A Great Video Which Is Throws The Theory Of Evolution Out Of The Window

[lightgigantic]

I was talking about the theories of the origin of life referred to as abiotic synthesis. The word abiotic means "the absence of life". The idea is these early abiotic things, called protobionts, were capable of metabolism and reproduction. I don't know what your definition of life is, but most people agree that these things were not alive, hence the word abiotic. Some people might, but from a biological perspective they is still lacking some traditional requirements, like homeostasis, response to stimuli, growth...

I was describing (badly) one theory of many that could explain how life started. Eventually a protobiont might have a good form of early RNA that allowed it to reach higher complexity and evolve into a unicellular prokaryote, which I would call life.

it sounds very theoretical - I am surprised that people can seriously entertain such ideas and yet reject the notion of god because it sounds too fanciful

 

[phlogistician]

it sounds very theoretical - I am surprised that people can seriously entertain such ideas and yet reject the notion of god because it sounds too fanciful

Er, because the comparisons are on hugely different scales? We can observe chemical reactions, and understand that it is possible that a self replication protein could occur, and that once you have one, it will start making copies of itself, and then depending on reaction kinetics (temperature, pressure, concentration, catalysts), produce different products (mutation) which will replicate differently (diversion) and so on.

But where do you start with God? What is your initial clue, one little thing you can demonstrate, or even understand? First question, and it is the only question, if we are talking about Genesis, true Genesis, you can't just stop asking the question and say 'God did it'. You MUST ask the question, 'but where did God come from'. To stop asking there, is to use a dishonest method of inquisition. Want an honest answer? Ask and Honest question; 'Where did it ALL come from'!

 

[river-wind]

fire exhibites all the traits you mentioned. is it alive? will it ever become alive?

Hard to say.
Fire has always been a thorn in the side of the definition of life. That doesn't make it alive, but it does make the line we've drawn between life and non-life blurry.

or it could be for a totally different reason.

Maybe. What would you suggest?

 

[leopold]

Maybe. What would you suggest?

i haven't a clue, but i find it hard to believe that the vast majority of high schoolers are "poorly educated".

edit
fire isn't alive, never has been never will be.

 

[spidergoat]

the natural causes you mention, ie gravity, have very definite supernatural causes, hence their axiomatic status

Explain how the supernatural cause of a physical effect is definite.

then you would have to establish how an axiom can be superceded by something that is not an axiom

I'm confused too, what do you mean by axiom? Is it an assumption?

Is the calculation of the circumference of a circle any more supernatural if the value of Pi is indeterminate?

the closest thing for a success in this regard would be to have a unified field theory, otherwise you are just left with a plethora of (apparently) unrelated axioms

So you can't accept science until it has discovered every fundamental force? Science by definition is a method of exploring the unknown. In this case, you will never accept the proclamations of science, although privately, you will accept the practical results of it, such as medical treatment.

god is eternal

Not being eternal yourself, how do you know?

- so is the living entity, so is material nature and so is time

Not necessarily.

- but the previosu three are seen to be caused by god - just like if you had an eternal fire you would also have eternal heat, smoke and light - in otherwords if an energetic source is eternal, the energies are also eternal (or in short - god has no cause, otherwise he couldn't possibly be god

If the universe is eternal, then God never created it.

 

[Exhumed]

it sounds very theoretical - I am surprised that people can seriously entertain such ideas and yet reject the notion of god because it sounds too fanciful

It is literally theoretical. There are other theories too. It sounds like you think believing in something complex, even with evidence, is worse than believing in something simple, even with no evidence. To me, it makes sense that the origin of life should be something complex and hard to understand, and believing in an easy answer is fanciful.

 

[spidergoat]

But didn't God have to be complex as well, to know what he's doing? I've never heard a good explanation for the origin of God's complex nature.

 

[river-wind]

i haven't a clue, but i find it hard to believe that the vast majority of high schoolers are "poorly educated".

for years now, US public-school educated teen-agers have done poorly in standardized tests compared to international averages. Science en Engineering in particular are weak spots.

edit: a quick google search didn't turn-up good US-based numbrs, but a UK gov't report has the US listed as about average for all included nations:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/isae1201.pdf


A poll released a few weeks back showed that the US was only above Turkey in terms of the "evolution vs. creationism" debate; whichever side you might believe, that suggests that science is not being taught effectively in either location.
http://www.livescience.com/php/mult...+bottom,+beat+only+by+Turkey.+Credit:+Science

edit
fire isn't alive, never has been never will be.

which is my very point. We created the definition that we use for life by finding differences between that which we had already deemed "alive", and that which we had already deemed "not-alive". If something which we deem "not-alive" fits the bill for our definition of "alive", then:
1) the difference is not as clear cut as we thought.
2) the definition may need to be re-addressed.

 

[lightgigantic]

Spider goat

“ the natural causes you mention, ie gravity, have very definite supernatural causes, hence their axiomatic status ”

Explain how the supernatural cause of a physical effect is definite.

It is defintely beyond our definitions of natural physics to determine why gravity actually works

"the results of the scientific search in which, during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born

“ then you would have to establish how an axiom can be superceded by something that is not an axiom
”

I'm confused too, what do you mean by axiom? Is it an assumption?

Its an indissolvable (or fundamental) truth (although it can be dissolved by discovering another axiom on which an existing axiom is dependant)
Like for instance the speed of light is an axiom
the magnetic constant is an axiom
the charge of an electron or proton is an axiom
etc etc

Is the calculation of the circumference of a circle any more supernatural if the value of Pi is indeterminate?

Pi and the circumference of a circle are not axioms 1+1=2 is an axiom

“ the closest thing for a success in this regard would be to have a unified field theory, otherwise you are just left with a plethora of (apparently) unrelated axioms ”

So you can't accept science until it has discovered every fundamental force?

No - I am saying that if you want to address the unadressable nature of scientific axioms you have to discover the one axiom that all other axioms operat e on, since as physics stands at the moment its kind of similar to a laundry list of odd socks (numerous apparently unrelated axioms that give us a picture of cause and effect in this phenomenal world). This was the (unsuccessful) endeavour of einstein and a few others

“ god is eternal ”

Not being eternal yourself, how do you know?

I am just presenting the foundation of theoretical knowledge that religion/god operates out of - prac (knowing) comes after theory

“ - so is the living entity, so is material nature and so is time ”

Not necessarily.

ditto here

“ - but the previosu three are seen to be caused by god - just like if you had an eternal fire you would also have eternal heat, smoke and light - in otherwords if an energetic source is eternal, the energies are also eternal (or in short - god has no cause, otherwise he couldn't possibly be god ”

If the universe is eternal, then God never created it.

I was using the analogy of how fire creates heat to explain how god creates the world, even though (in the case of god) both are eternal - perhaps slightly different from biblical and evolutionary ideas of time being linear as opposed to spiralic or cyclic (like the seasons are cyclic - just because winter has turned into spring doesn't mean winter is not on the books for next year)

 

[lightgigantic]

phlogistician

Er, because the comparisons are on hugely different scales? We can observe chemical reactions, and understand that it is possible that a self replication protein could occur,

Even though the chemical composition of self replicating proteins is well known to microbiologists, I am yet to hear of one who can actually reconstruct one using the said chemical components.

and that once you have one,

which we are yet to have

it will start making copies of itself, and then depending on reaction kinetics (temperature, pressure, concentration, catalysts),

another thing we don't know

produce different products (mutation) which will replicate differently (diversion) and so on.

which is again a theory, since macro evolution is yet to be observed

But where do you start with God? What is your initial clue, one little thing you can demonstrate, or even understand?

My point was that what you are theorizing about is virtually 100% undemonstratable also - it wasn't clear why you reject the idea of god as fanciful.

First question, and it is the only question, if we are talking about Genesis, true Genesis, you can't just stop asking the question and say 'God did it'. You MUST ask the question, 'but where did God come from'.

I already did

god is eternal - so is the living entity, so is material nature and so is time - but the previosu three are seen to be caused by god - just like if you had an eternal fire you would also have eternal heat, smoke and light - in otherwords if an energetic source is eternal, the energies are also eternal (or in short - god has no cause, otherwise he couldn't possibly be god)

In other words god doesn't have a cause - thats how he is defined - any other version of god wouldn't fit the bill

Even if you accept your ideas of abiogenesis we ar estill left with the question of where did the chemicals come from - its not clear whether you deride the notion of god or deride the notion of an eternal cause for the universe

To stop asking there, is to use a dishonest method of inquisition. Want an honest answer? Ask and Honest question; 'Where did it ALL come from'!

And your theoretical answer is honest solely because god is not required?

 

[lightgigantic]

It is literally theoretical. There are other theories too. It sounds like you think believing in something complex, even with evidence, is worse than believing in something simple, even with no evidence. To me, it makes sense that the origin of life should be something complex and hard to understand, and believing in an easy answer is fanciful.

you have no evidence - thats what a theory is -

you reject god because there is (apparently) no evidence but instead take shelter of something that is equally unevidenced

The complexity/simplicity of god is another thing

My point is that your general principles for accepting or rejecting something are not determined by evidence at hand since you accept an abiotic view of universal creation and reject a divine perspecive - and to complicate it further there are even theistic minded scientists who merge both ideas (that god iniated the abiotic creation of life) with no problem (which obviously innvolves quite a degree of complexity)

 

[lightgigantic]

But didn't God have to be complex as well, to know what he's doing? I've never heard a good explanation for the origin of God's complex nature.

For the same reason that you have never heard a good description how fire is cooling - the object in question doesn't function like that

 

[Exhumed]

you have no evidence - thats what a theory is -

you reject god because there is (apparently) no evidence but instead take shelter of something that is equally unevidenced

The complexity/simplicity of god is another thing

My point is that your general principles for accepting or rejecting something are not determined by evidence at hand since you accept an abiotic view of universal creation and reject a divine perspecive - and to complicate it further there are even theistic minded scientists who merge both ideas (that god iniated the abiotic creation of life) with no problem (which obviously innvolves quite a degree of complexity)

But there is evidence... Scientists make theories off of evidence. Some "theories" have stood up for around a century and been put to practical use but are still theories. Just because it is not proved does not mean there is no evidence. I don't know why you say I take shelter in the theories. I think they provide a good possibility, so I take them seriously. If god created life, I don't have any way of ever knowing, and I don't concern myself with things I will never know.

Assuming you're talking about the christian god, I don't know how you can just merge god with science when it contradicts the bible, like this would.

I brought up complexity because you seemed to imply that the level of complexity made the abiotic idea less believable, and god was more acceptable because it is easy to understand. I wasn't saying that god couldn't be complex.

 

[rjr6]

If god created life, I don't have any way of ever knowing, and I don't concern myself with things I will never know.


Why do you think you will never know if God created life?

 

[Exhumed]

No one has ever known, why would I?

 

[rjr6]

I don't know why you would, but your statement was dismissive on a topic that is (imo) clearly open for debate, I just wondered why.

 

[phlogistician]

phlogistician

Even though the chemical composition of self replicating proteins is well known to microbiologists, I am yet to hear of one who can actually reconstruct one using the said chemical components.

Basic amino acids CAN be made in the lab. Nature had billions of years, and widely varying physical conditions ot temperature, and pressure that we cannot recreate in the lab. We can prove part, if not all. Give it time.

god is eternal -

Look, Democritus, theorising on the nature of matter, thought that at some point matter must be indivisible. He had a 'god' moment, if you will, rejecting regression after a certain point. He called this point the 'Atom'. We all know that what we thought was the Atom, wasn't really what he described, and we can split our atom into parts, and that those parts are also divisble into quarks, ... the evidence therefore, points to regression. But you think with cosmology it stops with 'god' who has always existed? This is not an answer, but rather an escape route from logic.

If god and time have always existed, and the Universe is only 14Bn years old, what was God doing for the infinite amount of time before he created the Universe then? Why did he choose 14Bn years ago out of all previous eternity? Can you truly understand the ramafications of the question?

 

[lightgigantic]

Exhumed

I don't know why you say I take shelter in the theories. I think they provide a good possibility, so I take them seriously. If god created life, I don't have any way of ever knowing, and I don't concern myself with things I will never know.

how do you know that?

Assuming you're talking about the christian god, I don't know how you can just merge god with science when it contradicts the bible, like this would.

I have just mentioned the concept that life comes from god - christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the subject after all

I brought up complexity because you seemed to imply that the level of complexity made the abiotic idea less believable, and god was more acceptable because it is easy to understand. I wasn't saying that god couldn't be complex.

Its not clear why god is not complex

 

[lightgigantic]

phlogistician

Even though the chemical composition of self replicating proteins is well known to microbiologists, I am yet to hear of one who can actually reconstruct one using the said chemical components. ”

Basic amino acids CAN be made in the lab.

self replicating ones?

Nature had billions of years, and widely varying physical conditions ot temperature, and pressure that we cannot recreate in the lab. We can prove part, if not all. Give it time.

How is it determined that temperature and pressure caused life if a self replicating protien has not been manufactured? How do you know how something is done when it has never been observed done?

“ god is eternal - ”

Look, Democritus, theorising on the nature of matter, thought that at some point matter must be indivisible. He had a 'god' moment, if you will, rejecting regression after a certain point. He called this point the 'Atom'. We all know that what we thought was the Atom, wasn't really what he described, and we can split our atom into parts, and that those parts are also divisble into quarks, ... the evidence therefore, points to regression. But you think with cosmology it stops with 'god' who has always existed? This is not an answer, but rather an escape route from logic.

If you have an eternal element of matter its not clear what would initiate changes upon it unless it was conscious - these are the grounds on which democritus had difficulty with plato - reductionist models, both ancient and contemporary, experience great difficulty when examining the phenomenal world (to begin with we experience noumenan with the senses in the mind, which tends to evade the reductionist paradigm)

If god and time have always existed, and the Universe is only 14Bn years old, what was God doing for the infinite amount of time before he created the Universe then? Why did he choose 14Bn years ago out of all previous eternity? Can you truly understand the ramafications of the question?

The idea is that time is cyclic -just like in autumn the leaves disappear and return again in spring - its not like this current material cosmos is any more unique than any particular season - sometimes manifest, sometimes unmanifest.

 

[phlogistician]

self replicating ones?

Not yet, I said give it time.

How is it determined that temperature and pressure caused life if a self replicating protien has not been manufactured? How do you know how something is done when it has never been observed done?

Your grasp of chemistry seems to be lacking here. Variations in temperature and pressure are important. From the heat and pressure around a 'black smoker' to the cold and pressure of the Mariana Trench, to the heat and lower pressure near a volcanic outlet at sea level, to the cold and lower pressure near the poles. That's a lot of combinations of heat and pressure, and temperature, pressure, concentration and catalysation determine viability of reactions and reaction products. With so many variables, it would take far too long to repeat in a lab; it appears to have taken nature billions of years, but you want humans to recreate and document it in the short period of modern science? That is ludicrous! We can build amino acids in a lab, and maybe we'll get to build self replicating prions too. Who knows, but just because we haven't done it yet, doesn't mean we won't, or can't. But then all you do is say 'so what, the primordial earth wasn't a laboratory'!

The idea is that time is cyclic -just like in autumn the leaves disappear and return again in spring - its not like this current material cosmos is any more unique than any particular season - sometimes manifest, sometimes unmanifest.

God is stuck in a loop? So much for being all powerful!