For Danmac - Abiogenesis

[Danmac]

Yes!! That is exactly what I was referring to. I must not have used the right keywords in my search...

The point of both these experiments is not to prove how life did emerge but to show that it is POSSIBLE to start with simply molecules and produce more complex ones through purely natural processes. It is POSSIBLE that the introduction of electricity through electrical storms COULD lead to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is POSSIBLE that the energy released by an asteroid impact COULD cause chemical reactions leading to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is a work in progress and it doesn't prove anything yet. But it does support the idea that natural processes may have been sufficient for the emergence of life without God's direct intervention.

These words of yours in red are speculative words. There could just as easily be a God that created all things. Why should your speculation have merit and mine not?

 

[Tristesse]

The point of both these experiments is not to prove how life did emerge but to show that it is POSSIBLE to start with simply molecules and produce more complex ones through purely natural processes. It is POSSIBLE that the introduction of electricity through electrical storms COULD lead to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is POSSIBLE that the energy released by an asteroid impact COULD cause chemical reactions leading to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is a work in progress and it doesn't prove anything yet. But it does support the idea that natural processes may have been sufficient for the emergence of life without God's direct intervention.

These words of yours in red are speculative words. There could just as easily be a God that created all things. Why should your speculation have merit and mine not?

If you can explain things in terms of natural processes there is no need to add an extra explanation to the equation (god). Science doesn't deal in absolutes.

 

[Commoner]

The point of both these experiments is not to prove how life did emerge but to show that it is POSSIBLE to start with simply molecules and produce more complex ones through purely natural processes. It is POSSIBLE that the introduction of electricity through electrical storms COULD lead to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is POSSIBLE that the energy released by an asteroid impact COULD cause chemical reactions leading to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is a work in progress and it doesn't prove anything yet. But it does support the idea that natural processes may have been sufficient for the emergence of life without God's direct intervention.

These words of yours in red are speculative words. There could just as easily be a God that created all things. Why should your speculation have merit and mine not?

Which experiment seems to confirm your hypothesis?

 

[Danmac]

Which experiment seems to confirm your hypothesis?

Come again....

 

[Danmac]

If you can explain things in terms of natural processes there is no need to add an extra explanation to the equation (god). Science doesn't deal in absolutes.

Only when it come to math?

 

[Commoner]

Come again....

It's a really simple question. There are experiments that seem to confirm that, under the right circumstances, natural processes "produce life" - abiogenesis. Is it 100% that it happened exactly that way? No.

But you're asserting that your hypothesis (god created life) is equally valid, equally likely to be true, equally worthy of consideration (whatever wording you want to use). I'm asking you, which experiments have been conducted that seem to confirm that hypothesis?

 

[Tristesse]

Only when it come to math?

What does math have to do with what I said, or with nature for that matter?

 

[Danmac]

It's a really simple question. There are experiments that seem to confirm that, under the right circumstances, natural processes "produce life" - abiogenesis. Is it 100% that it happened exactly that way? No.

Lets start with the first cell. It must have grown and growth requires food. What method did this first cell use to produce it's own food? Since this cell was the first living thing there were no there living things to sustain it. How did this first cell convert energy, since that is all there was, into food?

But you're asserting that your hypothesis (god created life) is equally valid, equally likely to be true, equally worthy of consideration (whatever wording you want to use). I'm asking you, which experiments have been conducted that seem to confirm that hypothesis?[/quote]

In a previous post you used words like, could, possible, and may have. Those are all uncertain terms. Why is it ok for you to use them, but not me?

 

[Danmac]

What does math have to do with what I said, or with nature for that matter?

If I answer your question I will be the one accused of sidetracking the thread. Oh well. The absolutes thing is nonsense. Life is full of absolutes. We know you believe in at least one absolute. You are "absolutely certain" that there are no absolutes. There's one absolute.

 

[Autodidact]

Whenever scientists interfere with natural processes they are conducting intelligent design.

Do you have the remotest idea what Intelligent Design is?

 

[Autodidact]

This process would not have worked without the aid of Miller/Urey. Therefore it is intelligent design and not natural processes.

So you don't think we can learn from doing laboratory experiments? What kind of scientific methods do you think we can use?

 

[Danmac]

So you don't think we can learn from doing laboratory experiments? What kind of scientific methods do you think we can use?

Interfering adds intelligent design. Plain and simple.

 

[Autodidact]

Although there is promising and interesting research, I don't believe that scientists have definitively solved the problem of abiogenesis. We're still working on it. If history is any predictor, the chances are great that we will figure it out. At that point, when it has run the gauntlet of scientific skepticism, and solidly established itself as in irrefutable scientific theory, it will be accepted by the science of Biology. Like, say, the Theory of Evolution. But we're not there yet.

That's why we don't teach it as fact, or as established theory. Unlike, say atomic theory, gravitational theory, or evolutionary theory.

It's interesting to speculate, though.

 

[Danmac]

Do you have the remotest idea what Intelligent Design is?

Architects draw up blueprints and contractors build the design. God is both architect and contractor.

 

[Tristesse]

If I answer your question I will be the one accused of sidetracking the thread. Oh well. The absolutes thing is nonsense. Life is full of absolutes. We know you believe in at least one absolute. You are "absolutely certain" that there are no absolutes. There's one absolute.

I didn't say there are no absolutes. I said science doesn't deal with absolutes.

 

[Commoner]

Lets start with the first cell. It must have grown and growth requires food. What method did this first cell use to produce it's own food? Since this cell was the first living thing there were no there living things to sustain it. How did this first cell convert energy, since that is all there was, into food?

Well, I'm not claiming to have an answer to any question you might come up with. What I can tell you is that there are a lot of critters that do not rely on other critters for energy, so I don't really get what you're saying. Chemical reactions are what provide cells with energy - what kind of reaction, what kind of "fuel" is used in the reaction varies - it doesn't need to be "other critters".

In any event, what does that have to do with abiogenesis?

In a previous post you used words like, could, possible, and may have. Those are all uncertain terms. Why is it ok for you to use them, but not me?

There is (virtually) nothing that is "certain" in science. There are things that have been established beyond a resonable doubt, that have stood the test of time, that have been tested and re-tested so many times and have always, without fail, produced consistent result, that we consider them to be "practically true". But, if any contradictory data would ever be found, that would change immediatelly.

It's ok to be cautious, that's not the same as asserting that the established theory is false or asserting that your hypothesis is equally likely, without providing supporting evidence.

 

[Tristesse]

Interfering adds intelligent design. Plain and simple.

Except that they're not interfering. They're creating a model and leaving it alone.

 

[Commoner]

Interfering adds intelligent design. Plain and simple.

In other words, there can be no experiment that could ever be conducted, that would demonstrate any natural process.

 

[Runlikethewind]

These words of yours in red are speculative words. There could just as easily be a God that created all things. Why should your speculation have merit and mine not?

I never said your speculation was without merit. Indeed I strongly believe that God did, in fact, create all things. Where I think we disagree is how God created and what that actually looks like.

If you can explain things in terms of natural processes there is no need to add an extra explanation to the equation (god).

Just because there is no need to add the extra element of God (because a natural explanation is sufficient) does not mean that God does not exist or that God was not somehow involved in a less visible way.

The ancient storm is in God, as are the waters of the primordial sea. The lightning strikes the water and more complex molecules begin to form. The lightning was God's finger and the sea God's womb. All life that eventually emerged from it to evolve across the millenia are God's children. From our perspective it would all look like totally natural, scientificly observable, material events. I find that to be a beautiful image of God creating. And no matter how unnecessary it is to the scientific explanation of what happened it cannot be proven either way. So I choose to believe in both science and God the creator.

Science doesn't deal in absolutes.

I whole heartily agree with you. That is why I put those red letters in italics in my original post. But this is not a bad thing at all. The criterion for proof in science, especially when we are dealing with past events that cannot be directly observed, is by no means beyond doubt or absolute. It is more a preponderance of evidence much, if not all, of which is circumstantial. But again that is not a problem for science, there must always be doubt in science. Scientists must never be so set in their ways that they are not willing to reinterpret and reexamine their theories in light of new evidence. The day that science becomes dogmatic is the day science dies. Having no absolutes guarantees the continuation of the questioning of nature.

 

[Tristesse]

Just because there is no need to add the extra element of God (because a natural explanation is sufficient) does not mean that God does not exist or that God was not somehow involved in a less visible way.

And I never said he didn't. But by that same logic you can also say that just because there is no need to add that extra element, that does not mean that universe creating pixies exist. Because whether you use god or universe creating pixies, they both have the same amount of evidence.