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:   MrHambre - Abiogenesis and Origins
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 20 (95993)
03-30-2004 1:56 PM


Dear MrHambre, in an effort to save the other topic I have brought this forward, it's a bit of a rant but I hope you can take part.
Our "belief" that life arose from non-life is based on the fact that naturalistic explanations have been sufficient to account for all other natural phenomena that have been studied. The way that previously-unsolvable mysteries of our Earth have yielded to empirical evidential inquiry gives us the confidence that abiogenesis may yield to the same methods.
In essence, you think that life came from the dust? It's good to see that you believe the Genesis in abiogenesis.
It would ofcourse, make the chance explanation complete, in that - nobody could say any longer "G-d could have used it". If it comes about solely naturally, you'll probably insist then that it is a G-dless universe and that science now favours atheism. When the scientists all enter, is it not true that they say; "first of all, we all know that there's no G-d". Yes, maybe the ToE is better off without abiogenesis afterall, if science becomes solely atheistic and even biased towards the possibility of the supernatural. Fair enough, if they don't include G-d then I'll be happy - as long as they don't imply that God = unreality.
Remember, to be truly scientific would to not insist upon an opinion of there being no G-d having any merit in regard to science, or to a scientific position. Especially when touting that science has no view on the issue. I agree, you can't make an experiment in which you can come to know the answer as to G-d's existence, but abiogenesis does step on the toes of the religious even more controversially than evolution.
To say that it is purely naturalistic and to then continue with the assumption infinitely throughout each of the mysteries of the universe also concludes no G-d - as we do not consider G-d a natural reality, but rather a supernatural reality bar Christ. For if everything comes under your favoured and often spoke of Methodological Naturalism then that is to conclude no G-d as G-d cannot come under this.
Forgive my new found religiosity in regards to G-d's name. Regards, Mike.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2004 2:19 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 3 by MrHambre, posted 03-30-2004 2:57 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 03-30-2004 3:45 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 03-30-2004 3:52 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 20 (96071)
03-30-2004 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by MrHambre
03-30-2004 2:57 PM


Chance existence etc
There were a few points made, but I will respond to you firstly Sir, as the topic is concerning you.
Speculation using verifiable, testable mechanisms is more responsible than speculation using supernatural fantasies. Yes, I have a thing for Methodological Naturalism, because it's the bullshit filter that has worked.
I am not saying MN is a wrongful approach or the wrong thing to use BTW, I just don't think we should maybe apply it to everything, including mysteries or unknowns like origins of universe or life. Okay, I apreciate the position you take as to using a testable mechanism rather than taking a supernatural stance. The problem is probably something Ned mentioned. It would appear that if G-d isn't included because there is no means to apply a testable mechanism to him, then people will assume science says he doesn't exist.
But that is not my own personal situation. I just think that if we added abiogenesis to the evolution worldview then it would appear that the whole meaning of life is that of a natural perspective, and it would complete the "chance" outlook on things or even an atheistic view would seem more scientific. Afterall, at what stage are miracles included if it is all explained via MN?
The same goes for the distinction between life and non-life. If we're looking for the magic point where life 'happened,' we're not likely to find it.
Unfortunately not. Would it be a better thing to maybe remove speculation and/or have no official scientific position altogether?
Okay, I heed Loudmouth's post, he says what has a religion got to do with our investigations - good point, my problem is that I am looking at this philosophically whereas you may take a totally scientific position so I understand the point well.
I will maybe continue to see things philosophically, from my point of view, what with the media and it's programs about earth/universe - it all looks like a totally chance outlook and there seems to be an almost empty and meaningless consensus attached to everything. I assure you this is not ego speaking as I don't have much of one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by MrHambre, posted 03-30-2004 2:57 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by MrHambre, posted 03-31-2004 7:23 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 8 of 20 (96077)
03-30-2004 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by NosyNed
03-30-2004 3:45 PM


There was a time when the earth moving was a big problem for the religious. The idea of evolution of any kind at all -- any change at all, was a big problem. For some it still is.
Understood. Infact I would encourage scientific endeavour, and am aware that no view = no view, even if it looks like you are cutting out the Creator. Fair enough, don't forget though - I am not saying that science itself is biased. Though it does trouble me when only one way of thinking is allowed. To assume that abiogenesis is the case seems a slightly opinionated area, cannot we leave the door open?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 03-30-2004 3:45 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 9 of 20 (96263)
03-31-2004 7:03 AM


Bumped for the less of a chance deludants with a full Dan-ban included.

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 20 (96270)
03-31-2004 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by MrHambre
03-31-2004 7:23 AM


So why do you care whether science regards your religion as relevant to the origin of life?
I don't care too much. I care that if we maybe assume that MN is the case or abiogenesis - it would fit a more "chance" like outlook among people, as already it seems this becomes almost the way when I see programs on the universe etc.
God is among those phenomena that don't yield to scientific research, so don't expect science to give you a basis for belief in God.
But shouldn't you be saying that because G-d is among phenomena that don't yield to scientific research don't expect a basis for belief or unbelief in G-d from science?
So many times here I've been told that science has no opinion on G-d, yet this quote interests me, would you suggest that scientifically a belief in G-d is not correct?
You see it's not G-d in particular, him not being a part of science doesn't bother me, but if we assume that a naturalistic means is the only possibility for life to emerge, that almost suggests or = no G-d, and/or a "chance" existence. If there was evidence for abiogenesis, that says a natural process is what happened then this debate wouldn't matter, but as you say, if we can't see what happens at the time then why assume only a naturalistic position? Surely you hold a possibility in your own mind if this cannot be solved by science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by MrHambre, posted 03-31-2004 7:23 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 11:01 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 13 by MrHambre, posted 03-31-2004 11:22 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 14 by Loudmouth, posted 03-31-2004 12:13 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 15 of 20 (96340)
03-31-2004 12:48 PM


You win
Okay guys you win, both Loudmouth MrHambre and nosyNed have convinced me that methodological naturalism is the best way to investigate the case. I'm willing to admitt that science cannot deal with the supernatural - you win MrHambre.
Also - I'm getting into an area I didn't really want to get into, I think I am digging my own grave. I honestly do not mind that God is not included in science as that is simply not it's purpose. If evolution is happening it is most definatlely happening in the wiz-box. I like the hard-line truth of science - "swallow it, cos it's the way it is" - that indicates the search for truth to my mind.
Ned also mentioned something very significant in his intelligent post, he said (to the effect) that even if abiogenesis did happen it could be a "set-up" universe.
You guys are so close to making me an evo' right now I can almost completely give in. It's the logic that is the most sensible that lures me in, and it only seems to happen when the evolutionists speak.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Loudmouth, posted 03-31-2004 1:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 03-31-2004 1:08 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 1:37 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 20 of 20 (96396)
03-31-2004 3:29 PM


Percy,
I came on here after hearing about creationism and thought everybody in the world didn't realise that there was this alternative view you could have - Lol, infact you guys already knew a LOT about creationism, however - I never thought science was religious. I wonder if my first ever post is able to be found, I think it was a typical YEC rant.
Ned,
You can't "convert" you're our candidate for a creo admin! Sides there are so few that carry on a reasonable conversation we need you.
Lol - I've noticed some people are totally inable to give up on the tiniest of points, and will argue till the sun becomes big and red and humans have de-evolved into bouncing ape flees.
Having lost a loved one I can, to a degree, understand some of the comfort that faith might be able to give you. If you've got it don't let it go because of lies told by those at AIG.
Have the best of both. An appreciation for the awesome wonder of the natural world and a connection with something you feel is greater still. Just don't let either one get in the way of the other.
Amen to that, I am sorry about that loss there and I gauruntee my faith is solid, at the moment I suppose I am too neutral to be considered either evo or creo. I will remain calling myself creationist if I must be categorized, but do understand this is only because I believe the universe was created by God, and the animals, it has nothing to do with Ken Ham or any theory of anyones though, so - just like Einstein, don't let them mis-represent my belief.
'sides the MN side may yet be in for a surprise out there if we really do find gap that simply can not be closed - ever. Or even a hint of something else going on (though I guess that would become within the scope of MN if it did. mmmm, I get confused if I try to get too philosophical or too theological. That might be why I stay away.
Yes, it is good to leave that door open and maybe we will be surprised, as they say in star trek- the future is the undiscovered country.
It's a shame you don't get involved in those philosophical/theological discussions though Ned, this kind of logical roundabout is exactly what my brain thrives on for what reason I'll never know.
Loudmouth,
Thanks for your encouragement with my endeavours recently, I assure you I won't accept anyone mis-representing your true intentions.
Dan you are still banned for being a less of a chance deludant
Wow, well - I think I replied to everyone..........
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-31-2004]

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024