrote:

I just had a fascinating discussion with Google Gemini. I'll just post the conclusion of it for your consideration with minor edits for readability.

Intelligent Design:  Intelligent design currently lacks testable predictions.  It doesn't specify the mechanism by which an intelligent being created life, making it difficult to design experiments to prove or disprove the theory scientifically.

Abiogenesis:  Abiogenesis does make testable predictions. These predictions focus on the conditions and processes that could have led to the origin of life on early Earth. 

However, as you pointed out, these predictions haven't been supported by evidence yet. There are significant gaps in our understanding of the transition from non-living to living systems.

Agree or disagree with my conclusion: At least as of now, both Intelligent Design and abiogenesis by natural processes require faith in view of the lack of scientific evidence.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/0d130610-c94f-4d8a-ab42-be57c7eecaa8n%40googlegroups.com.

[LL LL]

Abiogenesis is a religious term, like Intelligent Design. There is no evidence for either.

Lois  

On Sep 7, 2024, at 2:51 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:



--

[SibTiger]

Abiogenesis is not at all a religious term. It simply means life starting from non-life. It is the assumption (without scientific evidence) of the majority of those who support the theory of evolution.

[Rupert]

The reasons for believing that abiogenesis occurred are essentially that our overall scientific picture of the world gives us pretty good reason to believe that every phenomenon of the natural world ultimately arises out of the fundamental phenomena and laws considered by physics. That would entail that at some point living matter arose out of non-living matter. There are not too many other options. You can consider that life on this planet arose from panspermia, but then you have to explain how living matter arose elsewhere in the universe. Or you can entertain that it was some kind of divine intervention, sure, but we have no particularly good reasons to suppose that divine interventions ever occur, and positing a divine intervention almost amounts to a simple giving up on the project of finding an actual explanation. 

I believe that abiogenesis occurred, not because I know in detail how it happened, but simply because it seems like the best available explanation of what I can observe. It's a fallible belief. It's also a separate belief from belief in the theory of evolution as a description of the history of the ecosystems of this planet, the latter being a highly well-confirmed scientific theory.