For the alternative theorists:

[Aqueous Id]

You do realize that Einstein has been dead for sixty years, don't you? He's not exactly at the forefront of physics these days. A lot of progress has been made since his time.

Except that people who never studied science probably can't even name another scientist except the few they've heard of through osmosis. That and they're reading anti-science boards (hello, creationists :wave that, when they're name-dropping, are mentioning Einstein and Newton, rather than Maxwell, Faraday, Ampere and Coulomb, and of course Poincare and Lorentz, which at least begins to explain what Einstein had on his mind when he stepped into the limelight (not to mention the actual experiments with light that preceded him). And of course all of those great contributors to science (or at least most of them) are mentioned at the high school level. But what's education got to do with it? it's just book-larnin'. :itold:

Welcome, Jimmy.

 

[leopold]

Abiogenesis produced life that existed for, say a billion years or so, before that first organism (probably jellyfish) evolved a tactile sense in their umbrellas.

it must be stated that science has not been able to verify that life can arise from the elements.

I'm surprised you limit your reading to this very tiny bit of information from among the vast amount of science papers out there.

yes, a tiny bit.
but it could have MAJOR ramifications if valid.

Lately I've been speculating on why you tow the Creationist line rather than to trash talk them for the nonsense they fabricate.

because i don't care about religion.
i don't care about god.
i don't care about your theory.
apparently you haven't read any of my "juicy" posts.

That, and arguing the creationist platforms, . . .

huh?

plus citing creationist web sites. It just doesn't add up.

yes, those events actually happened aqueous.
you just doesn't follow up.

The observable universe is all there is.

oh my god.
you said it, i didn't.
edit:
i'm going to assume i got lost here.
"observable" and "capable of being observed" are two different things.
there is no indication that the "observable" universe is the scope of the universe itself.
we aren't seeing all there is to see.
/edit.

Very heavy. All the more reason to reign in the imagination, and always defer to best evidence. At present, best evidence supports Big Bang theory,

actually the evidence supports an expanding universe.

 

[paddoboy]

i don't remember god being ruled out of the equation.
sorry, ludicrous isn't good enough.
i'm being honest here and i SWEAR i will be called a creationist for it.

Three things.........One, God is 100% ruled out of the equation, because it is not a scientific answer....
Two, I certainly call you a creationist, not just by what you have claimed in this thread, but on a more personal level, in regards to unsolicited messages.
And three, you say that ruling God out of the equation because it is ludicrous, is just not good enough, yet you in other posts claim that the idea of life from non life IS ludicrous.

the concept is as ludicrous as "things becoming alive".

So you see life from non life as ludicrous, but an almighty omnipotent creator, as not ludicrous?
Yet you wonder why people label you a creationist, or at the very least a closet creationist supporter!

Watching you in this thread, continue arguing and blowing and blustering, about the supposed failings of science, abiogenesis and evolution, reminds me of that other "backs up against the wall" "SR is wrong" claimant called chinglu in another thread.
Beaten black and blue, and backed into a corner from the word go, and he continues illogical, unscientific, and downright ignorant denials of stuff that is as plain as day.
That's who you remind me of.

 

[paddoboy]

actually the evidence supports an expanding universe.

Yep, and by extension, a smaller, hotter, denser Universe in the past....take that back 13.83 billion years and voila!!!
And then the predicted verified 2.7 K relic left over heat from that BB.
Actually, and in line with my last paragraph in the previous post, what comes to mind now, are the three wise monkeys!

 

[exchemist]

the really big problem in this area is consciousness.
"creating life" might not be enough to adequately explain things.

not according to the respected source i had available.

science has never observed life coming from non life, but yet what are we told?

see post 1424 about what yanks my chain with dr. ayala.

i don't remember god being ruled out of the equation.
sorry, ludicrous isn't good enough.
i'm being honest here and i SWEAR i will be called a creationist for it.

nobody is asking you to do any such thing.
i'm not anyway.
what we are now observing as the big bang could be nothing more than a localized expansion.

that's where all matter comes from isn't it, the elements?

maybe.
i think einstein said it best:
not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine.
heavy stuff when you think about it.

OK Leopold, you clearly have a rather subtle position on all this and I am intrigued to find out what it is.

First, regarding consciousness, I have trouble understanding the problem here. To me - and to most scientists, I suspect - the subjective experience we have of being aware of our surroundings could perfectly well arise from the processes of thought in the brain and nervous system. This awareness would presumably be experienced by all animals with higher brain function. In the case of human beings specifically, this awareness is probably heightened considerably by the intellectual power we gain from language, which enables us to think in classifications and abstractions, including the idea of self. So I must say I do not see consciousness as any sort of problem that remains to be solved by science. No doubt a neuroscientist would be better qualified than I on this, though.

Secondly, this trope that "science has never observed life to come from non-life" is one of the standard cliches of creationism. It has always struck me as silly. There is life today and our theories of planetary origin tell us conditions for life did not exist at an earlier stage. Ergo, life appears to have come from non-life in some way, at some time in the past. This is not pushing the opposite of what has always been observed, it is just a statement of the obvious, based in fact on the observations that have led to the theory of planetary origin.

Thirdly, and now we get to the nub of it, I see you say "I don't remember God being ruled out of the equation". And yet when I previously referred to a "supernatural explanation for abiogenesis", you were quick to say that you "never even considered it a possibility" and that "the concept is as ludicrous as "things becoming alive".

What I am curious to know is what role you think a God could play in abiogenesis, if supernatural intervention in nature is ruled out.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

OK Leopold, you clearly have a rather subtle position on all this and I am intrigued to find out what it is.

Secondly, this trope that "science has never observed life to come from non-life" is one of the standard cliches of creationism. It has always struck me as silly. There is life today and our theories of planetary origin tell us conditions for life did not exist at an earlier stage. Ergo, life appears to have come from non-life in some way, at some time in the past. This is not pushing the opposite of what has always been observed, it is just a statement of the obvious, based in fact on the observations that have led to the theory of planetary origin.

Thirdly, and now we get to the nub of it, I see you say "I don't remember God being ruled out of the equation". And yet when I previously referred to a "supernatural explanation for abiogenesis", you were quick to say that you "never even considered it a possibility" and that "the concept is as ludicrous as "things becoming alive".

What I am curious to know is what role you think a God could play in abiogenesis, if supernatural intervention in nature is ruled out.

exchemist, I cannot help but notice that you seem to be accepting "our theories of planetary origin" as some sort of "obvious" fact.

As a professionally educated and professionally employed Scientist, for 'nigh on 40 years, I can honestly state that NO "theory of planetary origin" has ever been elevated to the status of either Scientific Law or Scientific Fact.

As a Scientist conducting Real Science I must interject that "theories" are Science's attempts to explain what is Objectively observed of Nature.
As an example, it has been objectively observed that Gravity is a Fact of Nature. However, no "theory of Gravity" has yet been proposed or accepted as Fact in that aspect of the workings of Nature.

The same is also true of any "theory" on any natural "origins of Life" or any natural "origins of the Universe".
Though I must confess that I personally do not adhere to any "Belief in Deities", regardless of whether those "Deities" are based on "religious beliefs" or somehow based on, what I would consider, a complete perversion of any true science "belief", i.e. Dogma.

In reference to the "supernatural", I can only point out that what was considered "supernatural" only tens of decades in the past, is now accepted as merely "natural" : electricity ; "horseless" carriages ; mans ability to "fly" ; wireless communication...etc.

In all honesty, Science has only just "scratched the surface", so to speak, of truly explaining the underlying workings of what is objectively observed in Nature.

Again, exchemist, I suffer no "belief in religious Deities", nor any "belief in perverted science Deities or Dogma".

Science, as I have been taught and as I have professionally practiced, is the never ending quest to factually answer the myriad of questions that arise from the purely objective observation of Nature.
At this point, real science has established a few "Laws of Nature" or "Fundamental Basics of Nature" based on those purely objective observations.
I should add that real science has suffered quite a bit of lost time and effort in attempting to explain the purely Subjective observations of Nature : Geocentricity ; Flat Earth ; Alchemy, to name a few.

I, dmoe, do not personally, nor professionally, "believe" that any "Deity" is responsible for, or has "intervened" in, Nature.
I do, however, both personally and professionally, Know that real Science has a very long way to go in establishing any Facts or Laws concerning the True "Origin of the Universe", or the True "Origins of Life".

exchemist, I have had purely hypothetical or theoretical discussions with other scientists on when and IF Real Science establishes those Facts or Laws, then conceivably it would be "possible" to replicate or "Create" Life or a Universe.

There are even "theories" out there that propose that what we Objectively observe as Nature may be the result of a much more advanced civilization's application of their much more advanced understanding of the Fundamental Laws of Science.
Again, I, dmoe, do not lend much credence to those ^^immediately above^^ "theories", but many of the Great Scientists in the History of Science have been Historically proven at least partially, if not completely, wrong or incorrect.

So...

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

I thought I was the "nutjob in chief" here! I have been usurped! Aliens run the show?

(how "crazy" am I now, origin...none of my writings involve "superior beings?")

 

[exchemist]

I thought I was the "nutjob in chief" here! I have been usurped! Aliens run the show?

(how "crazy" am I now, origin...none of my writings involve "superior beings?")

We have some trolls in this forum, that's all.

 

[paddoboy]

We have some trolls in this forum, that's all.

Probably trolls and nutjobs!
For the umpteenth time, what people, some people do obviously forget, is that scientific theories and their "certainty value" can be likened to a pyramid.
Some of those theories are at the base and formulated on small amounts of observational evidence.
Other theories are far more certain, even set in concrete, such as Evolution, Abiogenesis, SR, GR and the BB.
They are at the top pointy end of the pyramid.
We all [well I think we all] believe and have faith in the theory that we live in a heliocentric solar system, do we not? Another theory near set in concrete.

It's easy for people to claim they are scientists on a forum such as this. But sometimes their wishy washy attitude with regards to science, says otherwise.

In summing anyone who can really deny abiogenesis and evolution as "near certain" and near the top of the pyramid at this stage of human development and scientific advancement, must indeed be hobbled with some sort of deity, divine creationist belief.
It appears to be the only avenue open.

 

[exchemist]

Probably trolls and nutjobs!
For the umpteenth time, what people, some people do obviously forget, is that scientific theories and their "certainty value" can be likened to a pyramid.
Some of those theories are at the base and formulated on small amounts of observational evidence.
Other theories are far more certain, even set in concrete, such as Evolution, Abiogenesis, SR, GR and the BB.
They are at the top pointy end of the pyramid.
We all [well I think we all] believe and have faith in the theory that we live in a heliocentric solar system, do we not? Another theory near set in concrete.

It's easy for people to claim they are scientists on a forum such as this. But sometimes their wishy washy attitude with regards to science, says otherwise.

In summing anyone who can really deny abiogenesis and evolution as "near certain" and near the top of the pyramid at this stage of human development and scientific advancement, must indeed be hobbled with some sort of deity, divine creationist belief.
It appears to be the only avenue open.

Well, there is plenty of scope for religious believers to do science. Belief in God as creator of the universe is not incompatible with science at all and many religious people are respected scientists.

But, belief in divine intervention in the processes of nature (whether God-created or otherwise) is an unscientific view, because science is, by definition, looking for natural explanations. So far as I can see, a process logically has to be either natural (i.e. following the observed order in nature) or supernatural (i.e. miraculous, a deity-driven, one-off departure from the order of nature). I find it hard to imagine any third option here. But Leopold obviously has a subtle position that seems to me to be somewhere in the middle of all this. I'd like to understand what it is, that's all.

 

[krash661]

one of my favorite ancient scriptures are
emerald tablet IX: the key of freedom of space.
emerald tablet X: the key of time.

 

[paddoboy]

Well, there is plenty of scope for religious believers to do science. Belief in God as creator of the universe is not incompatible with science at all and many religious people are respected scientists.

But, belief in divine intervention in the processes of nature (whether God-created or otherwise) is an unscientific view, because science is, by definition, looking for natural explanations. So far as I can see, a process logically has to be either natural (i.e. following the observed order in nature) or supernatural (i.e. miraculous, a deity-driven, one-off departure from the order of nature).

The divine intervention problem was what I was primarily referring to.
And I dare say all those scientists that believe in God [including George LaMaitre] would by extension believe in divine creation.
The aspect that I was aware of also is that if some claim cannot be falsified, then it is not science.

Worth noting here exchemist, that despite evidence to the contrary in my posts, I do not hate religious people, or even 10,000 year creationists.
What drives me, is when they start to deride science and cosmology, with their dribble.

 

[Aqueous Id]

it must be stated that science has not been able to verify that life can arise from the elements.

Science doesn't say that. It says life originated in a primordial soup rich in thermal and chemical energy, and (as Miller-Urey entertained) electrical storm energy, as well as the necessary chemical materials needed to build macromolecules which comprise living cells. And of course science devotes scant resources to answering Creationism so don't expect a "validation and verification" exercise any time soon. There's no point in wasting resources just to put Creationists in their place. They are irrelevant to science. Where the resources are applied is to answering the legitimate questions of science. Thus, there is no study that asks "Did life materialize out of thin air, or under the forces of magic?"

It must be stated, since you haven't ever clarified this, leopold, that the laws of nature were not suspended at any time during the processes that lead to abiogenesis.

Science has been reporting that the precursors to life have been synthesized in vitro for 60 years now. Given all of this, the question of legitimate scientific research is not "did abiogenesis occur?" but rather "how did abiogenesis occur?" And to answer that you need lots of study if you're trying to understand what scientists are actually reporting. Also, you need to extricate yourself (you plural, Creationists) from the pit of "cells from chemicals". That narrow world excludes vast evidence, from the geologic record, atmosphere-building, and of course the wealth of evidence from DNA sequencing, which reveals mountains of evidence about descent with modification (gradualism? who cares!)

yes, a tiny bit. [in reference to the tiny impact of the 1980 Gould conference on punctuated equilibrium]
but it could have MAJOR ramifications if valid.

I have no idea why you think that. Before there was any serious consideration of punctuated equilibrium (PE), there had already long been an understanding that there was a Cambrian explosion (another great piece of intellectual fodder for the Creationists to gag on). PE has no particular significance to the truths of evolutionary biology, certainly not at the level you're attacking it--as a question of whether evolution is true, and whether abiogenesis is true. That's why it makes no sense to me that you cling to it.

Lately I've been speculating on why you tow the Creationist line rather than to trash talk them for the nonsense they fabricate.

because i don't care about religion.
i don't care about god.

That doesn't answer the mail. The question is why you are advocating the position of a person (religious or not) who claims that the laws of nature can be suspended (stuff can appear out of thin air), and why you don't attack them for lying--claiming that it can indeed happen, and merely because they prefer to interpret myth literally rather that to open their eyes and peer in the real world which is revealing its true nature to them every moment of every day.

i don't care about your theory.

I don't know what you mean. The theory of evolution is certainly not mine, nor are any of the hypotheses concerning abiogenesis. But the reverse is true. You are propounding some other unexplained "theory" (in quotes because you don't seem to acknowledge the meaning of scientific theory given at the beginning of this thread). And your "theory" is that (a) species to evolve through gradual accumulated change, (b) larger groups of taxa (genera or probably classes) "appeared out of thin air" (or else through punctuated equilibrium--actually whatever your point is here is not clear) and (c) abiogenesis is implausible. Sorry if that mangles any of your "theories" but you leave me no choice since you haven't been clear what the "aternative" to evolutionary biology actually is.

apparently you haven't read any of my "juicy" posts.

Without further explanation, I can't say whether I have or not. I don't know what you mean. I think it's fair to say I've read hundreds of your posts.

That, and arguing the creationist platforms, . . .

huh?

You mean you aren't aware that for all of our lives the Creationists have been arguing the same points you're raising here? Why in the world do you think so many folks keep calling you a Creationist? That, and giving credence to lies and propaganda they post instead of calling them out for it.

plus citing creationist web sites. It just doesn't add up.

yes, those events actually happened aqueous.
you just doesn't follow up.

That's what I mean when I say giving credence to lies and propaganda they post instead of calling them out for it. Those cites are pure trash, leopold. Example: a science teacher loses tenure for arguing against evolution in a science class. My response (I don't think you addressed this) was that's the law. I mentioned that recently because there was a court case striking down "automatic tenure". Thus, that particular case which you consider "juicy" has been backed by the courts. In any case, you're (implicitly) defending a guilty party. It's not the job a science teacher to design a curriculum. That's done at a higher level. The teacher's job is to stick to the curriculum so that all of the units get covered adequately and in time. Now there is a Common Core initiative which will make your objection pale even further. Students simply have to learn the basics of evolutionary biology to advance to college. And some of the subject matter you're objecting to will appear on their SATs. If the teachers aren't up to snuff, they can lose the rewards of tenure. So where's the beef? Who care to defend a teacher that can't follow the curriculum? You may have other objections; I merely had to pick one of them as an example of why the cites you gave are so bogus. But as loing as you continue to entertain Creationist propaganda are meritorious stuff worthy of citing, then you are continuing to tell folks tacitly that you're a Creationist. There simply is no other inference for readers to make, since science-literate folks are fully capable of instantly recognizing Creationist lies and propaganda when they see them.

The observable universe is all there is.

oh my god.
you said it, i didn't.
edit:
i'm going to assume i got lost here.
"observable" and "capable of being observed" are two different things.
there is no indication that the "observable" universe is the scope of the universe itself.
we aren't seeing all there is to see.
/edit.

You misunderstood me, although I could have worded that more carefully. I'm saying there is nothing more than what we observe, until we observe it. There is matter and energy; matter basically classifies as the constituent molecules, elements/isotopes, particles and elementary particles. Energy obeys the laws of conservation. And so on. Those are "all that there is" throughout the universe. We don't go around making stuff up, just to satisfy our fantasies and emotions, adding more stuff than what's observed. That's what superstition is. And science is the antithesis of superstition. It treats superstition like the plague. (Even if it entertains stuff highly inferential like string theory. And regardless of whether it's true or not, string theory is based on key facts of nature--with lots of stuff added to fill in the gaps. There, I suppose it's arguable how much is superstition and how much is expert sleuthing.)

Very heavy. All the more reason to reign in the imagination, and always defer to best evidence. At present, best evidence supports Big Bang theory,

actually the evidence supports an expanding universe.

That's where Big Bang theory came from. It was the explanation that came on the heels of Hubble's expanding universe.

 

[paddoboy]

The divine intervention problem was what I was primarily referring to.
And I dare say all those scientists that believe in God [including George LaMaitre] would by extension believe in divine creation.
The aspect that I was aware of also is that if some claim cannot be falsified, then it is not science.

Worth noting here exchemist, that despite evidence to the contrary in my posts, I do not hate religious people, or even 10,000 year creationists.
What drives me, is when they start to deride science and cosmology, with their dribble.

In relation to my previous objective post above, I should add the following.
We seem to have a handful of forumites, who are smart enough to realise that any reference to a God/deity, or creationism, is invalidated straight away as a legitimate scientific theory, simply due to the fact I mentioned in the above post, in that it cannot be falsified, and also inferred by exchemist when he said.....

But, belief in divine intervention in the processes of nature (whether God-created or otherwise) is an unscientific view, because science is, by definition, looking for natural explanations. .

And I believe that to be the crux of this matter.
But the handful I'm inferring to, seeing this, then procede to "hide" their actual personal beliefs, to try and salvage some credibility in their continued never ending saga, re their straight out campaign in denying to give that credibility to where it should go...that is to science, the scientific method, and peer review.

For anyone to outright claim they are scientists, and [1] fail to recognise the science method and peer review, [2] not being able to realise that any divine deity is not falsifiable, hence not scientific, [3]the fact that scientific theories do most certainly gain stability, certainty and rock solidness, over the course of time, as they continue to align with observational data, is in reality no scientist at all.

 

[leopold]

However, no "theory of Gravity" has yet been proposed or accepted as Fact in that aspect of the workings of Nature.

is this really true?
if so then how in the world could they EVER run a computer model that simulates it?
unless they cheated.

 

[leopold]

OK Leopold, you clearly have a rather subtle position on all this and I am intrigued to find out what it is.

i've never bought into "things becoming alive".
it's an LSD nightmare, beyond ludicrous.
on the other hand we have biomolecules, very complex ones that interact in complex ways.
but life?
not only life but "subjective life", the kind that gives opinions on abstract art.
this defies any physical law i am aware of.
i'm a bit of a programmer and i'm telling you right now, a computer WILL NEVER give you a subjective opinion about anything.

Secondly, this trope that "science has never observed life to come from non-life" is one of the standard cliches of creationism.

it's also a fact.
science has been unable to verify that life can arise from the elements.
calling it "creationist" is what exactly?

It has always struck me as silly. There is life today and our theories of planetary origin tell us conditions for life did not exist at an earlier stage.Ergo, life appears to have come from non-life in some way, at some time in the past.

and how many unproved assumptions are those theories based on?
see above answer.

What I am curious to know is what role you think a God could play in abiogenesis, if supernatural intervention in nature is ruled out.

i don't see how a "supernatural god" could take part in abiogenesis.
the closest i can come to is the concept of "will"
how it could be done is anyones guess, i guess.

 

[paddoboy]

is this really true?
if so then how in the world could they EVER run a computer model that simulates it?
unless they cheated.

I doubt that. So far the need for cheating is from our anti science/creationist brigade, in their blind attacks on science and peer review, and the scenario inferred by latest cosmology, of a redundant deity.

As usual, from our closet creationists they fail to give the accepted theory of gravity, GR the credibility it deserves and demands.
Spacetime has been measured in how much it warps, twists and curves in the presence of mass, thus conforming to the modelling as given by GR and as to the workings of nature and the Universe/spacetime.
Again when a more accurate theory of gravity [a QGT] is formulated, it will not invalidate anything that has already been validated and predicted by GR. The parameters will just be extended to include the Planck/quantum level.
GR will not change, just as Newtonian has not changed for most Earth non relativistic domains.



But I would be careful when you get out of bed tomorrow, with the establishment and mainstream delving in all these conspiracies, cheating, and attempts at cover ups. [tic mode on]

 

[leopold]

www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/...two-conflicting-theories-of-the-universe.html

 

[origin]

it must be stated that science has not been able to verify that life can arise from the elements.

So the other options are that life has always existed, or when the universe started life began at that instant?

 

[leopold]

So the other options are that life has always existed, or when the universe started life began at that instant?

those are the only real options left.
i don't know whether DNA transplants would rule out an outside "life force".
the new force proposed in my link above could have something to do with this as well.