Natural Explanation Origins of Life

Originally posted by @eladar
So you think our understanding will not improve?

I implied it WILL improve; because it obviously will.
Can't you read?

Originally posted by @humy
I implied it WILL improve; because it obviously will.
Can't you read?

It is obvious he just doesn't like your answer. He knows full well what you said. He is just trolling with no real interest in actually learning the subject.

Originally posted by @humy
I implied it WILL improve; because it obviously will.
Can't you read?

So the formulas we use to model hiw things work could change.

Originally posted by @eladar
It can't be reproduced nor can it be falsified, it can only be accepted by faith.[/b]

Actually not. Let's not make every thread on the science forum about faith. Abiogenesis is not accepted by faith. It's a working theory that can be disproven in light of contradictory evidence.

edit: to clarify, theories of abiogenesis can be consistent with faith/spirituality/religion, but they are not relevant to the scientific discussion.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Actually not. Let's not make every thread on the science forum about faith. Abiogenesis is not accepted by faith. It's a working theory that can be disproven in light of contradictory evidence.

edit: to clarify, theories of abiogenesis can be consistent with faith/spirituality/religion, but they are not relevant to the scientific discussion.

So you are saying 100 years from now scientific discoveries couldn't make today's understanding of the universe as incorrect as the ancient Greek's view is regarded today?

Originally posted by @eladar
So you are saying 100 years from now scientific discoveries couldn't make today's understanding of the universe as incorrect as the ancient Greek's view is regarded today?

My 2 bits is science 100 years on would find different realms of science like quantum computers and tricks of the quantum trade, maybe a good TOE. But that kind of thing would not make Relativity obsolete just part of a greater whole. It wouldn't refute Newtonian gravity by much either, since we can us Newtonian physics to get around anywhere in the solar system with no need for relativity and so forth.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
My 2 bits is science 100 years on would find different realms of science like quantum computers and tricks of the quantum trade, maybe a good TOE. But that kind of thing would not make Relativity obsolete just part of a greater whole. It wouldn't refute Newtonian gravity by much either, since we can us Newtonian physics to get around anywhere in the solar system with no need for relativity and so forth.

How would Greeks have viewed what science might look like in the future? Do you think they would be correct?

Originally posted by @eladar
So the formulas we use to model hiw things work could change.

you keep repeating these very vague assertion without ever explaining what you mean.
Which "formulas" and what kind of "formulas" are you referring to here?
Can you give any specific example so we know what you are talking about?
Our understanding of nature will improve while how things work in nature will stay the same and I never implied the contrary; if that is what you are saying?

Originally posted by @humy
you keep repeating these very vague assertion without ever explaining what you mean.
Which "formulas" and what kind of "formulas" are you referring to here?
Can you give any specific example so we know what you are talking about?
Our understanding of nature will improve while how things work in nature will stay the same and I never implied the contrary; if that is what you are saying?

Anything that models how things work. The very structure of the atom may become redefined. There may be even smaller parts of the atom that we do not know about. There may be new manipulation techniques developed that allows new materials to be created or put together in different ways. It is possible that new atoms could be found and created.

The laws of physics as we know them may be a thing of the past.

Originally posted by @eladar
The very structure of the atom may become redefined.

Right. Ok. You're speaking in generally vague terms but let's drill down on this one. How do you define an atom now? What are the unknowns? What discovery or invention or knowledge would fundamentally change the definition? What would the future definition look like, and how would it differ from how we currently understand it?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Right. Ok. You're speaking in generally vague terms but let's drill down on this one. How do you define an atom now? What are the unknowns? What discovery or invention or knowledge would fundamentally change the definition? What would the future definition look like, and how would it differ from how we currently understand it?

The Greek view of the Atom

One of the first atomic theorists was Democritus, a Greek philosopher who lived in the fifth century BC. Democritus knew that if a stone was divided in half, the two halves would have essentially the same properties as the whole.Therefore, he reasoned that if the stone were to be continually cut into smaller and smaller pieces then; at some point, there would be a piece which would be so small as to be indivisible. He called these small pieces of matter "atomos," the Greek word for indivisible.

http://www.abcte.org/files/previews/chemistry/s1_p1.html

Then we moved on to the electrons, neutrons and protons, then after many years we found out about sub particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles

It is only natural that 100 years from now our understanding of the atom will continue to grow and with that knowledge will come new ways of manipulating matter.

Originally posted by @eladar
No one has been able to create the correct conditiins for abiogenesis. It has never been reproduced. No one has ever seen it happen.

Can anyone falsify the idea of abiogenesis?

There is little commercial benefit in demonstrating the synthesis of living things starting with chemical elements that have never been in a living entity - this is important because the chemical elements most associated with life, like C, H, O, N, and P, come with no provenance that would show that they were never in a living entity where they picked up or were bestowed with a vital "life force" that is unobservable but somehow proves that it and its creator exist by the fact of biological life.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
In my opinion it should be possible to create life from ingredients. Put together, atom for atom, a molecule of DNA as a copy of a bacteria genetic information. Do the same thing with all the other things within this bacterial cell. Then bag it up with a cell membrane. We don't have the technology for it yet (perhaps we have, i don't know) so this perhap ...[text shortened]... rth, not on the moon, perhaps on Mars, perhaps elsewhere in the solar system, we don't know yet.

And scientists once thought that maggots spontaneously arose from rotting meat.......until put to the test.

Thanks for your sharing your belief system, now get out there and do some science! 😵

Originally posted by @whodey
And scientists once thought that maggots spontaneously arose from rotting meat.......until put to the test.

Thanks for your sharing your belief system, now get out there and do some science! 😵

Yes, science is learning.
Pseudo science isn't.

Originally posted by @eladar

The laws of physics as we know them may be a thing of the past.

so what here do you imply? Do you mean, for example, the law of gravity will cease to operate once we know it is 'false', or that we will cease to believe things are made of atoms, or what exactly?
Physicists understanding (but never yours) of the laws of physics will improve over time but we will still think there is these things called gravity / atoms / c and quantum physics and relativity and you would be delusional if you seriously think that would credibly change. If current modern day quantum physics was radically and completely wrong, your computer wouldn't work. So, for example, do you seriously think we will eventually discover quantum physics was radically and completely wrong? -and then would our computers suddenly stop working as a result of this?