Yes, but how did it all get started in the first place?

[McBell]

Could you repeat this in English? Thanks.

I am glad that I am not the only one who has no idea what he is talking about.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Je ne lui comprend pas aussi

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

I am glad that I am not the only one who has no idea what he is talking about.

Chalk me up for not having the foggiest idea.

 

[painted wolf]

Sorry abiogenesis may have been coined by a person working in science, albeit it is now common language in English speaking countries. Pick up any good dictionary to prove this. This forum is for all people, not just people who think they know something about science.

Yes, it is for all people... and the fact that you can find abiogenesis in the dictionary proves that anyone can use the right language for the conversation.
You don't talk about cars and make up terms for the parts of the engine. Otherwise I could claim that the carburetor is what provides the air conditioning... after all when I'm in the car it makes me go burr....

And I am sorry to say, that even if, abiogenesis does prove to be correct in every aspect as it is philosophized by some fields of science today, it still doesn't discount a diety, nor does it remotely suggest the unkown position of what started this process in the absolute beginning.

Don't be sorry... it's a valid point IMHO.
Aboigenesis just accounts for the chemical origin of life... nothing more.

You cannot have chemistry without physics. Abiogenesis is not where it all started from.

Never said otherwise... I'm just refuting the OP posters statement that evolution is the origion of life... it isn't.

The starting position was physics and not chemistry, chemistry came later and evolutionary biology came after that. If I am missing something please let me know. Perhaps you believe abiogenesis created the universe and evolution created abiogenesis?

Thats just rediculous.

And all of this doesn't discount the fact that something evolved and something created can co-exist without any discernable difference between them. Evolution or Creationism does not say a deity couldn't possibly exist, they both give reasons why a deity could possibly exist and if you are unsure of this, just ask any theist who believes in evolution.

I am a theist who believes in evolution... more than that, I'm a theist who is a professional biologist and working toward a phD studying evolution.

wa:do

 

[footprints]

Yes, it is for all people... and the fact that you can find abiogenesis in the dictionary proves that anyone can use the right language for the conversation.
You don't talk about cars and make up terms for the parts of the engine. Otherwise I could claim that the carburetor is what provides the air conditioning... after all when I'm in the car it makes me go burr....

It is good to see you have finally come to a point of reason.

Don't be sorry... it's a valid point IMHO.
Aboigenesis just accounts for the chemical origin of life... nothing more.

No I will always be sorry painted wolf, for narrowed minded thinking takes away from reasoned evaluation.

I am well aware of what abiogenesis accounts for.

Never said otherwise... I'm just refuting the OP posters statement that evolution is the origion of life... it isn't.

And I am just stating a fact that the origin of life, be it by deity or otherwise is physics.

Thats just rediculous.

Yes it was, that is how it was meant to be.

I am a theist who believes in evolution... more than that, I'm a theist who is a professional biologist and working toward a phD studying evolution.

wa:do

Many theists these days believe in evolution you are not alone.

I am just an agnostic who believes in probability pertaining to many things, wherever the evidence falls. I have moved on from my PhD (Behavioural Sciences).

 

[painted wolf]

It is good to see you have finally come to a point of reason.

That using the proper definition of words in their context is important?
I do believe that was what I was getting to from the begining. (ie. evolution has essentially nothing to do with how life started.)

No I will always be sorry painted wolf, for narrowed minded thinking takes away from reasoned evaluation.

overly broad thinking muddles the issue... there are flaws in both.

And I am just stating a fact that the origin of life, be it by deity or otherwise is physics.

Everything at its core is physics... but it doesn't explain everything. Discussing the origin of self replicating molecules from a purely physics basis would be obtuse.

wa:do

 

[footprints]

That using the proper definition of words in their context is important?
I do believe that was what I was getting to from the begining. (ie. evolution has essentially nothing to do with how life started.)

You were getting at, you wanted to define things by science and your own beliefs and philosophies. Not rational and not reasonable, to which I gave you the reasons why.

overly broad thinking muddles the issue... there are flaws in both.

At least over broad thinking takes into account the bigger picture as well as the minute detail. Narrow minded thinking only takes into consideration the minute detail, so the bigger picture can be lost.

Everything at its core is physics... but it doesn't explain everything. Discussing the origin of self replicating molecules from a purely physics basis would be obtuse.

wa:do

Yes everything at its core is physics. Even chemistry is physics, even evolution is physics. Without physics neither chemisry nor evolution can happen.

The origin of self replicating molecules is already discussed from a purely physical basis. However, physics is a vast field, in order to know what branch of physics we are discussing, some people like to put little definitions on things, like chemistry and biology, it is part and parcel of human nature and human intelligence to do so. People who already know physics does encompass everything, do not need these seperations.

 

[painted wolf]

You were getting at, you wanted to define things by science and your own beliefs and philosophies. Not rational and not reasonable, to which I gave you the reasons why.

poppycock... you are simply trying to dance around the subject.
If you are talking about science, talk about science.... if you want to talk about philosophy talk about philosophy.

At least over broad thinking takes into account the bigger picture as well as the minute detail. Narrow minded thinking only takes into consideration the minute detail, so the bigger picture can be lost.

Over broad misses the details. The bigger picture in this case is an excuse to ignore the evidence.

Yes everything at its core is physics. Even chemistry is physics, even evolution is physics. Without physics neither chemisry nor evolution can happen.

The origin of self replicating molecules is already discussed from a purely physical basis. However, physics is a vast field, in order to know what branch of physics we are discussing, some people like to put little definitions on things, like chemistry and biology, it is part and parcel of human nature and human intelligence to do so. People who already know physics does encompass everything, do not need these seperations.

Fuzzy thinking to avoid providing any relevant facts or details.

wa:do

 

[footprints]

poppycock... you are simply trying to dance around the subject.

LOL poppycock, is that language part of your PhD? or is it a hang over from childhood?

To quote you after I offered English as the best discussion language:

meh, English is often limited and imprecise. Thankfully, there are specified vocabularies for topics in science, so that confusion is limited.

then there was this reply by you after I had pointed you to the dictionary et al:

Yes, it is for all people... and the fact that you can find abiogenesis in the dictionary proves that anyone can use the right language for the conversation.

To which I replied, it is good to see you have come to a point of reason.

If you are talking about science, talk about science.... if you want to talk about philosophy talk about philosophy.

That is good advice, I follow that philosophy religiously.

Over broad misses the details. The bigger picture in this case is an excuse to ignore the evidence.

Over broad only misses details when details are missed. Finer focus always focus on the finer, narrower points.

Fuzzy thinking to avoid providing any relevant facts or details.

wa:do

LOL I could only provide the same relevant facts and details as you, what is the point of providing what you already have?

 

[painted wolf]

I never said that I had a PhD, just that I'm working my way there.

Over broad only misses details when details are missed. Finer focus always focus on the finer, narrower points.

I seem to be missing the point of this obtuse attempt at depth.
Perhaps that in and of itself is the point... muddy water and all.

wa:do

 

[footprints]

I never said that I had a PhD, just that I'm working my way there.

I understood that the first time you said it, that you are working toward achieving it.

Now what I would like to know is poppycock part of this teaching, or is it a hangover from childhood. Keeping in mind I do already know this answer.

I seem to be missing the point of this obtuse attempt at depth.
Perhaps that in and of itself is the point... muddy water and all.

wa:do

Anything which doesn't agree with your belief pattern would seem obtuse to you.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

Now what I would like to know is poppycock part of this teaching, or is it a hangover from childhood. Keeping in mind I do already know this answer.

So what is the point in asking? If he answers the answer you think it is, then you say you knew all along and gets you really nowhere in this debate. If he answers the answer you didn't think he would, then you may either give him a "LOL" and ignore him, or you may lie and say you knew he would answer that. Alternatively, you may tell him he's lying and that you for some reason know the "real answer". So regardless of the answer he chooses, what is the point in asking? You get nowhere, he gets nowhere, the debate gets nowhere. What is the purpose? The only reason I can see is trying to bask in the supposed glory, which really will occur even if he doesn't answer. Perhaps I'm wrong on this though.

 

[footprints]

So what is the point in asking? If he answers the answer you think it is, then you say you knew all along and gets you really nowhere in this debate. If he answers the answer you didn't think he would, then you may either give him a "LOL" and ignore him, or you may lie and say you knew he would answer that. Alternatively, you may tell him he's lying and that you for some reason know the "real answer". So regardless of the answer he chooses, what is the point in asking? You get nowhere, he gets nowhere, the debate gets nowhere. What is the purpose? The only reason I can see is trying to bask in the supposed glory, which really will occur even if he doesn't answer. Perhaps I'm wrong on this though.

LOL I do not ignore people Malleus, you above all should know this. I gave up these childish games when I was about 5.

There is a point to me asking the question Malleus, intelligence will provide the answer. I already know it isn't part of any PhD, in fact it is often discouraged. Painted wolf would also know this, she is an intelligent poster, I really do not expect her to answer it.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

There is a point to me asking the question Malleus, intelligence will provide the answer. I already know it isn't part of any PhD, in fact it is often discouraged. Painted wolf would also know this, she is an intelligent poster, I really do not expect her to answer it.

You didn't answer the question. You say intelligence will provide the answer, well, intelligence is something cognitive psychologists and other professionals in the field are unsure how to define and categorize. So what is the purpose? You don't expect her to answer and since you claim to know her answer anyways, why ask? Chances are you wouldn't need to ask to know so what's the point in asking? Please don't give a vague question of "intelligence will provide the answer" as that has a pile of questions and uncertainty. Simple direct question, simple direct answer.

 

[footprints]

You didn't answer the question. You say intelligence will provide the answer, well, intelligence is something cognitive psychologists and other professionals in the field are unsure how to define and categorize. So what is the purpose? You don't expect her to answer and since you claim to know her answer anyways, why ask? Chances are you wouldn't need to ask to know so what's the point in asking? Please don't give a vague question of "intelligence will provide the answer" as that has a pile of questions and uncertainty. Simple direct question, simple direct answer.

Psychology has had this answer for many years, what we do not have is how it marries with neuroscience albeit we are getting closer and closer each day. We are after all dealing with one of, if not the most complicated system in the universe, the human brain.

Intelligence provides the answer to every question, whether you or anybody else agrees with the answer given or even accepts it as an answer is irrelevant, this is what your own intelligence is telling you. That is your problem to work out not mine.

So let me put it this way to you; Knowing the word Poppycock and using it isn't a prerequisite to have in order to do a PhD. Knowing the word Poppycock and using it, isn't a postrequisite to have after the PhD is concluded.

 

[logician]

To know how it started in the first place, you had to be there, which is implicitly imposible. The obvious alternative is that matter and energy have existed eternallly, no god needed or wanted.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

To know how it started in the first place, you had to be there, which is implicitly imposible. The obvious alternative is that matter and energy have existed eternallly, no god needed or wanted.

Since according to Psalms God existed eternally, and as Isaiah wrote (40:26) this eternal God supplied the needed power or dynamic energy to create.

Interesting that because of the accuracy of microwaves that science can date so much about our universe.

 

[footprints]

To know how it started in the first place, you had to be there, which is implicitly imposible. The obvious alternative is that matter and energy have existed eternallly, no god needed or wanted.

So you believe in miracles then? That something can exist without ever being created. That we can have an effect without a cause?

Sorry I do not believe in miracles, just explainable, natural causes.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Since according to Psalms God existed eternally, and as Isaiah wrote (40:26) this eternal God supplied the needed power or dynamic energy to create.

Interesting that because of the accuracy of microwaves that science can date so much about our universe.

• According to Jain beliefs, the universe is eternal but not unchangeable, because it passes through an endless series of cycles
• In Sikhism, all that existed before creation took place was God and God's Will.The creation took place at the Will of God.
• According to the traditions of Mandaeism creation proceeded from a supreme formless Entity, the expression of which is creation.
• Mormons believe that physical reality (space, matter, energy) is eternal, and therefore does not have an absolute origin.

Now what makes the Psalmist and Isaiah so special?

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

So you believe in miracles then? That something can exist without ever being created. That we can have an effect without a cause?

Sorry I do not believe in miracles, just explainable, natural causes.

That's not exactly what he was saying. He said to know HOW something occurred you had to have been there when it occurred. It doesn't say anything about not believing in cause and effect because you can still believe there was a cause albeit unknown with a known effect.

If there is a natural event whose cause is not currently known, do you believe that the event occurred? Take for example a certain phenotype and although it'd be reasonable to think a genotype(s) was involved but the exact genotype(s) and mechanisms are unknown, do you still believe in the observable phenotype?