# Naturalism and Abiogenesis **URL:** \ **Category:** Conversation\ **Tags:** Science, Atheism, Philosophy\ **Created:** [October 15, 2021, 6:34am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393 "2021-10-15T06:34:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 4:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/67 "2021-10-18T16:16:57Z")

> [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > Actually quite the contrary I have done my homework and I know that there is no scientific experiment for materialistic abiogenesis. I’m just asking questions from the ones that know more than me to ascertain why a naturalist or atheist or materialist can believe in something that cannot be empirically verified tested or repeated using the scientific method? yet that is their biggest complaint against theists? that they themselves believe in something that is not empirically verified or testable through the scientific method? How are they not being hypocritical then? This is not my belief. Instead, I believe the question of Abiogenesis is answerable by science. I do not expect a definitive answer for what actually happened in the past, but rather a set of plausible, testable circumstances that lead to life like our own. There are some difficult questions yet to be resolved, but I see no questions that are scientifically unanswerable. > [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > A hypothesis is an educated scientific guess theory is a group of hypotheses thought to be true A hypothesis is a testable question. A theory may be a body of knowledge, a set of tested hypotheses, or sometimes both. > [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > So by the same rationale any number that would be even a couple of digits less than “(1/20)32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040.” that number which still satisfy the requirements even though there would be astronomically improbable from a statistical point of view That is not a statistical point of view. What you have is a bit of arithmetic that doesn’t mean what you think it means. It’s sloppy math that only passes because most people do not understand the math. Calculations of this sort are generally not feasible, and not at all without more definitions and very carefully stated assumptions. ---

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 4:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/68 "2021-10-18T16:17:22Z")

> [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > Thank you for the links but that still is not detract from the fact that every single provided link in a Google search States that abiogenesis is a theory not a fact thank you Please be serious. I asked for evidence from the **primary literature** on OoL research that says abiogenesis is a theory, not some random website. If you can’t find any just drop that silly claim of abiogenesis being a theory. ---

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 4:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/69 "2021-10-18T16:18:20Z")

> [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > So if it’s not the explanation for the origin of all life and just some life as you say then the origin of the other life must be life from life Um - that spontaneous generation claimed that some extant life comes from non-living (but mostly formerly-living) material says **absolutely nothing** about the origins of the life forms that weren’t thought to arise by spontaneous generation. Your comment has the same ‘logic’ as claiming that because the Nissan catalogue says that some cars are manufactured in Japan, all non-Nissan cars must be begotten by other cars. ---

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 4:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/70 "2021-10-18T16:30:04Z")

> [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > Thank you for the links but that still is not detract from the fact that every single provided link in a Google search States that abiogenesis is a theory not a fact thank you Being naturally skeptical of such glib statements, I checked. The top five results in my Google search for “abiogenesis” were these: 1. [Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis) This refers to (i) the theory of spontaneous generation, and (ii) Oparin-Haldane theory. Describes abiogenesis as an “idea”, not a theory. 2. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) This refers to spontaneous generation, heterogenesis, deep sea vent, iron-sulfur world and zinc-world, “primordial soup”, Gold’s deep-hot biosphere, volcanic ash, dissipative structuring, lipid world, thermodynamic dissipation, hypercycle, fluctuating salinity, TCR and protein amyloids as theories; talks about the necessary features of any successful theory of abiogenesis; and refers in passing to solar nebular theory and the stochastic theory of the origin of the genetic code. But while the Wikipedia page refers to lots of theories _about_ abiogenesis, it never once refers to abiogenesis _itself_ as a theory. 3. [Emergence of life in an inflationary universe](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58060-0) Mentions eternal inflation theory and a grand unified theory of particle physics. Does not use the word “theory” in relation to abiogenesis. 4. [The origin of life](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/) Refers to Darwin’s theory and a general theory of evolution. Does not use the word “theory” in relation to abiogenesis. 5. [Biology online dictionary](https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/abiogenesis) Defines abiogenesis as “_The theory postulating that primitive life originated from nonliving matter_”. Also refers to the spontaneous generation, biogenesis and RNA world theories. That’s of **1 out of 5** links that state that abiogenesis is a theory, not your claimed “every single provided link in a Google search”. Further, the link that matches your description is a _dictionary_, not a technical article. The rest of the first page of Google hits shows a similar result. So either you didn’t just search for “abiogenesis”, or you have misrepresented the results. Either way, your “fact” is not a fact, your claim is refuted, and your credibility drops. ---

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 4:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/71 "2021-10-18T16:39:45Z")

The mathematical formula that you’re calling sloppy math is actually from your fellow brethren in that it is from a naturalist and materialist but he is an atheist not a agnostic. He is arguing against the formulas used by creationists and saying that the modus operandi that they employ is not accurate. Although he like yourself still admits that statistically is more likely yet still an astronomically high number. ---

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 5:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/72 "2021-10-18T17:39:53Z")

> [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > The mathematical formula that you’re calling sloppy math is actually from your fellow brethren in that it is from a naturalist and materialist but he is an atheist not a agnostic. He is arguing against the formulas used by creationists and saying that the modus operandi that they employ is not accurate. I don’t care who wrote it, _it’s wrong_, in whole or in part. That sort of calculation addresses a single point in probability space _at best_, not the greater question (in this case _"generating carboxypeptidase by chance”_). The basic error is this: The probability of a _specific chain of random events_ leading to carboxypeptidase IS LESS THAN the probability of _any chain of events_ (some of which may not be random) leading to carboxypeptidase. This assumes that any calculation for the probability of carboxypeptidase is feasible in the first place, and it often is not. In such arguments the information needed to do the correct calculation generally isn’t given or is not available. People who don’t understand the math wave around “impossibly small” numbers as a straw man, not understanding what it really means. I know you said you’ve done your homework, but I don’t think you are taken the time to really understand. If you want some better homework, try applying this method of calculation to any series of everyday random events, and I think you will begin to understand why this doesn’t work. (Ex: The probability of a chain of random events leading to a person spilling some milk while eating Kellogg’s Corn Flakes for breakfast at 7 AM Monday morning while still wearing their pajamas.) ---

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 6:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/73 "2021-10-18T18:19:56Z")

> [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > The mathematical formula that you’re calling sloppy math is actually from your fellow brethren No one with even a rudimentary understanding of either biochemistry or statistics would ever be so foolish as to present the ‘math’ you’ve provided. Unless they were being intentionally obtuse, à la Doug Axe. ---

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 6:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/74 "2021-10-18T18:20:15Z")

Idea is the same as theory so that wouldn’t be one out of 5. In addition all the other ones none of them say it’s a fact which 1 says it’s a fact? ---

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 6:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/75 "2021-10-18T18:20:19Z")

Also the Brittanica one says theory on the main link! So now we are 3 out of 5 ---

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 6:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/76 "2021-10-18T18:20:23Z")

And you’re incorrect the 3rd link down in a Google search is actually Miriam Webster dictionary which also classifies it as a theory now we’re at 4 out of 5 ---

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 6:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/77 "2021-10-18T18:20:27Z")

I’m not sure if you’re not looking at it correctly or just trying to hide the fact that the 4th link down on a Google search also States that it’s a theory and it’s from biology online. ---

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 6:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/78 "2021-10-18T18:20:31Z")

"Definition of _abiogenesis_ the origin of life from nonliving matterspecifically a theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substancesAccording to the conventional hypothesis, the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution on our planet billions of years ago in a process called abiogenesis.— David Warmflash et al." > **[Definition of ABIOGENESIS](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis)** > > the origin of life from nonliving matter; specifically : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances… See the full definition “Abiogenesis is one of the modern evolutionary theories on how life originated. It used to refer to the now-discredited hypothesis of _[spontaneous generation](https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/spontaneous-generation)_ . It was once believed that complex living organisms such as mice, maggots, etc. could arise spontaneously from nonliving matter. This notion used to be popular that it was long held by early thinkers for many years until experiments by _Louis Pasteur_ and others proved it to be false. Now, this theory is superseded by _biogenesis_ , which asserts that living things can only be produced by another living thing, and not by a non-living thing. The modern hypothesis of abiogenesis is now restricted in the presumption that the relatively simpler, earliest forms of life arose from nonliving matter, such as [organic compound](https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/organic-compound)s, and the process that eventually led to this transition was gradual, not a single event, and estimated to have taken place for over millions of years.” > **[Abiogenesis](https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/abiogenesis)** > > Definition noun plural: abiogeneses a·bi·o·gen·e·sis, eɪbaɪəʊˈdʒɛnəsɪs (1) The theory postulating that primitive life originated from nonliving matter (e.g. simple organic compounds) over a span of millions of years; autogenesis (2) Spontaneous... ---

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 6:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/79 "2021-10-18T18:21:12Z")

I think I do understand what you’re saying it’s highly probabilistic and not deterministic. Either way at the end of the day no one can argue against the fact that the statistical mathematical probability of any of these complex reactions occurring is still very low. Therefore why are we only relying on that which can be quantified and that which is empirically verified through sensory data input? If that will not yield the results that we’re looking for? Or if it can’t yield the results we’re looking for? What if what we’re looking for cannot be measured or empirically verified? Does that mean it is not scientifically real? But does that preclude its actuality or its possible existence all together? ---

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 7:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/80 "2021-10-18T19:04:48Z")

> [@CrisprCAS9](#): > > No one with even a rudimentary understanding of either biochemistry or statistics would ever be so foolish as to present the ‘math’ you’ve provided. Unless they were being intentionally obtuse, à la Doug Axe. Which is why I’m careful to note the need for very careful assumptions and definitions! 🙂 > [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > I think I do understand what you’re saying it’s highly probabilistic and not deterministic. Either way at the end of the day no one can argue against the fact that the statistical mathematical probability of any of these complex reactions occurring is still very low. No. The point is that the probability of ANYTHING calculated by this method is impossibly low, _even the probability of someone having cornflakes for breakfast._ TRY IT - Just keep adding random events to the sequence and you will get ever smaller numbers, ALWAYS. This method is useless and wrong for determining the probability of an event occurring, excepting very carefully defined questions, which this is not. There is good reason this sort of calculation does not commonly appear in scientific journals - it’s wrong. The exceptions are carefully defined calculations, and I suspect some of these are wrong too. > [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > Therefore why are we only relying on that which can be quantified and that which is empirically verified through sensory data input? What else would you have us rely on, if not our senses? > [@](#): > > If that will not yield the results that we’re looking for? Or if it can’t yield the results we’re looking for? What if what we’re looking for cannot be measured or empirically verified? Looking for the _result you want_ is not a scientific approach. If you “want” to test a hypothesis, you make a prediction then see if observation backs the prediction, or if the prediction fails. > [@](#): > > Does that mean it is not scientifically real? But does that preclude its actuality or its possible existence all together? > You can’t say something is “real”, and then claim it exhibits none of the properties of any other real objects, and can’t ever be examined or analyzed empirically. That’s pretty much a good definition of “not real”. > – PZ Myers Excepting _concepts_, as noted in the other thread, which are immaterial yet may have real power to influence people. 🙂 ---

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 7:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/82 "2021-10-18T19:06:26Z")

Dr. Ian Musgrave with Univeristy of Adeliede Australia BTW HE IS ANTI CREATIONIST AND AN ATHEIST "Dr Ian Musgrave is a molecular pharmacologist/toxicologist who works at the University of Adelaide, Australia. He has a broad interest in the understanding of how surface receptors can modulate neuronal function and survival, as well as interests in natural product pharmacology and drug design. As well he is interested in evolutionary biology, science communication (committee member of SA Science Communicators) and an avid amateur astronomer. He did postdoctoral work in the Institute of Pharmacology at the Free University of Berlin in 1991-1994, returning to Australia in 1994. He has collaborated with Professor John Carver, Dr. Scot Smid and Professor Colin Barrow on using natural products to attack the neurodegeneration process in Alzheimer’s Disease. He was recently elected as convenor of the Toxicology Special Interest Group of the [Australasian Society for Pharmacology and Toxicology](http://www.ascept.org/). He is collaborating with Professor Roger Byard on the forensic implications of herbal medicines. He has held ARC funding and currently holds NH&MRC funding." [https://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/ian.musgrave#](https://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/ian.musgrave#) ---

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 7:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/83 "2021-10-18T19:07:01Z")

> [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > Idea is the same as theory so that wouldn’t be one out of 5. No, it isn’t. Anyway, you said the Google results stated that abiogenesis was a “theory”, not an “idea” - a falsehood that you are not retracting. > [@](#): > > In addition all the other ones none of them say it’s a fact which 1 says it’s a fact? Irrelevant. I haven’t claimed they say abiogenesis is a fact - only that they _don’t_ say it’s a theory. ---

**Author:** ![AllenWitmerMiller](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/allenwitmermiller/32/2519_2.png) [@AllenWitmerMiller](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AllenWitmerMiller)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 7:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/84 "2021-10-18T19:23:31Z")

> [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > Fair enough but I don’t think that biological life always existed I just think that the ever living one the only true form of life that is was and will be is where life comes from so either way it’s life from life Now you are relying on a linguistic quirk of the English language. In English the word _life_ (and _living_) has a very broad semantic range—such that both biological life and a great many non-living things/idea can both be described as being alive (i.e., living, having life, being alive.) Here are some examples of that English-language characteristic of using the same words for very different ideas: (1) “I know that the frog is still _ **alive** _ because I saw it hop across my yard just a moment ago.” (2) “The music of Mozart _ **lives** _ on.” (or even “The spirit of Mozart remains alive today.”) (3) “I went on the Internet so that I could view a _ **live** _ videocast of the Old Faithful Geyser in Yellowstone Park.” (4) “Capitalism is _ **alive** _ and well even in many countries which have had fervantly communistic histories.” (5) “I’m not _ **alive** _ at all until I have my coffee in the morning.” I could give many more examples. English uses ONE word (or one family of words: life/live/alive) for very different concepts which are identified by _very different words_ in the languages of the Bible (i.e., Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek.) I’ve provided detailed examples in past Peaceful Science posts, such as: > [@Are Plants Alive?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-plants-alive/2865): > > This Creationist 419 Scam article also refers to a Sensuous Curmudgeon article which skewers Institute for Creation Research for a Henry Morris article about how “plants are not alive” and so, he reasons, there was no death (via plant death) before the fall when Adam and Eve ate plants because plants aren’t alive: I enjoy a lot of the SC articles but this is another one where SC (and DreadTomatoAddiction) doesn’t really grasp what underlies Morris’ argument—in part because Morris does such a poor job of articulating it. Here’s the linguistic situation in a nutshell: It is TRUE that the ancient Hebrews didn’t consider plants alive in the sense that we do, and didn’t think they were subject to death like humans and animals. SC makes fun of the idea that plants aren’t just as alive as animals but he is applying English language (and Indo-European languages in general, for the most part) and cultural perspectives as if they are the final standard of categorization. When translati… Thus, @LogosOfLogic cannot simply assume that biological life and “the ever living one” are the same idea and thereby “either way its life from life.” No, that is imposing a English language semantic “interpretation” to ancient theological concepts written in other languages. I will say it again: The fact that a modern-day English speaker may say, “All biological life came from prior life: the living God himself.” in no way upends abiogenesis, the idea that biological life came from non-living, non-biological ingredients from the earth’s crust and air. Perhaps I can identify the differences in semantic ranges this way. I will take the statement of @LogosOfLogic: > “. . . so either way it’s life from life.” and “map” it into the key words this way: > “. . . so either way it’s _ **X from X** _.” Yet, if I “mapped” those key words to convene a Biblical Greek rendering (for example), the statement would look like this: > “. . . so either way it’s _ **X from Y** _” In other words, what LogosofLogic regards as _the same thing_ are considered two very different things in Biblical Greek (based on the different words chosen by the Greek-speaker.) Indeed, when I used to work with a lot of first year seminary students, they would be reading the Greek New Testament for the first time and excitedly remark: “I just realized that when Jesus talked about having eternal life, he used an entirely different word from the one which meant biological-life!” This is why theologians and pastors are trained to do their work from the original languages of the Bible instead of relying solely upon English translations (where one can entirely miss important distinctions.) ---

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 7:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/85 "2021-10-18T19:35:46Z")

1. If we are going to talk about The Bible we shouldn’t really talk about Greek at all because that’s not even a semitic language such as Aramaic Hebrew and Amharic and Arabic. Greek is indo European with a completely different lexicon and origin and family group. 2. EL Chai in Hebrew or Al Hayy in Arabic stem from the same semitic root word for life. The one God is the only everliving one. ---

**Author:** ![AllenWitmerMiller](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/allenwitmermiller/32/2519_2.png) [@AllenWitmerMiller](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AllenWitmerMiller)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 7:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/86 "2021-10-18T19:47:32Z")

> [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > If we are going to talk about The Bible we shouldn’t really talk about Greek at all Newsflash: The Greek New Testament is part of the Bible. > [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > that’s not even a semitic language such as Aramaic Hebrew and Amharic and Arabic Irrelevant. > [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > Greek is indo European with a completely different lexicon and origin and family group. Very true and also irrelevant. > [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > EL Chai in Hebrew or Al Hayy in Arabic stem from the same semitic root word for life. The one God is the only everliving one. I agree that “the only everliving one” is a reasonable way to translate the concept into English. Meanwhile, you entirely ignore the fact that Biblical Hebrew distinguishes between the NEPHESH life of biological creatures and the CHAI life of YHWH (God). YHWH is _never_ described as NEPHESH because he is not “biological-life that breathes.” Nothing in the Genesis text states that a NEPHESH God somhow passed along NEPHESH-life to Adam. No, it states that HAADAM (“the man”) _became_ a NEPHESH (biologically living thing.) A CHAI God created NEPHESH biological creatures. (Notice the distinction?) I suppose I should thank you for making my point even more clear. Whether you realize it or not, you are still stuck on trying to apply English language semantics (and those of many other modern languages) to the ancient tongues of the Bible. [I provided examples in NT Greek because there are New Testament passages which make these same points and distinctions and also in order to tie these concepts together with my past PS posts on these semantic topics.] There is nothing wrong with emphasizing the Bible’s point that neither God nor humans nor other NEPHESH creatures are “inanimate”. (I put that word in quotation marks because even here I’m risking imposing English meanings on an ancient language.) Nevertheless, to confuse the distinction between NEPHESH and CHAI as you make increasingly futile arguments against the realities of abiogenesis just doesn’t make sense. ---

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 7:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393/87 "2021-10-18T19:53:30Z")

> [@LogosOfLogic](#): > > Please tell that to your fellow naturalist materialist atheist that provided this link as well as the author of the work thanks. So… did you not read that link, or did you just not understand it? Because it says it’s stupid to do math the way you’re doing it. You know that, right? That your source says you’re wrong and doing something silly? Time to stop. [Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393.md?page=3) [Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/naturalism-and-abiogenesis/14393.md?page=5)