Mother Nature vs. God?

[Jose Fly]

Josefly, this is how our exchange would be playing out if we were talking about religion.

Since we're not talking about religion, your hypothetical is irrelevant. What would our exchange be like if we were talking about cake decorating? Irrelevant.

The point is very clear and simple; you seem to be operating under the misconception that every research project into the origins of life is attempting fully and totally answer the question of origins on its own, and anything less is a total failure. If so, you are greatly mistaken. Most of the current research into origins is into smaller sub-questions such as RNA synthesis pathways, organic molecule self-assembly, the role of catalysts in cell formation, etc.

In other words, if I am asking you if science has discovered the origin of life and you reveal to me a $96.00 pill that regulates diabetes that was invented as a direct result of that research, I may be impressed (more so if I had diabetes) but it gets me no closer to the truthful answer about how life originated on this planet.

Has it ever occurred to you that the problem may not be with the science, but with your understanding of it?

The only news I received on origin research was explained to Amill in post #99.

And thus we see the cause of your misconceptions. Like most people, you are fairly ignorant about the state of origins research, which is to be expected. I mean, how many people outside the field stay up to date on that stuff? Being ignorant of origins research is no big deal and totally understandable. However, being ignorant of origins research yet speaking as if you're some sort of authority on the subject (e.g. making accusations of unethical behavior, calling it all a failure) is both arrogant and dishonest.

Have there been any new developments?

Of course.

That’s why I was used my money when I proposed the example. For you see, I would be a bit disappointed if I put my money in the vending machine for a $100,000 bar and a Zero candy bar came out instead.

So despite the purpose of the analogy, you still think science is like a vending machine. Pity.

 

[idav]

No, the universe quite clearly has a beginning, though I'm not sure about an end. However, "creating" the universe involves there being a time where there wasn't a universe, which is nonsensical.

The beginning of the universe would also mean the beginning of time within said universe. I'm not trying to say what preceded the beginning of the universe.

 

[Anonymouse]

Mestemia-What you have been avoiding is why you assume that everything has been created.

I am actually entertaining both beliefs but since the thoughtless creative process does not come up very often (in example and execution) my reasoning abilities tell me to hold on to the assumption that if I can create, there may be others that have been doing it longer and in a different way.

Mestemia-How does something that does not exist, think?

A true mystery I assure you. It ranks right up there with the marvel of why there are people who exist but do not think.

 

[Anonymouse]

Josefly-Has it ever occurred to you that the problem may not be with the science, but with your understanding of it?

Then maybe you can help me understand it.

Let’s say that I have this theory that nature is comparable to a computer program and this theory extends to the fact that I suspect intelligent design is behind this sophisticated program. Now, I know that I am on to something here because Lunakilo loves it. I approach the Academy of Sciences (the Big League) and I explain to them that I need a lot of money (and I need it fast) because I want to research and discover my theories on the origin of life and I am not getting any younger. I am not asking for funds to research the evolution of any particular species (or any other smaller sub-questions such as RNA synthesis pathways, organic molecule self-assembly, the role of catalysts in cell formation, etc..) but am dedicating my research squarely on the origin of life (which has not yet been discovered). How would I go about securing funds to further this research and what are the qualifications to keep the money rolling in to maintain a high quality for this research?

 

[gnomon]

What is interesting about following all of these Evolution vs. Creationism threads is the close ambiguous word play that evolutionists employ that comes close to admitting that they may have a deity called Nature. This nature judges what is good, bad, productive, purposeful and still they cannot explain why I do not have a neck like a giraffe, the same life span as a bug or why I cannot fly or live underwater even though my “cousin” could.

When evolutionists speak against creationism I sometimes wonder if there aren’t enough artists in the ToE community. I wonder if sometimes they don’t recognize that the findings of evolution or the chain of events that are discovered doesn’t somehow give the researcher a glimpse into a unique and highly stylized sense of creation (for example, a God (or gods) that has created for the specific purpose of evolving). But what really captures my attention is the way that the ToE community describes nature and I realize then that they may have been following and researching (possibly misunderstanding) a different kind of god. Are highly prominent scientists accurately adhering to the scientific method or are they just promoting and putting all of their faith into Mother Nature?

Quite often scientists do use language which gives notion to the concept of a "Mother Nature" acting in some sort of conscious action. It's a ridiculous use of language.

As far as the notion of people who accept evolutionary theory yet still believe in God I think you will find many examples. The theory of evolution is not a theory of how life began. This is quite clear. It was clear when ancient Greeks derived the concept to the point when Darwin synthesized years worth of observations to simply define the concept to the point when a monk provided the first basis of genetic theory supporting the concept.

In contrast to your assertion it is the religious community that opposes the TOE that has mischaracterized the theory in attempt to put forward a narrowly defined concept of the origins of humanity which is not subject to rational inquiry.

 

[idav]

Then maybe you can help me understand it.

Let’s say that I have this theory that nature is comparable to a computer program and this theory extends to the fact that I suspect intelligent design is behind this sophisticated program. Now, I know that I am on to something here because Lunakilo loves it. I approach the Academy of Sciences (the Big League) and I explain to them that I need a lot of money (and I need it fast) because I want to research and discover my theories on the origin of life and I am not getting any younger. I am not asking for funds to research the evolution of any particular species (or any other smaller sub-questions such as RNA synthesis pathways, organic molecule self-assembly, the role of catalysts in cell formation, etc..) but am dedicating my research squarely on the origin of life (which has not yet been discovered). How would I go about securing funds to further this research and what are the qualifications to keep the money rolling in to maintain a high quality for this research?

One would want to know how inorganic matter became organic matter and how it is possible to do so either naturally or by using machines (abiogenesis). The whole universe looks pretty much inorganic except for life on this planet. The origin is obviously inorganic. Unless you want to say it takes life to make life which would be a fallacy.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then maybe you can help me understand it.

Let’s say that I have this theory that nature is comparable to a computer program and this theory extends to the fact that I suspect intelligent design is behind this sophisticated program. Now, I know that I am on to something here because Lunakilo loves it. I approach the Academy of Sciences (the Big League) and I explain to them that I need a lot of money (and I need it fast) because I want to research and discover my theories on the origin of life and I am not getting any younger. I am not asking for funds to research the evolution of any particular species (or any other smaller sub-questions such as RNA synthesis pathways, organic molecule self-assembly, the role of catalysts in cell formation, etc..) but am dedicating my research squarely on the origin of life (which has not yet been discovered). How would I go about securing funds to further this research and what are the qualifications to keep the money rolling in to maintain a high quality for this research?

Write up a research proposal and submit it to the funding entity for their review.

 

[lunakilo]

I just feel I have to revisit this:

Experience has taught me that nothing is created unless thought is first applied.

Do you also see that here?


Natural_arch


Cubic_crystal_system


Wave_Rock

 

[Looncall]

Then maybe you can help me understand it.

Let’s say that I have this theory that nature is comparable to a computer program and this theory extends to the fact that I suspect intelligent design is behind this sophisticated program. Now, I know that I am on to something here because Lunakilo loves it. I approach the Academy of Sciences (the Big League) and I explain to them that I need a lot of money (and I need it fast) because I want to research and discover my theories on the origin of life and I am not getting any younger. I am not asking for funds to research the evolution of any particular species (or any other smaller sub-questions such as RNA synthesis pathways, organic molecule self-assembly, the role of catalysts in cell formation, etc..) but am dedicating my research squarely on the origin of life (which has not yet been discovered). How would I go about securing funds to further this research and what are the qualifications to keep the money rolling in to maintain a high quality for this research?

You would need to apply like any other scientist. You would need to establish the importance of the research, review prior work, show why your research is likely to produce definite results, describe a detailed research program and budget, and establish your expertise and track record in the field. Given current trends in research funding, you might be asked to show what commercial benefits would follow from your research.

Alternatively, you could seek out some rich crackpot who would support you.

 

[Anonymouse]

anonymouse-Experience has taught me that nothing is created unless thought is first applied.

lunakilo-Do you also see that here?

Yes, and here too..

 

[Anonymouse]

Thanks for the info Looncall

Looncall-You would need to apply like any other scientist.

It sounds like I am looking at (a minimum of) four years of college, at a cost of around $30,000. It seems there is a lot involved to gain credibility just to comply and compete with ignorance.

Looncall-Given current trends in research funding, you might be asked to show what commercial benefits would follow from your research.

Damn capitalism. I knew there was a catch. Well I could always develop a computer sim game from my resear-Oh wait-Peter Molyneux already released a game called Black and White.

Looncall-Alternatively, you could seek out some rich crackpot who would support you.

…and why does this rich person have to be a crackpot?....

 

[Anonymouse]

One would want to know how inorganic matter became organic matter and how it is possible to do so either naturally or by using machines (abiogenesis). The whole universe looks pretty much inorganic except for life on this planet. The origin is obviously inorganic. Unless you want to say it takes life to make life which would be a fallacy.

Scientists campaigning the theory of panspermia claim that organic life is relatively common in the universe but if we are to believe that life comes from the outer solar system, were back to the original question of how did it first happen out there?

 

[lunakilo]

Yes, and here too..

In this case I would agree with you, but in the case I provided I see the effects of wind, warter, gravity and nuclear forces. I see no conscious thoughts involved.

 

[Android]

…and why does this rich person have to be a crackpot?....

Because he will get no return on his investment.

 

[Jose Fly]

It seems there is a lot involved to gain credibility just to comply and compete with ignorance.

Boy, you just love to throw around insults and accusations against professional scientists, don't you? As I pointed out earlier, that you do this yet totally fail to provide anything at all to back up your barbs, and that you do so on an internet board under the cloak of anonymity tells me you're rather cowardly and insecure.

 

[Yerda]

However, "creating" the universe involves there being a time where there wasn't a universe, which is nonsensical.

There was never not a universe, and it had a beginning?

 

[PolyHedral]

There was never not a universe, and it had a beginning?

Yes.

 

[idav]

Yes.

Your abusing the laws of time and the laws of the universe. Lets talk of a time BEFORE the beginning of the universe.

 

[Thief]

Your abusing the laws of time and the laws of the universe. Lets talk of a time BEFORE the beginning of the universe.

Just saw a science documentary about that very topic.

Several experts were interviewed.
Their viewpoints are as varied as any here at the forum.

I found my viewpoint affirmed.

At the point of singularity.... equations fail.

 

[PolyHedral]

Your abusing the laws of time and the laws of the universe. Lets talk of a time BEFORE the beginning of the universe.

In what way is that a sensical proposition?