|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 07/06/2007 : 07:40:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
HH, like I said, without evidence of the mere existence of life forming from life, it can't even be a considered a contender in life's origins.
|
But Jerome, there is evidence that life arose from non-life. That you choose to ignore this evidence is not the same thing as there not being any.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 07:40:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Jerome, you should research more. If you did, you'd come up with lots of neat stuff to use for argument's sake. Were I you, I'd not bother with this site, though. They are really full of shit. Abiogenesis
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is a theory which contends that organisms have originated from nonliving material at some point in the distant past. Evolutionists typically believe that life originated as a single self-replicating protocell which developed through spontaneous chemical reactions. In contrast to this atheistic perspective, creationists typically believe that God created life from the dust of the Earth, endowing non-living matter with life through a deliberate creative act.
A common synonym is chemical evolution, despite evolutionary propagandists' revisionist claims that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.
|
So I ask: which is the more fantastic of two as yet unproven statements; life came into being through natural chemical process', or a magic elf created life from the dust of the earth? Which can be falsified; which can be accepted only on faith?
|
It is a difference of opinion as to which is more likely. Both have evidence: life does exist. The amazing thing is both are talking about the same thing only with a different initiation.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 07:49:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Jerome, Yahweh-- or any god-- is, by definition, outside the realm of science. You cannot test for evidence of a god. So saying that Yahweh created life on earth isn't a hypothesis. It's not falsifiable. It is not repeatable. It has no real explanatory power.
All we can to, then, is try to explain via natural means how life arose on earth. It is a difficult thing to study, but the scientific literature is out there complete with real hypotheses waiting to be tested.
|
If it is shown that life can not come from non life than the only explanation must be another form of life.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 07:50:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
HH, like I said, without evidence of the mere existence of life forming from life, it can't even be a considered a contender in life's origins.
|
But Jerome, there is evidence that life arose from non-life. That you choose to ignore this evidence is not the same thing as there not being any.
|
Where?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 07:51:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If it is shown that life can not come from non life than the only explanation must be another form of life. |
How can you prove this?  |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 07:57:23 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
Ahh, but much of science is the exploration of the unknown and possibly unknowable. Black holes, expanding universe, contracting universe, beginning universe; this is laa laa land. |
Metaphysics does not enter into any of those investigations. There is much data to support the existence of black holes. The universe is expanding. A contracting universe in the distant future hypothesis has been kicked around but there doesn't seem to be enough matter around to make that happen, and the investigation of beginnings is going on. All of those things are in the realm of the falsifiable. God is not.
Jerome:
Ever notice no matter how close we look we see more, and no matter how far we look we see more? |
Telescopes and microscopes and other instruments that can see into those places are marvelous tools, aren't they?
Jerome:
If God exists this would be natural; shall science exclude the search for black holes because we can not currently see them and shall we call them supernatural? |
But we can see, by inference, black holes. We see light and even whole stars being sucked into them or light bending as it passes near the event horizon. The evidence for black holes is very strong. We know what they are and we know what they do. Where is the evidence for God? Anyhow, you missed my point. God may conceivably be behind everything we see. Science can't test for that. God is a matter of faith, and in my view, not falsifiable.
Jerome:
The tests have been and are being done. If life can not come from non life than some life which we currently do not understand must be the origin. |
I don't know where you get that from? Who says life can't come from non-life?
I define faith as an assured expectation. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, I have faith that life can not come from non life. I could be wrong about the sun tomorrow, and I could be wrong about life forming from non life. But, I certainly would not say anyone who believes that life can come from non life is either insane or stupid. |
Personally, I would separate evidence-based faith, which is more a synonym for confidence, from the non-evidence based kind faith of the religious kind. In any case, I didn't say that religious faith is either stupid or insane. What is stupid is to try to stuff God into a scientific hypotheses because that just doesn't work. If you do that, and the explanation for whatever it is your investigating turns out to have a likely natural explanation, your God only gets smaller. YEC creationists have been trying to fit all of science into a literal reading of Geneses. And what they have come up with is a delusional version of science that puts the cart before the horse, is completely unevidenced, and only serves to make them look foolish.
On the other hand, some scientists who also believe in God see our expanding knowledge of natural processes as a window in |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 08:01:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If it is shown that life can not come from non life than the only explanation must be another form of life. |
How can you prove this?
|
Test the hypothesis again and again. If the multitude of experiments do not show life coming from non life than science should reject that hypothesis. I think these experiments will continue for a long time; if science gives up the hypothesis it if only left with life coming from other life, as such the possibility of God.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 08:02:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If it is shown that life can not come from non life than the only explanation must be another form of life. |
How can you prove this?
|
Test the hypothesis again and again. If the multitude of experiments do not show life coming from non life than science should reject that hypothesis. I think these experiments will continue for a long time; if science gives up the hypothesis it if only left with life coming from other life, as such the possibility of God.
|
How do you test it? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 08:04:05 [Permalink]
|
| Ahh, but much of science is the exploration of the unknown and possibly unknowable. |
Yes, science is the observation, exploration, and description of phenomena. Because of science, many things which were previously unknown, and considered unknowable, is now pretty well understood. (Recall your example of someone 500 yrs ago having no clue what DNA is, & no context in which to put that information.)
| Black holes, expanding universe, contracting universe, beginning universe; this is laa laa land. Ever notice no matter how close we look we see more, and no matter how far we look we see more? |
A natural consequence of our level of inquiry now being able to extend to the smallest and largest building blocks. It's a good thing for us today that scientists & inventors in the past didn't give up when it seemed like the glimpses of understanding they gained only led to more questions. In fact, this is the kind of challenge that scientists love.
| If God exists this would be natural; shall science exclude the search for black holes because we can not currently see them and shall we call them supernatural? |
As others have said, whether or not god exists does not change scientific inquiry, except to note that invoking god has not, to date, been necessary to explain any scientific observations.
If observed phenomena changed without following any patterns that humans could observe, that would suggest another, previously undescribed (and, yes, potentially not-fully-describable) force at work; scientists would want to investigate, form hypotheses, and test.
If the observed phenomena changed following patterns that fit with the idea that god exists and is the cause of these changes, for example if prayers were reliably and provably "answered", that would be exciting and interesting and could be convincing for a supernatural power.
Oh, wait, I forgot. We're not supposed to test God.
| The tests have been and are being done. If life can not come from non life than some life which we currently do not understand must be the origin. |
And the origin of that life? And the origin of that life? And so on ad infinitum.
| I define faith as an assured expectation. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, I have faith that life can not come from non life. I could be wrong about the sun tomorrow, and I could be wrong about life forming from non life. |
It seems like it would be nerve-wracking to depend on faith that the sun will "rise" tomorrow, when you can use modern understanding that the earth revolves on its axis once every 24 hrs (actually, just under 24 hrs) & that matter, like the sun, and angular momentum are not just going to disappear into thin air. It's much more reassuring to understand the process, imo, than to rely on faith for something so important. |
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 08:12:18 [Permalink]
|
Kil asked:
| Who says life can't come from non-life? |
Not me, I said "if".
| If life can not come from non life than some life which we currently do not understand must be the origin. |
Overall there is little in which we disagree concerning this topic. The major point is where science will take us. I think science will ultimately show that some life outside of what we currently understand initiated life on earth, and you believe science will show life on earth began through happenstance.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 08:15:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If it is shown that life can not come from non life than the only explanation must be another form of life. |
How can you prove this?
|
Test the hypothesis again and again. If the multitude of experiments do not show life coming from non life than science should reject that hypothesis. I think these experiments will continue for a long time; if science gives up the hypothesis it if only left with life coming from other life, as such the possibility of God.
|
How do you test it?
|
Science has been testing various hypothesis in the field of abiogenesis for a while now.
How many tests would you think appropriate before rejecting a hypothesis?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 08:16:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If it is shown that life can not come from non life than the only explanation must be another form of life. |
Where is it shown that life cannot come from non-life?? |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 08:24:45 [Permalink]
|
Zebra, I have little to disagree with you about. I embrace science as a tool for further understanding about every thing. I would just caution that as in any man made construct that human frailties can be exposed and the tool can be used outside of its original purpose.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 08:25:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If it is shown that life can not come from non life than the only explanation must be another form of life. |
Where is it shown that life cannot come from non-life??
|
IF
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 09:20:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If it is shown that life can not come from non life than the only explanation must be another form of life. |
Define "life" for us. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Abiogenesis
