Origin of Life

[Revoltingest]

Thanks for that link...enjoyed a bit of the discussion...the best contributions were from neither Cronin nor Tour who seemed to be most concerned about outscoring each other in a more-or-less-politely-phrased insult competition. I think Larry Constantine made the most insightful remark about 2/3rds of the way in when he talked about Prigogine and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. I'm pretty sure that's where the best clues as to the origin of life (and indeed complexity more generally) will emerge from.

What I find odd is that thermodynamics need only
be dealt with when creationists mistakenly apply it
to life's origins & evolution. In particular, they don't
understand what entropy is.

 

[PureX]

You're saying that chemistry is the result of the laws of physics, which is of course correct, or more properly a subset of physics.

The “laws of physics” are just observed possibilities and impossibilities being expressed physically. They are not the origin. They are the observed expression of the origin. The origin remains a total mystery.

That's incorrect. Those forces and particles and their properties are well characterized.

And the origin of their properties (possibilities and impossibilities) remains a complete mystery to us.

 

[PureX]

I have a question , it is somehow connected to what you said and what @PureX said.

Is there any possibility that can describe the forces as guided and not automatic and blind?

Yes. They are guided by what is possible and what is not possible. Whatever has set these parameters is responsible for existence as it is occurring.

 

[PureX]

Chemistry does not represent natures processes correctly.

Nature’s processes are the result of what is possible and what is not possible. Whatever determined this is the origin and director of existence.

 

[Dimi95]

There is a possibility that abiogenesis could have been directed. There currently is no evidence for it.

There is evidence that suggest that possibility.
Like i explained previously

Here is the problem, a possibility does not do anyone any good. With a possibility one is off into the area of Bigfoot and leprechauns. What one needs is evidence for one's ideas. That evidence has to come from people that believe in an idea. And creationists tend to hate the fact that to have evidence one has to honestly consider what it would take for them to be wrong.

I don't object what you are saying.

But when i look at many discussions what i can note is that most of the people are misunderstanding the term belief.

Beliefs that have personal value.
Beliefs that have subjective morality and could be true without evidence.

For example , if i would ask any random guy on the street:
'Do you belive that your father is your father?' the answer will be yes.
And if i would ask for evidence , more then 90 % of people would say that they don't have any DNA test.
So in that moment , based on evidence , the guy does not know who his father is.

On the other hand if you consider Subjective morality , the guy could bring family testimony on the table , the common genetic characteristic etc etc , and it could be true.

And it's not irrelevant.

 

[Pogo]

The “laws of physics” are just observed possibilities and impossibilities being expressed physically. They are not the origin. They are the observed expression of the origin. The origin remains a total mystery.

And the origin of their properties (possibilities and impossibilities) remains a complete mystery to us.

Yep, the only rational thing you can say is "I don't know" any claims that something must have done something is irrational. We do know that we would not be able to ask this question if the parameters of the universe were different but that says nothing about why they are what they are.

 

[Pogo]

Yes. They are guided by what is possible and what is not possible. Whatever has set these parameters is responsible for existence as it is occurring.

And it is possible that the parameters could be randomly different. This is not the only possible universe, only the one we live in.

 

[PureX]

Yep, the only rational thing you can say is "I don't know" any claims that something must have done something is irrational. We do know that we would not be able to ask this question if the parameters of the universe were different but that says nothing about why they are what they are.

Well, it does say that something did something, but what did what? It’s a complete mystery to us. We can choose to call it God and imagine it however we like, but it’s still a total and profound mystery with a label slapped on it. What we can’t do, at least not honestly, it pretend that we know nothing did anything, but that somehow something very specific happened, anyway. Because that just doesn’t track, logically.

 

[Pogo]

There is evidence that suggest that possibility.
Like i explained previously


I don't object what you are saying.

But when i look at many discussions what i can note is that most of the people are misunderstanding the term belief.

Beliefs that have personal value.
Beliefs that have subjective morality and could be true without evidence.

For example , if i would ask any random guy on the street:
'Do you belive that your father is your father?' the answer will be yes.
And if i would ask for evidence , more then 90 % of people would say that they don't have any DNA test.
So in that moment , based on evidence , the guy does not know who his father is.

On the other hand if you consider Subjective morality , the guy could bring family testimony on the table , the common genetic characteristic etc etc , and it could be true.

And it's not irrelevant.

Yes beliefs can be true or false, but what is your actual repeatable observable evidence of direction? Arguments from ignorance, incredulity and desire do not count.
Do you think that there is something directing things to fall down that most of us just call gravity? Again, evidence?

 

[PureX]

And it is possible that the parameters could be randomly different. This is not the only possible universe, only the one we live in.

So far as we can know, or even imagine, this is the only universe that is possible. The degree of intelligence required to generate even this possibility, let alone others, is far, far beyond our comprehension..

 

[Pogo]

Well, it does say that something did something, but what did what? It’s a complete mystery to us. We can choose to call it God and imagine it however we like, but it’s still a total and profound mystery with a label slapped on it. What we can’t do, at least not honestly, it pretend that we know nothing did anything, but that somehow something very specific happened, anyway. Because that just doesn’t make any sense.

You can, humans have been imagining causal solutions to unknowns throughout history, lightening from thor made sense to some at one time.
Common sense is like dirt, it is everywhere and generally useless.
The rational answer without any evidence is we don't know, not as we have seen with lightening something we imagine as possible just because it makes us feel better.

 

[Pogo]

So far as we can know, or even imagine, this is the only universe that is possible. The degree of intelligence required to generate even this possibility, let alone others, is far, far beyond our comprehension..

None of the above is evidenced in any way, The universe might very well have been different, significantly so and we would not be here, being here is not evidence of the impossibility of other universes. As for the requirement for intelligence, that is just turtles all the way down.
However I will grant you that an infinite stack of turtles is a logically possible explanation.

 

[Dimi95]

Yes beliefs can be true or false, but what is your actual repeatable observable evidence of direction?

Objective does not explain Subjective.
They are neccessary oposites for a reason.

Arguments from ignorance, incredulity and desire do not count.

Nor did i did such thing.
You see to confuse yourself with objectivity and subjectivity.

Do you think that there is something directing things to fall down that most of us just call gravity? Again, evidence?

Yes , i belive in that force.
But my belief is based on faith , not on evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is evidence that suggest that possibility.
Like i explained previously

I must have missed that. Or it may not have been evidence.

I don't object what you are saying.

But when i look at many discussions what i can note is that most of the people are misunderstanding the term belief.

Beliefs that have personal value.
Beliefs that have subjective morality and could be true without evidence.

For example , if i would ask any random guy on the street:
'Do you belive that your father is your father?' the answer will be yes.
And if i would ask for evidence , more then 90 % of people would say that they don't have any DNA test.
So in that moment , based on evidence , the guy does not know who his father is.

There is other evidence of descent besides DNA. Looks for example. DNA is very definitive evidence.

On the other hand if you consider Subjective morality , the guy could bring family testimony on the table , the common genetic characteristic etc etc , and it could be true.

And it's not irrelevant.

I do not know of any morality that is not subjective.

 

[Dimi95]

None of the above is evidenced in any way

You assume that you need evidence for everything.
You don't.

The universe might very well have been different, significantly so and we would not be here, being here is not evidence of the impossibility of other universes.

But we are here , and it is evidence , Reality is Real.

As for the requirement for intelligence, that is just turtles all the way down.

No , that is you eliminating the evidence that suggest that there might be intelligence.

 

[Dimi95]

I do not know of any morality that is not subjective.

It is stated falsely
My bad

I meant subjectivity

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The “laws of physics” are just observed possibilities and impossibilities being expressed physically. They are not the origin. They are the observed expression of the origin. The origin remains a total mystery.

OK, but that's a trivial observation with which no critical thinker has disagreed. We don't know exactly what that which began expanding most of fourteen billion years ago was, why it happened then, or why symmetry among the forces broke as it did. Those questions have no answer at this time and perhaps never will, and need none. We can begin with what we do know and deduce conditions and events back to a hot, dense, and otherwise seemingly featureless starting point and describe its subsequent evolution as well as how that world works today.

So far as we can know, or even imagine, this is the only universe that is possible.

My imagination is better than that, and yours probably is, too. I just shared some of those imaginings with you earlier today here.

The degree of intelligence required to generate even this possibility, let alone others, is far, far beyond our comprehension..

What seems to be beyond your comprehension is that intelligence might not have been involved.

You assume that you need evidence for everything. You don't.

If he's a critical thinker and an empiricist, and it appears that he is, then he needs sufficient evidence to justify belief according to the laws of reason and of evaluating evidence before believing. If he were willing to believe with less, then he would be a faith-based thinker. We all started out like that, and many people can and do still think that way, but for others, after learning what the power of the one form of thinking is and what the risk of the other is, that has become impossible. Such a person DOES need sufficient evidence to believe.

that is you eliminating the evidence that suggest that there might be intelligence.

Whatever you are citing as evidence for intelligent design is also evidence for a naturalistically arising universe, which is a better hypothesis if neither can be ruled in or out, because it's simpler. It only requires that nature and its laws exist. Creationism requires both nature and the supernatural to exist.

 

[exchemist]

The “laws of physics” are just observed possibilities and impossibilities being expressed physically. They are not the origin. They are the observed expression of the origin. The origin remains a total mystery.

And the origin of their properties (possibilities and impossibilities) remains a complete mystery to us.

That's perfectly true. Science stops where it runs out of observations from which a hypothesis can be constructed or validated. But that is not a barrier to human thought of course.

 

[Bthoth]

Can you give examples?

You and I have had this discussion. You think nature is reducing/reducibility as a perorder based on entropy (2Lot).

I am on the opposite frame, the system (life) is growing, evolving, developing based on the energy upon the mass.


The old schooled see nature as just particles, (mass) equilibrating the energy state to an equilibrium.

I see energy upon mass as light Oscillating in one wavelength or another.

The chemist love their heat and reactions.

I observe a system (life) within nature growing. Once started 'intent' to continue.



Will you bring on the posse to beat into me again?

 

[Bthoth]

Nature’s processes are the result of what is possible and what is not possible.

OK. What survives is good. What doesn't not so much.

Whatever determined this is the origin and director of existence.

Director? The living process is what is directing the intent to survive, even if it must change within a given environment (evolving).

There is no outside interference causing living systems to evolve beyond it's given environment with exception to the entangled states between points in time.