Is Abiogenesis a fact?

Do you learn about prebiotic chemistry when you go to church?

So calling these things supernatural is just asserting an unproven belief that we will never be able to detect or interact with such entities? Sorry, but if they are real, they are then natural if natural just means something that might could be observed or it's effects observed. I guess that included electrons and all sorts of things at one time then.I think the following sums it up. QM actually studies what the material or natural world actually is. The sort of methodological naturalism you espouse ignores quantum physics and is wholly outdated. You mentioned you had studied quantum physics. It is hard to imagine that and never heard of entanglement, which is a very basic prediction of QM. I believe you, but it shows you didn't learn that much on QM. It's interesting that quantum physics sounds like mysticism to you. I think in some respects it does and illustrates exactly what I am talking about. Former mystical principles are now studied by science and applied, even to the computer chip designs in your PC. Once again, this is the 21st century, not the 19th. So once again, were electrons supernatural 150 years ago? When did they become natural? Well, I am not surprised, but if you think about how our understanding of the natural world changed and understood that, you might see it. Methodological naturalism and classical physics would say that what something is would be it's physical and material form. So we would look at 2 entangled particles and say, hey, there are 2 particles.The information or design of something is a description of what something is, but not the thing in itself.QM says the non-observed pattern or design is actually what the thing is, and the discrete physical form is merely a description of the thing itself that exists as a potential for various things, and even exists when there is absolutely no discrete form at all.So even though we observe 2 separated particles, quantum physics predicted entangled particles would act as one system so much so that affecting one instantly affects the other, regardless of the distance involved (even if billions of light years apart). Quantum physics turned out to be right, and the principle of entanglement is actually used in applied technology.Now, why is this relevant? Because it shows that what we would have called material or physical is not the primary property of what constitutes a natural thing, and in fact, things exist even when they have no discrete physical form. In other words, the design is the thing, and the form is the description, not the other way around.

I'll keep this short since its nearly 7Am here. Until these entities are shown to be observable, testable and verifiable, they are firmly supernatural Of course, there is really no difference between hypothesized discrete packet of electrical charge and sentient Gods and Angels. Methodological naturalism doesn't espouse quantum mechanics? That is news to me. I'm studyin biochemistry so I had to cover quantum theory in chemistry and physics units, I'm still learning. I'll thank you for putting words in my mouth. Admitedly QM is difficult to understand at first but no itsn't mysticism. It does a good and useful job in explaining the world around us. Yet, according to you, there isn't any such thing as mysticism, its all true, right? Sure, and if we discover really worldy evidence for the sort of supernatural entities that you endorse then don't worry they'll be introduced into science. You must also see the stupendous utility of the "god did it" explanation. Quantum mechanics is useful, how is your mysticism so? So since some scientists were hypothesizing that electrical charge was carried by discrete packets, you want scientist now to entertain notions of a mystical creator of life? Are you being facetious? I don't think you actually appreciate the frivolous nature of your reasoning. Ok, so according to you, since our understanding of the natural world changes, Scientist must seriously consider an intelligent yet untestable, unobservable and unverifiable creator for life? You seem to have this bizarre notion that methodological naturalism is somehow inextricably tied to classical physics. Thanks, relevance to abiogenesis? See above And this justifies scientists accepting notions of a supernatural creator of life, how? So its useful? Please explain how the "God diddit" explanation is useful? Sigh, sorry no relevance see. Why do you think, without the irrelevant waffle, science should entertain notions of a supernatural creator of life? Edited by Isana Kadeb, : No reason given.Edited by Isana Kadeb, : No reason given.Edited by Isana Kadeb, : No reason given.

You assert the term supernatural and yet it is nothing more than a statement of ignorance and not an absolute quality, thus making your premise meaningless.So let's break down what you are claiming. You are claiming that if God does anything, science must insist that God could not have.And you think that makes sense?You also fail to recognize that we can detect design or creation and so infer a Creator. We do that with gravity. We cannot detect gravity directly but only it's effects, and so we consider gravity real. Well, we detect the effects of God in the real world all the time. These are natural, not supernatural, effects. So your whole argument is just plain wrong.Now, if you want to insist that these natural effects cannot be the result of an Intelligent Cause, be my guest, but a priori ruling out an Intelligent Cause is not good science, but bogus crap. The evidence we see is best seen as the result of an Intelligent Cause, not of mere chance.One of the problems with the way you think of methodological naturalism is that contained within that is a false idea of what is natural or material, and that was why I brought up quantum physics. QM shows and predicted for example the principle of entanglement which demonstrates that a non-observed identity defines and controls the observed world. Information is central and material is secondary. Some of the implications of that are that the laws and information defining the world likely preceded the actual material rather than simply evolving as a byproduct of it. The design is the thing, and the material form is a byproduct of it.Now, we know from the act of human creation how design is produced. Why should we exclude the knowledge of human creation from considering how design could be produced?Moreover, can physicality even take on definite and discrete form without a conscious observer?There are giants in the field of QM that have stated no discrete form exists until it is observed.

the thing is if they are natural, they should be able to interact with us on a natural level, they also should be detectible with the ways we can detect natural things - we should be about to at least observe them in someway objectivly, whether with our eyes or from interaction with other objects - such as say gravity, we know gravity is there through the fact that we don't float off into space - but unlike say a planet a thousand light years away, a god, demon, spirit is intellegent and should be able to affect us somehow directly, can you with a clear mind show me that something supernatural has affected you? well no, we have always been able to verify electrons, we had a name for a form of it: lightning, ignorace is not evidence agenst something, the fact that we didn't know it was part of an atom that got ripped off, is just lack of knowlege - we know electrons exist, just stick your finger in a light socket to find out - can i do the same with the supernatural? ok just stop with the QM junk rand, you havn't shown any evidence for your argument using QM evidence that anyone is using mystical principles in computing please, i know they are testing quantum computers of some form, but nothing about mytstical computers no, 150 years ago we knew it wasn't supernatural, 250 years ago we knew it wasn't
at least scientists didn't think it was, the religious still do
i read that some congrations didn't want a lightning rod on thier churchs when franklin started producing them, they thought it was an afront to god i really don't seen how bringing QM into every thread is relevant to any of the topics, QM seems to be your new goddidit trump card - "anything i can think of is made possible because of QM!" it doesn't matter if it doesn't remotely work that wayEdited by ReverendDG, : re-write

Again, if you can find a way to test for entities like Gods and Angels (etc.) please let me know. The Supernatural by definition is un testable and unverifiable, there is no uncertainty here despite your inept attempts to conflate the distinction. Tell me, is God testable, observable or verifiable? If science start to invoke God and other supernatural forces to explain the natural world, how is that useful? How is that productive? How far do you think modern science would have come with such a foundation? You actually think that the unprecedented technological and scientific explosion during the last 400 years is just a coincidence? You also seem to cling to this outlandish idea that science can somehow bring you absolute knowledge/truth. No, as I’ve already mentioned, it’s a tool, and as a tool it has limits. Realise that. In cases where you believe there to be divine intervention, science will be either wrong or inadequate.But nonetheless incorporating supernatural explanations such as “God did it”, serve to totally neuter Science of any usefulness. If you want to explore alternative supernatural explanations there are other fields of study. There are other ways to gain knowledge than science. Contrary to what many may tell you, just because something isn’t scientific doesn’t make it inevitably false. You fail to realise that this isn't science. Yes, we can test it. Throw a ball up in the air and see if it comes down and hits you on the head. When you can test for God, let me know. No, your entire position stems from your unwillingness to recognize the blatantly apparent distinction between natural and supernatural. Just because you feel there shouldn’t be one doesn’t in reality make it so. I contend that bogus crap is exactly what science will turn into if we let you inject your deranged mysticism into it. Your idea of "science" is utterly impotent and useless. History has unquestionably shown it to be so. Science if it is going to have any efficacy as a rational method of enquiry about the natural world must a priori dismiss the supernatural as a route of explanation. Otherwise it kills any sort of critical enquiry. Sure, and in many ways I agree, but this isn’t science however much you scream and rant about it. It’s a philosophical position. Does it mean it isn’t true? No of course not, it just means its not science. Same line of waffle with little actual relevance to discussion. The distinction between natural and supernatural is quite resoundingly clear. Supernatural - anything not observable, verifiable and testable. Sentient Gods and Angels are at the top of the list. QM is an immensely useful in explaining the world around us. The “God did it” explanation is almost next to useless. Tell me how would you go about applying it? Sure, just don’t confuse it for anything related to science. Look, I appreciate where you’re coming from. As you know I’m religious myself. But you seem to have this misconception that science as a rational tool of enquiry is somehow capable of bringing you absolute truth. It’s not possible. Science, if it’s going to have any worth and usefulness, needs to be naturalistic. Otherwise it just simply descends into fruitless mysticism or as you put it above, bogus crap. There are other ways of knowing, if you’re religious you should know that. Thanks for the discussion, I’m off to bed. Edited by Isana Kadeb, : No reason given.Edited by Isana Kadeb, : No reason given.Edited by Isana Kadeb, : Grammar

just chipping in on one specific point here... I guess the key difference is that, unlike supernatural beasties that are known of long before they have been satisfactoraly proved to exist, electrons weren't known about until they were observed. Actually, maybe that isn't true - maybe they WERE postulated before they were discovered, it was because a naturalistic model of the universe allowed this. I don't think that anything can be labelled supernatural because it resulted from a naturalistic understanding of the universe.

We test for God by studying design, simple as that. That's a clear-cut way to test for God. The simple fact is the universe exhibits principles and design at it's foundation, and as such, is best understood as the result of an Intelligent Cause.As far as invoking supernatural forces, no one is doing that. In fact, it is quite clear that we are postulating a natural force. If God has done something in the natural world, then God by definition or the part of God that has done something is by definition natural and not supernatural and so you are completely wrong to assert anyone is making a claim of something supernatural.In fact, by definition a supernatural thing cannot act in the natural world, and if a force does act in the natural world, it is natural and not supernatural by definition. So you say, but that's mere ignorance on your part, if not buffoonery. The truth is ruling out a plausible explanation a priori will automatically render science useless in any area that the explanation is true for.Plus, once again, considering the actions of God is in no way asserting a supernatural force as far as scientific definitions. it is the assertion of something that occurred in nature in the universe itself, as the causal effects are real and can be studied. Nope. You fail to realize you have offered a false definition of supernatural. Whether something can be tested for has nothing to do with whether something is natural or supernatural, but simply has everything to do with our level of technology. Definitions such as this should be defined by what something is regardless of our levels of technology, and as such, you have offered a false definition of a term. If things can become natural and maybe if we go backwards technologically, they can become supernatural, then the term is meaningless as far as a discussion as this because all you are describing is our level of technology and awareness, not a fundamental property of something within the potential scope of science. You contend? OK, please substantiate your contentions. Making baseless charges means nothing, and that's exactly what you are doing, making baseless charges. So you agree, but insist science must by definition insist on false explanations; must ignore the truth on how something happened if, by golly, it means God could have been involved.Doesn't corrupt science as a mechanism for understanding physical reality?It appears by the way that you are failing to see how QM redefined "material" to be first and foremost an immaterial state.As far as science, I am not asserting it brings us absolute truth. I am asserting putting up bogus barriers with poorly defined terms based on an outdated paradigm of what constitutes material is wrong.I go where the evidence leads. By your own admission, your brand of science must ignore where the evidence leads if that evidence leads to a suggestion of an Intelligent Cause.

Doesn't really matter because under that definition, all sorts of things can be supernatural one day and natural the next and then back again. It's not a working definition of a fundamental property of what something is, but a relative value based on our technology, and as such, is meaningless for this sort of discussion.If God or anything has acted in the real world, then it is natural by definition whether we can detect it or not.

With a clear mind, yes, but once again, you are inserting a term, supernatural, that predates science and is improper for science and a scientific discussion. God by definition is natural as far as science. Anything that has acted in the natural world is natural, or at least partly natural, and yea, as far as I am concerned, on an individual level, God is imminently "testable", but it is a personal and individual exploration. To what degree science and technology can be harnessed in that exploration remains to be seen.Certainly, the dominant interpretation of QM suggests that matter could not exist without intelligence, and so suggests a consciousness predates matter, but whether that is God or what ventures into a religious question. I think the scientific observation is just that the evidence suggests the universe can be best understood as the result of an Intelligent Cause.QM is entirely appropiate when the discussion ventures into questions about what constitutes the material world as QM is the field of study related to that. The stuff I posted you can look up and verify for yourself. It's not something far-out in the sense that it is considered wrong, but is more a question of trying to figure out how QM works and what it entails, it's scope for macro-objects, etc,....

“Observed, tested, OR verified” is something other that “observable , testable and verifiable” need not be.Take for instance the notion of latency as discussed by Bill Shipleyin Cause and Correlation in Biology,

quote:

---

5.4 The nature of latent variables
http://www.callisto.si.usherb.ca:8080/bshipley/my%20book.htm
So far, I have described latent variables simply as variables that we have not directly measured but that we can directly observe. In the previous examples there was no question but that the animals really did have lipid reserves or that the strings really did have a length. In such situations the development of the measurement model involves choosing measurable indicator variables that are all linearly related to the same latent variable. If there exists other causal relationships between the measured latent variables, through other latents or not, then these must also be included in the model.

​

Often nature is not that accommodating. What happens if we want to model latent variables that we cannot directly observe? In such cases, even the existence of the latent variable is hypothetical. The invocation of such theoretical entities presents much more difficult choices, since we can’t rely on direct observation to know whether such things even exist, although the actual modeling is no different. None the less, the history of science is littered (or enriched, depending on your philosophical view) with such things. When Gregor Mendel invoked recessive and dominant alleles of genes to explain his patterns of inheritance in pea seeds, he did not measure or observe such things. Rather, he inferred them because the rations of the resulting phenotypes agreed with the binomial proportions that would result if such things existed. Genes were latent variables and still are; no one has ever directly observed a gene. Atoms, too, are latent; the Periodic Table was developed by inferring atomic structures from the numerical regularities that resulted from experiments. Ernst Mach, who was mentioned in Chapter 3 as one of the phenomenalists who influenced Karl Pearson’s views, initially refused to accept the reality of shock waves caused by bullets going faster than the speed of sound. He accepted such waves only when he was able to devise an experiment in which a camera was rigged to take a picture just as a bullet cut a fine wire covered in soot, revealing a V-shaped pattern.

---

One can surely include supernaturals as latent effects that are either unobserved but testable or observable but currently not verified. This was why I needed some clarification for instance, in another content, of JAD use or the verb “release.” He demurred but the same discussion can take place in this thread with a less likely probability of return. It is possible that whatever physical teleology might be produced can be approached without entering the form of a pratical maxim. You are free to choose not.So unless you are really hanging onto everthing in your word “really” it is not true necessarily that,

quote:

---

Of course, there is really no difference between hypothesized discrete packet of electrical charge and sentient Gods and Angels.

---

The effect and affect of the ambiguity of the number of latents are not the same appearances. Let us not have the sound.

Exactly, the design or effects can be studied to infer realities about the cause which is inherently non-observable at the level of current technology at the time the theory is emerging.Thanks.

Some perspectives are sufficiently unique and encompassing that they have to be restricted to their own topics. The view that quantum physics rules out naturalism, or that the age of the universe is malleable, are two such viewpoints. They and their derivatives can be used to oppose almost any position and as such are risks to draw any thread off-topic and into discussion of themselves.It would fine to propose threads to discuss these viewpoints, but please leave them aside from discussion in other threads such as this one.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

why is it inproper? i'm thinking you are just dismissing it as a counter-arguement for why god can't be considered natural by science. if god is natural show god is natural, test god, until you can test god the way we test all natural phanomenon then it doesn't qualify as natural
the second you start talking about it being personal and individual exploration is the second it can't be scientificly classified as natural, since nature can be explored by everyone and everyone can test observe the same things objectivly - you can't do this with godi like this definition i found:supernatural - not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings"
is god subject to natural laws? i would call anything that can truely effect natural law to be supernatural can i get some evidence of this rand? this seems very shakey and you seem to be using it as trump card for everything. the dominant interpreation of QM says nothing about intelligence, if people do its not dominant. sorry but the evidence does not sugest an intelligent cause this is a belief i never said it was far-out, i think you are creating a faulty argument around things you really don't understand as much as you think you do. it just looks to me like you are using sciencey words to obscure or outright confuse peopleby the way i still don't see any relevence for bringing up QM, the topic is abiogenesis, what does QM have to do with biochemistry?Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

Defining supernatural as things that cannot be tested yet is faulty because that is a mere statement of technology, not the thing itself. I have stated this several times, and it is quite clearly the case that an electron, for example, is not supernatural but under your definition here, would have been supernatural in the past.Furthermore, we do test for God everytime we observe repetive action or non-action since that indicates principle exists.ON QM, there have been seveal threads, even one recently that I did not particupate in that confirms these basic facts about QM. Why don't you try getting up to speed on it and we can discuss what areas you disagree with?As far as using sciency words or some such, that is patently absurd. Take the time to read and learn what quantum physics actually demonstrates and you can see for yourself.QM is the study of what constitutes "material" and so is pretty important for any discussion that involves terms like "physical" or "natural" or material. At this point, I think you just need to take some time to develop a sufficiently basic understanding of some aspects of quantum physics so you can appreciate responses from me and anyone else in that area.Edit to add I hadn't noticed percy's comments so it's probably good that I didn't answer in more detail about QM.2nd edit to add this was not a response to admin. How that shows up is baffling, but this was certainly not meant as a response to admin's post but someone else's, and moreover, I hadn't read the admin's comments before posting this.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : To fix mislabelling.