Science&Logic-Flawed?

[Scuba Pete]

Deut,

Are you speaking to yourself? You should be.

 

[Quiddity]

Learn to distinguish between tiresomely repeating a claim and substantiating it.

It is becoming apparent that you have no explanation for me. Offense is the next resort. Oh well...

~Victor

 

[Fade]

Ryan, bubby, that's the whole stinking point. It is IMPOSSIBLE for science to prove or disprove fuzzy pink unicorms. That's how it fails. When it comes to spiritual beliefs and evidences it comes up as completely inadequate to handle them.

And the reason for that is because it's all in your head. You imagine that you are spiritual and that your life has meaning. It's all just an illusion and you are frightened by science because it is stripping away the dregs of your reality, one superstition at a time. You can rant all you like about it but the reality is you are cowering in awe at the revelations that rational/scientific thought is bringing to our society.
You think it fails because it can't answer questions to which there are no answers. That isn't sciences failing, it is yours. You just don't realise that you are asking the wrong questions. Spititual beliefs and evidences? What evidences? If there was evidence for spiritual beliefs then science would be able to examine them and come up with hypothesis[sp?]. But the reality is there is no evidence for them. (hint - they don't exist, it's all in your head)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Either way, there is NO EVIDENCE to support abiogenesis: it's mere conjecture at this point.

Let's break things down a bit.

First, what does abiogenesis claim? According to wikipedia:

The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the earliest forms of life on earth from primordial chemicals. This is a significantly different thing from the concept of Aristotelian abiogenesis, which postulated the formation of complex organisms. Different hypotheses for modern abiogenetic processes are currently under debate with no clear frontrunner; see, for example, RNA world hypothesis, proteinoid, Miller experiment.

Thus, abiogenesis claims that:

1. There should have been "primordial chemicals" on Earth
2. These chemicals should have been able to form early life forms in a slow, gradual process
3. Complex organisms should not have formed suddenly

Second, are these claims within the scope of scientific inquiry? In other words, what predictions does abiogenesis make which could be falsified? Well....

1. If geological evidence showed that conditions on Earth could not have supported promordial, organic chemicals before organisms began to appear, it would be good evidence against abiogenesis
2. If chemical, biological, or genetic evidence showed that organic chemicals could not have formed early life forms, that would be good evidence against abiogenesis.
3. If chemists or biologists showed that a complex organism (such as a living cell) could form suddenly from organic chemicals, that would be good evidence against abiogenesis.

So yes, abiogenesis is something that can be studied by science to determine its validity. It is natural, it is mechanistic, and there are observations which would falsify its predictions. It is within the scope of scientific inquiry.

Third, what scientific evidence is there to support abiogenesis?

1. The well-known Miller-Urey experiment showed that inorganic chemicals can spontaneously form organic molecules.

At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 21 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant.

2. Studies of meteors have shown that organic molecules can even form in space.

3. Studies of proteinoids :

1. Proteinoids are protein-like molecules formed inorganically from amino acids. Some theories of abiogenesis propose that proteinoids were a precursor to the first living cells.
   
   
   
   The inorganic polymerization of amino acids into proteins through the formation of peptide bonds was thought to occur only at temperatures over 140°C. However, the biochemist S. W. Fox and his co-workers discovered that phosphoric acid acted as a catalyst for this reaction. They were able to form protein-like chains from a mixture of 18 common amino acids at only 70°C in the presence of phosphoric acid, and dubbed these protein-like chains protenoids. Fox later found proteinoids similar to those he had created in his laboratory in lava and cinders from Hawaiian volcanic vents and determined that the amino acids present polymerized due to the heat of escaping gases and lava. Other catalysts have since been found; one of them, amidinium carbodiimide, is formed in primitive Earth experiments and is effective in dilute aqueous solutions.
   
   
   
   When present in certain concentrations in aqueous solutions, proteinoids form small structures called microspheres or protocells. This is due to the fact that some of the amino acids incorporated into proteinoid chains are more hydrophobic than others, and so proteinoids cluster together like droplets of oil in water. These structures exhibit many of the characteristics of cells:
2. a film-like outer wall.
3. osmotic swelling and shrinking.
4. budding.
5. binary fission (dividing into two daughter microspheres).
6. streaming movement of internal particles.

Microspheres are not themselves alive, but it is thought that they may have provided a cell-like compartment within which biochemistry could have become concentrated and protected from the outside environment during the process of chemical evolution.

4. Studies of Phospholipids:

Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, one of the two basic components of a cell membrane.

5. There is no evidence that complex organisms can form spontaneously (rather than gradually) from inorganic chemicals.

Finally, is Science and/or Logic flawed because no one knows exactly how life formed? No. Science is a methodology, not a belief system, and therefore is not required to explain everything there is to explain right now, or ever. What we can discover through science depends on the data we have available, and how much time and effort we have put into researching things. As Painted Wolf pointed out on another thread, real studies into abiogenesis only began as late as the 1950's. These studies have already taught us much about how life formed (and how life probably did not form), and considering the historical success of the scientific method, there is good reason to believe that ongoing studies will reveal more in the future.

No response to my example? Ok..

Again, to apply methodological naturalism you must be UNBIAS yourself. What is so hard to understand about this? The system is setup that you SHOULD NOT be. But no person can be. Get the picture?

~Victor

I don't get it at all. Even if we assume that methodological naturalism does require scientists to be totally unbiased, are you saying that science has never been "applied" because no scientists has ever been completely unbiased? Is the computer in front of you not the direct result of the application of methodological naturalism, whether or not the scientists who invented the required technologies were biased?

 

[Fade]

Finally, somebody takes the time to post something meaningful. Good work Spinks!
I wish I wasn't the laziest ******* on the planet

 

[Yerda]

Two things amongst a pile of cheap ad hominem and rhetoric:

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Is it, I might ask, more a case of blindness being your diagnosis for disagreement Doc?

What is spiritual evidence by the way?

Only someone like you would ask this question. BECAUSE IT'S NOT NICE. Ever heard of that?

~Victor

Signed your name, personal touch, very polite.

I might have asked the same question, does that make me "like" the target of this attack?

Quite frankly I'd be more than flattered.

 

[Fade]

Funny how you claim that while you are the arrogant confident one who is sure that he is correct...

One thing I've never seen Duet claim is that he is correct. Arrogant and confident maybe, but I'm sure he would be willing to admit that he was/is wrong if you could show him to be.

 

[Fade]

I propose Spink's frog. I also propose the color orange, for no reason at all.

And some are so aware that they will doubt. As to which is better...

I think I saw a documentary about South American Tree frogs that were in fact orange. Which means they exist unless some makeup dude painted them for the sake of the docu.
How about a gibbon that has evolved a unicycle instead of legs and trundles around humming the theme tune to the A-Team? I'd worship that if I saw it

 

[Ryan2065]

Dear Ryan,

I think it would be easier to prove that Fuzzy Pink Unicorns with pretty blue bows in their mane and with their hoofs painted aqua actually exist than it would be to "create life".

To think otherwise is pure folly.

But I admire your FAITH in science

Sorry NetDoc, but please actually read what I said. I agreed that PROVING fuzzy pink unicorns would be easier than PROVING where life came from, but what I actually said was...

Point 1: To disprove fuzzy pink unicorns you have to prove an infinate amount of situations false.
Point 2: To prove that life can come about without the help of god you have to create life in a lab once.

Which point do you think is easier? Proving an infinate amount of situations wrong, or proving one situation right?

As I stated, it is harder to DISPROVE something than it is to PROVE it. Jeeze, this isn't a hard concept to get... I used caps this time so it isn't as hard... Hope it helps.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Ryan

Take a deep breath

I understand that... this was a different point bubba.

Science CAN'T DISPROVE fluffy pink unicorns, it has thus failed miserably.

 

[Fade]

Ryan

Take a deep breath

I understand that... this was a different point bubba.

Science CAN'T DISPROVE fluffy pink unicorns, it has thus failed miserably.

Religion has failed to prove or disprove anything. it has thus failed us miserably

 

[Feathers in Hair]

:tsk:

Unicycle gibbon! (Maybe quoting H.M. Murdock, too. Then again, I'm biased, because he's my favorite character.)

 

[michel]

Religion has failed to prove or disprove anything. it has thus failed us miserably

I think it's more a case of you have failed religion ..(I won't say miserably)

 

[Ryan2065]

Ryan

Take a deep breath

I understand that... this was a different point bubba.

Science CAN'T DISPROVE fluffy pink unicorns, it has thus failed miserably.

Yes, science cannot disprove things that are just made up.
Science cannot disprove god
Therefore... well you draw your own conclusions! =)

 

[Fade]

I think it's more a case of you have failed religion ..(I won't say miserably)

I teach comparative religion on a part time basis so I must have passed something :jam:

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Perhaps a question that might be worth bearing on this matter (and I apologize, since I haven't been following the debate in quite as much depth as I should have) is that if science cannot disprove the idea of a god or gods, and faith cannot disprove science...

Unless it's being used for purposes of being rude to one another, why does it even matter?

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

And the reason for that is because it's all in your head. You imagine that you are spiritual and that your life has meaning. It's all just an illusion and you are frightened by science because it is stripping away the dregs of your reality, one superstition at a time. You can rant all you like about it but the reality is you are cowering in awe at the revelations that rational/scientific thought is bringing to our society.
You think it fails because it can't answer questions to which there are no answers. That isn't sciences failing, it is yours. You just don't realise that you are asking the wrong questions. Spititual beliefs and evidences? What evidences? If there was evidence for spiritual beliefs then science would be able to examine them and come up with hypothesis[sp?]. But the reality is there is no evidence for them. (hint - they don't exist, it's all in your head)

Actually, the real truth is that science is stripping away YOUR beliefs. People have ALWAYS had some notion or other of things like abiogenesis, and as science gets rid of notion after notion, you keep pushing it further and further away, back into the unknown. First, maggots were created out of raw meat. Then, when that was disproven, microscopic lifeforms were created. Then, when THAT was disproven, peopel pushed it back to the beginning of time. "Yeah, well, it doesn't happen NOW, but it must have happened THEN". As science continually disproves theory after theory of abiogenesis, atheists and secularists push it into farther and farther unknown corners, to attempt to keep their beliefs alive.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

Lol, Fade, I love your sig by the way.

 

[Fade]

Yes, science cannot disprove things that are just made up.
Science cannot disprove god
Therefore... well you draw your own conclusions! =)

I've already tried explaining this to him but he seems to not get it for some reason

 

[Fade]

Actually, the real truth is that science is stripping away YOUR beliefs. People have ALWAYS had some notion or other of things like abiogenesis, and as science gets rid of notion after notion, you keep pushing it further and further away, back into the unknown. First, maggots were created out of raw meat. Then, when that was disproven, microscopic lifeforms were created. Then, when THAT was disproven, peopel pushed it back to the beginning of time. "Yeah, well, it doesn't happen NOW, but it must have happened THEN". As science continually disproves theory after theory of abiogenesis, atheists and secularists push it into farther and farther unknown corners, to attempt to keep their beliefs alive.

And this is a failing how? Because we are actively looking for an answer rather than sitting back and saying 'God did it'? I'm not attempting to keep any belief alive. YOU are by rubbishing the scientific progress we are making.