Abiogenesis

Post Reply New Topic

As you seem to be incapable of grasping what myself and others have pointed out to you, it is clearly a waste of time trying to discuss this with you further. You obviously don't have a clue about science or scientific methods, so I will leave you to your cosy delusions.

Interesting reply. I don't mean to dig into or dissect your personal beliefs, but I have to ask: Does this mean that it simply doesn't matter to you if all life on Earth evolved as outlined by science? Or does it mean you chose to not look at the facts of evolution in case they undermine your religious beliefs?

I know in discussions I've had with Christians many years ago during my youth that they basically pretended evolution didn't exist and they never allowed it into their thoughts. They lived in a sort of "religious bubble" isolating themselves from any facts contrary to their beliefs and excluded or ignored anything that didn't fit their religious view.

Rather like Islam. When I was at university Muslim students excluded themselves from various science classes where evolution was relevant to understanding aspects of biochemistry, comparative anatomy or the fossil record etc because it was contrary to statements in the Koran and their beliefs about the nature and origin of life.

All scientific theories in the modern era are put forth as hypothetical, therefore they must be tested and tested and tested. Some are better corroberated than others, but they are all subject to test. People in the physical sciences stopped puting out a priori theories centuries ago.

ruveyn

I am meaning to convey something like the idea that the overall study of "all life on earth" goes beyond science and/or religion ... or maybe that neither science nor religion will ever fully understand it.



I used to be like that. In my natural ignorance that had followed me through the birth canal, I had long just assumed somebody had figured everything out at least a few weeks before I was born and that I had then been blessed with being well-informed. But in reality, neither the scientist nor the theologian has all the answers, and today I am most impressed when the two collaborate.

JetLag made a great point, and I believe it illustrates that well:



Religionists say no intelligence needed to precede "all life on earth", yet they have yet to bring even a single thought or word out of a test tube!

While doing my science degree theology contributed 0% to the understanding of physical processes. Not because theology was deliberately ignored but because it literally had nothing to say!
If an object is dropped from a particular height how long does it take to reach the ground? Physics has the answers for this... what does theology have to say? When carbon compounds react together what does theology have to say about the mechanisms involved, what does it have to say about the electrostatic energy in the bonds between hydrogen and carbon? What does theology have to say about the way proteins are formed from RNA and how they fold into three dimensional structures? What does theology have to say about the radioactive decay of C14? In summary theology says nothing about any of the physical processes and mechanisms that converted none living molecules into the plants and animals that exist today. At no point is a creator required. As science looks at the physical world it sees natural physical processes at work that can be measured - not divine intervention from some super being. The same is true of the formation of the Earth. It wasn't suddenly created. It formed by natural processes and gravity pulling matter together as did the other planets, stars and galaxies. Physics and chemistry show how these things happen, not a 2000 year old book or theology!

Theology is mere speculation, philosophy of no relevance to the physical world or how it came into existence or continues to change and evolve. The realm of theology is discussing abstract ideas about a hypothetical God figure. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

... unless the scientific mind is at least willing to consider the matter of how to get even a single thought or word out of a test tube. From where does science say came all the order?



As many as might choose to do so, I speculate!

See, I have heard too many God-fearing scientists talk about all of this stuff respectfully and rationally to believe science and religion must be mutually exclusive, yet I do respect and even share a bit of your angst concerning religion.

Many people believe and say this world needs no God to explain it, but apart from personal conviction drawn from one's own experience -- you would have to otherwise explain my personal recovery from chronic alcoholism -- there has yet to be any final, across-the-board proof either way.

That is an excellent and very pertinent question if you don't mind me saying (I hope that doesn't sound patronising it isn't intended to be).

To be honest I don't think I can do justice to the question. There are physical mechanisms for this without resorting to mysticism and I could waffle on about positive feedback mechanisms, chaos theory and the laws of thermodynamics but I cannot think of how to express this in an clear and intelligible way in plain English. Can anyone else answer leejosepho's question in a clear concise manner without resorting to a mountain of mathematics?

Regarding the test tube and life crawling out of it saying "Hello", well in principle it could happen sooner or later; however you would likely just counter this by saying the scientists created the life in the first place so the argument becomes moot.

I understand that you have transposed "religionists" with "scientists" in the above.

On the trivial level, of course, scientists HAVE brought out many thoughts and words "out of a test tube", unless you wish to say that all those "test-tube babies" are not really human.

Although GM on humans is currently frowned upon, I cannot see that it will not happen, and then there will be another segment of the population that have to be discounted.

Once AI really gets off the ground (bear in mind that evolution took 4 billion years - scientists have only been making serious attempts at AI for the last decade or so), there will be another bunch of entities that will be as self aware as we are, but you would presumably exclude?

Or... and of course this is the sophist approach, you would say again "ah yes, but that doesn't count... because where did the scientist come from".

"Where does a circle start?" "What came before the big bang?" The former is a (zen?) question that has no need for an answer - the latter, a question that is badly phrased - in the same way as "When colour are a grin?"

Rather than investigating conciousness, as a genuine problem, it is made a "taboo" subject, understandable only by "god(s)".

AS is about social understanding, recognising something in a scientific context has nothing to do with AS and you are in fact more likely to recognise it if you have AS, because science may be or have been a special interest.

There is no reading between the lines in this, it is cold and hard - you could program a computer to know what it is. The wording is very literal.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjItc3_wHxM&feature=PlayList&p=1C63EFFFF308F25B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=26[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzjoKhBklYg[/youtube]

Your magnet is the size of god.

Well, we expect to get thoughts and words out of brains, and there are researchers who do study this, such as psychologists and neuroscientists, as well as cognitive scientists(who don't focus on our brain, but on the idea of a brain).

As for the order of nature, at this moment in time, science cannot absolutely say where this comes from. The problem is that physical constants are hard to get foundations for.

No, I do not hear that as patronizing at all, and I thank you.



No, no, I am not talking about life coming out of a test tube, I am saying no test tube can speak. Therefore:

From where do thoughts and words (or from where does intelligence) originate?

Mankind can manipulate, but man cannot actually create ... and everything had to have some kind of beginning effected by whoever or whatever preceded it.

Nothing comes from nothing.

In your original statement, you said that the prior statement that life originated from a natural process means that scientists decided the outcome before the investigation. This is not true, the investigation was done to test that statement. In science if a theory has not yet been tested, and therefore not verified fact, it is automatically assumed to be hypothetical. There's no need to state that it's a hypothesis. Let ask you a question. If abiogenisis was correct, would you view this as in conflict with your beliefs? I never suggested that science and religion should be mutually exclusive and I don't see why something like abiogenesis should suggest any contradictions. Let me also reply to something you said in your last post.



I don't follow what you mean by saying that no test tube can speak. We can most certainly deduce facts from the results of experiments done in a test tube. As for the question of where does intelligence originate, that belongs to the area of cognitive science. I think what you're trying to argue though is the first cause argument for God. We don't know yet what happened at the exact moment of the Big Bang. Personally, I think science will eventually even explain that. But say that it does, It still won't answer another question. Why does the universe bother to exist at all? You could still argue for God as an answer to that question but it would be a totally different kind of God from what most creationists expect.

No, I did not. Although it now seems I had mistaken Ruveyn's statement as being one he believed to be actual fact, I had simply addressed it at face value.



I am saying no human being either in the laboratory or the pulpit can create "thought" or "word" (as in "power") out of nothing. I certainly cannot prove God spoke all that is into existence, but neither has science yet shown the origin of everything out of an assumed nothing.

Ok sorry, I just thought that's what you implied . Fair enough though.



From the above statement it still seems to me that you are invoking the first cause argument for God. If that's the case I'm wondering what you thought of the rest of my reply which addresses that. I didn't mean to be patronizing if I seemed that way.

Possibly so, but I do not know about categories of arguments.



I will be personally shocked if we are not *all* shocked when we eventually learn that!

Personally, I see science as a way to explain how, not why. One of the reasons I'm a strong christian but am interested in this sort of thing (I'm skeptical about the 7 day creation story, but I do believe in creation). Any answer or conclusion that we can come to will just lead us onto another question, in an unbreakable spiral.

Oh, and wasn't the big bang theory originally proposed by a catholic priest? Just something to consider :p