Abiogenesis as used in this case is the "mechanism" by which life comes into existance begins without life to spawn it.
It is the opposite of "biogenesis" which suggests that life only comes from other life.
Francesco Redi, Lazzaro Spallanzani, Louis Pasteur and others disproved the general theory of abiogenesis with their experiments, showing that life does not come from non-life.
Abiogenesis (both in the use of the word relating to modern organisms or the origin of life itself) does not have the experimental basis that the law of biogenesis has, while some have been able to produce amino acids in an ideal environment (I'm not aware of any evidence that such an environment existed but there may well be some), the question of how they then form protocells and eventually life is unanswered.
Extra-terrestrial hypothoses have the exact same problems, moving the origin off-world does not solve the problem, it just relocates it.
I find it interesting how some people involved in the debate (generally, not just on this forum) want to claim all the evidence for their own side of the argument and claim the other side has little or nothing but faith.
The reality is, things are as they are and fossils exist.
Since it is impossible to test hypothoses about what DID happen (as opposed to "could have" happened) with the scientific method - both sides must share the evidence (as both sides live on the same planet where 'things are as they are') neither one has all the evidence and neither one has none.
Either side's argument necessarily involves some faith in something, be it an unprovable hypothesis or an unprovable deity or otherwise.
Both sides of the argument are interpretation of the facts, not facts themselves.
The usual way for these debates is to descend into accusations of fallacy (which I see this one has already done) and misuse of Ockham's Razor and so on.
One side necessarily requires the addition of an extra "entium", the other side necessarily requires the non-existance (or at least, non-involvement) thereof.
Both sides require the unprovable to be postulated in order to get anywhere, so writing either side off due to the unprovable is inadequate...
...that, of course, means neither side can prove their argument beyond internal logical consistency... but that either side can be hampered by inconsistency.
At some point both sides require someone to make a leap of faith. Either you're saying "abiogenesis then evolutuion" or you're saying "supernatural origin (with or without evolution)" and if you believe in one or the other there is faith involved as the very foundation of your chosen belief is basically unprovable.
For either side to claim greater intellectual integrity due to the lack of faith involved in their system is intellecutally dishonest (or at best, mistaken).
The most robust argument in this whole debate is the "we don't know for sure". That's never going to be enough for most people though. Whatever side you're on is your own choice, you've not been forced into it and shouldn't force others into it, nor should you ridicule either side for the side they are on or the process that led them to that side.
Just as one side can show "bad examples" of "creationists" believeing because the alternative horrifies/scares/unsettles/confuses them, the other side can show "bad examples" of "evolutionists" believing because the alternative is undesirable/distasteful/unsettling to them, be it for any one of a number of reasons, most of which are personal to the individual "evolutionist" and based on no hard fact or evidence.
And that's me done.
It is the opposite of "biogenesis" which suggests that life only comes from other life.
Francesco Redi, Lazzaro Spallanzani, Louis Pasteur and others disproved the general theory of abiogenesis with their experiments, showing that life does not come from non-life.
Abiogenesis (both in the use of the word relating to modern organisms or the origin of life itself) does not have the experimental basis that the law of biogenesis has, while some have been able to produce amino acids in an ideal environment (I'm not aware of any evidence that such an environment existed but there may well be some), the question of how they then form protocells and eventually life is unanswered.
Extra-terrestrial hypothoses have the exact same problems, moving the origin off-world does not solve the problem, it just relocates it.
I find it interesting how some people involved in the debate (generally, not just on this forum) want to claim all the evidence for their own side of the argument and claim the other side has little or nothing but faith.
The reality is, things are as they are and fossils exist.
Since it is impossible to test hypothoses about what DID happen (as opposed to "could have" happened) with the scientific method - both sides must share the evidence (as both sides live on the same planet where 'things are as they are') neither one has all the evidence and neither one has none.
Either side's argument necessarily involves some faith in something, be it an unprovable hypothesis or an unprovable deity or otherwise.
Both sides of the argument are interpretation of the facts, not facts themselves.
The usual way for these debates is to descend into accusations of fallacy (which I see this one has already done) and misuse of Ockham's Razor and so on.
One side necessarily requires the addition of an extra "entium", the other side necessarily requires the non-existance (or at least, non-involvement) thereof.
Both sides require the unprovable to be postulated in order to get anywhere, so writing either side off due to the unprovable is inadequate...
...that, of course, means neither side can prove their argument beyond internal logical consistency... but that either side can be hampered by inconsistency.
At some point both sides require someone to make a leap of faith. Either you're saying "abiogenesis then evolutuion" or you're saying "supernatural origin (with or without evolution)" and if you believe in one or the other there is faith involved as the very foundation of your chosen belief is basically unprovable.
For either side to claim greater intellectual integrity due to the lack of faith involved in their system is intellecutally dishonest (or at best, mistaken).
The most robust argument in this whole debate is the "we don't know for sure". That's never going to be enough for most people though. Whatever side you're on is your own choice, you've not been forced into it and shouldn't force others into it, nor should you ridicule either side for the side they are on or the process that led them to that side.
Just as one side can show "bad examples" of "creationists" believeing because the alternative horrifies/scares/unsettles/confuses them, the other side can show "bad examples" of "evolutionists" believing because the alternative is undesirable/distasteful/unsettling to them, be it for any one of a number of reasons, most of which are personal to the individual "evolutionist" and based on no hard fact or evidence.
And that's me done.
)
