FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Where does life come from? in Science matter





michaelagustin
We all know that God created everything. but some scientist looking forward for proof...
Ankhanu
Given that no one can define what god is, show which god(s) might be correct, or definitively show that gods even exists, saying that we know god created anything (let alone everything) is a leap to conclusions of colossal proportions; we know nothing of the sort. You're making very powerful claims, which require not only powerful evidence, but even a basic cohesive idea of what the basis of the claim is.

As it stands, we do not know how life originated on Earth, but in general, it is believed that life began through non-living chemistry: abiogenesis (non-living origin). That's not to say that we don't have some very good ideas of how it likely began, but we don't have enough evidence to make any kind of definitive statement.
I'm going to link you to the wiki article on abiogenesis to give you a basic start into some of the different ideas that have been put forth for the origin of life. Take a read through (and follow some of the links within to more in-depth explanations of some of the concepts within), and come back with some specific questions or ideas on the topic. That will make discussing the topic much easier than your original post allows.
silver67
michaelagustin wrote:
We all know that God created everything. but some scientist looking forward for proof...


As stated above this isn't even a question. It seems to me you are merely stating an opinion to get others to flame each other for having different beliefs and ideas.

If you asked a question I'm sure many people would be happy to answer it for you.
Cliffer
from water?
mengshi200
actually,Science do not know where life come from.God created everything that is only clear answer.Other religions have many answer.

michaelagustin wrote:
We all know that God created everything. but some scientist looking forward for proof...
saratdear
mengshi200 wrote:
actually,Science do not know where life come from.God created everything that is only clear answer.Other religions have many answer.

No. Science does have a hunch, through abiogenesis. 'God created everything' is not accepted as a scientific answer.
Ankhanu
mengshi200 wrote:
actually,Science do not know where life come from.God created everything that is only clear answer.Other religions have many answer.

michaelagustin wrote:
We all know that God created everything. but some scientist looking forward for proof...


Even if "God did it" proves to be true (of which we have NO evidence to date), it is not an explanation, it's a statement. "God did it" does not answer the question "How", it answers the question "Who". The "How" question remains completely untouched, and still requires explanation.

Again, check the links above concerning abiogenesis. Ask some specific questions and perhaps some answers can be found.
ayour
I think this is over the limits of science, i am not against science but it will really be a long way to prove that.
Smile
Ankhanu
ayour wrote:
I think this is over the limits of science, i am not against science but it will really be a long way to prove that.
Smile


I don't think it's beyond the limits of science at all... it's beyond what we currently know, but those are two very different ideas. Science is a fine tool for investigating these sorts of big questions.

You are right that it will be a long, difficult process to develop the "final" theory though. We need to figure out how to find the data Wink
mengshi200
science include Abiogenesis can not answer the first origin of life.and evolutionary theory is still not complete proved。

saratdear wrote:
mengshi200 wrote:
actually,Science do not know where life come from.God created everything that is only clear answer.Other religions have many answer.

No. Science does have a hunch, through abiogenesis. 'God created everything' is not accepted as a scientific answer.
Ankhanu
mengshi200 wrote:
science include Abiogenesis can not answer the first origin of life.and evolutionary theory is still not complete proved

Nothing in science ever is completely proved. It's still an exceptionally powerful and accurate tool for describing reality. It's the best tool we've got.
Navigator
Creationism and Evolution do not take into account an important part of the nature of reality: consciousness. One is completely dogmatic and in some way, absurd. The other one is materialistic. Neither are correct as they seem to claim the same thing: that everything started at one point, that is, that time is linear. But applying these terms to the cosmos is an oversimplification. Its religious dogma speaking, not true science.
Ankhanu
Navigator wrote:
Creationism and Evolution do not take into account an important part of the nature of reality: consciousness. One is completely dogmatic and in some way, absurd. The other one is materialistic. Neither are correct as they seem to claim the same thing: that everything started at one point, that is, that time is linear. But applying these terms to the cosmos is an oversimplification. Its religious dogma speaking, not true science.


How is consciousness an important aspect of the origin of life or the universe (those are wildly different topics, by the way)?
marea
life comes from water...i guess
Bikerman
Navigator wrote:
Creationism and Evolution do not take into account an important part of the nature of reality: consciousness. One is completely dogmatic and in some way, absurd. The other one is materialistic. Neither are correct as they seem to claim the same thing: that everything started at one point, that is, that time is linear. But applying these terms to the cosmos is an oversimplification. Its religious dogma speaking, not true science.
The assumption that time is linear is not one made by evolution, per se, but since you present no evidence that time is NOT linear then it is difficult to see how you can justify the claim that this assumption is not scientific and is an oversimplification.
Bluedoll
Ankhanu wrote:
Even if "God did it" proves to be true (of which we have NO evidence to date), it is not an explanation, it's a statement. "God did it" does not answer the question "How", it answers the question "Who". The "How" question remains completely untouched, and still requires explanation.
God did do it- how. So we can try to explain it scientifically. A question!

What if "science can not explain it" but is in a constant pursuit attempting to solve unanswerable questions resulting in even more questions which is actually achieving unconclusive results. Is not science supplying very little evidence making only educated assumptions and so then making statements?
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
Even if "God did it" proves to be true (of which we have NO evidence to date), it is not an explanation, it's a statement. "God did it" does not answer the question "How", it answers the question "Who". The "How" question remains completely untouched, and still requires explanation.
God did do it- how. So we can try to explain it scientifically. A question!

That's a "why" question, not a "how" question Wink So we're still left with the "how", which brings us to:

Bluedoll wrote:
What if "science can not explain it" but is in a constant pursuit attempting to solve unanswerable questions resulting in even more questions which is actually achieving unconclusive results. Is not science supplying very little evidence making only educated assumptions and so then making statements?


That is a real possibility, that we may simply never know. I don't think this is necessarily the case... and I suppose this is may "faith" in the process and in the human mind. The scientific pursuit is like a quest, you don't know if you'll reach your destination, and, you don't always (often?) know what the destination actually is, but the journey towards it is rewarding, challenging, fulfilling and enriching.

The scientific statements currently made about the origin of life are largely hypotheses, none have reached the point of theory yet, by and large. That is a very important distinction, and one that someone educated in science is going to be aware of, though that doesn't always translate to the general public (much like the proper use of the word "theory"). That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue searching for evidence, nor reevaluating how we've looked at the existing evidence. Scientific knowledge is built up, it's almost never developed out of a single lifetime's worth of work, rather it's the accumulation of the work of many individuals, often over the span of several lives. Sometimes it just takes that one missing bit of information to be found, fall into place and complete the puzzle... but sometimes that last piece is REALLY hard to find.

So yeah, it may be unanswerable, but, chances are it is not. Currently we don't have a solid answer, but it's likely that one will eventually be found... not just "one" but the right one, even Wink
Bluedoll
I like computers. I like learning and the very cool thing about them regardless of how much we accumulate, there is more around the corner, more to learn or more coming into existence that makes yesterday’s news, old stuff. That is what is so great about knowledge you are never done learning. Unfortunately the same thing can be said in a negative way about that pursuit. As computers become more and more complicated is it possible some day our creation will be illusive to us (ai?)?

Ankhanu wrote:
The scientific statements currently made about the origin of life are largely hypotheses, none have reached the point of theory yet, by and large. That is a very important distinction, and one that someone educated in science is going to be aware of, though that doesn't always translate to the general public (much like the proper use of the word "theory").


Is not science an endless journey which is so very cool yet at the same time does not lead to any real solidified conclusion only the best answer for the time period we reside in.

Yet, faith in something must exist or we would not venture anywhere. After careful study we reach educated conclusions, we trust the answers we arrive at with science. But if we are honest, can we say they are absolutely conclusive absolutely? Can we make a declaration that is certain and still be scientifically orientated? For the really hard questions perhaps we should think not?
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
I like computers. I like learning and the very cool thing about them regardless of how much we accumulate, there is more around the corner, more to learn or more coming into existence that makes yesterday’s news, old stuff. That is what is so great about knowledge you are never done learning. Unfortunately the same thing can be said in a negative way about that pursuit. As computers become more and more complicated is it possible some day our creation will be illusive to us (ai?)?


Why is this negative? It just illustrates that we have more to learn, and, perhaps, that we must approach the situations differently.
It's possible AI will develop in ways that were not forseen, yeah, but chances are it will do so within a logical framework, which is, ultimately, understandable. Complexity, in and of itself, does not bring something out of frame, it just means that there are many variables that must be accounted for, and these variables likely influence one another in some sort of cascading way. While it may be tough to trace, it is ultimately traceable, with enough attention to detail and understanding how the interactions operate.

Bluedoll wrote:
Is not science an endless journey which is so very cool yet at the same time does not lead to any real solidified conclusion only the best answer for the time period we reside in.


I wouldn't say that it does not lead to solidified conclusion... just that we must be aware that it may turn out to be less solid than it had appeared when we had less information. Some theories have stood quite solidly for centuries, continually being bolstered by new information; they're pretty solid. But, yeah, that doesn't mean we should get lazy and complacent and assume that we'll never find something to tear them apart and build new, even more solid theory.

Bluedoll wrote:
Yet, faith in something must exist or we would not venture anywhere. After careful study we reach educated conclusions, we trust the answers we arrive at with science. But if we are honest, can we say they are absolutely conclusive absolutely? Can we make a declaration that is certain and still be scientifically orientated?


Is what you're suggesting basically this:
"Rational, scientific findings may be wrong"
"Faith has certainty"

Faith > Science&Rationality ; or restated as "Faith has more power than rationality" SELF EDIT - After a couple re-reads, no, I don't think this is where you were quite going... sorry for my confusion, but I'm going to leave this personal misunderstanding stand, but abandon it for the discussion Razz

Let me re-tackle this with fresher eyes Razz
There is an (often) unstated caveat with any scientific statement that, in essence, looks like this: Based on what we currently know or Based on current understanding. With these in mind, we can make some pretty darn certain statements on a great many things, with the understanding that there is margin of error, no matter how small that margin may be. Yes there is some (what I suppose could be interpreted as) "faith" involved in this, but it isn't really... as faith involves belief that isn't grounded in evidence; these sorts of scientific statements are, however, heavily grounded in evidence. So, yes, conclusive statements can be "scientifically oriented", as long as they fit within the framework of what the science tells us, and the margin of error is recognized.

Bluedoll wrote:
For the really hard questions perhaps we should think not?


For the really hard questions, it just means we have to work hard. The really hard questions are as much within the realm of potential certainty as easy questions.

Even with faith, there is no 100% certainty... and even if there is, there's no certainty that the faithful certainty is actually correct... not that I really think that being correct is all that important in faith (as long as one feels correct, right?)
Bikerman
The killer point is, of course, that religious faith doesn't actually provide any answers. Any understanding* of anything, if it is worthy of being called 'understanding', allows one to make predictive statements. If I truly understand how things move under gravity then I should be able to predict results - answer 'what if...' questions.
This is a hallmark of scientific knowledge - any theory/model has to say something useful, something 'testable' about the phenomenon it models.
Religious 'certainty' and 'knowledge' is characterised by a complete lack of this basic property of knowledge - the ability to make routinely testable statements about 'reality'.

* I use the word 'understanding' to mean knowledge in a usable form - a model or theory. I am aware that this opens up the charge of 'tautology' (ie a model is good because it is a model) but the ultimare arbiter is observed reality and the correspondence of any prediction to that observation.
Bluedoll
Rolling Eyes
Are we in the science section or the religious section? I guess, I am delusional, as I thought there would be more of a focus on science rather than ‘faith’ unless of course science is a religion . .

. . . to determine where life comes from using scientific proof, remains the topic, I thought, but anyway I will not debate much on the faith versus science point.

There is much to agree on regarding science to the point of saying that it is useful and allows us to have many basic standardized natural laws that do stand the test of time. They are far from being theories. I would never dispute that.

What I meant by negative pursuit is that although knowledge is wonderful in that we are never finished learning we can also never obtain a perfect knowledge do therefore can never be complacent. (If) we did then science and the pursuit of knowledge would be useless. However, I have confidence that learning will never cease with the exception of allowing the ego to take control in which case the same result will demonstrate that this kind of science is again useless. So it stands to reason that in many things an acceptable margin of error can exist without determent to our creations. However, to put forward theories on really tough questions with absolute certainly is nothing more than propaganda.

So if we look at science, the science model and everything mankind has acquired thus far as a step in the right direction but never will it be complete. To extend an idea that science is sufficient enough to answer all the question regarding the creation of life is precarious. Science will never even come close to having all the answers for everything. I can not agree, with the premise that science can with it’s limitations go back in time to find all the answer so therefore must speculate and put forward endless theories on creation, at a time where it was not even aware or even sitting in diapers, to observe let alone prove much of anything.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
Are we in the science section or the religious section? I guess, I am delusional, as I thought there would be more of a focus on science rather than ‘faith’ unless of course science is a religion . .

Yep, been trying to steer towards science from post 2.

Bluedoll wrote:
. . . to determine where life comes from using scientific proof, remains the topic...

No, not using scientific proof; using the scientific method. Science works with the scientific method, analyzing evidence; there is only proof in mathematics.

Bluedoll wrote:
There is much to agree on regarding science to the point of saying that it is useful and allows us to have many basic standardized natural laws that do stand the test of time. They are far from being theories. I would never dispute that.


The laws are what they are... and may even prove to be incorrect one day, but, you seem to be approaching "theory" incorrectly.
I know this has been explained to you in the past, so I'll explain it quickly this time. A theory, in science, is not the same as a theory in common speech, law or what have you. In common speech, a theory is a guess, more akin to what we call an hypothesis in science. Theory in science, however, is a rigorously tested, well supported explanation... it is the answer supported by evidence. It is basically the pinnacle of our accumulated knowledge. "Just a theory" is an insulting term, when using the word to refer to science, and demonstrates the speakers lack of understanding (yes, I know you didn't say that here).

Laws are tools, fixed factors, and there are very few of them. Theory is where the power of science manifests.

Bluedoll wrote:
... to put forward theories on really tough questions with absolute certainly is nothing more than propaganda.

This goes back to my statements in the prior post. We're not talking absolute certainty; we're talking about really or quite certain... they're not the same as absolute.
It's like approaching 0K (absolute zero); we can't get things that cold such that there is absolutely no atomic vibration, but we can get things REALLY close, such that for most intents and purposes, they're at 0 degrees.

Bluedoll wrote:
So if we look at science, the science model and everything mankind has acquired thus far as a step in the right direction but never will it be complete. To extend an idea that science is sufficient enough to answer all the question regarding the creation of life is precarious. Science will never even come close to having all the answers for everything.

As I've said (an many before me), we may never know exactly how life began on Earth. This is true. That's not to say that science may not, in fact, be up to the task. It's a question that fits quite handily into the realm of science, the only limiting factor is information. If we can figure out how to accurately acquire the information, the question gets a lot easier. It's finding the information that is hard.

The question of the origin of life is, in reality, a very simple question. There are a lot of factors to track to answer it, and much of the information required to answer it is no longer immediately available, but, there are ways to find much of it. What makes this a "big question" is the lack of information, not the nature of the question itself. It's like if I asked you what colour my daughter's eyes are, but did not provide you with a photograph or description of her and left out information of her hereditary history. It's a very simple question, but it's going to require some hard research to make anything more than a simple guess.

Bluedoll wrote:
I can not agree, with the premise that science can with it’s limitations go back in time to find all the answer so therefore must speculate and put forward endless theories on creation, at a time where it was not even aware or even sitting in diapers, to observe let alone prove much of anything.


This is mainly due to a lack of understanding of science, models and the predictive power of a real theory. The ability to go back in time, forward in time, etc. and make reasonable, accurate predictions is a hallmark of a good theory. Without this predictive power, it's just a statement of current state... which isn't entirely useful.
I'm not going to provide the basic education on science that is required to really address this, there are many, many sources for such information out there, in high schools/GED courses, colleges, universities and many online courses.
Bluedoll
That was a good explanation of science, scientific method, theory and proofs. Well written. The only thing, I might suggest is leaving “just a theory” as being implied as an insulting term out of the topic? If we are talking about science, emotional responses to statements are not applicable? To me, it is like saying we can not debate this scientific statement because you made the scientist cry. It is science for crying out loud! So can we look at this scientifically even though I may not be a scientist.

I can understand how we can look for answers in amino acid test tubes or by going to some distant planet to ponder on the origin of life. Perhaps some day someone will find a life on another planet and put forth theories of how planets evolve only to find out what they found was originally a urine dump from some spacecraft journey. The point, I am making here is not a detailed study about how effective science is in analyzing information but is a stand back observation of what we are really looking at and that is life. That is what I mean by science can only produce just a theory. There is little there and therefore little confidence. This is one study where close enough just does not cut it. It would be like saying we made your baby from a machine all from scratch (no organic material borrowed). Really close is not an option. I do not think I want to see it. Science is a wonderful tool but from the standpoint of creation, miniscule.

Ankhanu wrote:
Given that no one can define what god is, show which god(s) might be correct, or definitively show that gods even exists, saying that we know god created anything (let alone everything) is a leap to conclusions of colossal proportions; we know nothing of the sort. You're making very powerful claims, which require not only powerful evidence, but even a basic cohesive idea of what the basis of the claim is.


I am countering the debate with the fact that science is not absolute (important to my arguement) and close is not adequate. Show me life using science. Explain to me how science did produce life from nothing and can actually do something other than merely put forth theories? It can not produce it. To even come close, science, will need to produce, to proof this one. That is a fact and important to include in this argument. Therefore, the same point you made earlier on in the thread applies to science. To make a claim that science can actually create life (without borrowing what is already in existence) is a leap to a conclusion of colossal proportions. (I borrowed your phrase – nice one)
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
The point, I am making here is not a detailed study about how effective science is in analyzing information but is a stand back observation of what we are really looking at and that is life. That is what I mean by science can only produce just a theory. There is little there and therefore little confidence. This is one study where close enough just does not cut it. It would be like saying we made your baby from a machine all from scratch (no organic material borrowed). Really close is not an option. I do not think I want to see it.


I don't understand the point you are making, it's not clear.
Yeah, life is life... and it's something that can be studied through science.

Bluedoll wrote:
Science is a wonderful tool but from the standpoint of creation, miniscule.


That's just it... science is just a tool. It's an incredibly powerful tool, and the best tool we have to investigate the nature of reality, but it is a tool.
Compared to the universe (I do not use the word "creation" due to its connotations and strong assumptions), sure it's minuscule, but it's the best thing we have to investigate what it's being compared to.

Bluedoll wrote:
I am countering the debate with the fact that science is not absolute (important to my arguement) and close is not adequate. Show me life using science.


Why are "we're working on it" and "we don't know yet" not viable? They're FAR superior and much more honest answers than just making something up.

Bluedoll wrote:
Explain to me how science did produce life from nothing and can actually do something other than merely put forth theories?


Producing theory is exactly what science is intended to do, however. "Merely" putting forth theory is the entire point of science, it is the end result of all the work we do.

Bluedoll wrote:
It can not produce it (life). To even come close, science, will need to produce, to proof this one. That is a fact and important to include in this argument. Therefore, the same point you made earlier on in the thread applies to science. To make a claim that science can actually create life (without borrowing what is already in existence) is a leap to a conclusion of colossal proportions. (I borrowed your phrase – nice one)


The fact that life has not been synthesized does not mean that life will not be synthesized. It just means that, to date, we haven't been successful. We can talk about the likelihood of success, I suppose, but that changes drastically as we gain more knowledge; we can only discuss the likelihood of success in current conditions. All we can say with confidence is that we have not been successful in the past.
To say that we cannot succeed is akin to saying that prior to 1969 there had never been a human on the moon, therefore, a human can never be on the moon. I could happen, it just hadn't to that point.
There are many examples of things that have not been possible in the past that are commonplace today.

Also, even if we do produce life, that does not necessarily answer the question of the orgin of life on Earth. What it would tell us is that it is possible to create life from non-life, and tells us one method of doing so. We would still (possibly) be left with the question of how life began on primordial Earth. These are related, but separate questions.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
That was a good explanation of science, scientific method, theory and proofs. Well written. The only thing, I might suggest is leaving “just a theory” as being implied as an insulting term out of the topic? If we are talking about science, emotional responses to statements are not applicable? To me, it is like saying we can not debate this scientific statement because you made the scientist cry. It is science for crying out loud! So can we look at this scientifically even though I may not be a scientist.
Nobody is crying, merely asking, quite politely, for you to use words accurately. In the science forums there is an expectation that posters try to use scientifically understood meanings. A scientific theory is not the same as a theory in common parlance and it is misleading - not least yourself - to use it in that manner. It doesn't insult or make me emotional, it is just poor use of English leading to no sensible discussion because of the incorrect assumptions.
To be 'scientific' one must be accurate and truthful.
Quote:
I can understand how we can look for answers in amino acid test tubes or by going to some distant planet to ponder on the origin of life.
Err..why would anyone do that? We accumulate knowledge by formulating hypotheses and testing them rigorously to see if we can destroy them. If they survive, and they say something useful, then they become theories, or part of a theory - ie as close to 'true' as it is possible to be at this point in space and time.
Quote:
Perhaps some day someone will find a life on another planet and put forth theories of how planets evolve only to find out what they found was originally a urine dump from some spacecraft journey.
No, you fundamentally misunderstand how science works - probably because you are not really interested in talking about science, merely trying to find weaknesses - at which task you are most welcome to try - that is the invitation that science makes to everyone. Prove something wrong - just once - and it is put in the bin.

We are already pretty sure how planets form - it is no mystery - and any scientist who relied on one observation or one dataset would be on very shakey ground. The thing about theories is that if they are good - and science specialises in making sure they are the best - then they explain things you didn't and couldn't know before - they predict - and can be tested.
Quote:
The point, I am making here is not a detailed study about how effective science is in analyzing information but is a stand back observation of what we are really looking at and that is life.
And who do you think knows more about life? The scientist or the religious 'observer'? The scientist, of course.
Quote:
That is what I mean by science can only produce just a theory. There is little there and therefore little confidence.
Complete nonsense. Since you are either incapable or unwilling to understand what a theory is, you don't really have much clue about how much confidence they can command. In fact a good theory will give you a pretty good measure of how much confidence you can place in it - and it will do so with numbers you can test.
Quote:
This is one study where close enough just does not cut it. It would be like saying we made your baby from a machine all from scratch (no organic material borrowed). Really close is not an option. I do not think I want to see it. Science is a wonderful tool but from the standpoint of creation, miniscule.
ROFLMAO. The religious zealot chides the scientist for imprecision? That will keep me chuckling for days Smile
Religion not only doesn't offer anything more 'accurate', it doesn't even offer something which people can agree on. It makes no useful (testable) statements of any sort on anything.
Name one general benefit to humanity arising from theology...I bet you can't. Name one useful model or theory that religion has given the world.
They should bow down and weep at the wasted time spent on their nonsense, and consider that a fraction of that time and effort, expended on science, has basically allowed you to become a civilised, literate, and at least to some extent, numerate adult, with a life expectancy of around 80 years. With religion in the box seat you would be illiterate, innumerate (the Church doesn't like too much learning amongst the proles - leads to 'bad thoughts'), lucky to reach adulthood and with a life expectancy of 40 or less.
Quote:
I am countering the debate
tut.....you can't counter a debate, you can join it and contribute to it, but first you need to learn some very basic science...
Quote:
with the fact that science is not absolute (important to my arguement) and close is not adequate. Show me life using science.
Huh? Science creates life all the time. Invitro fertilisation and all that....remember?
If you are demanding that science create lifeforms from scratch - that is a tall order since we have only had genetics for a few decades and therefore have only a generation or so worth of knowledge on how to build living things....but <drumroll> OK - good old science can oblige - Craig Ventner did it nearly a year ago: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7132299.ece
Quote:
Explain to me how science did produce life from nothing and can actually do something other than merely put forth theories?
That confusion is showing again. I can explain how Ventner produced a living cell, but you would not understand, since you haven't yet got even the basics of what a theory is, let alone the ability to talk sense about genetics and molecular biology.
Quote:
It can not produce it.
Can and has.
Quote:
To even come close, science, will need to produce, to proof this one.
I can't make any meaning from that sentence..
Quote:
That is a fact and important to include in this argument.
It isn't a fact and is therefore superfluous.
Ankhanu
To be fair, Bikerman, Bluedoll has explicitly mentioned creating life without using existing biological material. That one, to my knowledge, has not been accomplished yet.
Bikerman
Ankhanu wrote:
To be fair, Bikerman, Bluedoll has explicitly mentioned creating life without using existing biological material. That one, to my knowledge, has not been accomplished yet.

By anyone or anything. Even God needed to start with proteins methinks....so you have a long wait whilst they get their chemical act together in the 'soup'.
(Or are we sticking to fundamentalism, in which case the 'Clay' hypothesis looks good Smile )
Ankhanu
Some of the abiogenesis hypotheses do make strong use of clay (as I'm sure you know), primarily as a stongly ionic substrate for helping the catalysis of eventual biological molecules... maybe the fundamentalists were accidentally on to something Wink
Bikerman
Yep - that was my smiley reference...the Clay acts as a 'gatherer' for proteins. Graham Cairns-Smith at Glasgow is the chappie on this - saw a talk once some time ago. Basically the hypothesis is that the silicate crystals in solution act as a scaffold for building the molecule and are actually co-opted to give, first inorganic replication via crystal cleavage, then later organic as the moledcule grows more complex.

It's a nice little hypothesis (and even the god-botherers have to be right about SOMETHING - statistically speaking), but I've never much cared for it. I think it needs a lot of tweaking and contains too many 'ifs and buts' for my taste - but who knows, it may evolve into a more robust hypothesis with time. My money is currently still on the 'soup plus lightening' basic model, as originally proposed by Alex Oparin.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
ROFLMAO. The religious zealot chides the scientist for imprecision?

Who is really the religious zealot?

Up to now . . . I was approaching the topic as the question was put forth. Where does life come from? Will science ever be able to produce it? What does ROFLMAO mean? Perhaps the lightening bolt will fly up there and make life!

Bikerman wrote:
In the science forums there is an expectation that posters try to use scientifically understood meanings.


I suspected that too.

Bikerman wrote:
They should bow down and weep at the wasted time spent on their nonsense, and consider that a fraction of that time and effort, expended on science,


Is this about a science topic or more on the science versus religion debate? Does posting endlessly on a message board on a never-ending controversial subject expend on science?

Quote:
To even come close, science, will need to produce, to proof this one.


Science comes very close in finding truth. Science is composed of a lot of theories and hypothesis and regardless of how it gets defined, it does not constitute truth.

Bikerman wrote:
The thing about theories is that if they are good - and science specializes in making sure they are the best - then they explain things you didn't and couldn't know before - they predict - and can be tested.


The thing about theories is that they are theories.
The thing about prophecy is that they – shine a light in a very dark place.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
Is this about a science topic or more on the science versus religion debate? Does posting endlessly on a message board on a never-ending controversial subject expend on science?


This is the original post:
michaelagustin wrote:
We all know that God created everything. but some scientist looking forward for proof...

Clearly it sets a precedent for discussing science in relation to religion.

Bluedoll wrote:
Science comes very close in finding truth. Science is composed of a lot of theories and hypothesis and regardless of how it gets defined, it does not constitute truth.


But what else do we have to accurately and reliably assess the truth of reality? I don't really see that a better alternative has been developed yet. Yes, science has some flaws (though slowly zeroing in on greater accuracy is not one of them, imo), but what's the alternative?
It's possible that we'll develop a better method for exploring the nature of reality, but, it doesn't seem forthcoming.

Bluedoll wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The thing about theories is that if they are good - and science specializes in making sure they are the best - then they explain things you didn't and couldn't know before - they predict - and can be tested.


The thing about theories is that they are theories.
The thing about prophecy is that they – shine a light in a very dark place.


What's wrong with theories being theories?

What does prophecy have to do with anything?
Bikerman
I'll post the same 'warning' as I have done in another of the science forums.
I'm tightening policy a little with regard to postings like the previous one, ie postings which contain no knowledge of science, no sensible comment or question about science, and/or are simply religiously inspired assertions based on ignorance or attempting to troll - from now on such postings will be removed from any of the science forums. If they are suitable for the faith forum I will move them there. If not I will simply 'spam-can' them.
ashu_g
Worth a watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6frHQAGk8w

I think science is limited by human's boundaries on what we can see, hear and touch... All that was magic yesterday is today's science (e.g.: magnetic force). Similarly all that is today's magic will be tomorrow's science.
kelseymh
ashu_g wrote:
Worth a watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6frHQAGk8w

I think science is limited by human's boundaries on what we can see, hear and touch... All that was magic yesterday is today's science (e.g.: magnetic force). Similarly all that is today's magic will be tomorrow's science.


That is an obviously (and trivially) fallacious argument. Most of "today's magic" (read, unscientific or antiscientific claims for unknowable or inexplicable effects) will continue to be the erroneous beliefs of ignorant people far into the future, and wishing won't change that.
spinout
OOps that is a Nassim H video! Hehe he is banned in the scientific sphere Cool

Well he is atleast publishing papers at present. Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass is the latest... and he also predicted the universe expanding in accerleration before the others did... anyhow I think he will succed as acceptable in the future. Many compare him to Tesla because the understanding of how the universe works. The difference with Haramein from others is the he got it complete and beatuifulled structured.

From my point of view I think he must define a threshold in the small scale of what is resonancable, BUT I have not seen that yet. May be a stupid idea but he is pointing to the schwartzchild radius all the time and there is a threshold for that even in Harameins teachings.
Bikerman
Haramein 'published' in a Journal called 'Physical Review & Research International'. I know nothing about that particular journal, other than the name seems designed to confuse, since it is close to the well respected 'Physical Review' physics journal and could be mistaken for it by the unwary. The journal describes itself as an 'open access peer-reviewed' publication, but I have some doubts. For one thing the publisher - ScienceDomain International - appears on the list of fakes maintained at http://bogusjournals.blogspot.co.uk/
It had a wiki entry but this has been deleted. I have spoken to three working physicists and none of them have heard of this publication, all three expressed their doubts about it being a bona-fide physics journal.
So, whilst I have no conclusive evidence, I strongly suspect the journal is either bogus, or extremely marginal and I don't consider it to be good evidence of a robust peer-reviewed article.
spinout
Hehe, that was a long list ... To Haramein's defence it must be easy to fall into one by mistake.
Bikerman
spinout wrote:
Hehe, that was a long list ... To Haramein's defence it must be easy to fall into one by mistake.

No, rather the opposite.

Imagine you have spent months preparing your masterpiece; you have paid a professional to go through it and proof-read/error-check; you have triple-checked every assertion, every fact, every experimental result; you have prepared it in double line-space A4 format in LaTeX, as required. You are finally ready for publication so that the world can marvel.....

Do you not think that you would be VERY careful about where it was published? You would want it published in the most prestigious and most respected journal possible. Perhaps Nature? OK, maybe a tad ambitious for someone without a previous record of publishing good papers.....Maybe the International Journal of Theoretical Physics? Perhaps one of the 'Physica' journals to give a better European reach?

In fact he could have chosen from dozens of well respected publications but instead he publishes in a 2-bit journal that serious academics have never heard of, will never read, and which is probably a scam. Now why on earth do you think he would do that with his precious paper?

Only one reason I can think of - it was the only damn journal that would even consider publishing his garbage. THAT is almost certainly what REALLY happened.
spinout
Hm, Nassim is a skibum, a savant and have his friends in the spiritist community to start off with... The feud is probably already there, he comes from the wrong social group. I don't know but do hawaiians have more open minded universities/faculties or instances that sponsor him for their believs (preatty much agnostics there if I remember correct?) are allowing it? Well he manage to do a movie (well produced) and publish a paper and get a prize of some sort, comes up with another movie and another paper, tour all around the world and get applause everywhere. Wackypedia (wikipedia) takes out his name, he do taunt the modern physisist for the bad in the "standard model", he launches an organization of his own and have a adept program so he can work on more papers. My guess is that he never got the chance to do it the classy way.
Hm, still he walks in the footsteps of others, most of his basic ideas are old, still he have added some new ideas and are a talanted entrepeneur.

Well if I was a Hawaiian skibum with such ideas I would probably end up as Nassim and accept the sponsoring I got even if they was into bad business, better than none I suppose.
Bikerman
No you still don't get it. He is nothing, he knows nothing, he has got NO praise from anyone who matters. He is a physics idiot and his 'theories' are not even worth the time to laugh at. His movie was gibberish, his 'prize' was awarded at a computer systems conference by people who probably didn't know a charmed quark from a smarmy dork. He has published NOTHING of any merit in any reputable journal. The notion that he is being discriminated against is rubbish, since journals publish on CONTENT not on how the author looks. He HAS NO F****IN content because he KNOWS NOTHING.

I can't make it any clearer - he is a fraud, a charlatan, a pretend physicist, a con merchant, a pseudo-scientist, an ignoramus lining his own pockets, a shill, a spiv, a bullshitter, a seller of garbage to the people ignorant enough to mistake it for science, a shyster, a trickster, a crank, a self-publicising dishonest physics idiot who has just enough command of jargon to impress people who's knowledge of physics is no better than his own and who's credulity is greater than it should be for anyone who claims to have any critical thinking or proper scientific scepticism in their make-up.
The only reason you found no fault in his maths is because you don't know enough maths to find the glaring and mind-bendingly huge howlers that punctuate his ignorant prattle like bluebottles sucking at the foetid corpse of a decaying animal corpse.

He is also now a banned subject. I will hear no more of this buffoon. Case closed, as I hope his wretched institute soon is.
spinout
ROFL - I usually don't like lol's and other internet lingo but since my sleep will go bad by terrible giggling, I can't sum it up in any other way - group hug again !

I don't mind changing subjects, you wind up gazing through the lists and the same topics go round.
Now let's move on to Lloyd Pye and his book - Everything you know is wrong.... ROFL - hehe sorry coundn't help it. Group hug again!
Bikerman
Look, here is some GOOD stuff to play with - leave the crap pseudo-science alone and study some real science.
Improve your maths by using some powerful maths software.
(Create an account, login and check out some published sheets to get the syntax and feel of the package. To change published sheet simply save a copy of your own first.)
Learn Special Relativity with my tutorial for non-scientists
Covers the maths but EASILY with nothing but simple algebra and pythagoras' theorem.

Science Audiobooks to read and listen to:
Isaac Newton by Gleick
Universe from Nothing - Laurence Krauss
Audio Biographies of great Mathematicians - Radio 4 series of 15 min progs in audio only
spinout
Hm, the company I am contracted to now have most of your site as blocked, so that state you have a popular site.

I went throught a peer review at one of those site's, sciencedomain.org, and well... They have paid for a fair review but in some cases the reviewer wants to be annomous... You can trace the history and changes of the manuscript so it seems like a standard procedure.
I have heard alot of people not wanting to review things, if you take the horror movie the human centipede (or what the name was) alot of doctors was questioned for a peer check where peopole were stiched togheter, and guess what? No one wanted to do it since it would ruine their career... In the end there was a doctor that anonymeos did tell the filmteam what would work is such a case... And the rest is a bizarre movie. So it kind of backfires like that I suppose.
Ankhanu
Back on topic, guys.
Bikerman
spinout wrote:
Hm, the company I am contracted to now have most of your site as blocked, so that state you have a popular site.
No, it is down at the moment because I made a stupid mistake last night and need to rebuild it - should be up again later this morning.
Quote:
I went throught a peer review at one of those site's, sciencedomain.org, and well... They have paid for a fair review but in some cases the reviewer wants to be annomous... You can trace the history and changes of the manuscript so it seems like a standard procedure.
Why bother? The company is mickey-mouse or dishonest - don't really know which and don't really care. They might have a geat sounding peer-review system - means NADA, ZIP, unless you KNOW that it is actually implemented as they say - which you don't and won't unless you submit a paper. It doesn't matter - completely irrelevant. Simple fact is that the H person is a fraud and whether the magazine that allowed him to publish is absolutely crap, absoilutely dishonest, or just a bit crap and very unknown - it doesn't make any real difference to the basic scenario - shit pseudoscience being hawked around fringe audiences and people with a shallow acquantence with science, as if it actually WAS science.
It isn't, it isn't interesting, it isn't even sane.
Quote:

I have heard alot of people not wanting to review things, if you take the horror movie the human centipede (or what the name was) alot of doctors was questioned for a peer check where peopole were stiched togheter, and guess what? No one wanted to do it since it would ruine their career... In the end there was a doctor that anonymeos did tell the filmteam what would work is such a case... And the rest is a bizarre movie. So it kind of backfires like that I suppose.
This sounds like a bunch of complete nonsense - let it serve as a warning against mixing wit the likes of H and reading the sort of material he spews out. You to could have your critical faculties damaged to the extent that this sounds credible to you, rather than total bollox. Please tell me you don't actually believe this crap? Ask some basic questions.....

a) Who said a lot of doctors were offered the role?
b) Who said that they turned it down?
c) Who said they were afraid for their careers?e cl
d) Why would any film need peer review and why would Doctors be selected - they are not scientist and usually their 'arena' is the clinical trial, not the journal jury.
e) Stiching animals together? I can see why that might have a badi affect on a career and I would take a dim view myself as a dog lover. I presume this was not really vivisection for movies?
If it was then they should all be sacked for being complete bastards.

I bet this whole weird story was 'reported' by 'someone said to be 'involved' but which nobody quite knows....
SNAP OUT OF IT - you are repeating this crap like a good little plague-vector, rather than a properly sceptical THINKING person.

For the record Jury members can remain anonymous if they wish and many do, to avoid getting drawn into personal or fractional debates about the work they judge. There would be no reason to fear any consequence if the proposed jury were doing proper peer review.

I can't make any sense out of much else - and don't really want to. The idea of 'peer review' , 'film', and stiching dogs together? WTF? I can only imagine you have massively confused at least 3 different roles -
a)reviewer,
b)technical consultant
c)Borris Karloff

People who moan about peer-review are NEARLY ALWAYS people who cannot GET peer-review because they are SHITHEADS - like this H character. There are some genuine concerns about the process but they are serious, measured and would not interest you or, I suspect, many other potential readers. So who scream about peer review most?
a) Creationists
b) UFOlogists, spiritualists, mediums, telekinetic savants, mind reading marvels, Uri Geller, and the rest of the group of either sad, self-deluded no-marks in search of attention; or scumbag, criminal thieves and liars, making a fast buck. (Geller would be the second type).
c) A few bad scientists who really need a grant but are not good enough scientists to merit the investment.

Now, guess which group H is in?
Want a Clue?
He will be be learning to bend spoons before too long.
Bikerman
So it is pretty much exactly as I thought and pretty much nothing to do with science or peer review...

A feel a SAMPAN coming on....yep....THERE SHE BLOWS.....I've kindly diverted it to another place, but similar stuff id going straight to jail without passing GO.

Now, as we are so correctly chided and reminded - back on topic.
(My server should be accessible now as my last word off-topic).
Related topics
How did you hear about FRIHost ?
Booting time
The truth about oil...
Who All Believes In Evolution?
Why do you all hate God?
Is there really something after this life?
Student and Teacher Conversation!!
Qur'an attacks validity of Bible
[official] The Meaning of life
Where does God come from?
Where does the money come from?
The Big Bang Theory: Flauds..it didn't happen!
Who created God?
How Strong Is Your Faith?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Life

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.