How did the first living thing on earth come to life?

[painted wolf]

ps. there are no 'scientific laws'... just good theories. The 'laws' so often quoted are just realy old accepted theories. And from time to time we find out they are 'missing' things. Like Newtons theory of motion is missing things from Einsteins theory of Relitivity, which is itself missing information from Quantum theory.

the joy of Physics, especally quantum physics.

wa:do

 

[XAAX]

Science gives me no answer to when or how this happened, the Bible does.

LOL...does it really...interesting...

 

[s2a]

Nothing concerning the origins of the universe can really be considered a fact. So it is the former

Semantically, this may be so.

But let's be fair regarding the claims of science, and scientific conclusions of relative "fact" as worthy of merit and acceptability beyond reasonable doubts.

"Science" [that monolithic entity of silent conspiracy and ungodliness] is not in the habit of making (or claiming) any sweeping declarations of "universal", or indisputable "truths".

But what IS known, and can be demonstrably proven (by readily available evidence), is that the cosmos IS a result of some (alomost incomprehensibly) immense explosion, from an infinitely small point source [this "fact" has been validated and verified by numerous objective and otherwise unaffiliated disciplines], within a few billionths of a second in measurable space-time.

One may claim "scientific doubt" as to any asserted 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY as to the inferred conclusions suggested by the available evidence, but...like Evolution Theory, or Gravitational Theory, the evidence is so overwhelming at this point that the burden of "disproof" is lain before remaining faithful skeptics to provide their own empirical counter-arguments/falsifications of theories that continue to be veriied, and yet produce predictable hypotheses of their own.

When I say that I'm "99.999% sure", that doesn't leave a whole lot of doubt to conclude that--"Well, he's not fer sure".

Not only is the Big Bang "for real", but we are just a few years from "proving it" within a 99.999999999999% assertion of certainty. If any "god" wants to show Himself in such experiments, He's always left to His/Her own powers to do so...

 

[Mister_T]

ps. there are no 'scientific laws'... just good theories. The 'laws' so often quoted are just realy old accepted theories. And from time to time we find out they are 'missing' things. Like Newtons theory of motion is missing things from Einsteins theory of Relitivity, which is itself missing information from Quantum theory.

the joy of Physics, especally quantum physics.

wa:do

Quite convenient, I must say.

 

[Mister_T]

Semantically, this may be so.

But let's be fair regarding the claims of science, and scientific conclusions of relative "fact" as worthy of merit and acceptability beyond reasonable doubts.

"Science" [that monolithic entity of silent conspiracy and ungodliness] is not in the habit of making (or claiming) any sweeping declarations of "universal", or indisputable "truths".

But what IS known, and can be demonstrably proven (by readily available evidence), is that the cosmos IS a result of some (alomost incomprehensibly) immense explosion, from an infinitely small point source [this "fact" has been validated and verified by numerous objective and otherwise unaffiliated disciplines], within a few billionths of a second in measurable space-time.

One may claim "scientific doubt" as to any asserted 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY as to the inferred conclusions suggested by the available evidence, but...like Evolution Theory, or Gravitational Theory, the evidence is so overwhelming at this point that the burden of "disproof" is lain before remaining faithful skeptics to provide their own empirical counter-arguments/falsifications of theories that continue to be veriied, and yet produce predictable hypotheses of their own.

When I say that I'm "99.999% sure", that doesn't leave a whole lot of doubt to conclude that--"Well, he's not fer sure".

Not only is the Big Bang "for real", but we are just a few years from "proving it" within a 99.999999999999% assertion of certainty. I any "god" wants to show Himself in such experiments, He's always left to His/Her own powers to do so...

I don't doubt at all that the Big Bang was a real event and I was not trying to disprove it. My point was that pretty much everything outside of our atmosphere is only observable (martian landrovers are the exception), thus, making it theoretic guess work. It would be be ignorant to claim these things as facts. Just like it is ignorant for theists to claim God as a fact. It is a 2 way street.


BTW, Congrats on breaking the 100k barrier.

 

[s2a]

I don't doubt at all that the Big Bang was a real event and I was not trying to disprove it. My point was that pretty much everything outside of our atmosphere is only observable (martian landrovers are the exception), thus, making it theoretic guess work. It would be be ignorant to claim these things as facts. Just like it is ignorant for theists to claim God as a fact. It is a 2 way street.

I disagree...but then...this is a forum for debate. ;-)

BTW, Congrats on breaking the 100k barrier.

Heh. I doubt that I would have even noticed, had you not bothered to make the point.

Thanks.

Just another sound reason to have a fine cocktail at this point...

Cheers!

 

[fantome profane]

This is where you lose me. At some point the organism based natural selection on a learned benefit from paticular input. I don't understand how that can happen gradually.

.........

How did any organism gradually become self-aware, conscious or alive.

I don’t understand the problem you are having with this. We have talked about what our definition should be for life, but perhaps it would help if you explained to me what you mean by “self-aware” or “conscious”.

I am particularly struck by your use of the term “self-aware”. I wonder if you realize what a high standard you are imposing on the definition of life. Are single celled organisms “self-aware”? Are bacteria “self-aware”? What about molds of fungus or plants, are they “self-aware”? Are insects “self-aware”? Are worms “self aware”? Are fish “self-aware”? Are reptiles “self-aware”? Are animals “self-aware”? Are humans even “self-aware”?

You realize that there are some people (I am not one of them btw) who would argue that human beings are the only living creature to possess “self awareness”. I would argue that single cells, though alive, do not possess “self-awareness”. Simple organisms like this do not possess self-awareness although they do have some rudimentary awareness of their environment, and the ability to react to it. It seems self-evident to me that even this trait can exist in degrees. And I realize that what is self evident to me doesn’t help you, but perhaps you could explain to me why you believe self-awareness of consciousness cannot evolve through gradual steps.

 

[greatcalgarian]

I wasn't aware that scientific laws could change.

Science usually starts off with a postulation, hypothesis. If the hypothesis stands up to various scrutiny, and can be repeated, it proceeds to become a theory. When no body question the validity of this theory, or show contrary to the current observable facts, the theory advances to law. The process can be reversed, when the human understanding and knowledge leap forward with new discoveries of previously unknown facts, a law can be thrown out or revised or modified.

Newtons' law about matter is being revised when Einstein came forward with an alternative. However, since Einstein relativity theory is so difficult to understand, it might be easier for most people to continue to apply Newtons law and leave the high power stuff to the rocket scientists. Afterall, ordinary people life is hardly affected by whether Newton is right or Einstein is right.

By the way, Moses' laws could change as well, right?

The Conservation of Mass-Energy


Back to "Energy, Work, Heat, Temperature."
There is a scientific law called the Law of Conservation of Mass, discovered by Antoine Lavoisier in 1785. In its most compact form, it states:
matter is neither created nor destroyed.
In 1842, Julius Robert Mayer discovered the Law of Conservation of Energy. In its most compact form, it it now called the First Law of Thermodynamics:
energy is neither created nor destroyed.
In 1907 (I think), Albert Einstein announced his discovery of the equation E = mc2 and, as a consequence, the two laws above were merged into the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy:
the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant. Generally, textbooks would add, as I am doing, that mass and energy can interconvert.
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Thermochem/Law-Cons-Mass-Energy.html

 

[greatcalgarian]

I wasn't aware that scientific laws could change.

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories



Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory." In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

 

[greatcalgarian]

Recognizing that human being can err is what makes human being great, and why science can advance by leap and bound:
http://www.acase.org/files/approachingerror.pdf

On the other hand, the persistent in faith inerrancy of the bible is what makes God moving away from most inquisitive minded human.

 

[Mister_T]

By the way, Moses' laws could change as well, right?

Um, no

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory." .In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true

On the other hand, the persistent in faith inerrancy of the bible is what makes God moving away from most inquisitive minded human.

You know, it's funny how a theists theories on God and religious scripture, are instantly labeled as false when they are lacking proofs. But (atheist) scientists theories are labeled as fact even though they are lacking proofs. On top of that, they get to change their laws when something doesn't add up. Too bad theists aren't given those same luxuires.

Got to love those double standards.

 

[Flappycat]

You know, it's funny how a theists theories on God and religious scripture, are instantly labeled as false when they are lacking proofs. But (atheist) scientists theories are labeled as fact even though they are lacking proofs.

Which scientific theories are you referring to? If you are referring to theories about the origin of species, I don't think that any specific theory is held to be confirmed, simply because the earliest life forms would have left little or no evidence of their presence in this world. In fact, all that we can agree on is "gee, all this life stuff musta come from somewhere."

On top of that, they get to change their laws when something doesn't add up.

Well, yes. The idea behind science is for theory to line up with fact. This is the entire point of it. What about this is difficult to grasp?

Too bad theists aren't given those same luxuires.

You're free to change your doctrine at any time you please.

Got to love those double standards.

A fine accusation for you to make, but you seem to have no grounding for it.

 

[Mister_T]

Which scientific theories are you referring to? If you are referring to theories about the origin of species, I don't think that any specific theory is held to be confirmed, simply because the earliest life forms would have left little or no evidence of their presence in this world. In fact, all that we can agree on is "gee, all this life stuff musta come from somewhere."

Theories in general. I didn't have a specific one in mind.

Well, yes. The idea behind science is for theory to line up with fact. This is the entire point of it. What about this is difficult to grasp

It's not difficult to grasp at all. It's just theists are not given that same curtosy by atheists. Instead we get the "stupid fairy tale chaser" label.

You're free to change your doctrine at any time you please.

I don't have a doctrine that I follow. I was just stating a lot of what I observe.

A fine accusation for you to make, but you seem to have no grounding for it.

Sure I don't.

 

[fantome profane]

Um, no


You know, it's funny how a theists theories on God and religious scripture, are instantly labeled as false when they are lacking proofs. But (atheist) scientists theories are labeled as fact even though they are lacking proofs. On top of that, they get to change their laws when something doesn't add up. Too bad theists aren't given those same luxuires.

Got to love those double standards.

That is not fair, atheists are not preventing people of any religion from changing their views. I don’t see how they could even if they wanted to, and I don’t see why they would want to. That is a ridiculous accusation.

If anyone is preventing religious people from changing their beliefs, doctrines, holy laws etc it is almost always people of the same religion. Who else could?

You are the one who denied that the Laws of Moses could change. And this is fine, but don’t try to make it sound like it is atheists who are imposing them on you and denying you the luxury of change. You can change, adjust, reinterpret all you want. It doesn’t bother me in the least.


Scientific Laws are merely descriptions of nature written by men. They are tools used to describe and predict the world around us. They are subject to change if the observations do not match. As we proceed to make more and more observations and technology advances to allow us to make observations in ways that were not possible before it is only logical that many of these laws will have to change.

Religious laws likewise are written by men. As we continue to make new observations, have new understandings, new revelations, new inspirations etc it is only logical that these laws could change as well.

 

[Mister_T]

That is not fair, atheists are not preventing people of any religion from changing their views

Perhaps this part came off wrong

Too bad theists aren't given those same luxuires.

I did not mean that atheists are preventing theists from changing their views. Not at all. What I meant by this was that whenever an atheist calls a theist on something that doesn't add up and theists try to give a an explanation for it, 9 times out of 10 they get the "nope sorry, you're wrong and unintelligent" label. But when an atheist does it, it's all fine and dandy.

That is the only point I was trying to make. Sorry for any offense (to all atheists who might have taken it that way). Hope that clears things up.

You are the one who denied that the Laws of Moses could change

I don't see how the laws of Moses could change (or why someone would want to). They haven't changed since they were made as far as I know. The only way I could see them changing is if God "spoke" to someone like he "spoke" to Moses, since they were supposedly given verbally by God to him.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Um, no


You know, it's funny how a theists theories on God and religious scripture, are instantly labeled as false when they are lacking proofs. But (atheist) scientists theories are labeled as fact even though they are lacking proofs. On top of that, they get to change their laws when something doesn't add up. Too bad theists aren't given those same luxuires.

Got to love those double standards.

Which theories of science that are labeled as fact even though they are lacking proofs?

Who said theists do not have these luxuries? Look at how Rome Pope's have been changing the stand, and whatever denomination of Christians today may have different 'laws' in the past or in the future, for example, gays are acceptable now in most denominations, but 50 years ago, gays have to hide in closet.

 

[Navigator]

.........


I don’t understand the problem you are having with this. We have talked about what our definition should be for life, but perhaps it would help if you explained to me what you mean by “self-aware” or “conscious”.

I am particularly struck by your use of the term “self-aware”. I wonder if you realize what a high standard you are imposing on the definition of life. Are single celled organisms “self-aware”? Are bacteria “self-aware”? What about molds of fungus or plants, are they “self-aware”? Are insects “self-aware”? Are worms “self aware”? Are fish “self-aware”? Are reptiles “self-aware”? Are animals “self-aware”? Are humans even “self-aware”?

You realize that there are some people (I am not one of them btw) who would argue that human beings are the only living creature to possess “self awareness”. I would argue that single cells, though alive, do not possess “self-awareness”. Simple organisms like this do not possess self-awareness although they do have some rudimentary awareness of their environment, and the ability to react to it. It seems self-evident to me that even this trait can exist in degrees. And I realize that what is self evident to me doesn’t help you, but perhaps you could explain to me why you believe self-awareness of consciousness cannot evolve through gradual steps.

I think the problem I am having is the definition of life is a broad brush. While single cell organisms are alive, it is not the same degree of living as animals, and animals are not alive to the same degree as humans. This is admittedly an area my education is lacking at best, and you have shown patience, thank you for walking me through to this point.
Can the rudimentary awareness of the environment be based on anything more than learned responses or instinct? Humans have the ability to find solutions based on more than instinct, we have access to spirituality. All other creatures follow instinct or learned behavior.

Genisis 2: 7
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

We have been given a spirit of life, which I believe to be different from all other creatures. Humans have been given the ability to love unconditionally, which I believe is a fruit of the spirit and is immpossible to achieve without tapping into that spirituality. This agape love is available exclusively to humans, therefore we are alive to a different degree than all other creatures.

 

[Mister_T]

Which theories of science that are labeled as fact even though they are lacking proofs?

Who said theists do not have these luxuries? Look at how Rome Pope's have been changing the stand, and whatever denomination of Christians today may have different 'laws' in the past or in the future, for example, gays are acceptable now in most denominations, but 50 years ago, gays have to hide in closet.

I don't really have any theories in mind. I was just going off of what you said earlier in the thread:

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

After reading it a little more carefully, maybe "fact" is too strong a word. But at first glance it did seem that you were stating theories as facts.

As for the religion thing goes, I was not refering to differences in denominations. I was refering to the subject of science and God. Theistic scientists more specifically. They generally get the "unintelligent" label by other scientists. BUT, after further reflection, I realized that it is a two way street and that the atheistic scientists get labels from the theist community as well. It's easy to forget that not all theists think like me.

 

[Flappycat]

I don't really have any theories in mind. I was just going off of what you said earlier in the thread: After reading it a little more carefully, maybe "fact" is too strong a word. But at first glance it did seem that you were stating theories as facts.

Dude, theories come in various degrees of strength. For example, it's a theory that you can find the hypoteneuse C of a right triangle by calculating the square root of the sum of the squares of sides A and B.

C=(A^2+B^2)^(1/2)

Even though this is an easily demonstrable truth, this is called the Pythagorean Theorom, not the Magical Pythagorean Truth, and you can find lengthy discussions about the various proofs of it.

There are other theories, on the other hand, that rely upon a great deal of guesswork, and especially many cosmological theories may be affected by numerous unknowns.

They generally get the "unintelligent" label by other scientists.

Not unless they allow their beliefs to interfere with their work. If they're fudging their work to keep it from conflicting with their beliefs, they'll be labelled idiots by people who have the same beliefs. Really, a lot fewer scientists than you think are atheists. They just practice professionalism and keep their personal beliefs out of their work.

 

[fantome profane]

I think the problem I am having is the definition of life is a broad brush.

Right, and that kind of makes the point. The reason life is so hard to define is because there are so many gradual degrees of variation of what we might consider life.

While single cell organisms are alive, it is not the same degree of living as animals,...

I completely agree, but from there you can find any number of very slight variations from single-celled life-forms to simple multi-celled life-forms to molds to plants to insects to ....... well to every living thing (including you and I)

...and animals are not alive to the same degree as humans.

Now this I completely disagree with. I personally believe that humans are animals and we differ from other species only in matters of degree. Other animals are intelligent, other animals communicate with each other, other animals love. But this is likely a debate for a different thread. But just because we disagree on this point does not invalidate evolution.

We have been given a spirit of life, which I believe to be different from all other creatures. Humans have been given the ability to love unconditionally, which I believe is a fruit of the spirit and is immpossible to achieve without tapping into that spirituality. This agape love is available exclusively to humans, therefore we are alive to a different degree than all other creatures.

If you believe that there is something more going on than just evolution, that is fine. I am not inclined to get into a debate on that.

If you believe there is an important spiritual aspect to life, this is not a problem either. It would depend on how you define spiritual as to whether or not I agree. Whatever spirituality is, I am personally not comfortable with the idea of claiming it for humans and denying it to other forms of life. But none of this matters to the science of evolution. None of this invalidates evolution in any way, and evolution does need to be in conflict with spirituality.

Science by definition cannot confirm or deny the existence of the supernatural, and evolution is not intended to be a criticism of religious beliefs. It is simply a way of describing and understanding the natural world.

This is admittedly an area my education is lacking at best, and you have shown patience, thank you for walking me through to this point.

There is good material out there that is accessible (understandable) to any layman. People might recommend anyone of several books by Richard Dawkins or even Stephen Jay Gould, but I would like to recommend a different one.

I recently read a book called “Finding Darwin’s God”, by Kenneth R. Miller. Professor Miller is a leading cell biologist and strong proponent of evolution. He is also a staunch theist and a Roman Catholic. He does a brilliant job in this book of explaining evolution, debunking creationism and intelligent design as science, and explaining how he sees God as being compatible with the modern science of evolution. I didn’t agree with everything he said, but he makes a good case and I highly recommend his book. You can get it on amazon for about ten bucks(used), or better yet go to your local library and check it out. That’s what I did and it cost me nothing. Libraries are wonderful places.:yes: