Posted on 02/16/2006 6:00:37 PM PST by jwalsh07
Life on Earth was unlikely to have emerged from volcanic springs or hydrothermal vents, according to a leading US researcher.
Experiments carried out in volcanic pools suggest they do not provide the right conditions to spawn life.
The findings are being discussed at an international two-day meeting to explore the latest thinking on the origin of life on Earth.
It is taking place at the Royal Society in London.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
You just don't get it, do you.
WHAT non-naturalistic mechanism has *ever* been identified. ANY non-naturalistic mechanism. Any faith. Any sacred stone demonstrated to have non-naturalistic power. Any reproducible evidence for any such ghost whatever.
And then you've got to demonstrate that it's reasonable that this as-yet-undiscovered non-natural phenomenon created life billions of years ago.
Let me know when you get off the starting block.
If we're going to refer people to earlier posts, may I suggest that you read my post #29 if you haven't done so already.
This should be hilarious...can't wait to see the "findings."
But...but...but they are "scientists."
I would disagree but not to be critical or your thought but provide definition. Science, philosophy, and Mathematics are strictly defined by the method of each and if thought does not fall in one of these methods it is opinion. By definition science is the observation and explanation of a material fact (as evolution), philosophy seeks to prove or disprove the unknown (as faith and belief) by argument, and mathematics designates symbols and numbers to provide proofs and laws for things that occur and are known to exist but are not a material fact (as gravity). None of the methods can affirm or refute the other. If one remembers these three things their thought can be better presented.
Evolutionists routinely claim that the theory of evolution is separate from the origin of life. That's technically true, but if the origin of life cannot be explained by purely naturalistic means, that more or less blows away the notion that science must be premised on pure naturalism, eh?
Evolution is different from the origin of life. Evolution exists as a material fact and therefore can be observed by the method of science. The origin of life is unknown and does not exist as a material fact but as faith and belief. Therefore it is observed by philosophy. Neither can refute the other. However if a origin of life could be produced by experiment, or could be found to occur in nature, it would be observed as a material fact and could be explained by science. Until the origin of life is observed as a material fact science can do nothing and the origin of life will remain philosophy and unknown.
"WHAT non-naturalistic mechanism has *ever* been identified. ANY non-naturalistic mechanism. Any faith. Any sacred stone demonstrated to have non-naturalistic power. Any reproducible evidence for any such ghost whatever."
Sorry to pop your little bubble, but pure naturalism cannot even explain consciousness. If you think it can, you simply don't understand the problem.
While we're at it, do you believe that any conscious being exists other than yourself? If so, give me your evidence. If not, then why did you reply to me earlier (if I'm just a mechanism)?
We can get to that right after you demonstrate any non-naturalistic mechanism. Maybe statistical studies of palm reading. Horoscopes maybe. Anything.
I'm not up on your question of consciousness, but it sounds more like philosophy than science. I see no problem with imagining my little computer between the ears being the source of consciousness (knock yourself in the head with a hammer then tell me your consciousness is *not* in your physical brain).
Right after you conclusively demonstrate the existence of any supernatural phenomenon then you can try to attach that thing to consciousness.
Good luck.
HEAR, HEAR!!! Few or none could provide explanation for a thing absent the explanation that already explains the thing.
There is no "theory of how the first living cell came to be". There are a lot of potential hypotheses, though.
No matter what anyone calculates as the odds against it, naturalists will always reply that, "given enough time and space, anything can happen."
No, actually, they won't. Not only do they not "always" reply that way, but to be quite frank I can't recall *EVER* seeing any naturalist give such a vapid answer as what you have described. I have on the other hand seen their real responses *misrepresented/misunderstood* that way.
What they *will* usually respond are one or more of: a) demonstrations that when "anyone calculates the odds against it" their mathematical models are laughably naive and incomplete, so their "disproofs" are dishonest hand-waving, b) the problem needs more research, c) so many other things have eventually been found to have naturalistic causes despite earlier presumptions of "goddidit" -- and so few (zero) things have been found to have a supernatural origin -- that the former is the most prudent result to bet on (e.g. narby's response), and/or d) while a huge number of open questions remain on the issue of the origin of life, to date there's a lot of evidence pointing in that general direction (i.e., the history of life and various features of it look like what you'd expect if life arose biochemically), so even though there are bound to be a lot of surprises as more research is done, the sparse but available information leads a lot of folks to reasonably albeit tentatively conclude that life arose from humble beginnings rather than being designed de novo by a lab somewhere.
So how could this "theory" possibly be disproven? It can't be disproven.
Because no such theory even exists yet. When the state of knowledge on this topic rises to the point where a theory or five actually are constructed and put forth for review, they will indeed be falsifiable.
But, as evolutionists constantly claim, that means it is unscientific!
Yes, as-yet nonexistent theories are indeed unscientific. Only theories which actually exist are scientific. Very good.
Remember, a theory must be "falsifiable" to be scientific.
Correct.
The idea that science will someday be able to explain the first living cell by purely naturalistic means (with no intelligent design) is really just a hope and a dream (or an assumption) of evolutionists.
I'll agree with you on the general point, and most scientists probably would as well, although I (and others) would quibble with you on your apparent implication that there are *no* grounds whatsoever to lean towards that proposition (that this is a question which will be able to be answered someday). Because there are some decent reasons to think that this would be the way to bet, if one had to put money on it.
The problem is that they have a very bad habit of confusing those hopes and dreams (and assumptions) with science.
No, I really don't think they do confuse the two. I think that instead many non-scientists misconstrue various comments and incorrectly conclude what you have stated here.
"I've tried to make some of the same points on a few of these sorts of threads. Anyone invoking the name of science to make their arguments needs to understand that the scientific method is based on attempts to falsify a theory -- not on an attempt to prove it."
You might be interested in my post #29.
And please explain to me how the "hypothesis" of the naturalistic origin of the first living cell can be "falsified."
No matter how improbable it is calculated to be, the true believers can simply claim that, "given enough time and space, anything can happen."
And "supernaturalism" *can*? Don't kid yourself.
If you think it can, you simply don't understand the problem.
Right back at ya. "Supernaturalism" explains exactly nothing with regards to consciousness, it just slaps some undefined labels on it then knocks off for lunch.
On the other hand, there are good reasons to think that consciousness resides in the physical (for example, it can be affected/suppressed/extinguished by anesthetics), and zero reason to conclude that it resides in some undefined "metaphysical".
I wrote:
The idea that science will someday be able to explain the first living cell by purely naturalistic means (with no intelligent design) is really just a hope and a dream (or an assumption) of evolutionists.
You replied:
I'll agree with you on the general point, and most scientists probably would as well, although I (and others) would quibble with you on your apparent implication that there are *no* grounds whatsoever to lean towards that proposition (that this is a question which will be able to be answered someday). Because there are some decent reasons to think that this would be the way to bet, if one had to put money on it.
Hey, we finally agree on something!
So you admit that we currently have no purely naturalistic explanation of the origin of the first living cell. But then you go on to express optimism and hope that such an explanation will eventually be discovered.
Has it occurred to you that such a hope is tantamount to a bias? If you "hope" to find something, that means you are biased in favor of the idea that it actually exists. How can you be objective about the existence or non-existence of something if you are "hoping" to discover it? I don't think you can.
The proper objective scientific position is to withhold judgment on a purely naturalistic origin of life until we actually find "reasonable" evidence for it. We are far from that point.
"Darwin's warm pond theory tested"
Mrs. Darwin "Charles, flush the toilet"
"On the other hand, there are good reasons to think that consciousness resides in the physical (for example, it can be affected/suppressed/extinguished by anesthetics), and zero reason to conclude that it resides in some undefined "metaphysical"."
I don't think you understand the "problem" of consciousness.
You can talk about *my* consciousness "objectively," but you have no way of knowing by "scientific methods" that *my* consciousness even exists, i.e., that I am a conscious being.
As for *your* consciousness, *I* have no way of knowing that it exists, but I assume that it does (otherwise why would I bother to reply to you?). But from your perspective, the entire world exists within your consciousness. The world you "see" is really just the image in your brain that results from the light that enters your eyes. So what you "see" is really inside your head. In other words, you cannot distinguish between what you call your consciousness and what you call the outside world.
And that outside world includes "science" itself, by the way. You cannot "put consciousness under a microscope" because the friggin' microscope itself exists within your consciousness! Everything does.
Science is a search for knowledge. Paradoxically, some things are unknowable in that search. Should that limit the search? I wouldn't think so.
Well said.
"Though on the whole, we know far more about the theory of evolution than we do about the theory of how gravity works. While there is little doubt among those who understand the issues, that evolution and gravity both "work"."...You hear about people complaining that evolution is taught in schools like it is a fact, but you never hear that about gravity...which is really interesting, something we take for concrete fact isn't even a fact; not even a deeply postulated theory.
I think the battle between creation and evolution pin points on context: that evolution is "true" causes some thick dilemmas in terms of what religion (not just Christianity, but any mono or polytheistic religion giving man an...elevated place in the cosmos)says about our place on earth. And this seems to cause people to disregard mountains of evidence in favor of evolution so that they can maintain a specific brand of faith. Once again, the problem of seeing things in black and white.
Personally, I don't believe the "truth" of evolution negates human beings significance because we demand that we are significant. We do it inherently. Some reject it, some don't. Even existentialists, like Camus, say that human beans are not insignificant if they find a purpose, mainly serving humanity.
More than any other animal we crave, and prosper, from human contact. Put a human in constant isolation and watch what happens to them. It's one of the only things human beings cannot endure without losing their minds...or turning to drugs or drinking, etc. We are important to one another, and this is why, as a gnostic struggling with the ideas of God and our place in the world, I still like Christianity's emphasis on sacrifice and love when it remains within the boundaries of brotherhood and maintaining a healthy, safe community...Christians can turn any horror into a chance at redemption because redemption is at the heart of the religion...it practically begs you to admit your sins...but that's another story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.