Origin of life studies would be classed as pseudoscience …

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 28, 2014

Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

… except that they support naturalism (materialism)

No one in their right mind would take the field—as we have seen it unfold—seriously for any other purpose.

So, what really drives origin-of-life research?:

Whether a field is considered “science” or “pseudoscience” now often depends principally on its relationship to naturalist ideology, not on whether it advances our understanding. What exactly have speculations about the multiverse contributed to science, for example? Today, in fact, evidence-based and reality-based thinking are seen not as tools or guides but as obstacles to the quest to make the multiverse real, at least in our minds — possibly the only place it ever can be real.

Origin-of-life research provides another classic illustration. Our survey of the field has turned up crowds of conflicting theories churning a largely disputed fact base.

But does it need to be this way?

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (origin of life)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Guys, y’all seem so much ahead on the cutting edge of scientific knowledge. Can someone please point to sources that provide a serious, accurate, reasonable, logical, understandable, detailed, complete, unambiguous, absolute, coherent, consistent, objective description of ALL the processes that take place during embryonic development? Please, also point to sources that provide a serious, accurate, reasonable logical, understandable, detailed, complete, unambiguous, absolute, coherent, consistent, objective description of how we got ALL that to begin with. Please, make sure the referred sources cover all current and future related discoveries. Thank you in advance.Dionisio_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

to okfanriffic at 26, are you asking me? can you show me anything wrong in my post 25? i wish somebody can correct me, if im wrong. I don't believe in magic, the chemicle evolution is more difficult than the resurection of dead. By an dead body you have at least every thing needed for a cell.peter_G_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Chemical Reactions, a field of knowledge that they have mastered. So its also true that 90 years of testing should have given success, if it were indeed possible. But these 90 years have yielded nothing but failure.
I posted this in another thread, but I'll repost it here: the problem with chemical evolution [Awake!, November 2011]: With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following: 1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules. 2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life. 3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself. How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things—machines, houses, and even living cells—in time break down. Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.” How that energy is directed, however, is beyond the capability of evolution to explain. And again, from the Awake! issue of of March 22, 2002 ["When Simple is Not So Simple"]: The theory of chemical evolution proposes that life on earth developed by spontaneous chemical reaction billions of years ago. This theory is not that an accident directly transformed lifeless matter into birds, reptiles, or other complex life-forms. Rather, the claim is that a series of spontaneous chemical reactions eventually resulted in very simple life-forms such as algae and other single-celled organisms. Based on what is now known about these single-celled organisms, is it reasonable to assume that they are so simple that they could have appeared spontaneously? For example, how simple are single-celled algae? The Dunaliella cells are ovoid, or egg-shaped, and very small—about ten microns long. Placed end to end, it would take about 2,500 [1,000] of them to make one inch [one centimeter]. Each cell has two whiplike flagella at one end, which allow it to swim. Similar to plants, Dunaliella cells use photosynthesis to provide energy. They produce food from carbon dioxide, minerals, and other nutrients absorbed into the cell, and they reproduce by cell division. Dunaliella can live even in a saturated salt solution. It is one of the very few organisms of any kind that can live and propagate in the Dead Sea, which has a salt concentration about eight times that of seawater. This so-called simple organism can also survive sudden changes in the salt concentration of its environment. Consider, for instance, Dunaliella bardawil, found in shallow salt marshes in the Sinai desert. The water in these marshes can be diluted quickly during a thunderstorm or can reach saturated salt concentration when the extreme desert heat evaporates the water. Thanks in part to its ability to produce and accumulate glycerol in just the right amount, this tiny alga can tolerate such extreme changes. Dunaliella bardawil is able to synthesize glycerol very rapidly, starting within minutes of a change in salt concentration, either producing or eliminating glycerol as needed in order to adapt. This is important because in some habitats the salt concentration can change considerably within a matter of hours. Living in shallow marshes in the desert, Dunaliella bardawil is exposed to intense sunlight. This would damage the cell were it not for the protective screening provided by a pigment in the cell. When grown under favorable nutritional conditions, as when ample nitrogen is available, a Dunaliella culture is bright green, with the green pigment chlorophyll providing the protective screen. Under conditions of nitrogen deficiency and high salt concentration, temperature, and light intensity, the culture changes from green to orange or red. Why? Under such harsh conditions, a complicated biochemical process takes place. The chlorophyll content drops to a low level, and an alternative pigment, beta-carotene, is produced instead. Were it not for its unique ability to produce this pigment, the cell would die. The appearance of large amounts of beta-carotene—up to 10 percent of the alga’s dry weight under these conditions—accounts for the change in color. In the United States and Australia, to produce natural beta-carotene for the human nutrition market, Dunaliella has been grown commercially in large ponds. For example, there are large production facilities in southern and western Australia. Beta-carotene can also be produced synthetically. However, only two companies have the very costly and complex biochemical plants capable of producing it at production scale. What has taken humans decades and huge investments in research, development, and production facilities, Dunaliella accomplishes very easily. This simple alga does it with a miniature factory too small to see, in immediate response to the changing requirements of its environment. Another unique ability of the genus Dunaliella is found in a species called Dunaliella acidophila, which was first isolated in 1963 in naturally occurring acidic sulfur springs and soils. These environments were characterized by a high concentration of sulfuric acid. In laboratory studies this species of Dunaliella can grow in a solution of sulfuric acid, which is about 100 times more acidic than lemon juice. On the other hand, Dunaliella bardawil can survive in high alkaline environments. This demonstrates the extreme range of ecological adaptability of Dunaliella. Is it reasonable to say that this single-celled alga is merely a simple, primitive life-form that by happenstance came about from a few amino acids in an organic soup? Is it logical to ascribe these wonders of nature to pure chance?Barb_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

okfan- Your position requires magic. Wake up and buy a vowel.Joe_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

anybody out there who doesn't believe in magic.?okfanriffic_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

The materialist believe the origin of everything must be dead matter, even not living matter. because they are afraid an living matter could mean God. But why science should presupport this materialist view? I can't see any reason that science should exclude the possibility that the life itself can be the origin of everything.Or put it in this way: an living entity could be the Cause for the universe. Is there any scientific reason that the universe couldn't be caused by an living entity? I'm not talk about natural vs supernatural, but live vs dead.peter_G_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT}

Guys, y’all seem so much ahead on the cutting edge of scientific knowledge. Can someone please point to sources that provide a serious, accurate, reasonable, logical, understandable, detailed, complete, unambiguous, absolute, coherent, consistent, objective description of ALL the processes that take place during embryonic development? Please, also point to sources that provide a serious, accurate, reasonable logical, understandable, detailed, complete, unambiguous, absolute, coherent, consistent, objective description of how we got ALL that. Please, make sure the referred sources cover all current and future related discoveries. Thank you in advance.Dionisio_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

# 19
serious accurate reasonable logical understandable detailed
Please, add the following adjectives: "complete, unambiguous, absolute, coherent, consistent, objective"Dionisio_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

# 21
point to sources that prov that kind of information
Correction:
point to sources that provide the requested information
Dionisio_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

By the way, comment # 19 really means "point to sources that prov that kind of information". Thank you all in advance for your help with this.Dionisio_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

OK CLAVDIVS- what do you mean by "materialistic"? Information is neither matter nor energy. How does the materialistic approach deal with that?Joe_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Guys, y'all seem so much ahead on the cutting edge of scientific knowledge. Can someone please provide a serious accurate reasonable logical understandable detailed description of ALL the processes that take place during embryonic development? Please, also provide a serious accurate reasonable logical understandable detailed description of how we got ALL that. Please, make sure to cover all current and future related associated discoveries. Thank you in advance.Dionisio_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Claudius at 14, You failed to answer a single question I asked, nor did you engage any of the substance those questions raise. Instead, you posted a response to words I did not say, attempting to place me in a position I do not take. One gets the sense that if your comments had any actual substance, you wouldn't need such a loose unresponsive style if argumentation to present them.Upright BiPed_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
CLAVDIVS: All science at the present time is materalistic, because the only theories we can test at the present time are materialistic ones. JOE: Total bull. How can we test that matter, energy and their interactions are all there is?
We can't test whether materialism is true because that's a metaphysical question. Der. I don't believe there's any such thing at present as a testable, non-materialistic scientific theory of anything ... if you think there is, tell us what it is. It's silly to criticise OOL research as pseudoscience on the grounds that it's materialistic, because so are all scientific theories.CLAVDIVS_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

CuriousCat @ 9
CLAVDIVS - Luckily we won’t decide whether a theory is pseudoscience based on whether CuriousCat finds it annoying. CURIOUSCAT - I’m sorry, I forgot that we decide whether a theory is a pseudoscience by the high committee of materialists. My bad.
The global community of scientists, which clearly accepts OOL research as science, is 51% theistic plus 8% 'don't know' ... hardly a 'high committee of materialists' as you falsely claim.
CURIOUSCAT: CLAVDIVS, the point you seem to be confused is disctinction of the method of science with the nature itself. That the science is materialistic (actually, I disagree even with that idea, it is highly questionable that quantum physics is compatible with materialism) does not say anything about the nature being materialistic. In other words, there is not scientific justification for the nature to be (totally, or even partially) materialistic. One can use a materialistic approach to describe various phenomona, but when one encounters a non-materialistic event (which is logically possible), what we should expect to see is similar to what we see now in OOL research: various conflicting theories explaining nothing. Or similar to conflicting trees of life. Or similar to many other conflicting views of Darwinist approach.
I'm not confused at all - I agree with your points about science vs nature and quantum physics. The fact remains that OOL research is materialistic in the same sense as all the other sciences, and it has conflicting theories just like all other sciences too. So it is preposterous for the OP and others to criticise OOL research as pseudoscience on these grounds.CLAVDIVS_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 8
CLAVDVIS - All science is materialistic. UPRIGHT BIPED - You do realize that this is a judgement from a human investigator, i.e. not determined by any of the four fundamental physical forces … don’t you?
Yes.
UPRIGHT BIPED - In any case, the organization of the first living cell on earth required a translation apparatus which must include a local independence from physical determinism in order for the system to function. To say that unguided material forces established such a local independence within a system is simply to assume that it can. This assumption is necessarily made against a backdrop of – not only zero corroborating evidence – but 100% universal experience to the contrary. On what specific empirical grounds (i.e. something well established in logic, and/or something that stems from well-documented empirical principles) do we ignore universal evidence in favor of zero evidence? What type of qualities do we look for in a pending question in order to make usch a determination? Is this justification established in physical law? If so, how, and if not, then why should anyone bend a knee to it?
So you think OOL research is currently materialistic - just like all the other sciences. And you think it should be non-materialistic - *unlike* all the other sciences - which would make it pseudoscientific. The exact opposite of what the OP is saying.CLAVDIVS_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
All science at the present time is materalistic, because the only theories we can test at the present time are materialistic ones.
Total bull. How can we test that matter, energy and their interactions are all there is? Materialism relies on nothing but sheer dumb luck- that isn't testable and that isn't science.Joe_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

LoL! That is not a testable theory for anything wrt OoL. Materialism doesn't offer anything that is testable. OTOH ID is both testable and potentially falsifiable.Joe_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

"If you’ve a testable non-materialistic OOL theory, let’s hear it." The Creationist theory, that God made the first life is indeed untestable, because of the fundamental incompetence of Scientists. Scientists lack any method for inducing ANY powerful independent intelligent entity, (such as Vladimir Putin) to submit to their testz. "You Do have a testable materialistic OOL theory, so let’s heasr some results" Its true that Atheists offer a testable, (although non-falsifiable) theory: Chemical Reactions, a field of knowledge that they have mastered. So its also true that 90 years of testing should have given success, if it were indeed possible. But these 90 years have yielded nothing but failure.chris haynes_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS makes this claim:
All science is materialistic.
That claim is patently false! In truth, Materialism is a philosophy that is antithetical to science. Materialism certainly was not at the founding of modern science,,
Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
And to this day the philosophy Materialism, as is evident in multiverse and many-world conjectures of materialists, continues to try to impede and sidetrack the progress of science. The reason why materialism is an impediment to the progress of science is the same reason why it did not give rise to modern science. Materialism insists that everything arose out of randomness/chaos. Yet if everything arose out of randomness/chaos then there is no reason for us to presuppose the mind of man is fashioned in God's image and that we can therefore understand the universe to the deepest levels. Indeed, on materialism, the entire enterprise of science is merely a great delusion that man has foisted off on himself that he can truly understand the universe to the deepest levels and arrive at the ultimate truth of God for the universe. Indeed, given materialism, even the concept of self becomes a delusion:
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant:,,) Read more here: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
But the success and progress of modern science itself testifies that it is materialism itself which is the delusional worldview not the Theistic metaphysics which gave birth to modern science:
1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. - 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geo-chemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photo-synthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’ (cannot be created or destroyed) ‘non-local’, beyond space-time matter-energy, quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale.
Supplemental Note: Not only was Christian Theism necessary for the birth of modern science, I hold that Christian Theism holds the ultimate resolution of science into a 'Theory of Everything':
General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & The Shroud Of Turin - (updated video) http://vimeo.com/34084462 The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values - Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio - 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the 'quantum' is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 Particle Radiation from the Body - July 2012 - M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. http://www.academicjournals.org/sre/PDF/pdf2012/30JulSpeIss/Antonacci.pdf Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural - December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. "The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin," they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html
Verse and Music:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. 2CELLOS - Thunderstruck [OFFICIAL VIDEO] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3SBzmDxGk
bornagain77_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

Hi guys. I work as a biochemist and like most biochemists we are concerned with understanding biology so that we can combat disease. An important part of science is understanding the underlying processes. Think about quantum electrodynamics,that advance in understanding spawned all of electronics including the computers we are communicating on! Science works, guys! Understanding origins and fundamentals has always proved productive and as such research into life's origins is reasonable.Remember most people who call themselves christian accept the bible as metaphorical and accept that their god creates using natural processes (the entire catholic and anglican communion of 1.3 billion christians)So all science is doing is uncovering how your god did its magic. Think about it. If we uncover a natural process you can just say your god did it but if we can't that might be proof of supernatural god magic!okfanriffic_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

Luckily we won’t decide whether a theory is pseudoscience based on whether CuriousCat finds it annoying.
I'm sorry, I forgot that we decide whether a theory is a pseudoscience by the high committee of materialists. My bad. CLAVDIVS, the point you seem to be confused is disctinction of the method of science with the nature itself. That the science is materialistic (actually, I disagree even with that idea, it is highly questionable that quantum physics is compatible with materialism) does not say anything about the nature being materialistic. In other words, there is not scientific justification for the nature to be (totally, or even partially) materialistic. One can use a materialistic approach to describe various phenomona, but when one encounters a non-materialistic event (which is logically possible), what we should expect to see is similar to what we see now in OOL research: various conflicting theories explaining nothing. Or similar to conflicting trees of life. Or similar to many other conflicting views of Darwinist approach.CuriousCat_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT}

All science is materialistic.
You do realize that this is a judgement from a human investigator, i.e. not determined by any of the four fundamental physical forces ... don't you? In any case, the organization of the first living cell on earth required a translation apparatus which must include a local independence from physical determinism in order for the system to function. To say that unguided material forces established such a local independence within a system is simply to assume that it can. This assumption is necessarily made against a backdrop of - not only zero corroborating evidence - but 100% universal experience to the contrary. On what specific empirical grounds (i.e. something well established in logic, and/or something that stems from well-documented empirical principles) do we ignore universal evidence in favor of zero evidence? What type of qualities do we look for in a pending question in order to make usch a determination? Is this justification established in physical law? If so, how, and if not, then why should anyone bend a knee to it?Upright BiPed_{March 28, 2014
March
03
Mar
28
28
2014
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

CuriousCat @ 4
I find this “none of the scientific hypothesis are complete, so it should be expected that Theory of Darwinist Evolution is not complete” approach ... quite annoying.
Luckily we won't decide whether a theory is pseudoscience based on whether CuriousCat finds it annoying.
... what is the experimental verification for a totally natural process to produce life...
What's the scientific test to determine if a process is 'totally natural'?CLAVDIVS_{March 28, 2014
March
03
Mar
28
28
2014
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

OldArmy94 @ 3 All science at the present time is materalistic, because the only theories we can test at the present time are materialistic ones. If you've a testable non-materialistic OOL theory, let's hear it.CLAVDIVS_{March 28, 2014
March
03
Mar
28
28
2014
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 2
The difference is that materialistic (unguided) OoL is presented as a foregone fact (sans the details) in every major scientific publication on the market, in the face of overwhelming unrefuted evidence to the contrary.
All science is materialistic. Why should OOL research be any different?CLAVDIVS_{March 28, 2014
March
03
Mar
28
28
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

I find this "none of the scientific hypothesis are complete, so it should be expected that Theory of Darwinist Evolution is not complete" approach, also summarized by the following paragraph, quite annoying:
All fields of science can be said to have crowds of conflicting theories and a disputed fact base. Why should OOL research be any different?
Conventional scientific theories such as atomic theory, thermodynamics, quantum physics, Newton's theory (or name it) are all well tested in the scales they are assumed to hold, and they've passed through through these tests. However, as scale is enlarged (or shrinked), some of the scientific theories are found to be insufficient (or even false) showing that these theories may be incomplete, or just approximations on a limited scale. When it comes Darwinist and OOL research, I think, this anology is mostly incorrect. Motivation behind these researches relies strictly on the "truth" of naturalism: given that naturalism is essentially true, how could life have started and evolved. This is not on par with conventional science, which relies only testable (and falsiable) hypotheses. In quantum physics, for instance, various interpretations are aimed for a better understanding of a many times tested theory. On the other hand, what is the experimental verification for a totally natural process to produce life, other than the metaphysical belief that there is not other way it could have happened? So, in my opinion, conflicting theories in OOL (or Darwinist evolution theory) do not serve to improve the understanding of an already tested scientific theory, but try to make up for the lack of well constructed scientific theories.CuriousCat_{March 28, 2014
March
03
Mar
28
28
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Precisely, Upright Biped. The narrative according to the Oolers is that life isn't anything special; it is just a mix of substances that happened to come together in such a way to create living beings. Or, if you get to thinking that it is too hard, just deny that life is different than non-living things. A priori materialism is a scientific cancer.OldArmy94_{March 28, 2014
March
03
Mar
28
28
2014
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

#1 The difference is that materialistic (unguided) OoL is presented as a foregone fact (sans the details) in every major scientific publication on the market, in the face of overwhelming unrefuted evidence to the contrary.Upright BiPed_{March 28, 2014
March
03
Mar
28
28
2014
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

All fields of science can be said to have crowds of conflicting theories and a disputed fact base. Why should OOL research be any different?CLAVDIVS_{March 28, 2014
March
03
Mar
28
28
2014
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply