Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
Posted: 3/31/2024 12:32:19 PM EDT
When I was younger, a video like this, is what led me to more questions about life. If anyone has not seen this video, I would highly encourage it. His lecture talks about cell structure and it's components and how incredible it is. Dr. Tour's lecture does not mention God, Creator or higher power. I found it very interesting.

Dr. Tour is one of the world's top synthetic organic chemists. He has authored 680 scientific publications and holds more than 120 patents (here is a partial list). In 2014, Thomson Reuters named him one of "The World's Most Influential Scientific Minds," and in 2018 Clarivate Analytics recognized him as one of the world's most highly cited researchers. Tour is also fearless. He joined more than a thousand other scientists in signing the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." More recently, he has become a thorn in the side of the origin of life research community, offering blunt assessments of the current state of origin of life research.
James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life





VP
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 12:37:35 PM EDT
[#1]
They have found bacteria (which are very advanced compared to a collection of proto-chemicals) from 3.5 billion years ago.
The bombardments, vulcanism, comet impacts, earthquakes, and other nature disasters over that time
make understanding the origin of life basically impossible.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 12:41:44 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By webtaz99:
They have found bacteria (which are very advanced compared to a collection of proto-chemicals) from 3.5 billion years ago.
The bombardments, vulcanism, comet impacts, earthquakes, and other nature disasters over that time
make understanding the origin of life basically impossible.
View Quote


I'm sure at some point scientists will be able to emulate the conditions required to "spark" random chemicals into cells of some kind, but there's just so many variables and unknowns it's going to be long time before enough research is done into it to really understand how it happened.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 12:53:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sitdwnandhngon:


I'm sure at some point scientists will be able to emulate the conditions required to "spark" random chemicals into cells of some kind, but there's just so many variables and unknowns it's going to be long time before enough research is done into it to really understand how it happened.
View Quote


Random chemicals into cells? I guess you’ll just have to keep having “faith” that happened.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:02:50 PM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 556_Chowder:


Random chemicals into cells? I guess you’ll just have to keep having “faith” that happened.
View Quote


I believe that God created the random chemicals and designed the process that made them become cells.

Don't know why this is so hard.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:14:48 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 556_Chowder:


Random chemicals into cells? I guess you’ll just have to keep having “faith” that happened.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 556_Chowder:
Originally Posted By sitdwnandhngon:


I'm sure at some point scientists will be able to emulate the conditions required to "spark" random chemicals into cells of some kind, but there's just so many variables and unknowns it's going to be long time before enough research is done into it to really understand how it happened.


Random chemicals into cells? I guess you’ll just have to keep having “faith” that happened.


Faith implies a belief in something despite evidence for it.

I believe that some day people much smarter and with much better funding than I have will crack precisely what is required to kickstart life on a cellular level. Any guess as to the methods right now are nothing more than hypothesis that will need to be tested.

I don't make any claims to actually know what those processes were, that's what the scientific method is for.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:17:02 PM EDT
[#6]
And when they finally do find out, what are they then going to do with that info?
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:17:06 PM EDT
[#7]
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:20:57 PM EDT
[#8]
"Dissent from Darwinism?"
Darwinian evolution makes no statement about how life began.  It simply says that however it began, it descended from earlier forms to current forms via mutation, adaptation and natural selection.  
Maybe God created the first life and set up the parameters of the laws of biology and physics so that it would unfold exactly as it has.  There's no way to prove that's not the case.  But that's not a matter of scientific study.  That's not something science can prove or disprove so it's not something to be taken into account when performing scientific study.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:23:07 PM EDT
[#9]
So, it's going to take a massive increase in knowledge and technology to even remotely produce something resembling a basic cell, but yet "nature" did it on it's own by a completely and totally unknown process. Nature doesn't have knowledge and tech.

Question...why isn't nature producing new life on Earth today? Aren't the conditions more favorable today than 4 billion years ago?
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:25:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
So, it's going to take a massive increase in knowledge and technology to even remotely produce something resembling a basic cell, but yet "nature" did it on it's own by a completely and totally unknown process. Nature doesn't have knowledge and tech.

Question...why isn't nature producing new life on Earth today? Aren't the conditions more favorable today than 4 billion years ago?
View Quote


microbes are everywhere and will eat anything new, this planet is literally infested with life and I wouldn't be surprised if we've already contaminated Mars with microbes that are already multiplying rapidly there with no competition
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:25:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
So, it's going to take a massive increase in knowledge and technology to even remotely produce something resembling a basic cell, but yet "nature" did it on it's own by a completely and totally unknown process. Nature doesn't have knowledge and tech.

Question...why isn't nature producing new life on Earth today? Aren't the conditions more favorable today than 4 billion years ago?
View Quote



No one knows if it happened that way or if, as you suggest obliquely, God created life.  But what we DO know is that, if life was created out of nothing, then it's not possible to study it.  Are you telling scientists not to study it because the possibility they're researching goes against your beliefs?
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:37:13 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
So, it's going to take a massive increase in knowledge and technology to even remotely produce something resembling a basic cell, but yet "nature" did it on it's own by a completely and totally unknown process. Nature doesn't have knowledge and tech.

Question...why isn't nature producing new life on Earth today? Aren't the conditions more favorable today than 4 billion years ago?
View Quote


The knowledge and tech are to try to understand how it happened, nature didn't need it, but we do to replicate those conditions.

It's like shooting darts in the dark trying to pinpoint the conditions required for that process to take place, it will take time. One things that humans have very little of compared to the earth, the earth had lots and lots of time for those specific sets of conditions to occur.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:43:39 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sitdwnandhngon:


I'm sure at some point scientists will be able to emulate the conditions required to "spark" random chemicals into cells of some kind, but there's just so many variables and unknowns it's going to be long time before enough research is done into it to really understand how it happened.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sitdwnandhngon:
Originally Posted By webtaz99:
They have found bacteria (which are very advanced compared to a collection of proto-chemicals) from 3.5 billion years ago.
The bombardments, vulcanism, comet impacts, earthquakes, and other nature disasters over that time
make understanding the origin of life basically impossible.


I'm sure at some point scientists will be able to emulate the conditions required to "spark" random chemicals into cells of some kind, but there's just so many variables and unknowns it's going to be long time before enough research is done into it to really understand how it happened.


That will never happen.

A trillion sealed flasks with chemicals, gas and a spark will never yield a unique, self replicating life form.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:45:36 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RikWriter:



No one knows if it happened that way or if, as you suggest obliquely, God created life.  But what we DO know is that, if life was created out of nothing, then it's not possible to study it.  Are you telling scientists not to study it because the possibility they're researching goes against your beliefs?
View Quote
I'm not telling anyone to do or don't do something in this thread. Men (scientists) are going to do what they are going to do. All I did was point out that vast knowledge and tech will evidently be needed to duplicate what nature did without those things. I find that a bit interesting.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:46:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jackthom8:
microbes are everywhere and will eat anything new, this planet is literally infested with life and I wouldn't be surprised if we've already contaminated Mars with microbes that are already multiplying rapidly there with no competition
View Quote
Doubtful. The scientists went to extraordinary lengths to prevent it, and the surface of Mars is extremely hazardous to Terrestrial life.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:48:02 PM EDT
[#16]
To my mind, it’s akin to the allegory of the monkeys and the typewriters.

Put a hundred monkeys in front of a hundred typewriters for 100 years and chances are one of them will bang out MacBeth.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:49:59 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sitdwnandhngon:


The knowledge and tech are to try to understand how it happened, nature didn't need it, but we do to replicate those conditions.

It's like shooting darts in the dark trying to pinpoint the conditions required for that process to take place, it will take time. One things that humans have very little of compared to the earth, the earth had lots and lots of time for those specific sets of conditions to occur.
View Quote
And how will they know if the conditions or parameters actually did produce life if they can't produce something resembling life from some sort of duplicated conditions? In the end, if they don't, it will just be an opinion that those conditions produced life.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:52:14 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jackthom8:


microbes are everywhere and will eat anything new, this planet is literally infested with life and I wouldn't be surprised if we've already contaminated Mars with microbes that are already multiplying rapidly there with no competition
View Quote
Not even one new life has been revealed, and other microbes killed them. Quite an assertion. I guess we'll just have to keep waiting.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 1:55:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sitdwnandhngon:


I'm sure at some point scientists will be able to emulate the conditions required to "spark" random chemicals into cells of some kind,
but there's just so many variables and unknowns it's going to be long time before enough research is done into it to really understand how it happened.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sitdwnandhngon:
Originally Posted By webtaz99:
They have found bacteria (which are very advanced compared to a collection of proto-chemicals) from 3.5 billion years ago.
The bombardments, vulcanism, comet impacts, earthquakes, and other nature disasters over that time
make understanding the origin of life basically impossible.


I'm sure at some point scientists will be able to emulate the conditions required to "spark" random chemicals into cells of some kind,
but there's just so many variables and unknowns it's going to be long time before enough research is done into it to really understand how it happened.

Hey look.

That's hopeful faith.

In spite of the evidence.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 2:03:59 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:
To my mind, it’s akin to the allegory of the monkeys and the typewriters.

Put a hundred monkeys in front of a hundred typewriters for 100 years and chances are one of them will bang out MacBeth.
View Quote


Idonbelivit
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 2:16:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:
To my mind, it’s akin to the allegory of the monkeys and the typewriters.

Put a hundred monkeys in front of a hundred typewriters for 100 years and chances are one of them will bang out MacBeth.
View Quote

"But religious beleivers are irrational and believe things with no evidence!!!"
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 2:30:16 PM EDT
[#22]
Is this another "man walked with dinosaurs" and "carbon dating is wrong" assholes?
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 2:37:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Into_the_Void:
Is this another "man walked with dinosaurs" and "carbon dating is wrong" assholes?
View Quote

I think this is an "irreducible complexity and I'm not really arguing for a creationist point of view" thing. Cdesign proponentsists and all that.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 2:41:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cypher214] [#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 556_Chowder:


Random chemicals into cells? I guess you'll just have to keep having "faith" that happened.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 556_Chowder:
Originally Posted By sitdwnandhngon:


I'm sure at some point scientists will be able to emulate the conditions required to "spark" random chemicals into cells of some kind, but there's just so many variables and unknowns it's going to be long time before enough research is done into it to really understand how it happened.


Random chemicals into cells? I guess you'll just have to keep having "faith" that happened.

The problem with the "God of the gaps" argument, where you use God to explain everything science hasn't yet figured out, is the gaps keep getting filled.

1,000 years ago, it worked like a charm.

The goal of science is to understand natural processes, not "disprove God" like some people want to believe.  You are free to believe whatever you want to believe but I kinda like to know how shit works regardless.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 2:47:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DK-Prof] [#25]
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 2:47:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By webtaz99:
Doubtful. The scientists went to extraordinary lengths to prevent it, and the surface of Mars is extremely hazardous to Terrestrial life.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By webtaz99:
Originally Posted By jackthom8:
microbes are everywhere and will eat anything new, this planet is literally infested with life and I wouldn't be surprised if we've already contaminated Mars with microbes that are already multiplying rapidly there with no competition
Doubtful. The scientists went to extraordinary lengths to prevent it, and the surface of Mars is extremely hazardous to Terrestrial life.

You might want to do some reading about extremophiles.  We keep finding life in conditions where it's supposedly "impossible".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 2:52:52 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
So, it's going to take a massive increase in knowledge and technology to even remotely produce something resembling a basic cell, but yet "nature" did it on it's own by a completely and totally unknown process. Nature doesn't have knowledge and tech.

Question...why isn't nature producing new life on Earth today? Aren't the conditions more favorable today than 4 billion years ago?
View Quote

Nature has one thing we don't have: time.  Lots and lots and lots of time.

Our entire scientific knowledge base is a tiny insignificant snapshot on the timeline of Earth.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 2:56:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cypher214:

You might want to do some reading about extremophiles.  We keep finding life in conditions where it's supposedly "impossible".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cypher214:
Originally Posted By webtaz99:
Originally Posted By jackthom8:
microbes are everywhere and will eat anything new, this planet is literally infested with life and I wouldn't be surprised if we've already contaminated Mars with microbes that are already multiplying rapidly there with no competition
Doubtful. The scientists went to extraordinary lengths to prevent it, and the surface of Mars is extremely hazardous to Terrestrial life.

You might want to do some reading about extremophiles.  We keep finding life in conditions where it's supposedly "impossible".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile
Extremophiles evolved into organisms that can withstand extreme conditions.
That's a big difference from evolving under extreme conditions.


Link Posted: 3/31/2024 3:01:19 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Into_the_Void:
Is this another "man walked with dinosaurs" and "carbon dating is wrong" assholes?
View Quote
Swell. Tells us about the natural process that produced life.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 3:07:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TomMcC] [#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cypher214:

Nature has one thing we don't have: time.  Lots and lots and lots of time.

Our entire scientific knowledge base is a tiny insignificant snapshot on the timeline of Earth.
View Quote
And what is the mechanism by which time creates or helps create living things. Isn't that like saying, what nature has going for it in this process is "energy". Or "matter". How do those things relate in some way to produce life? The process is wholly unknown, and I have my serious doubts it will never, or even can be known.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 3:15:11 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


I was going to post something similar.

Darwin's work doesn't speak to the origins of life (biogenesis) at all.  If someone is arguing for a divine origin of life (or Aliens, or magic, or whatever), they are NOT arguing against, or refuting, "Darwinism" in any way, shape or form.

Darwin's work (and the subsequent work on evolution), is all about how life can change and adapt over time, but has nothing at all to do with how life originated.



View Quote

True, Darwin didn't speak specifically to origins (he had no idea about how things really began from a naturalist point of view). But, now, we have secular and religious scientists saying quite a bit about the subject. Some might even concede that abiogenesis is a necessary corollary to "Darwinism". For "Darwinism" to take place, you need life, life got here by purely natural processes. I'd bet Darwin thought about these things. And, my guess, is that he would approve of such things as "abiogenesis".
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 3:16:51 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
And what is the mechanism by which time creates or helps create living things. Isn't that like saying, what nature has going for it in this process is "energy". Or "matter". How do those things relate in some way to produce life? The process is wholly unknown, and I have my serious doubts it will never, or even can't be known.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
Originally Posted By Cypher214:

Nature has one thing we don't have: time.  Lots and lots and lots of time.

Our entire scientific knowledge base is a tiny insignificant snapshot on the timeline of Earth.
And what is the mechanism by which time creates or helps create living things. Isn't that like saying, what nature has going for it in this process is "energy". Or "matter". How do those things relate in some way to produce life? The process is wholly unknown, and I have my serious doubts it will never, or even can't be known.

Not knowing something and using God as the answer is the very definition of "God of the gaps".  I didn't say "time creates living things" but what time does offer is the chance for a near-infinite number of combinations of circumstances to occur.

"Never" is a really fucking long time and the vast majority of our current knowledge was unknowable at one point in the past.  The biggest difference between science and religion is science isn't claiming to be infallible and have all the answers.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 3:24:10 PM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cypher214:

Not knowing something and using God as the answer is the very definition of "God of the gaps".  I didn't say "time creates living things" but what time does offer is the chance for a near-infinite number of combinations of circumstances to occur.

"Never" is a really fucking long time and the vast majority of our current knowledge was unknowable at one point in the past.  The biggest difference between science and religion is science isn't claiming to be infallible and have all the answers.
View Quote
I was merely trying to understand how you think time is involved in the creation of life. You didn't mention energy or matter, so time was your only mentioned creating force or condition. Time, as cosmology says today, isn't infinite. Is 13.8 billion years sufficient to produce your near "infinite combinations"? Is more time needed to produce more life? How many combinations has nature tried so far? Has nature, even, tried at all?

I never mentioned anything about God.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 3:52:31 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:

True, Darwin didn't speak specifically to origins (he had no idea about how things really began from a naturalist point of view). But, now, we have secular and religious scientists saying quite a bit about the subject. Some might even concede that abiogenesis is a necessary corollary to "Darwinism". For "Darwinism" to take place, you need life, life got here by purely natural processes. I'd bet Darwin thought about these things. And, my guess, is that he would approve of such things as "abiogenesis".
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


I was going to post something similar.

Darwin's work doesn't speak to the origins of life (biogenesis) at all.  If someone is arguing for a divine origin of life (or Aliens, or magic, or whatever), they are NOT arguing against, or refuting, "Darwinism" in any way, shape or form.

Darwin's work (and the subsequent work on evolution), is all about how life can change and adapt over time, but has nothing at all to do with how life originated.




True, Darwin didn't speak specifically to origins (he had no idea about how things really began from a naturalist point of view). But, now, we have secular and religious scientists saying quite a bit about the subject. Some might even concede that abiogenesis is a necessary corollary to "Darwinism". For "Darwinism" to take place, you need life, life got here by purely natural processes. I'd bet Darwin thought about these things. And, my guess, is that he would approve of such things as "abiogenesis".





Your guess. "Some might."  "Saying quite a bit."  "I'd bet."  Come on, man.  That's not an argument.  It's a baseless assertion.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 4:03:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RikWriter:





Your guess. "Some might."  "Saying quite a bit."  "I'd bet."  Come on, man.  That's not an argument.  It's a baseless assertion.
View Quote
I'm really not trying to make an argument about Darwin at all. Not even asserting, just speculating a bit.

Logically though, life must proceed Darwinian evolution. If I may...that's a logical assertion.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 4:06:48 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
I'm really not trying to make an argument about Darwin at all. Not even asserting, just speculating a bit.

Logically though, life must proceed Darwinian evolution. If I may...that's a logical assertion.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
Originally Posted By RikWriter:





Your guess. "Some might."  "Saying quite a bit."  "I'd bet."  Come on, man.  That's not an argument.  It's a baseless assertion.
I'm really not trying to make an argument about Darwin at all. Not even asserting, just speculating a bit.

Logically though, life must proceed Darwinian evolution. If I may...that's a logical assertion.



Yes, but Darwinian evolution is the product of that life, not the originator.  However life got here, it evolved from its previous forms to its present forms, whether that evolution was an inevitable part of God's plan or random chance.  How the life got here is not the purview of evolutionary biologists.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 4:19:22 PM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RikWriter:



Yes, but Darwinian evolution is the product of that life, not the originator.  However life got here, it evolved from its previous forms to its present forms, whether that evolution was an inevitable part of God's plan or random chance.  How the life got here is not the purview of evolutionary biologists.
View Quote
I would think that evolutionary scientists do have a very keen interest in how it all started, just based on the amount ink they have used in defending "naturalism" and it's influence of "science" in general.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 4:23:27 PM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
I would think that evolutionary scientists do have a very keen interest in how it all started, just based on the amount ink they have used in defending "naturalism" and it's influence of "science" in general.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
Originally Posted By RikWriter:



Yes, but Darwinian evolution is the product of that life, not the originator.  However life got here, it evolved from its previous forms to its present forms, whether that evolution was an inevitable part of God's plan or random chance.  How the life got here is not the purview of evolutionary biologists.
I would think that evolutionary scientists do have a very keen interest in how it all started, just based on the amount ink they have used in defending "naturalism" and it's influence of "science" in general.



Think about it.  I already explained it.  Science CAN'T just throw up its hands and say "God did this so I won't try to figure it out anymore."  If God did something, it's not going to be replicable either in theory or experiment and that's the end of the science portion of our program.  Scientists can't just make that call like the old cartoon with the formula that ends with "And then a miracle happened!"  That's not their job.  They have to keep looking whether there's anything to find or not.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 4:42:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Boom_Stick] [#39]
Ive seen this vid before. I think he makes the point that all darwin saw under the microscope was a blob (the cell). If had been able to see all the micro biological machinery we can see today in a cell, he may have written some different conclusions
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 4:46:59 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By feudist:
Extremophiles evolved into organisms that can withstand extreme conditions.
That's a big difference from evolving under extreme conditions.


View Quote

An argument can be made that the first extremeophiles HAD to evolve in extreme conditions, because conditions were nothing but extreme.

Link Posted: 3/31/2024 4:48:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FredMan] [#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
And what is the mechanism by which time creates or helps create living things. Isn't that like saying, what nature has going for it in this process is "energy". Or "matter". How do those things relate in some way to produce life? The process is wholly unknown, and I have my serious doubts it will never, or even can be known.
View Quote

Pure, random chance.

In an infinite universe anything can happen.

Go back and think about the monkeys and typewriters.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 4:50:03 PM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RikWriter:



Think about it.  I already explained it.  Science CAN'T just throw up its hands and say "God did this so I won't try to figure it out anymore."  If God did something, it's not going to be replicable either in theory or experiment and that's the end of the science portion of our program.  Scientists can't just make that call like the old cartoon with the formula that ends with "And then a miracle happened!"  That's not their job.  They have to keep looking whether there's anything to find or not.
View Quote
Actually, the first Western scientists said something like "Look what God did, let's find out how it works".

I don't see how a belief in God is a hinderance to true science in the least. It's true, a secular scientist, and a religious scientist are going to start from very different presuppositions, but the idea of "God" doesn't preclude the quest for understanding whatsoever.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 4:50:03 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Ive seen this vid before. I think he makes the point that all darwin saw under the microscope was a blob (the cell). If had been able to see all the micro biological machinery we can see today in a cell, he may have written some different conclusions
View Quote



Probably not.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 4:51:06 PM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
Actually, the first Western scientists said something like "Look what God did, let's find out how it works".

I don't see how a belief in God is a hinderance to true science in the least. It's true, a secular scientist, and a religious scientist are going to start from very different presuppositions, but the idea of "God" doesn't preclude the quest for understanding whatsoever.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
Originally Posted By RikWriter:



Think about it.  I already explained it.  Science CAN'T just throw up its hands and say "God did this so I won't try to figure it out anymore."  If God did something, it's not going to be replicable either in theory or experiment and that's the end of the science portion of our program.  Scientists can't just make that call like the old cartoon with the formula that ends with "And then a miracle happened!"  That's not their job.  They have to keep looking whether there's anything to find or not.
Actually, the first Western scientists said something like "Look what God did, let's find out how it works".

I don't see how a belief in God is a hinderance to true science in the least. It's true, a secular scientist, and a religious scientist are going to start from very different presuppositions, but the idea of "God" doesn't preclude the quest for understanding whatsoever.



It sure as hell would if you start from the assumption that at some point, life didn't evolve on its own but was created.  At that point, you'd stop looking.
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 4:53:58 PM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:

Pure, random chance.

In an infinite universe anything can happen.

Go back and think about the monkeys and typewriters.
View Quote
And how does that "random chance" work? Is that some sort of process? Does chance have an energy all it's own, maybe we can perceive it with our eyes, feel it with our hands? And does "chance" destroy what it has just helped to create also?
Link Posted: 3/31/2024 4:56:08 PM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RikWriter:



It sure as hell would if you start from the assumption that at some point, life didn't evolve on its own but was created.  At that point, you'd stop looking.
View Quote
Depends on how you would view "creation".

But if "creation" were true, it wouldn't destroy science, just redirect it to other things.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 9:36:31 AM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
I was merely trying to understand how you think time is involved in the creation of life. You didn't mention energy or matter, so time was your only mentioned creating force or condition. Time, as cosmology says today, isn't infinite. Is 13.8 billion years sufficient to produce your near "infinite combinations"? Is more time needed to produce more life? How many combinations has nature tried so far? Has nature, even, tried at all?

I never mentioned anything about God.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TomMcC:
Originally Posted By Cypher214:

Not knowing something and using God as the answer is the very definition of "God of the gaps".  I didn't say "time creates living things" but what time does offer is the chance for a near-infinite number of combinations of circumstances to occur.

"Never" is a really fucking long time and the vast majority of our current knowledge was unknowable at one point in the past.  The biggest difference between science and religion is science isn't claiming to be infallible and have all the answers.
I was merely trying to understand how you think time is involved in the creation of life. You didn't mention energy or matter, so time was your only mentioned creating force or condition. Time, as cosmology says today, isn't infinite. Is 13.8 billion years sufficient to produce your near "infinite combinations"? Is more time needed to produce more life? How many combinations has nature tried so far? Has nature, even, tried at all?

I never mentioned anything about God.

Why are you anthropomorphizing nature?

Nature doesn't "try" to do anything.  I never said infinite combinations.  I said "near-infinite" and that's a very important distinction.  You're making it sound like "nature" kept playing with chemicals in a lab until it made life and that's asinine.  

Why do you keep bringing up "new life"?
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 9:43:18 AM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sitdwnandhngon:


Faith implies a belief in something despite evidence for it.

I believe that some day people much smarter and with much better funding than I have will crack precisely what is required to kickstart life on a cellular level. Any guess as to the methods right now are nothing more than hypothesis that will need to be tested.

I don't make any claims to actually know what those processes were, that's what the scientific method is for.
View Quote

Exactly…. That’s called faith. There is no evidence that we will have the knowledge or ability to ever do that or if it’s even possible. But your put your faith in science and scientists to achieve something when we have no evidence that it’s achievable.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 9:46:14 AM EDT
[#49]
Not really a mystery to me. Shrug.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 9:51:10 AM EDT
[#50]
Scientists figured out how to make organic matter from inorganic matter back in the 1950’s.

Supposedly Jimmy Carter was given the answer to his questions about life on earth during his presidency and it mentally broke him.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top