Explanation of How Chemical and Physical Processes Established Foundation for Life

[72doug2,2S]

Science is not a faith. That being said there are many who faithfully believe all knowledge can be found in science. That is plain balderdash! That kind of modernity thinking has gone the way of the dodo bird.

[kang]

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
Science is not a faith. That being said there are many who faithfully believe all knowledge can be found in science. That is plain balderdash! That kind of modernity thinking has gone the way of the dodo bird.

Agreed. There may be aspects of science that we may never learn. There may be scientific ideas that are beyond our mental capacity. There might be some form of mathematics, or multi-dimensional thought that we are just not capable of. But that does not mean that a god is responsible, either.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by nostatic
May have. But everything requires a leap of faith, right

The crux of the argument is that random events happen, and the environment can select certain outcomes. If you can show that underlying reactions *could* have taken place, that indicates a possible route to complexity.

The question of "life" v. "no life" is somewhat beyond this. How do you determine what is sentient? Is reproduction the gold standard for "life"? Is autonomy required?

This article is talking about the underlying science, not the philosophy or metaphysics. People have generated amino acids from primodial soup. You can also do rna replication that doesn't require enzyme mediation (another key component of a grander "zero-to-hero" theory). Have we gone from soup to "life" in the test tube? No, but we've done quite a few of the component reactions. We haven't spent billions of years flipping coins...

What gets me is that some people will accept the existence of a higher power with arguably no empirical evidence, yet will dismiss science and theories like this because they haven't created "life" from soup in vitro. A double standard perhaps?

Thanks for the level-headed reply. Just one point of clarification, though. I'm not "dismissing" science and theories like this in the least. While I admitedly do not understand much about it, I do find it exciting and would never be so bold as to dispute their results. I simply dispute their conclusions.

I very much believe it is advantageous and necessary for mankind to stay on this path. Research like theirs will probably one day lead to a solid connection to life. Or then again, maybe not. But they do need to keep looking, and I support that whole-heartedly.

I think where the danger lies is when this kind of information is fed to folks like Kang. I point to his confrontational, attacking reply (in sharp contrast to your reply) to help make my point.

Also understanding very little about what they are doing (but wholey unable to admit it to himself, much less anyone else), he none the less goes on the attack. He makes all kinds of stereotypical assumptions about me and what I wish to see (or not) from this research. He attempts to paint me as some head-in-the-sand "Christian" that rejects such research out-of-hand. As the enemy of such research. As having a narrow, closed mind. Why the personal, and quite erroneous attack?

Because I dared to question their conclusion. Kang worships at the alter of "science" in the same mindless way he accuses the faithful of worshipping at theirs. He is unable to question what he reads, accepting it all on face value, leaning heavily on their (not his) credentials for support.

Yes, they have credentials. Does that mean their conclusions are beyond reproach? I guess it does in the same way the Pope's are beyond reproach for his true believers. I see the same blind faith, and innability to ponder the deeper meaning of this kind of research, in folks like Kang. They unflinchingly accept all of this as unshakeable fact because they are afraid, or unable, to ask any questions.

[kang]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Thanks for the level-headed reply. Just one point of clarification, though. I'm not "dismissing" science and theories like this in the least. While I admitedly do not understand much about it, I do find it exciting and would never be so bold as to dispute their results. I simply dispute their conclusions.

I very much believe it is advantageous and necessary for mankind to stay on this path. Research like theirs will probably one day lead to a solid connection to life. Or then again, maybe not. But they do need to keep looking, and I support that whole-heartedly.

I think where the danger lies is when this kind of information is fed to folks like Kang. I point to his confrontational, attacking reply (in sharp contrast to your reply) to help make my point.

Also understanding very little about what they are doing (but wholey unable to admit it to himself, much less anyone else), he none the less goes on the attack. He makes all kinds of stereotypical assumptions about me and what I wish to see (or not) from this research. He attempts to paint me as some head-in-the-sand "Christian" that rejects such research out-of-hand. As the enemy of such research. As having a narrow, closed mind. Why the personal, and quite erroneous attack?

Because I dared to question their conclusion. Kang worships at the alter of "science" in the same mindless way he accuses the faithful of worshipping at theirs. He is unable to question what he reads, accepting it all on face value, leaning heavily on their (not his) credentials for support.

Yes, they have credentials. Does that mean their conclusions are beyond reproach? I guess it does in the same way the Pope's are beyond reproach for his true believers. I see the same blind faith, and innability to ponder the deeper meaning of this kind of research, in folks like Kang. They unflinchingly accept all of this as unshakeable fact because they are afraid, or unable, to ask any questions.

I don’t know why you think my reply was confrontational and attacking. I was simply addressing your points, one by one. There are a lot of “head-in-the-sand Christians” in these discussions, and I often forget who is who. Some of your statements appear to be head-in-the-sand and some don’t. Like many of us, I suppose you have your head in the sand for some things but not others. Forgive me if I forget exactly where each of us have our heads in the sand.

I do not worship at the alter of science in any manner whatsoever, and certainly not in the mindless way I accuse of the faithful. I totally question what I read and do not accept any of it on face value. This theory, like all others, will be tested. If it is shown to be false, it will be thrown out immediately. On these points, you are the one who is erroneous.

What I will fess up to is that I detest those who jump to conclusions or form irrational conclusions. Perhaps this comes across as worshipping science, but it is an entirely different thing. This is one of the main problems I have with religion, god, and head-in-the-sand Christians. They take their feeling that god exists and establish religion based on it. You know where religion has gone.

Your post above, the one I replied to, simply seemed to be jumping to conclusions. Go back and read my reply, the one you objected to, and you will see that all I was doing was objecting to the places where I felt you formed an erroneous conclusion. And to me, that is the point of these discussions. We each make posts and others object to where we have formed erroneous conclusions. This is how we learn.

[Tervuren]

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
Science is not a faith. That being said there are many who faithfully believe all knowledge can be found in science. That is plain balderdash! That kind of modernity thinking has gone the way of the dodo bird.

I cannot tell you how much it annoys me when someone says the following:"Evolution is just a theory" - in relation to its being taught in schools. They have very little clue of anything scientific. According to them, gravity then shouldn't be taught either, as even though we can observe gravity, the explanations are theories. A theory is as far as I know something that all existing evidence points to its correctness.

its my opinion, that part of current evolutionary theory is true, and that other parts are built on misinformation, lack of information, or convenient dropping of facts. I do not consider it a theory at all, but that parts that make it up, are factual, correct, and I would make more emphasis when teaching it, was is hypothesis, and theory.