It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 18
14
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
So are you claiming that someday man will be capable of resurrecting the dead?

Technically we already can. Sometimes in the hospital people die for 5 minutes and are brought back to life by CPR and other medical technology. I'm not claiming anything about what we do not know yet, just that it may be possible. Suggesting something is impossible, simply because we haven't gained the knowledge yet is silly and what you just said has absolutely nothing to do with that, regardless of my response. Stop trying to change the subject.

Science doesn't know the origin of life. Bottom line, please don't divert the topic again and ask me useless questions, that have nothing to do with that FACT.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
So are you claiming that someday man will be capable of resurrecting the dead?

Technically we already can. Sometimes in the hospital people die for 5 minutes and are brought back to life by CPR and other medical technology. I'm not claiming anything about what we do not know yet, just that it may be possible. Suggesting something is impossible, simply because we haven't gained the knowledge yet is silly and what you just said has absolutely nothing to do with that, regardless of my response. Stop trying to change the subject.

Science doesn't know the origin of life. Bottom line, please don't divert the topic again and ask me useless questions, that have nothing to do with that FACT.


They call that "clinically dead" not dead as in rotting dead. The body has still "life" in it. Heck sometimes they induce "death" to someone to perform an operation - but that person is not dead as in rotting dead corpse. Big difference here because the "clinically dead" can be brought back to life. On the other hand there's no way to bring back to life a dead corpse - unless of course you believe in the novel "Dr. Frankenstein" - which is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

BTW - abiogenesis and Dr. Frankenstein has something in common - both are science fiction.

So is "it may be possible" or "IDK" that life can come non-living matter?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused
 






We don't know life created life and that's why scientists try what they try...because we don't know how life started and that's what scientists do.


CoherentlyConfused meet Wertdagf -

What say you Wertdagf?



Have you attempted even the slightest bit of research yourself into the most recent theorys for the abiogenic production of life? Or are you here to ignorantly mock the idea because youd rather die than live without your pitifull baby murdering deity?

Type Abiogenesis into google then sort for videos.... its really that easy...




edit on 2-6-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)


dar ya go.

edit:



Science doesn't know the origin of life. Bottom line, please don't divert the topic again and ask me useless questions, that have nothing to do with that FACT. - Barcs


No so says Wertdagf!!





edit on 22-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: edit



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Ergo Sum

Problem with this "I don't know" stand is that no matter what evidence is presented - it will still be "I Don't Know" unless the person is willing to accept that there's no other alternative but to accept the fact that Life comes only from life.

Simple as that.


There is no problem with the "I don't know (yet)". It is a very obvious fact, for most. You seem to have a problem with it.


To quote physicist H. S. Lipson who studied the odds against a spontaneous origin for life:

“The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”


He further observed that after Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species,

“evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it."



At the most this is a type of appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. It proves only that people have opinions. It doesn't take into account why almost the entirety of the relevant scientific community accept evolution as fact. The fact of evolution also has nothing to do with the possibility of abiogenesis.

Not sure how anyone could genuinely work out these odds without knowing how much life does exist in the universe, but to think plucking an imaginary being from your backside and adding it into the mix somehow simplifies the odds, is beyond ridiculous. To believe there is any theory, or even hypothesis regarding creation by god is also completely false.


Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor at University College, Cardiff:

“From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. . . . For life to have been a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on all the beaches in all the planets in the universe—and finding it.”



Good for him, who knows? These are personal opinions, we've all got them. Where is the working hypothesis or scientific theory of god's existence, or that "god did it"?


Whether you believe these scientists or not the fact remains that you can't get life from non-life.
Simple as that.


So you have proved a negative? Using the same faulty logic, god has also been proven not to exist. He sure does a very good impersonation of something that doesn't and fulfills every known requirement.

The very fact that we know life did begin on this planet leaves the question open. You have proved only that in your belief it is not possible. We don't know that, as yet.


How would you propose to do this?
If you're able to stand in front of a super Nova or peer through the invisible realm beyond time and space then you might be able to see him.


I am not proposing anything. I am not the one making the claim, you are, which is why it is your responsibility to provide details of the controlled experiment that directly proves god exists. Before we have any reason to consider the universe and life itself being an extension of his vocal functions.

I take it you have stood in front of a supernova, or looked in the realm beyond time and space to see him? Can you explain how you did this, so we might be able to repeat it. I wonder why he would hide in such locations? What of the claimed omnipresence?

This makes him the same as santa hidden away at the north pole, or the fairies hiding in the garden. Just on a different scale.


But like I said - with all the evidence we have here on earth and still it does not convince you, how would his presenting himself to you makes a difference?


If he did present himself it would be the first time anyone had any reason to believe he exists, outside of their own mind. We wouldn't have to believe then, we would know.

I am more than open to the possibility of some creative force for my own reasons (though not the god of myth). This will never make it scientific, or necessarily truth. Arguments against science are not necessarily in themselves arguments for god. If abiogenisis hypothesis was somehow discredited (not just by fringe religious based quasi/pseudo science), it doesn't mean god exists. Direct proof of god will mean that, where is it?



edit on 22-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





There is no problem with the "I don't know (yet)". It is a very obvious fact, for most. You seem to have a problem with it.


Of course there's no problem with saying I don't know (yet) because it's a fact of life. The quest to know the unknown.

It becomes a problem though when the quest turns to BLIND FAITH - believing on something that "YOU DON'T KNOW" the answer to as if it's the ultimate answer to the question with the hopes that someday will be proven true.

So in sense abioGenesis is an idea based BLIND FAITH - having faith on the the unknown "I Don't Know" yet at the same time faithfully believing that life must have came from non-living things, arose from chance event from an accidental mixtures of chemicals.

That is the problem.


AbioGenesis = Blind Faith on the I Don't Know (my next thread title - I think).


As for this statement:



At the most this is a type of appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.


no need to respond to a tired argument from ignorance reply. You people need to come up with a new one.

As for


The fact of evolution also has nothing to do with the possibility of abiogenesis.


Of course they are one and the same - If you don't know the origin of life then where did life evolved from?

I refer you back to the OP:


In the beginning, Earth was devoid of oxygen, and then life arose from nonlife. As that first life evolved over a billion years, it began to produce oxygen, but not enough for the life-energizing gas to appear in the atmosphere. Was green scum all there was to life, all there ever would be? Apparently, yes, unless life and nonlife could somehow work together to oxygenate the planet from the atmosphere to the deep sea. -- "EARTH SCIENCE - The Story of O2" - by Richard A. Kerr June 2005


Here's another from PZ


Life is chemistry Category: Evolution • Science Posted on: January 27, 2006 11:46 AM, by PZ Myers

Sometimes creationists say things like, "Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life!" The common reply is that that's the domain of abiogenesis, not evolution, with the implied suggestion that the creationist should go away and quit bugging us.

That's a cop-out. I'm going to be somewhat heretical, and suggest that abiogenesis as the study of chemical evolution is a natural subset of evolutionary theory, and that we should own up to it. It's natural processes all the way back, baby, no miracles required.


scienceblogs.com...

As for:



If he did present himself it would be the first time anyone had any reason to believe he exists, outside of their own mind. We wouldn't have to believe then, we would know.


Yet when Jesus presented himself as representative of God - people did not believe him. I expect the same with you.

For it takes humility to believe in Christ - let alone God.

But who knows maybe there's hope after all you already believe on something you don't know.

end of transmission...



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Yet when Jesus presented himself as representative of God - people did not believe him. I expect the same with you.


If either ever existed which seems extremely unlikely. Fairy stories for adults. Glad I could oblige with your expectations.


For it takes humility to believe in Christ - let alone God.


...and gullibility. Wonder how you discounted the countless other mythical gods, in favor of Marshall Applewhite's father?


But who knows maybe there's hope after all you already believe on something you don't know.


The phrase "I don't know" doesn't seem to indicate a firm belief.


end of transmission...


If only...



edit on 23-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
They call that "clinically dead" not dead as in rotting dead. The body has still "life" in it. Heck sometimes they induce "death" to someone to perform an operation - but that person is not dead as in rotting dead corpse. Big difference here because the "clinically dead" can be brought back to life. On the other hand there's no way to bring back to life a dead corpse - unless of course you believe in the novel "Dr. Frankenstein" - which is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

BTW - abiogenesis and Dr. Frankenstein has something in common - both are science fiction.

So is "it may be possible" or "IDK" that life can come non-living matter?


Both. I don't know AND it may be possible. I'll wait until more testing and experiments are done in the field of abiogenesis before making a decision.

If science does become advanced enough to resurrect the dead, they will surely be advanced enough to repair body tissue, but there will obviously be a limit. You can't take somebody that's half decomposed and magically make them alive. Either way, it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. You are still dodging every single main point I have made. I dunno why I get sucked into this. We don't know the answer. It really is that simple. You don't know it either.

edit on 23-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by edmc^2

Yet when Jesus presented himself as representative of God - people did not believe him. I expect the same with you.


If either ever existed which seems extremely unlikely. Fairy stories for adults. Glad I could oblige with your expectations.


For it takes humility to believe in Christ - let alone God.


...and gullibility. Wonder how you discounted the countless other mythical gods, in favor of Marshall Applewhite's father?


But who knows maybe there's hope after all you already believe on something you don't know.


The phrase "I don't know" doesn't seem to indicate a firm belief.


end of transmission...


If only...



edit on 23-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



I guess it boils down this:

If you believe that life was the result of abioGenesis (life emerging from non-life by chance events) then the basic foundation of your belief lies on the unknown – the I Don't Know (yet) philosophy.

But if you believe like I do – that life was the result of Special Creation – then all of the questions about - why life, the ultimate meaning of life and the purpose of life, why we die, why there is wickedness and suffering and most of all what's in future will have been answered.


Of course to you this is just an “adult fairy” tale and nonsense because it's an unpalatable ground to be at since it involves discarding the very foundation of your faith - science.

But as a believer of Creation – to me SCIENCE is a complement to my belief as it enhances what I know to be true and further gives proof to what I already know to be true on more unshakable solid ground.


Of course this nonsense and an “adult fairy tale” to you because science is all you've got. So I understand why you think that I'm attacking science because it makes you question the very foundation of your belief.


But hey – if you're happy with it then more power to you – at least to me more than ever by going through this exercise – had proven to myself that abiogenesis is not just a bad idea but a silly idea founded on flawed philosophy and on the unknown “I Don't Know (yet)”.

Thanks for the exercise – I've learned a lot more.

ciao.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


"I don't know (yet)" is actually a lack of a positive belief in anything, at this stage. It means my options are still open, as it infers.

I also have no trouble at all accepting that this is your belief, edmc^2. As long as I don't have to agree with it (which I obviously don't) and if you put it forward as truth, it isn't unreasonable at all IMO to put it to scrutiny.

I'm not sure why you would assume science is "all I have". I find I am quite religious in certain ways. The possible spiritual nature of existence (not just humanity) is a very worthy subject IMO, one that I have explored for a very long time. Though I am afraid my findings will never be acceptable to contemporary religion, as it doesn't conflict with known science and is not based on faith/deities. At any rate I see no value in discounting science without a very good reason (such as genuinely being able to prove it wrong), certainly not in favor of belief.

Though I thank you for your honesty (even if I disagree) and the respectful way you put your arguments forward. So I apologize for the fairy tale remark. Although I do think it complete myth, this remark could infer that I see believers as lacking intelligence in some way. This would not be true at all. Actually, some of the nicer and more intelligent people I have known, have had some of the strangest beliefs (to me at least).

Good luck with it.


edit on 24-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
The OP still does not understand this one idea.

Evolution does not attempt to explain how life got here. PERIOD!

Evolution only explains what happened to life ONCE IT WAS HERE. It explains the diversity of life we witness. Nothing more, nothing less.

It seems you cannot get past that, which is preventing you from moving forward in this topic.

Abiogenesis =/= Evolution

Evolution =/= Abiogenesis



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daemonicon
The OP still does not understand this one idea.

Evolution does not attempt to explain how life got here. PERIOD!

Evolution only explains what happened to life ONCE IT WAS HERE. It explains the diversity of life we witness. Nothing more, nothing less.

It seems you cannot get past that, which is preventing you from moving forward in this topic.

Abiogenesis =/= Evolution

Evolution =/= Abiogenesis


Once again I invoke your evolution "high priest" erm I mean Prof. Pz Myers.


Life is chemistry Category: Evolution • Science Posted on: January 27, 2006 11:46 AM, by PZ Myers

Sometimes creationists say things like, "Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life!" The common reply is that that's the domain of abiogenesis, not evolution, with the implied suggestion that the creationist should go away and quit bugging us.

That's a cop-out. I'm going to be somewhat heretical, and suggest that abiogenesis as the study of chemical evolution is a natural subset of evolutionary theory, and that we should own up to it. It's natural processes all the way back, baby, no miracles required.


scienceblogs.com...

If you don't agree then your disagreement is not with me but with Prof. Myers.

OWN UP TO IT MAN / WOMAN - "It's natural processes all the way back, baby, no miracles required"



edit on 24-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: erm



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

If you don't agree then your disagreement is not with me but with Prof. Myers.

OWN UP TO IT MAN / WOMAN - "It's natural processes all the way back, baby, no miracles required"



That's his opinion, not an unreasonable one either. After all, he is a scientist, not a witch doctor.


Evolution is a fact. This fact requires no supernatural events or deities.


How life originated is still unknown, as of yet. It would seem a little bit premature on your part, just yet, to claim as an unalterable fact of existence that it cannot arise naturally. The claim that "god did it" doesn't make it so. This thread gives the impression of a pre emptive attack on science, an effort to protect fundamentalist beliefs from a possible truth which would destroy them. As the advance of science tends to have done since the time of Copernicus.


To think any of this might somehow discredit the fact that life on this planet evolved, is nonsense.


There has never been (and still isn't) any genuine scientific reason to believe that supernatural miracles occur or that celestial magician type deities exist. You also have not provided anything to change that for reasons which seem obvious.


Therefore there is no genuine reason to consider anything other than natural processes as a cause and until there is, Myers opinion isn't unreasonable. Personal belief in any of the countless different versions of god doesn't change that. We all know what would change it, but no one has ever provided it so we won't hold our breath waiting.


Religious fundamentalism has always tried to hold science back, this is nothing new. Thankfully scientists don't have to face the inquisition these days. Rather than play any part in science, religious fundamentalism is a condition that could itself be worthy of scientific study. Make the most of the belief that "god did it" and therefore no one should look any further, while you can. Either that, or outline the experiment which directly shows first that he exists, then explain to us how he did do it. Can you do this?



edit on 24-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



I'm going to be somewhat heretical, and suggest that abiogenesis as the study of chemical evolution is a natural subset of evolutionary theory, and that we should own up to it. It's natural processes all the way back, baby, no miracles required.




That's his opinion, not an unreasonable one either. After all, he is a scientist, not a witch doctor.


And that is my point - that two are one and the same. One can't exist without the other. That is, abioGenesis according to prominent evolution scientist is merely a

"subset of evolution theory."


And this is what i don't get about proponents of evolution theory. Of course we know what evolution theory IS (change in the allele over time - is the latest definition) but when we connect the two - like Pro. Myers said - evolutionists or proponents of evolution theory tend to be defensive and protest a lot.

Why the "cop out"?.

Know what i mean? It's OK we know what the carriage is, it's purpose and function, how it works. But what's pulling it?

Everyone knows that a HORSE is what pulls a carriage. Without the horse - the carriage will not move. Unless something or someone was pulling the carriage IT WILL not move.

Same thing with Evolution Theory - without abioGenesis or whatever hypothesis started life then that's where evolution theory got it's start.

I don't separate the two - just like Pro. Myers or for that matter the late Dr. Carl Sagan.

Here's a video of how evolution started - pay close attention to the beginning of the animation.



Compare this to the latest video from Dr. Jack Szostak



Back it up again by Prof Myers:


I'm going to be somewhat heretical, and suggest that abiogenesis as the study of chemical evolution is a natural subset of evolutionary theory, and that we should own up to it. It's natural processes all the way back, baby, no miracles required.


And by Sir David Attenborough




So I ask again why the cop out? What are proponents of evolution SO afraid of connecting the two fields of study?

Why are evolutionists such - sorry to say this but it must be said- COWARDS when it comes to connecting abiogenesis hypothesis with evolution theory?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Why are evolutionists such - sorry to say this but it must be said- COWARDS when it comes to connecting abiogenesis hypothesis with evolution theory?


I wouldn't be sorry to say it. It's an artificially imposed barrier, a line drawn between the two because the implications are profound and too many unsettling questions are raised.

Information is a separate entity to energy and matter, information can only be encoded in matter like this post is, it's symbolic. Information is non material.

Prescriptive information, code based language, has only one source as we know it. Mind.

1) DNA contains prescriptive information.

2) The only known source for this type of information stems from a mind.

3) Therefore DNA has been encrypted by a mind.

We need a sender of the code, a reciever and translater of the code and machines to carry out the information.

It's simple logic. The burden of proof rests on the materialists to show how natural forces can develop a language otherwise it's just a belief or opinion.

I don't know what God is, but information relates directly to consciousness.The easy answer for the scienctific hard problems concerning consciousness is that information / consciousness is the fundamental fabric of the universe. Free will and other things that science tells us can't exist can be explained through the quantum collapse of the wave function, and each collapse adds to the information of the universe. This is speculation of course but it seems to offer some solution, as crazy as it may sound.

This is why consciousness is left out of biology, it's too difficult to answer. I have said it before, you can't have a complete theory of life without addressing consciousness.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daemonicon
The OP still does not understand this one idea.

Evolution does not attempt to explain how life got here. PERIOD!

Evolution only explains what happened to life ONCE IT WAS HERE. It explains the diversity of life we witness. Nothing more, nothing less.

It seems you cannot get past that, which is preventing you from moving forward in this topic.

Abiogenesis =/= Evolution

Evolution =/= Abiogenesis



So Daemonicon - are you that ignorant not to see the connection between abioGenesis Hypothesis and Evolution theory?

Do you think they are NOT connected and has nothing to do with each other?

A creation proponent can see the connection and WHY can't you?

So just to emphasize the KEY word: CONNECTION / RELATIONSHIP.

Not as you ignorantly conclude:


Abiogenesis =/= Evolution

Evolution =/= Abiogenesis


Can you see the connection NOW?

CONNECTION - as in continuation OK.

Or you still INSIST that there's no connection and that:




The OP still does not understand this one idea.[?]



edit on 24-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: see



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by edmc^2
Why are evolutionists such - sorry to say this but it must be said- COWARDS when it comes to connecting abiogenesis hypothesis with evolution theory?


I wouldn't be sorry to say it. It's an artificially imposed barrier, a line drawn between the two because the implications are profound and too many unsettling questions are raised.

Information is a separate entity to energy and matter, information can only be encoded in matter like this post is, it's symbolic. Information is non material.

Prescriptive information, code based language, has only one source as we know it. Mind.

1) DNA contains prescriptive information.

2) The only known source for this type of information stems from a mind.

3) Therefore DNA has been encrypted by a mind.

We need a sender of the code, a reciever and translater of the code and machines to carry out the information.

It's simple logic. The burden of proof rests on the materialists to show how natural forces can develop a language otherwise it's just a belief or opinion.

I don't know what God is, but information relates directly to consciousness.The easy answer for the scienctific hard problems concerning consciousness is that information / consciousness is the fundamental fabric of the universe. Free will and other things that science tells us can't exist can be explained through the quantum collapse of the wave function, and each collapse adds to the information of the universe. This is speculation of course but it seems to offer some solution, as crazy as it may sound.

This is why consciousness is left out of biology, it's too difficult to answer. I have said it before, you can't have a complete theory of life without addressing consciousness.



And the answer to that according to proponents of ebiognesis / (organic) evolution theory is:

Ta da.... "I DON'T KNOW". That's their way out of the conundrum you elegantly raised squiz.

Just wait - you'll see what i mean.

Inspite of the obvious and the supporting data of what you said - they will just say "I DON'T KNOW"

That is the new - mantra.


edit on 24-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: (organic)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

I doubt it's a cop out, certainly not cowardice. The fact that you demand a scientific statement that god did it, certainly doesn't make it so.

Evolution is well supported and understood, regardless of how life started. No doubt they are related, common sense tells us life could not have evolved if it didn't first begin. Yet it also couldn't have begun if the planet didn't exist, if the solar system didn't form, if there was no universe to begin with and so on.

The theory of evolution doesn't explain these preceding events either. That is what the various respective hypotheses and theories concerning accretion, big bang, cosmology etc attempt to do. What the abiogenesis hypothesis also attempts to do, explain a related and preceding event ie. how life formed. Once we understand this we will know exactly how the emergence of life and evolution are related. Until then we cant really know, beyond the obvious fact that they both happened. Your demands that science must know right now at this instant or admit god did it, seems unreasonable if not irrelevant.

The point of contention is with the inference that the theory evolution is false, because we don't know how life began. That isn't true.

The same way that our knowledge in medicine, neuroscience etc doesn't have to be false for the same reason.

We don't need to know how life started to make observations about it. Whether god created life or not, it still evolved.



edit on 25-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

I wouldn't be sorry to say it. It's an artificially imposed barrier, a line drawn between the two because the implications are profound and too many unsettling questions are raised.


Apart from the fact of explaining two different things............ I doubt too many scientists would be unsettled by the truth of how life began, whatever that might be. Surprised perhaps, should they find god. I can envisage religious outrage though, if it doesn't go a certain way...

So out of curiosity. What would your proposal be, re resolving this so called "artificially imposed barrier", as you put it?


This is why consciousness is left out of biology, it's too difficult to answer. I have said it before, you can't have a complete theory of life without addressing consciousness.



That's a fascinating subject. I think it has been largely left alone by science due to lack of genuine method to study it with. I don't necessarily disagree, only to the extent that too much is still unknown. IMO this will be the most exciting area of science in the near future.

Though I would like to ask, apart from the beliefs put forward by creationists, who has ever claimed to have this complete theory of life? If science has made this claim, I haven't seen it.


edit on 25-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Apart from the fact of explaining two different things............ I doubt too many scientists would be unsettled by the truth of how life began, whatever that might be. Surprised perhaps, should they find god. I can envisage religious outrage though, if it doesn't go a certain way...


Well I think overturning hundreds of years of materialism would be unsettling for a great deal of people, I think it may have something to do with beliefs and world views. Yes perhaps it would unsettle some fundamentalist religious folks as well if it didn't fit with there doctrines.

You may be right though, That would be nice. The problem is that it is not even allowed to be considered. The framework, the restrictions imposed by the materialistic and reductionist approach forbids it. If this is the answer it will never be discovered because of the limits we impose. Some no doubt are agitated by the concept though.
The Richard Dawkins of the world would be sidelined as ignorant fools for all of history.



So out of curiosity. What would your proposal be, re resolving this so called "artificially imposed barrier", as you put it?


It's artificial, it doesn't exist except in the minds of those who separate it. The origin of life may be key to understanding the existing complexity of life and evolution.



That's a fascinating subject. I think it has been largely left alone by science due to lack of genuine method to study it with. I don't necessarily disagree, only to the extent that too much is still unknown. IMO this will be the most exciting area of science in the near future.


Very true. The emerging field of quantum biology may be the next big leap for us. It will impact many areas including quantum computing, medicine, AI and more. as well as give deeper understanding of consciousness and the universe. We may find that in our quest for quantum computation nature had it figured out all along.
It may, as I mention resolve the hard problem in neuroscience as well as giving credence to NDE experiences, PSI and the like.



Though I would like to ask, apart from the beliefs put forward by creationists, who has ever claimed to have this complete theory of life? If science has made this claim, I haven't seen it.


No one has. It simply seems apparent that consciousness needs to be put into the picture. This is a problem for materialism and one that can't be resolved in that framework I believe. This is becoming blatantly clear. I don't understand how it can be ignored. All descriptions and theories are based on a newtonian point of view by looking at organism as machines. Clearly there is a machine element, but what separates us from machines is consciousness. This is why our current paradigm tells us there is no free will, that you are a drone running purely on chemical reactions, and some have even denied that consciousness even exists that it is also an illusion.
Ironicly though a decision a choice is made to believe that point of view. Funny that.

Despite the fact that Einstein overturned some of newtonian physics and expanded on it, And then quantum physics put the a great rift in the materialist point of view, other disciplines such as biology and medicine have not caught up. Although this is changing.
edit on 25-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   


He explains it sooo much better than I do.

It won't be long, as soon as we learn that nature has constructed biological quantum computers. Who can possible say it's all the work of a blind and UNconscious watchmaker and still keep a straight face?
edit on 25-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join