Atheists are not nearly as rationional as some think.

[shunyadragon]

Gould was not a scientist in the biological fields?

Dod.

My error nonetheless this article, not a scientific paper on the topic, but a statement of his philosophy.

It is not a paper.It is conference proceeding. And I answered that a proposed mechanism of polymerisation of orthophosphates does not explain creation of consciousness from those chemicals.

You have not answered my questions concerning this paper!!!!!!!

Still waiting . . .

.It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of consciousness. It deals with a specific mechanism in abiogenesis, and it appears you did not understand that. Reading comprehension in science appears to be a problem here.

[quote[
Can I expect you to read the links I provided and discuss on actual points they raise?[/QUOTE]



In the other thread

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My dear friend. Wind, dust, or nature do not say 'We reduced entropy'. It is your intelligence that determines that such happens. We are the seers. The idea that chemicals evolved to become organised structures that started generating intelligence is 'hypothesis' and not fact.

I am not saying anything more. No mental roadblock. No theology.

If your real argument was just an argument from incredulity, why couldn’t you just have been open about this from the beginning?

 

[gnostic]

Surely. Tell me the mechanism of evolution of consciousness and our subjective experiences from orthophosphate polymerisation.

Why only angry retorts and insults follow when someone points out that study of science from the outset does not include the conscious individual that studies?

The Core of 'Mind and Cosmos'

Or why we cannot evaluate dispassionately the argument that an evolved intelligence need not be suited for determining truth?

Evolutionary argument against naturalism - Wikipedia

Or why cannot we accept that there are alternate views to eliminative materialism within physics, as below?

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/mentaluniverse.pdf

Or why is reluctance to even consider that there are scientists and philosophers who wish to investigate the idea that consciousness is fundamental aspect of existence?

http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf
Can Panpsychism Become an Observational Science? | Matloff | Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research

Or do we do not want to even consider the critical opinion of a respected biologist/paleontologist regarding neo Darwinism?

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/06/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/

...

I know TOE. I have myself seen evolution of living forms under microscope and in chemicals in extracts of sediments through ages Permian to Recent. But I do not think that there is evidence of creation of life-consciousness from inert chemicals. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Am I wrong?

Ah. You do know that I am not a philosopher, and asking these questions that are more philosophies, would only go unanswered.

Because most of the times, because I find philosophies are just talk and philosophers often use circular arguments to justify their respective philosophical positions.

I just find that accepting philosophies for the sake of philosophy are just waste of time.

Talking about consciousness and cosmos together is more philosophy than science.

 

[HarmonyOfGodAndScience]

Your ignorance and misrepresentation of basic science and physics is appalling.

Again, respond to this because it is basic fundamental science. . .

The second Law of Thermodynamics applies only to a closed system. The relatively closed system in this case is our solar system. Yes, according to the Law entropy increases in the closed system, our solar system in billions of years in the future will likely be a victim of entropy.

In the meantime the origins of life (abiogenesis), the evolution of life and the history of life itself has no problem with energy sources to avoid the problem of entropy. The energy sources are the internal heat of the earth and the sun. Without the energy from the sun and the eternal heat of the earth no life could exist.

By the way the best bet for abiogensis ia around the heat vents of the mid ocean ridges where there is abundant energy for the beginnings of life. The simplist primitive fossils of the earliest life are found in rocks formed around ocean sea vents.

This is the science of physics. This reference in Britannica goes into detail how the secon law applies to life on earth.

Second law of thermodynamics

second law of thermodynamics

1. the branch of physical science that deals with the relations between heat and other forms of energy (such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy), and, by extension, of the relationships between all forms of energy.

Please respond with citing an alternate explanation for the 2nd Law that is different from what I presented.

My sincere apologies to you all that my remedial understanding of all things is so appalling. Please enlighten me. I genuinely want you to tell me, where did the "simplest primitive fossils of the earliest life" which are "formed around ocean sea vents" come from? Let alone the ocean, the rocks, the earth and everything in the universe.

(This is where you confound, confuse, and contrive elaborate explanations using multisyllabic words, while simultaneously insulting the intelligence of anyone who dares to disagree with you).

After which I will then ask you again, where did that earlier form of life, or element, or whatever you come up with; where did that come from? And we would go back and forth like that forever.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Where did the first ANYTHING come from? How did it get here? How did it come into existence at all?

God created it.

Whether or not you can stomach verbally acknowledging this fact, you know in your heart that I'm right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My sincere apologies to you all that my remedial understanding of all things is so appalling. Please enlighten me. I genuinely want you to tell me, where did the "simplest primitive fossils of the earliest life" which are "formed around ocean sea vents" come from? Let alone the ocean, the rocks, the earth and everything in the universe.

(This is where you confound, confuse, and contrive elaborate explanations using multisyllabic words, while simultaneously insulting the intelligence of anyone who dares to disagree with you).

After which I will then ask you again, where did that earlier form of life, or element, or whatever you come up with; where did that come from? And we would go back and forth like that forever.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Where did the first ANYTHING come from? How did it get here? How did it come into existence at all?

God created it.

Whether or not you can stomach verbally acknowledging this fact, you know in your heart that I'm right.

You seem to be making demands when you have no evidence at all. What evidence is there that this was an act of magic?

Now we can show you evidence for different events, we do not have a complete picture yet, but some evidence always beats no evidence at all.

 

[atanu]

Ah. You do know that I am not a philosopher, and asking these questions that are more philosophies, would only go unanswered.

Because most of the times, because I find philosophies are just talk and philosophers often use circular arguments to justify their respective philosophical positions.

I just find that accepting philosophies for the sake of philosophy are just waste of time.

Talking about consciousness and cosmos together is more philosophy than science.

Oh. No. At least three links were from reputed scientists. You do have have any problem with Dennet or Dawkins, no?

 

[atanu]

If your real argument was just an argument from incredulity, why couldn’t you just have been open about this from the beginning?

No. Not incedulity surely. My position is that abiogenesis is unproven by science and cannot be tested currently.

 

[atanu]

Could you explain this article, and understand the research involved? It deals with one of the chemical mechanisms in abiogenesis. Why is this mechanism important? Thermal polymerization is an interesting process, and the question is can you explain this, and the environment where this is known to take place.

From: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19720031104
The role of phosphates in chemical evolution.
Author and Affiliation:
Ponnamperuma, C. (NASA Ames Research Center, Exobiology Div., Moffett Field)
Chang, S. (NASA Ames Research Center, Exobiology Div., Moffett Field, Calif., United States)
Abstract: The hypohydrous thermal reaction between inorganic phosphates and nucleoside was investigated. The products of the reactions have been identified, and an attempt has been made to determine the mechanism. It was found that orthophosphates can be readily converted into condensed phosphates which are effective phosphorylating agents. Thermal polymerization of inorganic orthophosphates at moderate temperature as a general source of polyphosphates might have provided efficient phosphorylation and condensing agents for primordial syntheses.
Publication Date: Jan 01, 1971
...
Document Type: Conference Proceedings
...
Meeting Information: 3rd Chemical evolution and the origin of life; Third International Conference; April 19-25, 1970; Pont-a-Mousson; France

My error nonetheless this article, not a scientific paper on the topic, but a statement of his philosophy.

You have not answered my questions concerning this paper!!!!!!!

I have already answered. But I will indulge you again -- for the last time, since I feel that you insult intelligence of others too easily.

What uou have cited is an abstract of a conference proceeding of 1970. From this abstract alone no one can evaluate the proposed mechanism of the polymerisation of the orthoposphates, what to talk of creation/origin of life. The abstract claims that polyphosphates might have acted as condensing agents. So? How to evaluate and falsify that, especially from material provided in the abstract?

Do you do science like that?

How does that invalidate my position that abiogenesis is unproven and cannot be tested currently?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Not incedulity surely. My position is that abiogenesis is unproven by science and cannot be tested currently.

If that's a position you hold, I'll have to take your word for it, but it isn't the position we were just talking about.

 

[exchemist]

My sincere apologies to you all that my remedial understanding of all things is so appalling. Please enlighten me. I genuinely want you to tell me, where did the "simplest primitive fossils of the earliest life" which are "formed around ocean sea vents" come from? Let alone the ocean, the rocks, the earth and everything in the universe.

(This is where you confound, confuse, and contrive elaborate explanations using multisyllabic words, while simultaneously insulting the intelligence of anyone who dares to disagree with you).

After which I will then ask you again, where did that earlier form of life, or element, or whatever you come up with; where did that come from? And we would go back and forth like that forever.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Where did the first ANYTHING come from? How did it get here? How did it come into existence at all?

God created it.

Whether or not you can stomach verbally acknowledging this fact, you know in your heart that I'm right.

Where is the evidence that God created it?

I'll give you the answer, since you are so good at telling other people what they really think. There is none that meets any kind of scientific threshold.

The sole argument I have seen advanced for God in science is as a non-explanation for phenomena science does not yet have an explanation for. This is the God of the Gaps argument, which has failed countless times already in the course of the progress of science.

The origin of life is one of many unsolved problems in science, yet people do not seem to insist on God being responsible for, say, the anomalous rotation rates of galaxies. So the objection to natural abiogenesis appears specific to a certain sort of religious believer and must have a religious origin. Tell me, what is the doctrinal objection to it?

 

[atanu]

If that's a position you hold, I'll have to take your word for it, but it isn't the position we were just talking about.

You may check the post shown below.

abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Those who teach others about empiricism should themselves adhere to that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You may check the post shown below.

While you do seem to be all over the map in this thread, the specific post I replied to made a claim about consciousness.

 

[atanu]

While you do seem to be all over the map in this thread, the specific post I replied to made a claim about consciousness.

It evolved, probably.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It evolved, probably.

Wait - if you think consciousness could have evolved, why all the arguing that it can’t arise from “chemical” processes?

 

[shunyadragon]

My sincere apologies to you all that my remedial understanding of all things is so appalling. Please enlighten me. I genuinely want you to tell me, where did the "simplest primitive fossils of the earliest life" which are "formed around ocean sea vents" come from? Let alone the ocean, the rocks, the earth and everything in the universe.

(This is where you confound, confuse, and contrive elaborate explanations using multisyllabic words, while simultaneously insulting the intelligence of anyone who dares to disagree with you).

After which I will then ask you again, where did that earlier form of life, or element, or whatever you come up with; where did that come from? And we would go back and forth like that forever.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Where did the first ANYTHING come from? How did it get here? How did it come into existence at all?

God created it.

Whether or not you can stomach verbally acknowledging this fact, you know in your heart that I'm right.

See my thread on abiogenesis in evolution vs. creationist form section.

 

[gnostic]

Oh. No. At least three links were from reputed scientists. You do have have any problem with Dennet or Dawkins, no?

atanu, I follow the science, if it meets the requirements of Scientific Method and Peer Review.

I don’t follow the philosophy, even if if those philosophies come from scientists.

The philosophy don’t interested me, because it all come down to just talk. To me, philosophy may offer some useful guidelines, but if I want something like unadulterated reality, then I want any logical statement or logical explanation to backed by evidences.

Logic alone, is not enough. Logic with conclusive evidences is superior than just logic, because logic is man-made, and can be influenced and be biased.

I want any science to have objective observations, whether they are backed -

(A) by verifiable evidences or
(B) by repeatable and verifiable testings (eg experiments).
​

If Dennet and Dawkins have philosophies, then I am not interested in them.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh. No. At least three links were from reputed scientists. You do have have any problem with Dennet or Dawkins, no?

Dawlins and Dennett proposed their philosophies in these references. I do not agree nor necessarily disagree with their philosophy, but it does not represent relevant scientific references, only philosophical commentary, concerning the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution.

You still have not responded to the questions I asked concerning the previous science reference concerning abiogenesis. You will be asked again in the other thread.

I would be willing to participate in a thread on the question of Free Will, and discuss Dennett's view there, and the same for Dawkins I am willing to discuss his ontological naturalist view of the nature of our existence in an appropriate thread.

 

[ecco]

Do you see what I'm getting at? Where did the first ANYTHING come from? How did it get here? How did it come into existence at all?

God created it.

Of course you exclude your god from your own question. How convenient. Or, perhaps I'm wrong.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Where did your god come from? How did it get here? How did it come into existence at all?

Did god create god?​

 

[ecco]

Chemical evolution does not generate consciousness and life.

It is a big leap to say that chemical evolution suddenly leads to creation of an intelligence.

It evolved, probably.

Or why is reluctance to even consider that there are scientists and philosophers who wish to investigate the idea that consciousness is fundamental aspect of existence?

My position is that abiogenesis is unproven by science and cannot be tested currently.

I am very confused by your comments, some of which I posted above.

Perhaps it would be helpful to clearly and concisely spell out your positions regarding:

• Second Law
• abiogenesis
• evolution
• the rise of consciousness

 

[shunyadragon]

Chemical evolution does not generate consciousness and life.

Chemical evolution (abiogenesis) only represents the evolution of non-life chemicals to the earliest life forms.