Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   faith based science?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 16 of 171 (676319)
10-21-2012 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by eclectic1993
10-21-2012 5:04 PM


I hope that this isn't seen as adding to a "dogpile" , but I am finding your claims a bit unclear.
quote:
My evolutionist friend at work has an interesting way of dealing with life spawning from inorganic matter. He explains that it is outside the purview of evolutionary science. He stated that was a matter for a chemist to work out.
While there are quibbles centering around the problem of defining life your friend is basically right.
quote:
First and foremost, when a creationist speaks about the problem of evolution, it begins with origins. This is why, technically, creationists and evolutionist cannot really debate, because they are not debating the same thing. I bet you all have seen this time and time again on this site.
I don't think that that is the problem. After all we can debate the issues perfectly well. The problem comes when a creationist tries to use the problem of abiogenesis as a knock-down argument against evolution and can't accept that it just doesn't work. Evolution doesn't stand on how life originated. Even if abiogenesis was a part of the theory of evolution falsifying it wouldn't touch on the rest - a major sticking point, for instance, human descent from earlier primates, is completely untouched by any argument on abiogenesis.
So, we don't understand how life originated. But where is the dogmatic faith ? Accepting the best explanation we currently have doesn't seem like dogmatic faith - surely going AGAINST it would be more like dogmatic faith. Can you explain just what you are getting at here ?
quote:
Second to 'origins of life' is another gap I've seen taken on faith.
That is the decoding/reprogramming of DNA to produce more complex forms/combinations of DNA.
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Mutation doesn't involve any "decoding" and "reprogramming" is likely to be a misleading analogy. Unless your systems worked a lot like DNA it would take a degree of faith to transfer your results to what is actually going on in evolution, would it not ? You don't actually know if you have a good analogy or a bad one.
Again, if the question comes down to weighing the evidence for and against, going with the answer favoured by the evidence cannot be seen as dogmatic faith, even if we don't know the details. If you could really turn your own efforts into a solid argument you might have a point, but I don't think that you've done that yet. (I would suggest that current a-life experiments using tools like Avida have more relevance, even if that relevance is limited).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by eclectic1993, posted 10-21-2012 5:04 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 24 of 171 (676460)
10-23-2012 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by eclectic1993
10-22-2012 8:17 PM


Just to respond to a couple of points:
quote:
I read the Murrey/Urey topic. Thank you. Given all the research over the past 60 years it still has NOT resulted in a quantifiable recipe for creating life NOR is there a guarantee that it can ever be accomplished.
I don't think that such experiments are expected or even intended to give a "quantifiable recipe for creating life". The original Miller-Urey experiment was a stunning breakthrough as it was.
quote:
In the absence of any other information, operating on the best information, I would agree. However, if the evidence can point two ways, each of which have merit, then ITS reasonable in my way of thinking to be 'open minded'. I can't tell you how much open-mindedness I've had to muster as a Christian reading and studying science. Of course I admit dogmatic faith since I can't prove that God exists 'scientifically'.
So far as I can tell the main arguments to try to support creationism in regard to abiogenesis are either arguments that abiogenesis can't happen (which can only hurt the case for abiogenesis - they aren't positive evidence for creationism) or claims that the Cambrian Explosion represented a wave of creation (an argument which doesn't really stand up to scrutiny). I don't see either as having much merit.
I don't really think that there is a creationist equivalent or the Miller-Urey experiment or the RNA World hypothesis (both major advances). So I'd have to say that the evidence clearly favoured abiogenesis on Earth, with panspermia a distant second (thanks to evidence like the Murchison meteorite) and creationism - even Old Earth Creationism - coming in third.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by eclectic1993, posted 10-22-2012 8:17 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 39 of 171 (676721)
10-25-2012 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by eclectic1993
10-25-2012 1:10 AM


quote:
The Miller/Urey experimental results produced interesting results. However, to state that it gets us closer to creating life is an overstatement. Extrapolating scientific data toward a particular outcome is okay, it simply isn't scientific. You must admit at that time, evolutionists were excited. It gave them 'hope' that life could be created naturally without divine intervention. After 60 years, it still inspires evolutionists.
I think that you are missing the important point. The real issue of abiogenesis research is to understand HOW life could have formed naturally. The Miller-Urey experiment, by showing that amino acids could form naturally without life really did help there. However it would be very foolish to think that we could reasonably hope to duplicate the whole process from the formation of amino acids all the way through to early life in a single experiment. We are talking about a process that very likely took millions of years and may well have involved a number of different environments. We can better hope for a series of experiments that deal with the high points, like Miller-Urey or one of it's relatives.
quote:
The focus of abiogenesis researchers, I believe, is to create life. Technically, I believe they only need to 'show' it is possible. Of course, anything short of actually creating life falls short of my expectations. Since life has not been created through this process, there is no scientific reason to believe this is possible.
As I've said I disagree that this is the focus, and I hope that the reasoning above explains why I don't think that a Miller-Urey experiment will ever be part of an experiment to create life. There likely will be experiments trying to create simple life, eventually, although they will be hampered by the problem of defining life in the first place. (Any experiment to create life will be trying to create something that just barely counts as life, and if there's no good idea of what would count for that then it's very hard to claim that the experiment conclusively created life even if it was a smashing success).
quote:
I reject the notion that life can be created from non-life. There is no compelling evidence to even suggest this is possible. If you are a supporter of abiogenesis (it's intended goal) then you do so by 'faith'. I'm okay with faith-based science.
Of course there IS evidence that it is possible. The fact that there is no clear boundary between life and non-life. The fact that there is no clear boundary between living and non-living matter - an atom is the same whether it is part of a living being or not. The chemical synthesis of organic compounds - especially the Miller-Urey experiment. In fact, we can say that the formation of life from non-life IS definitely possible in principle, there is simply no real doubt on that point. The question is whether it is possible through natural means under the conditions that would have existed on the early Earth.
quote:
Paul, a hypothesis is a proposal. The problem here, I think, is that you are ranking possibilities without conclusive evidence one way or the other. You are simply "conjecturing" and moving the discussion from science to philosophy. ( I don't mean to offend philosophers). Many university courses combine philosophy and religion.
Being a hypothesis doesn't mean that there isn't evidence supporting it - and the RNA World not only has evidence, it solved a major problem in abiogenesis. That is why I call it an advance.
And there is nothing wrong with ranking proposals in terms of the evidence, didn't I say that I was talking about accepting the best explanation we have ? If we had conclusive evidence for one explanation, we wouldn't need to do that. This isn't a purely philosophical issue, it is a scientific issue - scientists need to judge which avenues of research are likely to be productive. (If I might take an example from physics, the wide acceptance of String Theory isn't due to conclusive evidence - nobody has even come up with a good scientific test for it. And there's a bit of a backlash from some physicists because of that problem).
quote:
I'm a Christian, and I like religion as much as the guy on the pew next to me. But regarding this forum, I would prefer to stick to science. Oh yeah! If I don't practice what I preach, please correct me. I'm very thick-skinned and imperfect, and forget what I wrote minutes earlier.
If you want to say that creationism is just religion and has no real scientific basis then I'm fine with that. But a lot of creationists disagree - they want to claim that science supports their view. Also, if the scientific evidence does support alternatives, and creationism relies on religious belief for support then you should be hardly surprised if people who do not share those beliefs prefer other alternatives which do have scientific support - and that it would be unfair to label that preference "dogmatic faith".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by eclectic1993, posted 10-25-2012 1:10 AM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 109 of 171 (677303)
10-29-2012 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by foreveryoung
10-29-2012 12:39 AM


quote:
Acceleration and velocity are manifestations of energy. Momentum is a manifestation of mass or vice versa really. What is "space time" a manifestation of ?
Without space and time you cannot have velocity or acceleration, nor can you have momentum without velocity. Space and time are fundamental to physics. And if you wish to exclude them then you must also exclude velocity or acceleration or momentum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by foreveryoung, posted 10-29-2012 12:39 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024