0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The origins of life on earth are a hotly debated topic among scientists. One theory suggests that meteorites brought some of the chemical building blocks for amino acids – the molecules that make up proteins. Now tests on a meteorite provide more evidence that they might have kickstarted the chain of events that led to the evolution of life here.Read the whole story on our website by clicking here [chapter podcast=3024 track=11.03.06/Naked_Scientists_Show_11.03.06_8008.mp3] or Listen to the Story[/chapter] or [download as MP3]
OK, DQ, usual starting rules. Define life, fully, and we'll have a go at explaining its origin.Frankly, I don't think the "meteorite" source of amino acids gets us very far. Just saying that life, or its fundamental constituents, came from somewhere else, is a bit like a cargo cult explanation for the existence of tinned sardines.
I didn't ask what life isn't, but what you think it is. And by your rules, I need a full definition.
What's The Origin of Life ?Hi, folks :Can we really try to explain or find out about the origins of life , just via physics and chemistry , the latter that cannot , per definition and nature , account fully for such processes such as life , let alone its origins emergence or evolution ...fully .Do tell me about just all that , please .Thanks , appreciate indeed .Cheers .
QuoteI agree with DonQuichottes comment that, "Science can tell us only about the biological physical material side of life" and I, personally, also believe that there is more to life than this. I also recognise this belief to be unscientific but, I stress, it is a belief; it is not Faith. I may be wrong but it will not affect my life either way.
I agree with DonQuichottes comment that, "Science can tell us only about the biological physical material side of life" and I, personally, also believe that there is more to life than this. I also recognise this belief to be unscientific but, I stress, it is a belief; it is not Faith. I may be wrong but it will not affect my life either way.
However, I disagree adamantly with DonQuichotte that, "science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life". This is most certainly NOT within the remit of Science; it does not deal with the "observable". There are other disciplines, such as theology or philosophy, that handle these areas of research.
QuoteSimply put, I do not believe that Science can tell us everything about the origin of life, but it should certainly try to. I could say the same about the two disciplines mentioned in the previous paragraph. There is no "materialist" conspiracy here, just confusion over the role of Science since we went forth and multiplied.
Simply put, I do not believe that Science can tell us everything about the origin of life, but it should certainly try to. I could say the same about the two disciplines mentioned in the previous paragraph. There is no "materialist" conspiracy here, just confusion over the role of Science since we went forth and multiplied.
Sorry for not using the quote feature but I took extracts from two posts.
science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life
Quotescience should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for lifeOnly if you have a nonphysical and nonbiological definition of life. To my mind it is nothing more than the abstract quality demonstrated by all living things, and all definitions of living things seem to come down to observed physics and chemistry. It's a pretty useless word.
Science can try to approach the non-physical and non-biological non-material side of reality as a whole
Has science ever proved the materialist "fact " to be "true " , or rather the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is just exclusively physical material ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/10/2013 18:10:36Science can try to approach the non-physical and non-biological non-material side of reality as a wholeAnd there, I believe, is the rub. Yes, Science can, but then it wouldn't be Science. It comes back to the confusion about what "science" is that I mentioned in my last post.
Science is not and never will be the spring of all knowledge. The correct term for this is Learning and its goal is, basically, knowing all there is to know. Its a pretty big area so, in order to acquire Learning, we break it down in to various areas. Science is just one, along with many others, both respectable and not. Science deals with the observable, basta! There may come a day when our descendants can tick of the "science" box in Learning because science has done its job. It has classified everything that can be observed. Perhaps, along the way, we will evolve additional sensory mechanisms and science will need expanding; who knows where such an expansion could lead?
In the meantime it is Sciences job to define the origin of life according to what it can observe and test. Science is not there yet but it is making great headway. It is counter-productive to muddy the boundaries between science and other areas of Learning, unless one is selling sensational books or videos; I have no time for Shelldrakes or any of the myriad psuedo-scientists of the religious press who are constantly using this tactic to denigrate science. It is what it is.
Quote from: Skyli on 29/10/2013 22:57:28Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/10/2013 20:21:15Has science ever proved the materialist "fact " to be "true " , or rather the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is just exclusively physical material ?Why on Earth would science even be interested? Science doesn't deal with "reality as a whole", Learning does. Science deals with "Observable Reality". For example, I believe in God, but I do not believe that science can or will ever prove or disprove God. Of course, God is not observable and, consequently, science is not in the least interested in proving or disproving God. My concept of Reality - my areas of Learning, if you like - encompass more than science, but I consider them all equally valid and quite distinct.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/10/2013 20:21:15Has science ever proved the materialist "fact " to be "true " , or rather the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is just exclusively physical material ?Why on Earth would science even be interested? Science doesn't deal with "reality as a whole", Learning does. Science deals with "Observable Reality". For example, I believe in God, but I do not believe that science can or will ever prove or disprove God. Of course, God is not observable and, consequently, science is not in the least interested in proving or disproving God. My concept of Reality - my areas of Learning, if you like - encompass more than science, but I consider them all equally valid and quite distinct.
the core materialist belief assumption is that the whole reality is exclusively material physical = everyhting can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone , so science has been assuming the same false materialis assumption since the 19th century at least
Quotethe core materialist belief assumption is that the whole reality is exclusively material physical = everyhting can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone , so science has been assuming the same false materialis assumption since the 19th century at least Repeating this absurd assertion does not make it true or even meaningful. Science is an inanimate process, not a sentient being, so it cannot have any beliefs or assumptions.