Re: How did life begin on earth?

  • 83 Replies
  • 12265 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: How did life begin on earth?
« on: 21/10/2013 19:59:50 »
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 .

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #1 on: 21/10/2013 20:54:47 »
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. 
« Last Edit: 21/10/2013 21:00:01 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #2 on: 22/10/2013 16:44:36 »
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]

There is nothing new though about that theory that has been circulating around for some time now :
It's pretty possible that life on earth might have originated from other planets , via the "ingredients " of amino-acids transported on board of some meteorites that might have landed on earth ...
Interesting indeed .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #3 on: 22/10/2013 16:49:52 »
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 do think that life is not just a matter of physics and chemistry , as materialists assumes it to be .

Science can tell us only about the biological physical material side of life , so .

I think there is more to life than just that , but then again, that's just my own belief assumption = unscientific , but not necessarily false , as matrialism is .

But ,that above mentioned meteorite theory might be true , who knows ...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #4 on: 22/10/2013 18:55:19 »
I didn't ask what life isn't, but what you think it is. And by your rules, I need a full definition.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #5 on: 22/10/2013 19:12:50 »
I didn't ask what life isn't, but what you think it is. And by your rules, I need a full definition.

Read what i said carefully then :
Physics and chemistry cannot account fully for such processes such as life , consciousness , human cognition , feelings ,emotions ....otherwise , we can easily make "sentient alive .." machines = cannot be done, obviously , not now , not tomorrow , and not in a trillion years to come either .

I think science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life  also  , together with the physical biological material ones  as well  .

Science needs to change radically to be able to do just that , starting from rejecting materialism in science and by replacing it by a non-reductionist naturalist conception of nature in science .

How can science approach the non-physical or non-biological sides of reality or sides of life ......? = beat me .

I do not know how ...yet .Does not mean i will not know how ...tomorrow.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #6 on: 22/10/2013 20:00:17 »
Maybe , women just came from Venus , and men from Mars haha  kidding .

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #7 on: 22/10/2013 21:56:07 »
Still no definition.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #8 on: 23/10/2013 03:45:52 »
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 .

"fully" Well, I know where this is going.  Anything that can't be explained now or "fully" proves that materialism is wrong, and western civilization is inferior.  If you think I am over-reacting, wait and read the next 26 pages of this thread. It will have nothing to do with biochemistry or the origins of life.  And you will think I am psychic! 
« Last Edit: 23/10/2013 04:16:11 by cheryl j »

*

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 54
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #9 on: 29/10/2013 17:43:11 »
I can't help but agree with alancalverd and his sardines; interesting but has nothing to do with the price of eggs. Anyway, we're getting bombarded with micrometeorites every day and, so far, nobody has shown that these result in new life-forms while the presence of organic molecules in said meteorites has been seen many times.

However, the role of science in the quest for the origins of life has, once again, raised its head. This time, absence of definition aside, the debate seems somewhat more level-headed. So, not a bad place to have another go at drawing the line between Science and other avenues of research into existence.

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.

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.
This above all else, to Thine own Self be true.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #10 on: 29/10/2013 18:10:36 »

Quote
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.


Exactly :
That's 1 of the reasons why i did try to post a whole thread concerning the 'origins of life " = it is indeed ludicrous and even unscientific to try to trace back the origins of life to just the 'emergence " of its  alleged physical biological material genetical amino-acids , RNA , DNA ....so-called "building blocks "  = to try to explain life ,its evolution or origins just in terms of physics and chemistry = there is obviously more to life than just the latter = physics and chemistry alone cannot account fully for the nature of life as such , let alone its evolution , emergence or origins ...fully .
But , materialism reduces life and reality  as a whole  to just physics and chemistry though , to just material physical biological processes ,including consciousness, feelings , emotions, human reason, human conscience ....including human language ,the latter's origins evolution and emergence , and including the rest = that's just the materialist core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality as a whole = the materialist mechanistic false conception of nature that dates back to the 19th century(The materialist false and unscientific conception of nature in science that considers reality as a whole as just a matter of matter , as just allegedly and exclusively being physical material ) ,and that has been dominating in all sciences and elsewhere since .
Worse : the materialist false exclusive physical material biological conception of nature has been taken for granted by most scientists without any question,since the 19th century at least thus  .
Science is indeed concerned only about the material physical biological side of reality , but that's not all there is to reality as a whole of course , as materialism wanna make people believe it is .

Quote
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.

Science can try to approach the non-physical and non-biological non-material side of reality as a whole , indirectly : see Sheldrake's work regarding telepathy , for example ...
The immaterial side of reality is in fact normal, not paranormal = just the other side of the same coin of the same reality .

Quote
Quote
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.

Nobody is saying that there is a materialist 'conspiration " : all i am saying is that materialism has been dominating in all sciences and elsewhere , by imposing its own mechanistic false world view ideology as ...science , since the 19th century at least .
Science can indeed just tell us about the physical material biological side of reality as a whole, of life ......the rest is a matter of belief each one of us should decide for himself/herself .
Science can thus cover only a tiny piece of reality effectively , the known part of the material side of reality thus  .


Quote
Sorry for not using the quote feature but I took extracts from two posts.

Don't worry about it ...
« Last Edit: 29/10/2013 18:12:41 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #11 on: 29/10/2013 19:07:54 »
Quote
science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life

Only 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.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #12 on: 29/10/2013 20:21:15 »
Quote
science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life

Only 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.
[/quote]



Non-sense :   reality as a whole,  life , consciousness ,memory,  human reason,feelings , emotions , ....cannot be accounted for just via physics and chemistry , obviously,no way .
Let me try to rephrase it or reformulate that differently ,as follows :
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 ? Obviously ...not .
Do the maths then ...
God...

*

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 54
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #13 on: 29/10/2013 22:27:29 »
Science can try to approach the non-physical and non-biological non-material side of reality as a whole

And 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.
This above all else, to Thine own Self be true.

*

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 54
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #14 on: 29/10/2013 22:57:28 »
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 ?

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.
This above all else, to Thine own Self be true.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #15 on: 30/10/2013 18:42:43 »
Science can try to approach the non-physical and non-biological non-material side of reality as a whole

And 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 tries to deal only with the observable empirical faslifiable verifiable reproducible part of reality  indeed  , so, science can therefore also study  telepathy , pyshic and other claims of some people via trying to test them to see if those claims can be reproducible verifiable falsifiable  testable  ....but , science can say indeed nothing regarding the nature of telepathy , the nature of the alleged psychic skills ....
There are many forms of the scientific method , not just one thus : cosmologists , for example , cannot put stars , planets , galaxies ...the sun haha ...into the lab to study them..........they have their own scientific ways of studying them as you know .


Quote
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?

Science is indeed not the only valid source of knowledge , science has no monopoly of the truth either , science can only cover a tiny piece of reality , the known one so far at least , that does not mean that all what science cannot observe test verify falsify reproduce ....is false or that that does not exist as such  , as materialism in science assumes so wrongly of course , for obvious materialist ideological reasons thus= materialists assume thus that the whole reality is just physical material , and therefore reject God, religions , telepathy , psychic powers ...but , pure science or science proper can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the immaterial side of reality in fact thus , the existence of God ....= do you see here the major difference between materialism as a false belief and science ? materialism that gets sold to the people as science by making science reduce verything= the whole reality  to just physics and chemistry thus , including life , consciousness, memory , human love , human spirituality , human reason , human conscience ...

Science cannot , per definition , make us know thus all there is to know out there , simply because science deals only with that tiny piece of reality it can observe test reproduce verify falsify ....

Science is a human limited tool instrument to understand and explain reality thus , the part of reality it can deal with , science is thus no magic or no Alaaddin magical lamp ,despite its huge achievements , despite its highly effective and unparalleled method (s) that's like no other , despite its high descipline ....
Those science's ideals of unbiased objective disciplined methodic approaches  of reality are rarely reached by scientists humans : proof ? : that false materialist belief in all sciences and elsewhere that gets taken for granted without question as science , by the mainstream scientific establishment or community = objectivity is a myth .

Do not forget either that science is just a human social activity, a form of culture , practiced by scientists humans via their limited faculties, flaws ,shortcomings , beliefs (see the materialist belief that's been dominating in all sciences for that matter and elsewhere , materialist belief that gets presented and sold to the people as science , while materialism as a false world view has nothing to do with science , science has never proved , and can never prove the materialist "fact ", or rather the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is exclusively material physical , simply because science deals only with the observable testable verifiable empirical ...side of reality , and therefore science can say nothing , per definition, regarding the other potential part of reality = that does not mean that the latter does not exist as such .), science is practiced thus by scientists humans through their whole beings ,objectivity in science is a myth in fact : proof ? = the  false and , per definition, unscientific materialist belief that's been dominating in all sciences and elsewhere , and that gets taken for granted as science by the majority of scientists today .

Maybe , in the future , it's highly probable indeed in fact that man will be able to extend or broaden his/her understanding of what science is , what the scientific method is , through developing an extended scientific method through its epistemology that might deliver some new understandings of science and its core epistemology , via highly probable undersandings of what man is , what man's consciousness might be,relatively speaking  , what man's reason emotions feelings intuition and senses are really = that might deliver some advanced forms of the scientific method or methods ...
Technology might also broaden our own understanding of man , nature , the universe ....= in still unimaginable ways-to-all-of-us yet .
Only time will tell then indeed , but we might be not there to witness just that ourselves, who knows .

Quote
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.

As long as science will keep on reducing the whole reality to just physics and chemistry (thanks to materialism ) , including life , consciousness , emotions feelings , human reason , human conscience ....science will just be giving us a distorted reflection of reality as a whole  ,unfortunately enough .
Only when science will reject materialism , an inevitable fact , simply because materialism is outdated false and has been superseded by the physical sciences themselves even , and simply because science's self-rejuvenating and self - cleansing , self - regenerating critical powers faculties and inrinsic properties can enable science to reject all false assumptions , including and mainly those of materialism , when science thus will be able to do just that , whole   unimaginable new vistas will open up for science , when science will cease thus to "see " the whole reality as just a matter of physics and chemistry thus.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #16 on: 30/10/2013 19:00:50 »
Quote
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 ?

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.

Well, that's the core issue here : 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

That the whole reality is physical material = there is no God, no immaterial side of reality ...=  all sciences under the exclusive monopoly and supremacy dominance of materialism thus have been assuming therefore that the whole reality is exclusively material physical = there is no God, no immaterial side of reality ...even though science , per definition, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of neither God nor that of the  immaterial side of reality thus  .
But , proper science as such can indeed thus neither prove nor disprove God or the immaterial side of reality : materialism has thus been making science go beyond its own relam and jurisdiction .

Science proper must and will get rid of that false materialist conception of nature indeed .

If you trace back materialism to its historic cultural ideological political philosophical economic ...Eurocentric roots , you would notice that materialism has been just a product of medieval 's Europe religious conflicts : materialism that has been anti-religion since then, by rejecting anything that is not observable testable empirical .... : materialism goes thus beyond science and its scientific method, beyond both the realm and jurisdiction of science , while imposing all that as science  :
materialism that , per definition, can only lead to atheism  and reductionism by reducing everything to just physics and chemistry , by rejecting christianity  and all other religions as well  = there is no God , no immaterial reality ...= materialist ideological belief assumptions that have been imposed on science since the 19th century at least as science , for obvious ideological materialist purposes , in order for materialism to "be able to validate itself as being true " through science as science : so, science has been assuming that the whole reality is material physical thus , thanks to materialism thus , science has been therefore assuming, since the 19th century at least , thanks to materialsm thus ,  that everything = the whole reality thus can be explained in terms of physics and chemsitry only : an obviously false assumption in all sciences and elsewhere , science gotta get rid of , and science will indeed = inevitable = just a question of ...time thus .
Only time will tell then ....
« Last Edit: 30/10/2013 19:16:46 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #17 on: 30/10/2013 20:36:38 »
Quote
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

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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #18 on: 30/10/2013 21:01:56 »
Quote
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

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.
[/quote]

Science is a human social activity , a form of culture , practiced by scientists humans .............Science is just the scientific method (s) practiced by scientists humans ...
So, science is no "entity " ...
It is a simply obvious and an undeniable fact   that the materialist dogmatic belief system has been dominating in all sciences and elsewhere=( =including in the so-called human sciences , in plolitical science thus , in economics , in anthropology ,sociology, ,in the so-called evolutionary psychology ...and in the rest , including in literature , art ...), since the 19th century at least : see also the materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere ,while you are at it :
So much for a so-called scientist ,,,pfff...

The mainstream scientific establishment or community has been dominated by materialism since the 19th century as well thus ...
« Last Edit: 30/10/2013 21:05:54 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 54
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #19 on: 30/10/2013 22:44:47 »
Where on Gods Earth did you come up with such an idea of the purpose and use of science? It is a technique to acquire Learning, a tool, no more. It is not an "ism", not subject to "isms", any more than a hammer is.

I don't give a damn what Materialism assumes, and neither does science, and the idea that science follows the same assumptions is, frankly, ridiculous. Does a hammer "assume" that, "this is gonna hurt"?

And people practising science are simply doing their jobs - normal workers. To think that they have all been seduced by some deviant philosophy is the height of paranoia.

"see also the materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere ,while you are at it :
So much for a so-called scientist ,,,pfff..."

Scientists are great! And science cannot be dominated, only wielded. The whole idea is preposterous.

Do I need tongs to hold the hammer before I drive in the nail?


This above all else, to Thine own Self be true.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #20 on: 31/10/2013 03:23:48 »
I don't know about "fully", but here's a nice start:

 Life on Earth Was Not a Fluke
Figuring out how biomolecular self-organization happens may hold the key to understanding life on Earth formed and perhaps how it might form on other planets

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=life-on-earth-was-not-a-fluke

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #21 on: 31/10/2013 19:19:37 »
I don't know about "fully", but here's a nice start:

 Life on Earth Was Not a Fluke
Figuring out how biomolecular self-organization happens may hold the key to understanding life on Earth formed and perhaps how it might form on other planets

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=life-on-earth-was-not-a-fluke
[/quote]

Well, that's the mainstream dominating materialism at work in science , that gets sold to the people as science : no need to provide us with links from Nature , Scientific American ...= they are all under the materialist exclusive monopoly ,dominance and supremacy in all sciences for that matter :

The material physical biological side of life is not all there is to it , as materialism wanna make you believe it is :
Life or reality as a whole are not just a matter of physics and chemistry= are not just material physical or biological  .
To try to find out about the origins of life just via life's material physical biological side = just via physics and chemistry is no full approach of life or of reality as a whole ,logically .
Science should therefore only confine itself to the biological physical material side of reality as a whole and of life also thus , instead of "assuming " that physics and chemistry are all what there is to them , as materialism wanna make people believe they are = science should try to get rid of materialism in all sciences for that matter thus .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #22 on: 31/10/2013 19:29:58 »
Where on Gods Earth did you come up with such an idea of the purpose and use of science? It is a technique to acquire Learning, a tool, no more. It is not an "ism", not subject to "isms", any more than a hammer is.

I don't give a damn what Materialism assumes, and neither does science, and the idea that science follows the same assumptions is, frankly, ridiculous. Does a hammer "assume" that, "this is gonna hurt"?

And people practising science are simply doing their jobs - normal workers. To think that they have all been seduced by some deviant philosophy is the height of paranoia.

"see also the materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere ,while you are at it :
So much for a so-called scientist ,,,pfff..."

Scientists are great! And science cannot be dominated, only wielded. The whole idea is preposterous.

Do I need tongs to hold the hammer before I drive in the nail?
[/quote]

haha

"Science assumes ...science sees ...science does ...science says ..." were just metaphorical figures of speech : science is no "entity " , let alone that it is an "independent entity " = science is just the scientific method(s) practiced by scientists humans that are not perfect of course , as all human beings are not , not even remotely close thus .
Science that tries (yet another metaphorical figure of speech ) to explain and understand reality ,so , science must assume what the nature of reality might be , what it is   first ,before trying to understand it or explain it :
Materialism has been imposing its owm materialist conception of nature , its world view , or its own materialist belief assumptions regarding the nature of reality as a whole  in all sciences , since the 19th century at least :
materialism that assumes thus that the whole reality is just physical material = everything thus (the whole reality ) can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , and just in terms of physics' and chemistry's extensions ...such as "the mind is in the brain, human reason is just a product of the physical brain's neuronal computational activity , memory is stored in the brain = memory as an alleged  product of the physical material biological neuronal activity of the brain , consciousness is just a magical emergent property from the evolved complexity of the brain , life as a whole is just a matter of physics and chemistry ...."
Well, quite frankly , i did not expect this shocking simple-minded non-sense from you , i just thought that i might try to give it a shot to try to make you understand what i was saying regarding materialism in all sciences , but i see that you failed , once again , to understand simple facts concerning the simple fact that all sciences at least have been dominated by materialism for so long now :
The "scientific " meta-paradigm by the way ,considers reality as a whole as a material physical process = a materialist belief assumption that has , obviously , nothing to do with science .
I see no point in wasting my time on you any further  ,logically = you will only misunderstand my words or distort them beyond any recognition .
Scientists are just humans , no superhumans : objectivity in science is a myth : proof ? : materialism in all sciences and elsewhere .
« Last Edit: 31/10/2013 19:42:50 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #23 on: 31/10/2013 21:06:03 »


Well, that's the mainstream dominating materialism at work in science , that gets sold to the people as science : no need to provide us with links from Nature , Scientific American ...= they are all under the materialist exclusive monopoly ,dominance and supremacy in all sciences for that matter :

The material physical biological side of life is not all there is to it , as materialism wanna make you believe it is :
Life or reality as a whole are not just a matter of physics and chemistry= are not just material physical or biological  .
To try to find out about the origins of life just via life's material physical biological side = just via physics and chemistry is no full approach of life or of reality as a whole ,logically .
Science should therefore only confine itself to the biological physical material side of reality as a whole and of life also thus , instead of "assuming " that physics and chemistry are all what there is to them , as materialism wanna make people believe they are = science should try to get rid of materialism in all sciences for that matter thus .


What is it exactly in this finding that you are questioning? If you like, I can track down the study in Nature so you can examine their methods and data and conclusions. I don't think there is anything in it attempting to disprove the existence of God or challenging the supremacy of ancient Islamic scientists. Perhaps Nature should have a religion or poetry section as well to be more well rounded, more "fair and balanced." Actually, they do publish a short science fiction piece in each issue. I don't know if that counts.

Are you seriously that committed to rejecting any information obtained through materialistic methods, or anything information about biology or chemistry or physics because they "fail to explain everything?" You're not the slightest bit interested?
Or do you think the journal Nature is part of some big materialism conspiracy and all their published research is fraudulent?
« Last Edit: 31/10/2013 21:19:54 by cheryl j »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #24 on: 31/10/2013 21:35:49 »


Well, that's the mainstream dominating materialism at work in science , that gets sold to the people as science : no need to provide us with links from Nature , Scientific American ...= they are all under the materialist exclusive monopoly ,dominance and supremacy in all sciences for that matter :

The material physical biological side of life is not all there is to it , as materialism wanna make you believe it is :
Life or reality as a whole are not just a matter of physics and chemistry= are not just material physical or biological  .
To try to find out about the origins of life just via life's material physical biological side = just via physics and chemistry is no full approach of life or of reality as a whole ,logically .
Science should therefore only confine itself to the biological physical material side of reality as a whole and of life also thus , instead of "assuming " that physics and chemistry are all what there is to them , as materialism wanna make people believe they are = science should try to get rid of materialism in all sciences for that matter thus .


What is it exactly in this finding that you are questioning? If you like, I can track down the study in Nature so you can examine their methods and data and conclusions. I don't think there is anything in it attempting to disprove the existence of God or challenging the supremacy of ancient Islamic scientists. Perhaps Nature should have a religion or poetry section as well to be more well rounded, more "fair and balanced." Actually, they do publish a short science fiction piece in each issue. I don't know if that counts.

Are you seriously that committed to rejecting any information obtained through materialistic methods, or anything information about biology or chemistry or physics because they "fail to explain everything?" You're not the slightest bit interested?
Or do you think the journal Nature is part of some big materialism conspiracy and all their published research is fraudulent?
[/quote]

Don't be silly , sis :
Neither life nor reality as a whole are just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry = the latter are just the material physical biological side of the former = re-read what i said then to you .
Why did you have to bring up God and the rest in this discussion then ?

Materialism "makes science " consider life in general ,and the whole reality as a whole as such thus ,as just a matter of physics and chemistry = a false materialist belief assumption that gets sold to the people as science , while science in fact can only approach the material physical biological side   of life in general and of reality as a whole : see the difference ? .
Get that ?
« Last Edit: 31/10/2013 21:37:22 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #25 on: 31/10/2013 21:49:16 »
DQ

Do you actually have anything interesting, original or provable to contribute to this or any other discussion? Your postings seem very eloquent (if somewhat repetitious) but entirely devoid of content. Surely you must know or think something?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #26 on: 31/10/2013 21:50:31 »

Don't be silly , sis :
Neither life nor reality as a whole are just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry = the latter are just the material physical biological side of the former = re-read what i said then to you .
Why did you have to bring up God and the rest in this discussion then ?

Materialism "makes science " consider life in general ,and the whole reality as a whole as such thus ,as just a matter of physics and chemistry = a false materialist belief assumption that gets sold to the people as science , while science in fact can only approach the material physical biological side   of life in general and of reality as a whole : see the difference ? .
Get that ?

Well, bro, what is so wrong about scientists investigating that biological side of reality? I'm sure the research I referenced above fails to support string theory, or predict what I'm making dinner tonight,  but that was not its intent. So, no, I don't get your point of your complaint.
« Last Edit: 31/10/2013 21:55:23 by cheryl j »

*

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 54
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #27 on: 31/10/2013 22:14:09 »
"Science assumes ...science sees ...science does ...science says ..." were just metaphorical figures of speech : science is no "entity " , let alone that it is an "independent entity " = science is just the scientific method(s) practiced by scientists humans that are not perfect of course , as all human beings are not , not even remotely close thus .

Fine, I'll accept that. So your argument starts with..

Science that tries (yet another metaphorical figure of speech ) to explain and understand reality ,so , science must assume what the nature of reality might be , what it is   first ,before trying to understand it or explain it :

These are two consecutive sentences; they are blatantly contradictory. Science must not, should not and CANNOT assume anything; it is a tool that is used for a particular job. One wouldn't use a microscope to hammer in a nail and one wouldn't use science to investigate an aspect of Reality that was not observable.

I'm sorry; I am not prepared to wade through pages of literature in a discussion forum. Can you, in one or two sentences and without reference to any third party, explain what it is about Science or the way that it is conducted that you object to? Do you deny that Science is a tool and nothing else?
This above all else, to Thine own Self be true.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #28 on: 01/11/2013 10:05:00 »
Donquichotte, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the nature of science. Currently science follows a principle of methodological naturalism. Both those words are central to the practice of science. You have misinterpreted this as the application of materialism. Admittedly there is some correlation, but precious little causation.

When we say science follows the principle of naturalism we mean several related things. Naturalism takes as axiomatic that the universe behaves according to certain rules. Further it believes these rules can be discovered through observation, experiment and inference. Moreover, the rules are applied consistently. Supernatural events do not occur. There are no interventions by a supreme being; no ghosts; no magic.

But more than this, science uses methodological naturalism. This is an important distinction. Pure naturalism rejects the existence of the supernatural. You could argue that this matches your claims for materialism. But methodological naturalism is different. It makes no claim as to the existence, or non-existence of the supernatural. It simply declares "we do not investigate the supernatural, we assume it does not exist, since if it did it would not be subject to investigation by the scientific process". So, science, currently acts as if there was no supernatural, while not actually denying the possibility of its existence.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #29 on: 01/11/2013 17:51:58 »
DQ

Do you actually have anything interesting, original or provable to contribute to this or any other discussion? Your postings seem very eloquent (if somewhat repetitious) but entirely devoid of content. Surely you must know or think something?

I am interested , most of all, in trying to make you ,folks, understand what science really is , in trying to make you , folks, realise that science must be liberated from that false outdated and superseded materialist mechanical secular religion  ideology misconscption of nature in science , then , and only then , we can talk ...pure science .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #30 on: 01/11/2013 17:56:31 »

Don't be silly , sis :
Neither life nor reality as a whole are just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry = the latter are just the material physical biological side of the former = re-read what i said then to you .
Why did you have to bring up God and the rest in this discussion then ?

Materialism "makes science " consider life in general ,and the whole reality as a whole as such thus ,as just a matter of physics and chemistry = a false materialist belief assumption that gets sold to the people as science , while science in fact can only approach the material physical biological side   of life in general and of reality as a whole : see the difference ? .
Get that ?

Well, bro, what is so wrong about scientists investigating that biological side of reality? I'm sure the research I referenced above fails to support string theory, or predict what I'm making dinner tonight,  but that was not its intent. So, no, I don't get your point of your complaint.

Once again, sis :
Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry , to just biological physical material processes since the 19th century at least , thanks to materialism , while science should in fact restrict and confine itself only to the observable , empirical ....part of reality , the rest does "fall " both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well thus .

*

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 54
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #31 on: 01/11/2013 22:02:57 »
Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry  since the 19th century at least  , to just biological material physical processes , thanks to materialism .

No. This is nonsense. Modern Science is not reducing anything. It doesn't limit itself to the observable because of "materialism", it limits itself to the observable because that's its job!. How can anybody fail to understand this?

I would not accept once of the members of a discussion in the cafe constantly imposing on the rest of us to "read this!" and will not do it in this discussion either. Please explain, as briefly as possible and in your own words, what you think science is and what you think is wrong with it. Can you do that?

This above all else, to Thine own Self be true.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #32 on: 01/11/2013 23:13:35 »
Quote
3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line.
    In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.

The author of this drivel asks you to imagine a universe in which momentum is not conserved. Has he been watching too many cartoons, or has he smoked some reeeeeally good stuff?  Either way, you won't wake up in his universe, so why bother reading his ravings?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #33 on: 03/11/2013 17:43:23 »
Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry  since the 19th century at least  , to just biological material physical processes , thanks to materialism .

Quote
No. This is nonsense. Modern Science is not reducing anything. It doesn't limit itself to the observable because of "materialism", it limits itself to the observable because that's its job!. How can anybody fail to understand this?

You did ,obviously, not understand what i was saying , once again :
I said : science has been pretending to know the nature of the whole reality as a whole as  such already , by reducing it to just material physical biological processes , thanks to materialism , = by reducing the whole reality as a whole as  such to just physics and chemistry + to their materialist macroscopic extensions , while science should in fact limit itself only to the observable, empirical ...
Who said that the whole reality as a whole as such  as allegedly  being just material physical biological processes = just physics and chemistry ...who said that that allegation , or rather materialist false belief assumption in science is an ..."empirical observable ...fact " ? : see the materialist dominating meta-paradigm in all sciences and elsewhere for that matter , a meta-paradigm's core materialist belief assumption that does consider the whole reality as a whole as such as just being material physical ..= a materialist meta-paradigm belief assumption that pretends to be 'scientific " ...

Get that ,or not yet ?


Quote
I would not accept once of the members of a discussion in the cafe constantly imposing on the rest of us to "read this!" and will not do it in this discussion either.


I am not imposing anything : i just refer you , folks, to relevant links on the subject , that's all : it is your own free choice to read it ot not : Sheldrake, for example,  is a qualified scientist on the subject: he did write a whole scientific book on the subject i have been providing you, folks, with important and relevant excerpts from  .

Quote
Please explain, as briefly as possible and in your own words, what you think science is and what you think is wrong with it. Can you do that?

What do you think i was doing all along ? = see above .
« Last Edit: 03/11/2013 17:47:40 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #34 on: 03/11/2013 17:58:57 »
Quote
3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line.
    In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.

The author of this drivel asks you to imagine a universe in which momentum is not conserved. Has he been watching too many cartoons, or has he smoked some reeeeeally good stuff?  Either way, you won't wake up in his universe, so why bother reading his ravings?
[/quote]

Never mind that :
Just tell me this :  this is the core issue here by the way , once again :
Do you think that the whole reality as a whole as such is just material physical ? = just a matter of physics and chemistry = everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry + just in terms  of those materialist macroscopic extensions of that materialist core belief assumption regarding the nature of the whole reality as a whole as such ?
Is that an "empirical , observable ...fact , or assumption ? " = of course not : well, that's what science has been doing = considering reality as a whole as such as just being material physical, thanks to materialism , while science should in fact confine itself only to the observable, empirical...part of reality it can deal with , the rest is both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisidction as well .

P.S.: see that materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere for that matter , once again, a materialist meta-paradigm that does consider the whole reality as a whole as such as just being material physical :
How can science pretend to know the nature of the whole reality as a whole as such already , as science has been doing , thanks to materialism for so long now ?
Just do try to tell me about it ...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #35 on: 03/11/2013 18:51:04 »
If you have a point to make, by all means make it. But don't use obvious nonsense as an analogy - it weakens an already flimsy case. 

And remember that, despite what Goebbels said, repetition is not proof. 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #36 on: 03/11/2013 18:59:28 »
If you have a point to make, by all means make it. But don't use obvious nonsense as an analogy - it weakens an already flimsy case. 

And remember that, despite what Goebbels said, repetition is not proof.
[/quote]

Just answer my questions , instead of these silly empty rhetorics of yours .
Is reality as a whole as such just physical material ?
Is that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ?
The answer  to that question  is so obvious and simple that it would not have to cost you any intellectual effort to see ...as a scientist .
Use your mind then , not your head = your mind is not in your brain, not in your head , your mind is not your head , is not your brain .

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #37 on: 03/11/2013 20:51:08 »
Quote
Is that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ?

No.

You are right - no intellectual effort was required, once I had squeezed some kind of meaning from your mangled question.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #38 on: 03/11/2013 21:22:04 »
Quote
Is that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ?

No.

You are right - no intellectual effort was required, once I had squeezed some kind of meaning from your mangled question.
[/quote]

haha

Well, good for you : you just went against the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " , as you should do  indeed , a materialist 'scientific world view " you do take for granted without question, despite your "no " here .
Congratulations .
« Last Edit: 03/11/2013 21:23:45 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #39 on: 03/11/2013 22:47:46 »
What "mainstream world view"? You asked if something had been taken for granted, and I said no. By the definition of science, nothing is taken for granted in the world of science. That is the mainstream world view, with which I have agreed.

Do not tell me what I think. You make yourself look foolish. 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #40 on: 04/11/2013 16:48:21 »
DQ, I would appreciate it if you would address my dismemberment of your assertions about the nature of science as posted on 1 November.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #41 on: 04/11/2013 19:53:43 »
DQ, I would appreciate it if you would address my dismemberment of your assertions about the nature of science as posted on 1 November.
[/quote]

There was no such a thing as "dismemberment " of my allegations regarding science  to be detected in your above mentioned post , that one that dates back to the first of November thus  , i am with you regarding what science actually is and should be as a result , science as just a human effective and unparalleled tool instrument method to deal with the observable, empirical ...........via multiple ways that are specific to their corresponding specific sciences , there are sciences indeed , as there are many forms of the scientific method, not just one : cosmologists do not deal with the cosmos like biologists do in relation to life etc...

Naturalist science has been dominated by the materialist reductionist naturalist false conception of nature , in the sense that reality as a whole is just physical material, and therefore there is no such a "being " such as God, no immaterial side of reality you do call the 'supernatural " , the latter that's just semantics that mean nothing = the immaterial side of reality is in fact ...normal, not paranormal ;the  "paranormal "  label  is just the materialist way of dismissing what it , per definition, rejects ,that's all .

That reality as a whole is just physical material is just a materialist dogmatic belief assumption, no empirical one , but that materialist core belief assumption has been taken for granted as science , for so long now thus , once again .

But fact is , once again : thanks to materialism , the 'scientific world view " is materialist = reality as a whole is just physical material = see that materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences for that matter , and elsewhere , and therefore is the human mind or  human intellect , memory in general, consciousness, emotions, feelings  , ...are just products of the physical brain's neuro-chemical  activity= materialist belief assumptions , no empirical ones .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #42 on: 04/11/2013 20:15:56 »
What "mainstream world view"? You asked if something had been taken for granted, and I said no. By the definition of science, nothing is taken for granted in the world of science. That is the mainstream world view, with which I have agreed.

Let me try to reconstruct for you the 'scene of the committed crime " haha, before it gets "infected , messed with and distorted " beyond any recognition then  :

I asked you the following :

Do you think that reality as a whole is material physical ? You answered no .
But , ironically and pradoxically, modern science has been in fact assuming that reality as a whole thus is just material physical, thanks to materialism , a "scientific " assumption that has been just a materialist core belief assumption, not an empirical or scientific one .
So,when you said no , that meant you were against that materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " as a result , a 'scientific world view " you have been taking for granted without question as the scientific one , despite your "no ".

So, make up your mind then :
Is reality as a whole just material physical ? , if not , as you answered previously , then you are against the 'scientific world view " on the subject , if yes , then you have been deluded into assuming that that materialist core belief assumption has been  "the scientific world view " , either way , you have to explain your position predicament .

Will you do just that ? 

Quote
Do not tell me what I think.


I was not telling you what to think , i was just asking you a question you responded to , a response of yours that did go against the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " or 'scientific consensus " on the subject thus .

Quote
You make yourself look foolish.

No, i don't think so , see above .
You have been  putting  yourself , as a scientist thus, in a weird paradoxical ironic situation predicament , as the majority of scientists today have been doing , you should try to solve  for yourself at least  .
Will you do just that , as i asked here above ?



*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #43 on: 04/11/2013 22:23:53 »
A quick heads-up: Cheryl's prescient prediction of post #15 is already being realised.

As Yogi Berra said, "It's déjà-vu all over again". We've been over this ground for weeks on the Human Consciousness thread, and Don has been unable or unwilling to support any of his assertions with reasoned argument, let alone examples or evidence. He can't say what science could do differently, or how it would be better without the 'reductionist materialist ideology' he complains of. He just repeats the mantra. If pushed, he will resort to invective or will post pages of Nagel or Sheldrake, or whichever pseudoscientific screed he's currently enthusing about. He will tell you what you believe and what you don't believe whether it contradicts what you've said or not.

Personally, I think he's afraid that science is encroaching on his precious immaterial beliefs.

And now, back to the fun...
« Last Edit: 04/11/2013 22:26:57 by dlorde »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #44 on: 04/11/2013 22:34:07 »
Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #45 on: 05/11/2013 00:37:00 »
What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "how did life begin on Earth?"

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #46 on: 05/11/2013 01:05:57 »
What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "how did life begin on Earth?"
It's now been discovered that organic synthesis, including simple amino acids, can occur in gas clouds in space, which was a surprise, given the low temperatures and diffuse nature of the clouds.

It's also worth remembering that the first life appears to have begun almost as soon as the Earth had cooled enough for the chemistry to hold together, and that conditions were very different to those today - lots of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulphide, and practically no free oxygen, which was extremely toxic to early anaerobic life.

Quite a few naturally occurring organic polymers can self-organize to form bi-layer membranes and proto-organelles, with phospholipid chains being the likely starting point. In oceanic vents & flumes, there are often pockets and chambers where currents are minimal and thermal and chemical gradients are reasonably stable. These do seem good candidate environments, with chemically rich, porous surfaces where redox reactions can take place. As I understand it, there's quite a bit of support for RNA providing the initial replication machinery, with more complex DNA making its appearance a fair bit later, after the rudimentary transcription machinery and other RNA gubbins had evolved. But there are almost as many ideas as there are research groups, it's a very active field.

« Last Edit: 05/11/2013 01:08:07 by dlorde »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #47 on: 05/11/2013 18:58:28 »
Human intelect and memory can be accounted for by what we already know about mechanistic computation systems. Life can be accounted for as complex chemistry. I see no point in imagining magical solutions for those to use in place of perfectly good mechanistic models which already work perfectly. The only difficulty left is consciousness.
[/quote]

The mechanistic deterministic materialist 'scientific world view " has been shattered and demolished by the maths of chaos :
If everything can be explained just in terms of mechanical cause and effect , just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics , as the Newtonian science has been assuming reality as a whole to be just some sort of mechanic clock work mechanisms , then, we should , logically , empirically , expect to be able to predict everything as a result: the maths of chaos have been destroying that materialist determinist mechanical belief assumption ,as follows :

I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect  theory  , and modern physics had  already kissed that outdated , superseded  , largely discredited and  largely refuted  Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability  nowadays  , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .

Try to read the following and  try to watch this extremely enlightening and interesting top docu on the subject :

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/high-anxieties-the-mathematics-of-chaos/

High Anxieties: The Mathematics of Chaos


High Anxieties: The Mathematics of ChaosThe documentary looks at the modern advances in mathematics and how they affect our understanding of physics, economics, environmental issues and human psychology.

The film looks at how developments in 20th Century mathematics have affected our view of the world, and particularly how the financial economy and earth’s environment are now seen as inherently unpredictable.

The film looks at the influence the work of Henri Poincare and Alexander Lyapunov had on later developments in mathematics. It includes interviews with David Ruelle, about chaos theory and turbulence, the economist Paul Ormerod about the unpredictability of economic systems, and James Lovelock the founder of Gaia theory about climate change and tipping points in the environment.

As we approach tipping points in both the economy and the climate, the film examines the mathematics we have been reluctant to face up to and asks if, even now, we would rather bury our heads in the sand rather than face harsh truths.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #48 on: 05/11/2013 19:05:17 »
1) You won't or can't address the glaring contradiction in your argument: that science must be "liberated" from materialism so it can be free to investigate or obtain information about the immaterial, which you've already said it cannot do. So what is the benefit of this "liberation?"

I used to make a mistake when i used to say that science can deal only with the material (I see i was also a relative victim of materialism in science thus ) , science can rather deal with all it can observe, test , study ...empirically + not everything can be explained just via the laws of physics , not everything is just a matter of cause and effect thus , as mechanistic materialism  assumes (Major examples ? : science cannot handle the nature or origins of consciousness,of  human intellect ,of  feelings ,of  emotions , of memory ....science cannot handle the nature and origin of human conscience , science cannot explain life as a whole just via physics and chemistry , let alone life's origins , evolution and emergence ...fully) .
See how Sheldrake has been studying telepathy, for example, scientifically .

Quote
2) There is no materialist conspiracy

Who said there is one ?

Quote
. First off, your history of the relationship between the Catholic church and scientists is factually inaccurate
.

What do you mean exactly ?
The medieval church used to be against science , wasn't it ?
The medieval church that used to see itself as the one and only undisputed ultimate authority : anyone who used to challenge it , used to face dire consequences ,as you know  .
The medieval church used to plant the seeds of its own decline , and those of the rise or birth of mechanistic materialism thus as a result .

 
Quote
They were generally in opposition

Scientists were , yes ? indeed ,so .

Quote
. Secondly, the fact that scientific discoveries were about material processes is not proof that people were prevented by some social force from attempting any other kind of investigation.

I was just talking about the secular materialist establishment as the newly born ultimate authority that had replaced christianity ,metaphorically speaking ,  as the concept of the nation-state had replaced that of the church : the secular materialist establishment as the new then undisputed ultimate authority whose main 'ally " was / has been science , when science became materialistic mechanistic , thanks to materialism thus .

Quote
Chemists doing chemistry experiments will probably derive theories involving chemistry (ideas about molecules and atoms.) Physicists doing physics experiments will also come to conclusions having to do with physics. They are unlikely to spontaneously generate theories or conclusions about the immaterial things which have nothing to do with their own research. Science is not dominated by materialism, in the sense that it is being coerced by some authority to be that way. Scientific knowledge simply contains more information about the material world because that is what individual scientists chose to observe and measure, because that is what they can observe and measure, not because somebody forced them to or censored them.

Wrong :
Science has been assuming that everything is material physical, thanks to materialism  = everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , or just by physics and chemistry , so, everything that would have  "supernatural " claims would be , per definition, not only branded as unscientific , but also as ...false , including the claims of religions ....
While science in fact should restrict itself only to what it can deal with empirically .

Quote
Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.

Just be serious , come on :
Just answer the question, come on.
Be serious, ok ?
Well, when science will cease to "see " everything as being just material physical through just the key hole of materialism ,while pretending that all what it can see through that materialist mechanistic key hole is all what there is to reality , then  science will realise the fact that there is more to reality than just that it has been confined to , science that tries to understand and explain reality thus .
Science will be then put  on a new  path that might lead to new  unimaginable  discoveries as a result : do you want me to draw you a pic ?

Science has been just deluded into "thinking " , thanks to materialism thus , that the material physical side of reality is all what there is to reality = a distortion of reality .

When science will be liberated from materialism, then science will be able to "see " or rather try to approach the whole pic of reality or rather  science will be able to approach the parts of the whole pic of reality it  can deal with empirically , instead of confining itself to just the material physical side of reality , science has been taking for the whole real thing = the scope realm , jurisdiction and reach of science will be then extended exponentially ,relatively speaking then, while there are some significant parts of reality as a whole that will remain beyond both science's realm and beyond science's jurisdiction as well thus  .

Quote
... see how even telepathy is studied scientifically by Sheldrake, for example
Quote
.
Yeah, right. Whatever happened to the telepathy revolution...?

Maybe he's still looking for a way to distinguish between telepathy, clairvoyance, and remote viewing (etc.), or maybe the communication companies have bought him off, or are suppressing his work; but on the other hand, with no credible replications, maybe he's just chasing the magic butterfly of his imagination down the corridors of pseudoscience with a butterfly net of leaky protocols and flaky analysis ;)

Did you take a close look at Sheldrake's scientific work on the subject ? Guess not : go back and check his evidence , and then we can talk when you would come back .

Sheldrake has been dealing with both telepathy and his morphic resonance theory scientifically , relatively speaking , he has been practicing science as scientists should do whe science would be liberated from materialism : that's 1 of the major reasons why most scientists , including yourself , has been considering his work as being a form of pseudo-science , while it is in fact the other way around : materialism in science is pseudo-science , Sheldrake has just been demolishing those materialist dogmatic orthodox beliefs idols in science that has been taken for granted as science by the materialist mainstream scientific priesthood and their followers  .



*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #49 on: 05/11/2013 19:14:26 »
A quick heads-up: Cheryl's prescient prediction of post #15 is already being realised.

As Yogi Berra said, "It's déjà-vu all over again". We've been over this ground for weeks on the Human Consciousness thread, and Don has been unable or unwilling to support any of his assertions with reasoned argument, let alone examples or evidence. He can't say what science could do differently, or how it would be better without the 'reductionist materialist ideology' he complains of. He just repeats the mantra. If pushed, he will resort to invective or will post pages of Nagel or Sheldrake, or whichever pseudoscientific screed he's currently enthusing about. He will tell you what you believe and what you don't believe whether it contradicts what you've said or not.

Personally, I think he's afraid that science is encroaching on his precious immaterial beliefs.

And now, back to the fun...
See above .
No, you are completely wrong , on all accounts :
I have been put in a position where i have been forced to repeat the same facts over and over again regarding the core fact that materialism is no science , simply because you refuse to acknowledge those simple facts : i did even post a lots of material on the subject that has been supporting my allegations , and more .

Besides, God or religions , any world views for that matter , including materialism thus , materialism as just a secular dogmatic orthodox religion in science , are both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well .
So, materialism has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry in science , while selling that materialist core belief assumption to the people as science , in order to reject all non-materialist world views , including religions thus , "scientifically ", and in order for materialism to try to "validate " itself through science as science , in order thus for materialism to try to prove itself as being " the one and only scientifically true world view " , as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course : no wonder that materialism in science has been sold to the people as "the scientific world view " , materialism that's just a false conception of nature that has thus absolutely nothing to do with science , science that should try to deal with all parts of reality it can deal with empirically , not just with the material part of reality science has been confined to , thanks to materialism , the material side of reality that science has been assuming that it is all what there is to reality as a whole  .
I cannot be any clearer than that .
« Last Edit: 05/11/2013 19:21:48 by DonQuichotte »