Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2017 8:08 PM
433 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,894 Year: 6,500/21,208 Month: 2,261/2,634 Week: 449/572 Day: 66/99 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Urey supports Spontaneous Generations
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1168 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 1 of 10 (684917)
12-19-2012 10:49 AM


Nothing in the Miller and Urey Experiment description is necessarily wrong, but doesn't really accurately reflect modern thinking on the origin of life on earth some would claim.

What was essentially a special case of Spontaneous Generation, which started the unceasing multiplying of that initial protoplasm which became whole kingdoms of life forms, happened nearly 4 billion years.
After all that time there is very little evidence to explain how abiogenesis was possible.
Research since Miller/Urey has been very active and come quite a long ways, some "say", BUT we still know very little.

Modern speculation on the subject is very circumspect, including religious claims of a Spontaneous Generation, and the scientific suspicion of some concrete chemistry at work.

No recent responsible presentation would offer a simplistic scenario like Miller and Urey Experiment without making clear that it's just a very simplified and speculative summary of one possibility for abiogenesis (i.e. the de facto Spontaneous Generation which religion and science had long espoused over the centuries until this very day.

So, is this at present really support for the religious community which asserts that some unnatural forces created Life or is there evidence which science can use to show a more natural Cause an Effect relationship here?


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2012 1:36 AM kofh2u has responded
 Message 10 by Admin, posted 12-30-2012 10:10 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1168 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 2 of 10 (686200)
12-29-2012 6:52 PM


Gen 1:11 is essentially confirmed by a science still otherwise puzzled...
The point here concerns scripture which many atheists and bible basher discredit on the basis that Genesis conflicts with what Science has established as fact.
In this case, what Science HAS established in that there is no other explanation for the rather unique and uncanny appearance of life on earth.
This also defies the reasoning that life might exist on other planets because we essentially do not know how Life appeared here, on ear5h.

The Hypothesis that Life could or ought naturally appear is unfounded upon any evidence to that belief.
The science community in fact is in the sad position of merely insisting they have faith that some natural process could have and might well in other places produce life.

Though scientists would frown upon Religious organizations that preached with such certainty, they scan the skies and report on earth-like planets that might be circling other suns, speculating and reporting through the media that life exists there, de facto that they are similar to Earth.

This hypocrisy is only mentioned because faith in beliefs are so easily ridiculed by these scientist types when it concerns the discipline of Theology.

It seems tome more scientifically honest to tell the public that, just finding earth-like planets elsewhere does NOT assure us that life exists elsewhere, too.

I would go so far as to accuse Science today of actually teaching this fallacy to the point that it has become common and generally assumed that Life MUST and DOES exist elsewhere, simply because mathematically, the possibility of earth-like planets existing is high.

Science in this case is worse than religion because it disrespects the same behavior it practices.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 12-29-2012 6:54 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2012 1:37 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28427
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 3 of 10 (686201)
12-29-2012 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by kofh2u
12-29-2012 6:52 PM


Re: Gen 1:11 is essentially confirmed by a science still otherwise puzzled...
Utter bullshit.

There is evidence of natural processes there is NO evidence of un-natural processes.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by kofh2u, posted 12-29-2012 6:52 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by kofh2u, posted 12-30-2012 9:28 AM jar has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 4 of 10 (686226)
12-30-2012 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kofh2u
12-19-2012 10:49 AM


So, is this at present really support for the religious community which asserts that some unnatural forces created Life or is there evidence which science can use to show a more natural Cause an Effect relationship here?

There's the evidence that things do happen naturally. Whenever we find out the causes of anything, it turns out to have been caused by some real thing and not a ghost, a god, or a magic pixie. The law that natural effect have natural causes is therefore as well-established as any other scientific law.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kofh2u, posted 12-19-2012 10:49 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by kofh2u, posted 12-30-2012 9:17 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 5 of 10 (686227)
12-30-2012 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by kofh2u
12-29-2012 6:52 PM


Re: Gen 1:11 is essentially confirmed by a science still otherwise puzzled...
The point here concerns scripture which many atheists and bible basher discredit on the basis that Genesis conflicts with what Science has established as fact.
In this case, what Science HAS established in that there is no other explanation for the rather unique and uncanny appearance of life on earth.
This also defies the reasoning that life might exist on other planets because we essentially do not know how Life appeared here, on ear5h.

The Hypothesis that Life could or ought naturally appear is unfounded upon any evidence to that belief.
The science community in fact is in the sad position of merely insisting they have faith that some natural process could have and might well in other places produce life.

Though scientists would frown upon Religious organizations that preached with such certainty, they scan the skies and report on earth-like planets that might be circling other suns, speculating and reporting through the media that life exists there, de facto that they are similar to Earth.

This hypocrisy is only mentioned because faith in beliefs are so easily ridiculed by these scientist types when it concerns the discipline of Theology.

It seems tome more scientifically honest to tell the public that, just finding earth-like planets elsewhere does NOT assure us that life exists elsewhere, too.

I would go so far as to accuse Science today of actually teaching this fallacy to the point that it has become common and generally assumed that Life MUST and DOES exist elsewhere, simply because mathematically, the possibility of earth-like planets existing is high.

Science in this case is worse than religion because it disrespects the same behavior it practices.

No.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by kofh2u, posted 12-29-2012 6:52 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1168 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 6 of 10 (686240)
12-30-2012 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
12-30-2012 1:36 AM


The Quantum Leap without cause...

There's the evidence that things do happen naturally.

There is certainly evidence for Cause and Effect Theory.

That is the basis for this necessary and required Axiom of Science.
It's the basic Hypothesis which Science has ever since sought to support with more and more examples of a Cause/Effect relationship for everything.

It is essentially the philosophy of Science itself, and the very work of science to continue ti find the Causes to things previously assumed to be super natural.

It is the basic Tenet of Science, in fact.

However, Science has had to postulate that Cause/Effect does not include a First Cause.

At least that one Postulate is required before Science even begin to find one example after another to debunk what otherwise would be magic.

Every discipline known to man requires that some basic tenet be accepted upon faith in the common sense of it, or that discipline can not even proceed on its face.

Geometry requires eight foundational Axioms before any geometric "proof" of anything is possible/

Mathematics requires that one accept on faith the 12 Field Postulates.

And Science requires at least we ignore a First Cause, one which is, De facto, The Creator of the material universe.

Evolution requires we begin only after we accept a Natural Process can be assumed for the very first of the Life which Evolution will explain thereafter.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2012 1:36 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2012 9:40 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1168 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 7 of 10 (686241)
12-30-2012 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
12-29-2012 6:54 PM


Re: Gen 1:11 is essentially confirmed by a science still otherwise puzzled...

Hmmm...
Maybe.

But I believe in another thread on this subject, it was Percy who said, "Research since Miller/Urey has been very active and come quite a long ways, BUT we still know very little."

It is the realm of Science to produce the evidence that dispels all the super natural assumptions, granted that the First Cause is their one exception they require we ignore.

But in the realm of Quantum Physics, we have begun to collect a number of other non-cause effect situations that can be explained by hypothesis and brainstorming possibilities.

But they are mounting up, and actually are not shown to be Caused.
Science does not specifically state the axioms they imply concerning the Quantum Leap or the duality of light, or the "magic" of the Double Slit Experiment:

The spirit world of Quantum Physics


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 12-29-2012 6:54 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 12-30-2012 9:41 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 8 of 10 (686243)
12-30-2012 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by kofh2u
12-30-2012 9:17 AM


Re: The Quantum Leap without cause...
There is certainly evidence for Cause and Effect Theory.

That is the basis for this necessary and required Axiom of Science.
It's the basic Hypothesis which Science has ever since sought to support with more and more examples of a Cause/Effect relationship for everything.

It is essentially the philosophy of Science itself, and the very work of science to continue ti find the Causes to things previously assumed to be super natural.

It is the basic Tenet of Science, in fact.

However, Science has had to postulate that Cause/Effect does not include a First Cause.

At least that one Postulate is required before Science even begin to find one example after another to debunk what otherwise would be magic.

Every discipline known to man requires that some basic tenet be accepted upon faith in the common sense of it, or that discipline can not even proceed on its face.

Geometry requires eight foundational Axioms before any geometric "proof" of anything is possible/

Mathematics requires that one accept on faith the 12 Field Postulates.

And Science requires at least we ignore a First Cause, one which is, De facto, The Creator of the material universe.

Evolution requires we begin only after we accept a Natural Process can be assumed for the very first of the Life which Evolution will explain thereafter.

No.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kofh2u, posted 12-30-2012 9:17 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 28427
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 9 of 10 (686244)
12-30-2012 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by kofh2u
12-30-2012 9:28 AM


Re: Gen 1:11 is essentially confirmed by a science still otherwise puzzled...
It is the realm of Science to produce the evidence that dispels all the super natural assumptions, granted that the First Cause is their one exception they require we ignore.

Utter bullshit as expected. There are no supernatural assumptions to dispel or any evidence of any supernatural causes.

There is no magic to the double split experiment. There is no spirit world of Quantum Physics.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by kofh2u, posted 12-30-2012 9:28 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12389
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 10 of 10 (686247)
12-30-2012 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kofh2u
12-19-2012 10:49 AM


New topics on issues concerning the creation/evolution debate should be proposed over at the Proposed New Topics forum. Closing this down.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kofh2u, posted 12-19-2012 10:49 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017