1. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    04 Dec '07 03:141 edit
    Originally posted by amannion
    No, I agree. It's almost as if we're required to question, isn't it?
    I too am curious about the beginnings, although I'm not so sure about your 'things tend to move towards rest' position - that's sounding very Aristotelian to me. Much as I'm interested in dead greek thinkers, I reckon we can do a bit better towards explanations today.

    But in the end, t don't think there's a terribly strong case to suggest that life is 'for' anything.
    too am curious about the beginnings, although I'm not so sure about your 'things tend to move towards rest' position - that's sounding very Aristotelian to me. Much as I'm interested in dead greek thinkers, I reckon we can do a bit better towards explanations today.

    "Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it."

    (Newton's First Law of Motion)

    Is it proper to use Newton's law of inertia with respect to the origins of life? I don't know.

    But in the end, the wonder and beauty and mystery doesn't have to have a reason for being. I'm interested in the why and how, but the question that you seem to be heading towards is the what for, and I don't think there's a terribly strong case to suggest that life is 'for' anything.

    It is not my intention to move towards any significant conclusion either way (you have no idea how difficult it is to stifle my own personal bias on this issue). Whether life ultimately has a purpose or not, it is still a fascinating question to ponder. Perhaps because I'm pressing the issue it seems that I am intentionally framing the debate, but the truth is I'm simply asking a question which science has not yet adequately answered. As vistesd has pointed out before, the question itself, "what is life for," carries with it its own preconceptions. Whether those preconceptions are misconceptions is something science has not yet touched upon, as science is not prepared to address the origin of all life. And until science has rightly understood why and how life began in the first place, nobody can legitimately make any sweeping statements about whether life has a purpose or not.

    People like Dawkins, for instance, are perfectly comfortable with a vague notion of the origin of life; dealing primarily with large numbers and off-hand estimates as to the probability of living creatures spontaneously coalescing within the primordial soup, and never coming close to tackling the issue head on. While scientists working on the human genome have admitted candidly that the probability of the spontaneous self-assembly of DNA is inconceivably small and that the origin of life remains a mystery. Essentially what origin of life research has been able to conclude thus far is that life must come only from life (if anyone has any information to the contrary, please let me know).
  2. Standard memberamannion
    Andrew Mannion
    Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    53701
    04 Dec '07 03:40
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    [b] too am curious about the beginnings, although I'm not so sure about your 'things tend to move towards rest' position - that's sounding very Aristotelian to me. Much as I'm interested in dead greek thinkers, I reckon we can do a bit better towards explanations today.

    "Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight ...[text shortened]... om life (if anyone has any information to the contrary, please let me know).[/b]
    Okay, add uniform motion and Newton becomes involved, although that's not what you started by saying, but no matter ...

    I'm confused about your origin of life stuff. You state that science is not 'prepared to address the origins of life' and then you go on to describe the apparent inadequacies of scientific attempts to address the origin of life. So what is it?
    Does science address the question or not. You can't have it both ways.
    As for the origin of life being a scientific mystery - yes, I suppose it is still mysterious. As gravity was mysterious in the 1600s, as nucleosynthesis was mysterious in the 1800s, as the nature of the atom was mysterious until the 1930s, and so on.
    My experience with studying the history of science is that it is littered with people making remarks like 'we'll never understand this', and 'beyond our comprehension' and so on. The truth is science progresses towards deeper understandings and I have no doubt that our understandings of life will do likewise.
    The mystery of life may be so great that you cannot conceive of such a progression - but this doesn't make it any less possible or any less likely.
  3. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    04 Dec '07 04:083 edits
    Originally posted by amannion
    Okay, add uniform motion and Newton becomes involved, although that's not what you started by saying, but no matter ...

    I'm confused about your origin of life stuff. You state that science is not 'prepared to address the origins of life' and then you go on to describe the apparent inadequacies of scientific attempts to address the origin of life. So what f such a progression - but this doesn't make it any less possible or any less likely.
    Okay, add uniform motion and Newton becomes involved, although that's not what you started by saying, but no matter ...

    I didn't have Newton in mind, just the law of inertia itself, which is why I didn't mention him earlier.

    I'm confused about your origin of life stuff. You state that science is not 'prepared to address the origins of life' and then you go on to describe the apparent inadequacies of scientific attempts to address the origin of life. So what is it? Does science address the question or not. You can't have it both ways.

    Perhaps science is not adequately prepared to deal with the question of the origin of life, although scientists do address it.

    My experience with studying the history of science is that it is littered with people making remarks like 'we'll never understand this', and 'beyond our comprehension' and so on. The truth is science progresses towards deeper understandings and I have no doubt that our understandings of life will do likewise. The mystery of life may be so great that you cannot conceive of such a progression - but this doesn't make it any less possible or any less likely.

    Admittedly so. But the history of science is also littered with presumptuous conclusions before all the facts are in, e.g., the concept of the 'ether.' Perhaps the string theory and dark matter will each suffer similar fates, yet there are scientists basing their entire reputations and careers on them. Science is a risky business. I don't mean to unequivocally pronounce that it will never adequately address the origin of life question, but I do think it's unscientific to assume a particular conclusion before all the facts are in -- especially to the point of bias (which I am not accusing you of). It is that bias which I am attacking as I seek to preserve the mystery of the origin of life. Though, again, I don't mean to suggest that it is a question that will never be answered. Perhaps it will; perhaps it won't -- even that is open to speculation.
  4. Standard memberamannion
    Andrew Mannion
    Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    53701
    04 Dec '07 05:50
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    [b]Okay, add uniform motion and Newton becomes involved, although that's not what you started by saying, but no matter ...

    I didn't have Newton in mind, just the law of inertia itself, which is why I didn't mention him earlier.

    I'm confused about your origin of life stuff. You state that science is not 'prepared to address the origins of lif ...[text shortened]... ered. Perhaps it will; perhaps it won't -- even that is open to speculation.
    I agree that it is risky to assume a particular bias, but you seem to be doing just that yourself.

    Now, you say you 'seek to preserve the mystery of life'. Does that mean you actually want to remain ignorant? That is, if someone were to demonstrate a working model for life's origins you would deny it?
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    04 Dec '07 06:47
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    I say tom-ay-to, you say tom-ah-to. Let's leave it at that.
    No, I wont leave it at that. You clearly have not understood my point. It is not about point of view or perspective at all. You stated that the tilt of the earths axis is perfect. It is not. You are wrong. Admit it. You were fooled by an illusion. Its as stupid as looking at the number 27, noticing that it is produced by 3*9 then concluding that the numbers 3 and 9 are perfect because they produce exactly 27. Someone must have designed them as no other two numbers when multiplied give 27. In your wonder you forgot that the initial 27 was arbitrary and if you had started with a different number you would have come to a different conclusion about what numbers were 'perfect'.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    04 Dec '07 06:48
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    I didn't have Newton in mind, just the law of inertia itself, which is why I didn't mention him earlier.
    Whatever you had in mind, the statement: 'things tend to move towards rest' is false.
  7. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    04 Dec '07 10:01
    Originally posted by amannion
    I agree that it is risky to assume a particular bias, but you seem to be doing just that yourself.

    Now, you say you 'seek to preserve the mystery of life'. Does that mean you actually want to remain ignorant? That is, if someone were to demonstrate a working model for life's origins you would deny it?
    Admittedly, I do have a hidden bias because of my religious beliefs. But, that aside, making it clear that nobody yet knows the how and the why of the origins of life is not itself a biased position. It's a position based on fact. There are respected non-Christian scientists who call the idea of a "primordial soup," from which life emerged, comparable to a religious or an ideological belief, not the result of specific and detailed evidence; even going so far as to assert that the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem. I'm not attempting to answer the question, I'm just posing it. True scientists, in my opinion, look at that mystery and kind of fall in love with it; after all, unraveling mysteries is what science is all about. It's not about advancing an ideology, but discovering the truth.

    I suppose if one day a team of scientists discovered a way to investigate the origin of life accurately and soundly, and finally explained the supposedly unexplainable, then I would have no choice but to capitulate; nor would the rest of the world from that moment forward. However, I ask the question again: what will they ultimately discover? Will it be what you expect?
  8. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    04 Dec '07 10:11
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    No, I wont leave it at that. You clearly have not understood my point. It is not about point of view or perspective at all. You stated that the tilt of the earths axis is perfect. It is not. You are wrong. Admit it. You were fooled by an illusion. Its as stupid as looking at the number 27, noticing that it is produced by 3*9 then concluding that the numbe ...[text shortened]... ferent number you would have come to a different conclusion about what numbers were 'perfect'.
    No, I understood what you meant. You are using the anthropic principle, and I respect the logic. I just happen to believe the opposite, that the universe is purposely designed for life. You think that is an illusion and that's your prerogative. I say tom-ay-to, you say tom-ah-to...
  9. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    04 Dec '07 10:141 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Whatever you had in mind, the statement: 'things tend to move towards rest' is false.
    It's probably that part which was Aristotelian. Oops. 🙂
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    04 Dec '07 10:18
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    There are respected non-Christian scientists who call the idea of a "primordial soup," from which life emerged, comparable to a religious or an ideological belief, not the result of specific and detailed evidence; even going so far as to assert that the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem.
    You have either misrepresented them or they are not worthy of respect. There is nothing wrong with having ideas in science. They are called hypothesis and do not even require a single shred of evidence. (String Theory for example)
    For anyone to assert that the origin of life is "unsolvable" is unscientific. Now if they presented a hypothesis to that effect it would be different, but an assertion is another matter. Do you know if they provide any reasoning behind such an assertion?

    I suppose if one day a team of scientists discovered a way to investigate the origin of life accurately and soundly, and finally explained the supposedly unexplainable, then I would have no choice but to capitulate; nor would the rest of the world from that moment forward. However, I ask the question again: what will they ultimately discover? Will it be what you expect?
    I do not know if scientists will ever find enough evidence for the exact mechanism by which life on earth started to be reasonably sure about it. However I am fairly sure that they will eventually show at least one possible mechanism to be a viable possibility and actually observe the spontaneous generation of life by creating enabling conditions.
    I don't know where you get the phrase "supposedly unexplainable". Do you have any reasoning to back up such a stance?
  11. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    04 Dec '07 10:56
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You have either misrepresented them or they are not worthy of respect. There is nothing wrong with having ideas in science. They are called hypothesis and do not even require a single shred of evidence. (String Theory for example)
    For anyone to assert that the origin of life is "unsolvable" is unscientific. Now if they presented a hypothesis to that effe ...[text shortened]... the phrase "supposedly unexplainable". Do you have any reasoning to back up such a stance?
    Hubert Yockey is the guy you're looking for.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    04 Dec '07 12:09
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    No, I understood what you meant. You are using the anthropic principle, and I respect the logic. I just happen to believe the opposite, that the universe is purposely designed for life. You think that is an illusion and that's your prerogative. I say tom-ay-to, you say tom-ah-to...
    The universe may be designed for life, however that doesn't make the tilt of the earths axis perfect, nor would you be able to tell whether or not is is perfect simply by looking at is as you claim. Whatever your beliefs may be, you are falling for the anthropic principle hook line and sinker but refusing to admit it. In fact, the earth wobbles on its axis so it is changing all the time anyway. Next you'll be saying that whatever wobble it performs is the 'perfect wobble'.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    04 Dec '07 12:21
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    Hubert Yockey is the guy you're looking for.
    Have you read his work? Do you understand it enough to explain it here? Or do you simply support anything that supports your beliefs?

    I cant find any evidence to suggest that he is not Christian though.
  14. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    04 Dec '07 16:10
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    Yes, but is "awe" what drives the struggle for survival, even among humans? Perhaps an elephant is capable of awe, but is that what an elephant lives for? Give an elephant a bucket of LSD and see how well he gets along in the wild. Awe is the privilege of a relative minority on planet earth, confined to those having a self-reflective capability and enough leisure time to find it. But what drives life?
    Give an elephant a bucket of LSD and see how well he gets along in the wild.
    http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/top/experiments/
  15. Standard memberKellyJayonline
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157646
    04 Dec '07 19:19
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [b]Give an elephant a bucket of LSD and see how well he gets along in the wild.
    http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/top/experiments/[/b]
    Did you read the one about murder?
    Kelly
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree