Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
js:Does this imply that the cause and effect relationship will not work outside the controlled environment?
tp:Do you have any evidence that it does?
js:Science has been explaining nature via controlled experiment at least since Galileo and his pendulums.
tp:I was talking about life arising from chemical soup without design...you know, the entire point of the article?
The scientific explanation would be that those microbes that fail to replicate perfectly either die or live to pass on their modified genome.
“The LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics”
Thanks for keeping our wonder boy honest!
Can you prove a scientific hypothesis by logic? Can you disprove a hypothesis purely with logic?
Logic (philosophy) is a tool used by science, it is not science, not everything is logical in science (or logical before the facts are known). If philosophy was science we would still agree with Aristotle.
You’re losing track of the fact that God lives outside of our space-time, and knew when every challenge would arise.
Have you ever wondered why its ok for some species to become extinct, but the ones that are desperately necessary always are able to adapt?
For a moment I thought we were talking about evolution.
As for abiogenesis, current work is looking for phenomena that occur in plausible natural conditions. A rule of thumb in chemistry is that catalysts speed the rate of reactions but do not produce anything that cannot occur otherwise.
It is fascinating to see what the experts assume is or isn't scientific, what is or isn't religion, what is or isn't philosophy and how God fits within it all, in a neat little defined box that somehow only they can see, isn't it?
OK folks, instead of getting bogged down in examples WAY beyond the central issues of the article. All we’re doing is discussing irrelevent issues that could NOT be possibly even happen IF what the article is stating is true.
Let’s instead ofcus on talking about:
1: the problem of chemical purity arising from dirty chemicals
2: The problem of metainfo beign present BEFORE info
3: How Metainfo could possibly arise from chemicals
4: How lower hiearchy’s could advance without higher oens present from which to draw the necessary info from.
There’s other central issues involved in the paper, but this should do for now
Woops- forgot to state- what we’re tryign to determine is IF what is proposed i nthe paper should be concidered hte most plausible reasonable explanation IF it is found that it is not possible for nature to do the thigns mentioned. IF so, then hsould a ‘law’ be established?- IF not, why not? IF so, why so? (it hsoudl be self explanatory IF it is found to be the most reasonable explanation though)
I’m thinking this thread needs to be captured and posted on a blog somewhere as an example of the best thinking FR has to offer.
You mean the Orcs?
[[As for abiogenesis, current work is looking for phenomena that occur in plausible natural conditions.]]
Yes, but can any experiment explain the chemical purity and hte rise of info and hte creation of metainfo? There would be no sense really in searchign for ‘plausible scenarios’ IF the article is true, as well, even disregarding the article, there are no ‘plausible scenarios’ because it’s biologically impossible, and conditions could not possibly have protected the early ‘life forms’, and hte energy needed to create acids would have also destroyed it, on and on it goes. But this is all moot- IF the paper is correct, which is what we need to concentrate on I think
Which shows that this scientist had no understanding of God whatsoever, or else he would know that if there is one thing that God cannot do, that would be to get lost.
[[I’m thinking this thread needs to be captured and posted on a blog somewhere as an example of the best thinking FR has to offer.]]
It’s pretty good so far, although it is straying a bit, because IF the paper is true, then it establishes a ‘law’ (Not stating laws can’t be broken, but we’d need soem kind of evidence showing it was broken IF we were to concider nature wasn’t bound by the law), then we’re talking about things that just wouldn’t be biologically possible then.
I’ll go over hte article some more- there’s other points that need to be broguht forward, but I think the points I stated above are the important key points that shoudl be discussed and noodled over-
By the way, to the everyday observer of the sun the sun does revolve around the earth, the earth is the ground, the stable point for observations.
To the everyday traveler -- until the age of flight -- the earth was flat. A walk or horse ride, or even a sail across a small sea or a large lake -- a flat earth is a fine model.
There was a hypnotic beauty in motion of the orbs, the movements of the planets through the sky, considered as if in orbit of our earth, the complex equations of movement giving a complex mind a honest pride in ownership of such intellectual power so as to be able to calculate such complex motion. A complex honor for complex minds -- yet no wonder astrologers able to predict the planetary motions were so esteemed as the wisest of men.
Would you make a fine astrologer. I wonder? You have the pride, in excess, for your own intellect. What do you think?
If the article is right, they'll never figure it out anyway. But they might figure out a lot of other things in the attempt.
Maybe it doesn't make any sense to you, but telling them they'll never be able to figure it out virtually guarantees that they're going to want to try to do exactly that. They're scientists. It's what they do, because they are driven by curiousity. There is nothing to be gained by trying to attribute some malevolent intent to it, IMHO.
I'm not so much interested in the speed of the catalyst or the reactions, rather the UNintelligent catalyst inside or outside of the lab that allows life to arise from the chemicals in the first place.
[[Maybe it doesn’t make any sense to you, but telling them they’ll never be able to figure it out virtually guarantees that they’re going to want to try to do exactly that]]
No, it makes sense- I’m not maligning hteir attempts, but really, IF this turns out ot be a law, and biology as we know it always follows this law, and metainfo simply can’t biologically arise, then I think it will be a futile attempt to figure it out. I’m not stating htye shouldn’t even try- but there just comes a time when it’s beyond reasonability to keep suggesting that nature is capable of osmehting it quite frankly isn’t- Curiosity is fine, but chasing a unicorn or leprechan is another hting.
I have played with the double slit experiment.
Force still doesn't equal mass.
Do you agree with F=MA or E=MC2? C2 is just a constant, so if we make the constant 1, E=M, mass equals energy is the general idea behind the atomic bomb. Same with F=MA, set the acceleration to 1 and Force equals Mass. The relationship surprised me too, at first : )
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.