Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
In scientific realms one uses scientific evidence. In other areas one uses different sources. Abiogenesis is well within the scientific realms.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Building bocks, Chemicals and Life
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Brian2
Veteran Member
Yes and it does not say that life is chemically based.
It says that the only evidence it has is physical evidence. But so what, that is all science can study and we could have said that was going to happen before abiogenesis started as a science.
What it is studying is the material side of life, the physical, biological side. I hope abiogenesis does not come out with any claims that life is just chemically based and leaves those claims to the atheists. If abiogenesis came out with claims like that then they would be overstepping the bounds of science imo
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Brian2
Veteran Member
Do I?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Yep.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
One of the wild cards of science, that allow it to exceed it own philosophy, is based on probability and statistics; fuzzy dice data. A sharp data point is more useful than one that has balloned up to cover a volume; margin of error.
For example, there is no hard data connected to life on any other planet other than the earth. There are no data "points". However, many scientists think this premise is valid based on fuzzy dice data points; part real, part logical and part irrational.
If you stick to a rational theory, this is much harder to prove, since the result has to be sharp logical affect; sharp data point. One cannot use fuzzy dice at every stage to put a man on the moon. We need sharp way points If you deal in fuzzy dice theory, you can use beachballs for data points; subjective addendum. I am not sure if this is really hard science, even if it is easier to do; assemble line science.
If you look at abiogenesis, most of the breakthroughs came from a logical plan based on assumed cause and affects, applied to the early earth conditions, deduced from geology. These conditions were extrapolated and tested using known chemistry and chemical techniques. One does not just assume it will happen by chance, since there are too many steps that need occur and have to build upon each other. Fuzzy dice reactions that only make trace amounts of the needed precursors lower the long term odds of each step. We use only reactions that are product driven; least fuzzy dice. Fuzzy dice is also used by gaming industries, politics and pollsters, with pollsters able to trick the subjects to give the data they want.
If we mix water and oil, and add energy; agitation, we can get an emulsion. The energy added is converted into the potential energy, within the created surface tension. If we let the emulsion settle, so it can lower the potential energy within the surface tension, we will get order out of chaos, as two clear layers appear. Water and organics have this constant surface tension battle, everywhere in cells, that allows water and organics to spontaneously phase change into cell membranes, organelles and water.
Alternate solvents like ammonia or ethanol are good household degreasers, and will dissolve organic materials much better than water. There is much less surface tension. The result are these systems would be more subject to randomness. The random approach may be better for alternate solvents. Fuzzy dice. may better describe the variety of happy endings with the same materials.
Water, via the high organic surface tension, makes the water-organic system more logical and reproducible; same lowest surface tension sweet spots. This degree of order is so dominate, that even complex protein are folded in the exact same way, time after time, based on the goal of minimal surface tension. Any residual surface tension means extra energy on specific surfaces.
Based on fuzzy dice data, that needs no logical explanation, all solvents can work as well as water. Such science has no hard data, but who needs it when you have fuzzy dice. I can at least show the surface tension trick of water and organics, and compare this to any solvent; sharp points vs fuzzy dice.
For example, there is no hard data connected to life on any other planet other than the earth. There are no data "points". However, many scientists think this premise is valid based on fuzzy dice data points; part real, part logical and part irrational.
If you stick to a rational theory, this is much harder to prove, since the result has to be sharp logical affect; sharp data point. One cannot use fuzzy dice at every stage to put a man on the moon. We need sharp way points If you deal in fuzzy dice theory, you can use beachballs for data points; subjective addendum. I am not sure if this is really hard science, even if it is easier to do; assemble line science.
If you look at abiogenesis, most of the breakthroughs came from a logical plan based on assumed cause and affects, applied to the early earth conditions, deduced from geology. These conditions were extrapolated and tested using known chemistry and chemical techniques. One does not just assume it will happen by chance, since there are too many steps that need occur and have to build upon each other. Fuzzy dice reactions that only make trace amounts of the needed precursors lower the long term odds of each step. We use only reactions that are product driven; least fuzzy dice. Fuzzy dice is also used by gaming industries, politics and pollsters, with pollsters able to trick the subjects to give the data they want.
If we mix water and oil, and add energy; agitation, we can get an emulsion. The energy added is converted into the potential energy, within the created surface tension. If we let the emulsion settle, so it can lower the potential energy within the surface tension, we will get order out of chaos, as two clear layers appear. Water and organics have this constant surface tension battle, everywhere in cells, that allows water and organics to spontaneously phase change into cell membranes, organelles and water.
Alternate solvents like ammonia or ethanol are good household degreasers, and will dissolve organic materials much better than water. There is much less surface tension. The result are these systems would be more subject to randomness. The random approach may be better for alternate solvents. Fuzzy dice. may better describe the variety of happy endings with the same materials.
Water, via the high organic surface tension, makes the water-organic system more logical and reproducible; same lowest surface tension sweet spots. This degree of order is so dominate, that even complex protein are folded in the exact same way, time after time, based on the goal of minimal surface tension. Any residual surface tension means extra energy on specific surfaces.
Based on fuzzy dice data, that needs no logical explanation, all solvents can work as well as water. Such science has no hard data, but who needs it when you have fuzzy dice. I can at least show the surface tension trick of water and organics, and compare this to any solvent; sharp points vs fuzzy dice.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh definitely yes!
Brian2
Veteran Member
OK so I suppose that you and @Subduction Zone would say that science has the right to say that life is just chemicals and chemical processes if that is all they find when they story living bodies.
Maybe it has that right but I still think it is going beyond the bounds of science.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Do you know what a strawman argument is? It is when you distort what your opponents are saying. You really should not do this.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Maybe you could tell me what I am distorting and how, if you want.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
We have always stated properly that all of the scientific evidence out there only supports that life is chemical in nature. That would mean that it is the only rational belief. Life and what drives it does fall under the category of the sciences. It is not a matter of "right" it is a matter of "is". You tried to distort the argument with loaded language.
You really do need to understand the burden of proof. Science again and again provides explanations that work. Nothing else has come close. Scientists have demonstrated that they have earned that "right". What you champion has not. At this point the burden of proof is upon you and you need much more than mere anecdotes and stories.
Heyo
Veteran Member
1. what @Subduction Zone said.
2. I don't remember if I told you specifically but I and others have explained how science works hundreds of times here.
All scientific insights are preliminary. You can imagine every statement by a scientist prefaced by "from all what we know today".
Scientists haven't found anything else but chemicals in living things and it is not for the lack of trying. Scientists work for a living. They have read and wrote tens of thousands of papers. They have conducted experiments.
That's why we grant their statements about the real world a bit more authority than someone who read one book that isn't even peer reviewed.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Anecdotes and stories are evidence for me but not the sort of evidence science can use it seems. That does not mean that the anecdotes and stores aren't true.
Brian2
Veteran Member
It is still not right for science to say that all we have found is physical therefore spirits do not exist.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
They may be for you. But they won't be for people that use critical thinking..
And you used a logical fallacy at the end. No, that does not mean that they are not true. It only means that they are not evidence.
You are making a mistake here.
You will admit that unicellular bacteria are living things? You will also admit that a particle of sand is a non living thing?
Now carefully (under a microscope) observe all things that the unicellular bacteria does, and all the things that a particle of sand does. Then identify the set of unique properties and activities that are there in the bacteria that are not there in a sand particle. Those will be the features that characterize the 'living state" for the bacteria .
Now see if all those properties and features are explainable in terms of the chemical processes happening in the bacteria. The answer is, and has been, yes. Therefore science can reasonably conclude that the states associated with the adjective we call "life" are explained through physico-chemical processes happening inside living things.
I do not see any possible reasonable objection to this conclusion. Can you?
Brian2
Veteran Member
No it means that they are not evidence for people who only use critical thinking, who have a religious type faith in critical thinking as the only way.
Brian2
Veteran Member
That sounds reasonable but it can be misleading, esp in English.
In the Bible the Greek (and I think it is similar for the Hebrew) have different words for life which have different meanings. Physical life of the body is one thing but our consciousness is another. If science said that life is physically based (with reasoning that you use) then that is going to cover all of what life is probably and so be misleading as to what has been found and what life actually includes.
This website might help with what I am saying.
3 Greek Words for Life in the New Testament and How They Apply to Us
When science means life it means the life that is common to all bacteria, plants, animals etc. It certainly does not mean consciousness. In English language consciousness and life are two very different things. It is completely coherent in English language to speak of non living things that are conscious (like a possibly conscious AI) and living things that are non-conscious (plants, bacteria etc).
If the Bible confuses the two words then that is a problem with the English translators of the book, not with science.
Life - Wikipedia
Quotation
Life is a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from that which does not, and is defined by the capacity for growth, reaction to stimuli, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction.[2][3] Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. Biology is the science that studies life.