Naturalism and Abiogenesis

  1. Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life comes only from life yet somehow in the far distant past life came from non life in that inanimate became animate however if this is a naturally occurring phenomenon in the environment and all the necessary ingredients are readily available how come this is not happening right now? In observable verifiable and testable terms?
  2. Is it hypocritical of naturalists and materialists and atheists to posit a theory that it itself cannot be empirically verified or tested utilising the scientific method?

I am aware of many interesting ideas and some competing hypotheses to explain the origin of life on Earth. I don’t think any can be described as a theory (yet).


If true, it might be. Have you an example of anyone doing this?

No, you’re probably speaking about the so-called “law of biogenesis”, which isn’t actually an accepted natural law. Of course if the “law” is true, life must be infinitely old as there must be an infinite series of ancestors going into the past.

And if we can infer a “law of biogenesis” on the basis of extrapolation from observation, then a “law of life is only ever made of atoms” must have equally good support, yet I don’t think you want to go there.

How do you know it’s not happening right now somewhere? What measurements did you perform, where, and when and for how long?

The ocean contains the right ingredients for ice, but ice typically only forms around the poles, not near the equator. Some times the conditions have to be right, in addition to having “all the necessary ingredients”.

There are lots of theists studying the natural origin of life who are convinced God created the laws of physics, and that under the right conditions life can arise given those physical laws.

How did you establish that it can’t be tested?


This is not what abiogenesis is.

Who says “all the necessary ingredients are readily available”? Who even knows “all the necessary ingredients”? Provide citations from the primary literature.

Science is mostly about generating and testing hypotheses. Hypotheses are tested by checking if their predictions agree with observations of the natural world.

As I suspected, you don’t know how science works. In addition, abiogenesis is a fact regardless of whether you are a theist, agnostic, or atheist because the earliest lifeforms arose from inanimate matter. How this happened is where the contention lies not whether it happened and new findings are slowly pushing the weight of evidence in favour of an origin of life that is successfully explained by natural means.

1 Like

No it isn’t. Please learn something about abiogenesis before attempting to critique it.

How do you know it isn’t? How would you observe and test such a thing?

The main problem with life arising again is that life already exists, so any potential new life would get eaten long before it was capable of defending itself.

That’s a badly loaded and unnecessarily insulting question that along with the rest of your post shows you have little or no interest in either learning or peaceful discussion.

You’re in the wrong place.

1 Like

A biogenesis is the theory that life only comes from life but in the far distant past life came from non life that inanimate became animate that is the correct definition

If life can come from non life then where is the example of inanimate turning into animate naturally occurring in the environment it doesn’t occur

If life can come from non life then how come this natural phenomena is not a curling right now that’s my question

A biogenesis is the scientific theory positive by materialists and naturalists as being a scientific fact as to the origin of life

If it is a fact as you claim that how come it’s not a naturally occurring phenomenon right now how come there’s no scientific test that can be devised to test the empirical veracity of the claim of abiogenesis?

1st of all professor I’m in the right place because this is where people have discussions 2nd of all I asked a question 3rd of all I know what abiogenesis is and if you take half of sentence as a "of course it wouldn’t be correct a biogenesis means life comes from non life yet somehow after that event of inanimate becoming animate life only comes from life if you have an explanation that can be an empirically tested verified please by all means elaborate Otherwise I suggest you quit making logical fallacies such as ad hominem and attacking people for asking questions biogenesis means life from Life and abiogenesis means life from non-life yet after that it’s only life from life

How do you know that new life forms are not arising, as per abiogenesis, in the here-and-now? What are your assays? Where are the data? Results?

Just wondering…


No it is not. Abiogenesis says nothing about “life only comes from life”.

If you don’t believe me, try Wikipedia: " In 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."

In 35 years of watching and participating in evolution-creation discussions, I cannot recall anyone who demonstrated their level of expertise as quickly as you did.


Life as we know it does not emerge from inanimate matter directly but life as we know it didn’t exist billions of years ago and we have no clue if the kind of life-like systems that emerged from inanimate matter those billions of years ago still appear today or not. Don’t get confused.

Scientists are indeed testing hypotheses on the origin of life so you are making a false claim here. For example, we now know that the building blocks required to make life as we know it could be easily derived under several conditions that may have existed on the early earth.

In addition, it is a fact that the earliest lifeforms which gave rise to us billions of years later are descendants of the inanimate earth. You are literally composed of CHNOPS (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulphur) just as the planet on which you stand (although the earth is composed of much more elements). That alone should tell you that your ancestors were born from our planet, which was in turn born from stardust. We are stardust.


There is no such theory. As Alan courteously corrected you,

If you want to discuss things with actual scientists, you will learn much more if you use actual scientific terms correctly.

That’s because you took half my sentence as a quote I understand what a biogenesis biogenesis means life from life a biogenesis means life from non life yet after that supposed a legit event it’s only life front life so far all you’re able to do is engage in logical fallacies you should change your username to Mr. Ad hominem

kindly give me a link to any scientific study that can replicate a biogenesis kindly give me empirical evidence that shows that a biogenesis can occur naturally as a phenomenon in nature

I’m setting a Slow Mode because I foresee the need, there will be a 10 minute delay before you are allowed to make a new comment.

I’m using it correctly hes being logically fallacious as are you if you "half of someone’s sentence why don’t you read the rest of the sentence