Mystery of how life on Earth began solved by British scientists

Originally posted by rhinoceros
But if you reckon that it's more likely that there is some conscious being out there that has just always existed and creates Universes and life and what not (talking snakes, flying giant camels, guys with elephant heads, etc.) then be my guest. Of course this being also did everything it could to hide the fact that it had done anything at all. Instead it made it seem as if everything had happened by natural means.

And yet, Mankind isn't very good at defining what is and is not "natural"... Although we invented the concept of Nature — to distinguish it from the lofty world of Humanity — we don't even know how to exist within it without destroying it. Meanwhile, every other creature on earth coexists in Nature with nary a complaint.

That makes us something of the retarded kids on the block, does it not, from a "natural" perspective.

And why shouldn't a God that is wholly beyond our feeble human understanding be predisposed to creating talking snakes and flying pigs if that is its wont? Who are we to question it? We can't even live with each other, nevermind the rest of the biosphere... and yet WE are supposed to determine what a God should and shouldn't do?

That's a laugh.

Again, human logic and mathematics and science only exist within the minds of human beings — such thoughts don't exist anywhere else in the Universe. I say that as a human being who is certain of it because there is no empirical evidence that logic or mathematics or science exist anywhere else in Nature. They are mere oddities of the ever-fallible, tumorous growths that we call brains.



For us to imagine our puny, narrow thoughts somehow DEFINE the Universe and the God that created it is preposterous. Sure, we can say the same thing of religion, as it was invented by our defective brains, as well.

But to say that one defective form of thinking (Science) is somehow "better" than another defective form of thinking (Religion) is an exercise in human arrogance.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
But to say that one defective form of thinking (Science) is somehow "better" than another defective form of thinking (Religion) is an exercise in human arrogance.

Either you follow the evidence (science) or ignore it (fundamentalistic religions). I prefer the first option as the second doesn't take us anywhere. I bet in many ways I'm more "spiritual" than you, but this is only because I've acquired profound understanding of nature thru science.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
But to say that one defective form of thinking (Science) is somehow "better" than another defective form of thinking (Religion) is an exercise in human arrogance.

Oh no, not the science versus religion debate!

As Sagan said (see my sig) they don't have to be incompatible.

And scientists talking about religion admit they could be wrong and religion could be right like Dr. Hazen does at 4:16, is that arrogant?:


Video excerpts:

0:07 I want to say a bit about science and religion


4:16 The universe could have been created by God 10,000 years ago to appear extremely ancient....

But if that's true what is the meaning of observations of the natural world if our senses can lie to us?


5:50 Students shouldn't be expected to believe these theories if they seem to be counter to religious or ethical views (but students SHOULD be expected to understand why scientists come to the conclusions that they do).

Making repeatable experiments and observations is pretty powerful stuff in our efforts to understand the world. And it is ironic that the message you type about how science is a defective form of thinking was typed on what? A device created by science (computer) and transmitted how? With another science-based creation, the internet? The fact that you use devices created by science to communicate your claim that science is defective is the ultimate irony.

If I were going to write a title for the OP article, my title would be "Scientists found clue to how life may have begun on Earth". For all I know life originated on Mars and was brought to Earth in a rock like ALH84001, so I'm not even sure it started on Earth, maybe so, maybe not. But I suspect the mystery of the origin of life will remain a mystery for a very long time. But getting some clues once in a while like this story is nice.

In response to several of you:

Many religious people believe that god and evolution can exist at the same time...

Want to see proof of creation?



See, you can watch it happen one step at a time.

To infinity time is no object.

RIP Carl Sagan...

Originally posted by DaMod
In response to several of you:

Many religious people believe that god and evolution can exist at the same time...

Want to see proof of creation?

Great video, and I may be biased because I like Sagan and it has my avatar at the beginning about 24 seconds in. But it explains evolution, which is some might argue is only part of creation.

Abiogenesis is really the tricky part of creation that the OP claims has been "solved" but it really hasn't been solved, nor does the Sagan video solve that part. But once the first organism evolved, then we have a lot of the answers on what happened after that as this excellent video shows.

Thanks for posting it. Starred.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by DaMod
In response to several of you:

Many religious people believe that god and evolution can exist at the same time...

Want to see proof of creation?

Great video, and I may be biased because I like Sagan and it has my avatar at the beginning about 24 seconds in. But it explains evolution, which is some might argue is only part of creation.

Abiogenesis is really the tricky part of creation that the OP claims has been "solved" but it really hasn't been solved, nor does the Sagan video solve that part. But once the first organism evolved, then we have a lot of the answers on what happened after that as this excellent video shows.

Thanks for posting it. Starred.

Well first off, I'm glad Carl hasn't lost his fans as I am most definitely one of his biggest. We lost a great mind the day he died. I really wish he was still around. He would have loved all the new scientific advancements.

You're right, that part has never been explained. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the creationism evolutionism or Religious v. Scientific argument is really a mute point.

Personally I think they go hand and hand.

reply to post by FeatheredSerpent

Where as this is an interesting discovery, it has a long, long way before it could be considered solved. The article itself is honest, with a sort of "Oh we think we're onto something, but it'll be a while before where sure" type feeling that the title just blows out the water.

IF this does work, wouldn't this take millions of years before we see if we're right, before it evolves from a single cell to a multicellular organism? Are they going to speed it up? Thinking on it, There was very little information in that article.

Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony! Scientific experimentation proves we've only been round for 6,000 years by trying to disprove creationist theories!

Also!

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Either you follow the evidence (science) or ignore it (fundamentalistic religions). I prefer the first option as the second doesn't take us anywhere.

One takes us nowhere whilst the other takes us backwards. Where as I agree with the observation and exploration of what we would call objective reality, what we have now, in many areas is a joke and is closer to what Doc was saying, a religion. Not all of it by any stretch, but key areas. I can't decide whether this is intentional or just fierce dogmatic beliefs ingrained after years of dedication to a particular 'perspective'.

IMO we are stagnating, but hey, probably wrong.

I bet in many ways I'm more "spiritual" than you, but this is only because I've acquired profound understanding of nature thru science.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by rhinoceros]

I would argue of profound perspective on nature, rather than a knowledge. True knowledge is elusive and fleeting. I'm sure my ideas differ to yours, who's to say who is right?

Perhaps not for this thread.

EMM

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Again, human logic and mathematics and science only exist within the minds of human beings — such thoughts don't exist anywhere else in the Universe. I say that as a human being who is certain of it because there is no empirical evidence that logic or mathematics or science exist anywhere else in Nature. They are mere oddities of the ever-fallible, tumorous growths that we call brains.

For the most part, logic and mathematics are all inferred from empirical observations of nature. Some of the more abstract maths may be an exception, as they don't correspond to reality and are more likely just highlighting flaws in the models.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
And yet, Mankind isn't very good at defining what is and is not "natural"... Although we invented the concept of Nature — to distinguish it from the lofty world of Humanity — we don't even know how to exist within it without destroying it. Meanwhile, every other creature on earth coexists in Nature with nary a complaint.

That makes us something of the retarded kids on the block, does it not, from a "natural" perspective.

And why shouldn't a God that is wholly beyond our feeble human understanding be predisposed to creating talking snakes and flying pigs if that is its wont? Who are we to question it? We can't even live with each other, nevermind the rest of the biosphere... and yet WE are supposed to determine what a God should and shouldn't do?

That's a laugh.

You are right that defining "nature" as the absence of human influence is contrived. The nature/human dichotomy is only a product of our tendency to classify things. In the grand scheme, humans, human intelligence, human activities, and human inventions are all aspects of nature. However, this conflicts with your assertion that our inability to coexist is somehow different from everything else in that thing out there, which is not us, called nature.

If one defines "harmony" as that which occurs in nature when humans are absent (a dubious definition), then by circular reasoning, humans disrupt the harmony of nature. But in fact, humans are not the only species that use resources inefficiently, over-reproduce when resources are abundant, compete for resources when they are scarce, and kill things for recreation. This harmony or balance of nature that people speak of is imaginary. For if it were real, then what broke the harmony to produce the human species in the first place? I guess one could say that an unnatural force - maybe call it God or Satan - decided to upset the harmony, but it's more sensible to observe that the harmony doesn't exist, probably never existed, and that we are just a natural means of generating iPods until a natural mechanism removes us from the system. Maybe humans will even create the species that replaces us.