Originally posted by Dasa
My comments and statements are from the Authority the Veda.

The Veda is eternal and gives us spiritual knowledge which cannot become available from speculation.

You may speculate for a trillion years and never come to the platform of true knowledge.

When science tells us they can create life.........this is called the BIG BLUFF.

What you, and Nicksten, to name but two, don't seem to understand is that science is a process.


Nothing in science is regarded as true or certain, until someone has shown it through experimentation
and theoretical understanding to be so.
And even then that assertion is under constant review and testing.

It doesn't matter how commonsensical an idea spears to be (for there have been many common
sense ideas that proved to be wrong) for it to be considered scientifically true it has to be tested and proven.

This method has demonstrated itself to be immensely robust and useful.

In the case of Abiogenesis, it is not yet known how life formed.
It is a question not yet answered.
There are possible solutions, but no definitive answers, yet.

There is nothing science has tested and proven that shows creating life from non-life is impossible.
And plenty of evidence to suggest (but not yet prove) that it is possible.

The way to be sure is to test it.

If you are right, and it is impossible to create life without a 'soul' element given by other life or god.
Then at some point things will stop behaving as our previous experience and theories tell us they should
and things that should be 'coming alive' (and this is horribly inaccurate language, but never mind) wont be.
Then there would be some evidence that our theories are wrong and that we need to re evaluate.

At some point after trying all other possibilities science would conclude that there was something special about
living matter that was different from non-living matter.

If on the other hand (as every test to-date has shown) living matter is just a complex arrangement of non-living matter
and has no special properties such as spirit or soul.
Then at some point scientists will succeed and create life from non-life.

This is how science works. It is very successful. as evinced by all the things it has discovered and invented that nothing else has.


If souls or spirit exists and influences the world then it must be detectable.
If they exist but don't influence the world and can't be detected then they are indistinguishable from not existing, and thus irrelevant.

If spirit is needed to create life then we wont be able to do it.
If we can, there is no spirit.

That's a test.

Science likes tests.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What you, and Nicksten, to name but two, don't seem to understand is that science is a process.


Nothing in science is regarded as true or certain, until someone has shown it through experimentation
and theoretical understanding to be so.
And even then that assertion is under constant review and testing.

It doesn't matter how commonsensical an ble to do it.
If we can, there is no spirit.

That's a test.

Science likes tests.

It is my understanding that the tests have already been done and none of
them worked. When are they going to admit the theory of abiogenesis is
false?

P.S.

http://worldview3.50webs.com/abiogenesis.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is my understanding that the tests have already been done and none of
them worked. When are they going to admit the theory of abiogenesis is
false?

P.S.

http://worldview3.50webs.com/abiogenesis.html

Then you understand wrong.

No experiment to my knowledge (and I do keep an eye on these things) has tried
to go the whole way from very basic molecules right through to living matter.

People have done tests to see, (for example) whether amino acids (life's building blocks)
would form under conditions expected to exist on the early earth.

Which they did.

This is a step on the road to understanding but it is not the whole thing.

Also one of the things to consider is that there is a question of scale.

The early earth quite possibly had the conditions over large areas of its surface for life to
form for millions of years before it did. That is a vast number of chemical reactions, and expecting
an immediate result from an experimental volume of a few litres over a few months would
seem foolish.

Also as I explained in the post above, simply failing once doesn't prove it can't be done.
If Edison had given up after 1 attempt at making a light bulb, or 10, or 99 then he would
never have invented it.

As I said, there is as yet no evidence (from studying it in great and increasing detail) that matter
that is part of a living entity behaves any differently from matter that isn't.
Which if it were being manipulated by 'spirit' then it aught to be.

We would have to get experiments giving us answers incompatible with our theories of physics and chemistry
before we need start talk about 'admitting' being wrong.
And then that just means that the theories we have are wrong, not that yours is right.


Your hypothesis is that 'god does it' which is not an explanation.
An explanation necessarily rests on ideas we already understand/know.
We have to explain things from a starting point of stuff we know otherwise we simply move the unknown to
the new thing we don't understand that we invoked to explain the first thing.

God is unexplained, and as many theists are at pains to point out, unexplainable.

Thus you can't use god to 'explain' anything.

'god did it' is not an explanation, it's giving up trying to explain something.

So science will get to, 'god did it' if, and only if, all other possible explanations have been disproved first.


Which as you can imagine would take a while, if it is even possible.


Fortunately there is absolutely no reason or evidence to suggest that that will ever be necessary.


Proving that abiogenesis is impossible would be very hard (although practical impossibility might be demonstrable)

However proving it possible is entirely possible.

We just have to make one new life from from non living matter.

I would expect that to be done in the next few decades... But it depends on how much research goes into it, and how hard
it really is.

So ultimately I don't know.

But I don't know is an ok answer in science.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Then you understand wrong.

No experiment to my knowledge (and I do keep an eye on these things) has tried
to go the whole way from very basic molecules right through to living matter.

People have done tests to see, (for example) whether amino acids (life's building blocks)
would form under conditions expected to exist on the early earth.

Which ...[text shortened]... So ultimately I don't know.

But I don't know is an ok answer in science.

My prophecy is that you are your children will not live to see it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
My prophecy is that you are your children will not live to see it.

what?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
what?

On second thought, you don't really have a question, do you?

Originally posted by RJHinds
On second thought, you don't really have a question, do you?

I think he was commenting on your slight mistype.

You presumably intended to say, ..."you or your children..."

Not "you are your children..."

And while it's possible, I would consider it highly unlikely at this point.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What you, and Nicksten, to name but two, don't seem to understand is that science is a process.


Nothing in science is regarded as true or certain, until someone has shown it through experimentation
and theoretical understanding to be so.
And even then that assertion is under constant review and testing.

It doesn't matter how commonsensical an ...[text shortened]... ble to do it.
If we can, there is no spirit.

That's a test.

Science likes tests.

If its not proven then remove it from the class room.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think he was commenting on your slight mistype.

You presumably intended to say, ..."you or your children..."

Not "you are your children..."

And while it's possible, I would consider it highly unlikely at this point.

Some people are very particular about using the right word and correct
spelling on this site. They must of had an overbearing English teacher.
Today kids are taught to spell things phonetically the way they think it
sounds and actual misspelling are over looked until later grades when
they concentrate more on correct spelling. Of course, I do know correct
spelling for most words, but I do have a tendency to mix words that
sound the same, but with different spellings, especially, when I am in a
hurry.

Originally posted by Dasa
If its not proven then remove it from the class room.

That is a good idea.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is a good idea.

I am not actually sure that abiogenesis is in the classroom.
By the time you're going that in depth in the subject you're probably at university.
By which point it's not a classroom.

Evolution is taught in schools, but that is proven.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am not actually sure that abiogenesis is in the classroom.
By the time you're going that in depth in the subject you're probably at university.
By which point it's not a classroom.

Evolution is taught in schools, but that is proven.

I have yet to see anything proven about it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have yet to see anything proven about it.

That's because you close your eyes, stick fingers in your ears and hum 'Dixie's Land'
every time someone tries to explain it to you.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That's because you close your eyes, stick fingers in your ears and hum 'Dixie's Land'
every time someone tries to explain it to you.

That is probably the best policy to prevent false teachings.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is probably the best policy to prevent false teachings.

See I believe that an argument that wont stand up to being questioned is not worth holding.

If your beliefs wont stand up to scrutiny then you shouldn't hold them.
If they will then you should be unafraid to hear arguments against them.

Although there are plenty of people who believe in god and evolution so it is
apparently not mutually exclusive....

Although I personally don't see how they do it, but then I can't justify theism anyway.

EDIT:
Anyway, you can't claim that you think evolution is false while also blocking out anyone or
anything that tries to show you otherwise.

If you hold yourself in deliberate ignorance you have nothing to say on the matter.