posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:48 AM
Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Barcs
I'm not the one repeating things over and over without any scientific papers. If you actually bothered to look at the sources, you'd actually see that
they are scientific sources, even though you unjustifiably put them in ID/creationism boxes on purpose, so that you can justify dismissing the claims,
since they don't fit your own view.
Tell me something. Why do you hate these ideas so much? And don't reply with "it's not scientific" when the opening post is from scientific sources. I
request you actually give me something with substance. If you can not do that, then I request you do not reply at all. Do you think it hampers
progress? Do you hold a grudge against religion? Do you think it's against materialism while you're a materialist? What is it exactly, that ticks you
off so much?
Honestly, I know that I over do it sometimes, and push people pretty hard on topics like this, but I do it for a reason. I like to push people to
produce results, and also motivate myself to also produce. You might not realize it but I'd be ecstatic if a scientific discovery about a designer
was made. I'd be very impressed to see something like that posted in here. I just want to see how in depth people can get, that's all. I have
nothing against faith or the idea of a designer, I just don't like seeing it pushed as fact.
Now with that said, I admit I may have misunderstood the original post. Basically what it refers to is defining life by its ability to process
"information" (aka communicate). I do agree that there is not a good definition out there right now to differentiate life from non life. Sara Walker
argues that in her essay and she is right. They are looking for the part of the process where something goes from not communicating to communicating.
I see what they are saying, and definitely agree it needs more study and consideration.
Bear in mind that Walker's essay, "Is Life Fundamental?" is not a peer reviewed science paper. It's a theoretical essay based on mathematical theory.
There isn't an experiment, results or a scientific conclusion. She also falls into the Darwin trap a few times as well. I'm still not sure why
people still present things he said in the 1800s, when evolution was first substantiated, and try to make them relevant in today's modern synthesis.
It doesn't make any sense. Something about that always rubs me the wrong way. I tried looking up her background but it seems that not all that much
information is available. She has a degree in astrophysics, works for Nasa, is affiliated with the BEYOND organization, and seems to be the poster
child for anti-RNA world hypothesis. Is she inferring intelligent design or does she have an ulterior motive? It's difficult to say.
Maybe she will eventually discover more about this and prove this vital step in abiogenesis / origin of life. It's a good start, but again it doesn't
prove that information is the key to life, it presents it as a possibility of how she wants life to be defined. It was a pretty cool essay, I did
read most of it, and it was decent except for the Darwin stuff. That's what set me off originally. Darwin talk instantly raises a creationist alert
flag for me.
The only issue with her idea is that it's very difficult to run experiments and tests on. Like M-theory the math adds up but it cannot be proven
objectively because it's impossible to test with our current level of technology and understanding. It also depends how "information" is defined,
because I could see that being disputed just as much as the definition of life has been. My 2 cents.
edit on 23-1-2013 by Barcs because: (no