Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Truth and Materialistic OOL

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Truth and Materialistic OOL

    At least there are some (albeit far too few) Materialists out there that are honest enough to speak the truth regarding the state of the Origin Of Life (OOL) field. Here are two quotes:

    "The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-life research has evolved into a lively, inter-disciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the "dirty" rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure - we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle."

    Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), p. 391.



    "Over the past sixty years, dedicated and skillful scientists have devoted much effort and ink to the origin of life, with remarkably little to show for it. Judging by the volume of literature, both experimental and theoretical, the inquiry has thrived prodigiously. But unlike more conventional fields of biological research, the study of life's origins has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation; and this suggests that we may still be missing some essential insight."

    Franklin M. Harold, In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life's Building Blocks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), p. 164:


    Sadly, many people have spent and will spend most of their lives seeking the Materialistic OOL only to die in failure. But not all is lost --- as they seek to find this non-existent OOL, many spinoff discoveries and techniques emerge that find useful applications in other areas.

    That said, we must never lose sight of the fact that it is their FAITH in a purely Materialistic OOL that keeps them going. It can only be FAITH because they do not have a single verifiable, repeatable scientific observation to back up their OOL belief. Yet, they will deny this until their last breath.

    Science and Scientism? Yeah, right!

    Jorge

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    At least there are some (albeit far too few) Materialists out there that are honest enough to speak the truth regarding the state of the Origin Of Life (OOL) field. Here are two quotes:

    "The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-life research has evolved into a lively, inter-disciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the "dirty" rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure - we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle."

    Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), p. 391.



    "Over the past sixty years, dedicated and skillful scientists have devoted much effort and ink to the origin of life, with remarkably little to show for it. Judging by the volume of literature, both experimental and theoretical, the inquiry has thrived prodigiously. But unlike more conventional fields of biological research, the study of life's origins has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation; and this suggests that we may still be missing some essential insight."

    Franklin M. Harold, In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life's Building Blocks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), p. 164:


    Sadly, many people have spent and will spend most of their lives seeking the Materialistic OOL only to die in failure. But not all is lost --- as they seek to find this non-existent OOL, many spinoff discoveries and techniques emerge that find useful applications in other areas.

    That said, we must never lose sight of the fact that it is their FAITH in a purely Materialistic OOL that keeps them going. It can only be FAITH because they do not have a single verifiable, repeatable scientific observation to back up their OOL belief. Yet, they will deny this until their last breath.

    Science and Scientism? Yeah, right!

    Jorge
    Seriously? As a naturalist, I can honestly say that the statements of both gentlemen quoted are pretty commonly held. Every philosophical naturalist with whom I've ever conversed is well aware that abiogenesis is still pretty much a giant question mark. The only people claiming that the Origin of Life question has been convincingly resolved are religious literalists.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
      Seriously? As a naturalist, I can honestly say that the statements of both gentlemen quoted are pretty commonly held. Every philosophical naturalist with whom I've ever conversed is well aware that abiogenesis is still pretty much a giant question mark. The only people claiming that the Origin of Life question has been convincingly resolved are religious literalists.
      I think the point is Boxing, that even in the face of no plausible model for the origin of biological life, the atheist remains faithful that it was strictly a materialistic event.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        The argument here seems to be "we've not finished the task yet, therefore we never will". Aside from its vacuity, the argument ignores all the progress that has actually been made in the field: we're significantly closer to synthesizing all the nucleotides via energetically favorable reactions from raw materials that were present in the early solar system, we've got RNA-based RNA polymerases working, etc. The authors are correct that we don't have a complete overarching framework, but we're putting lots of joists in place.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          I think the point is Boxing, that even in the face of no plausible model for the origin of biological life, the atheist remains faithful that it was strictly a materialistic event.
          I'd say that's a fairly odd way of phrasing it. You might as well say, "Even in the face of no plausible model for the solution to the Collatz conjecture, the academic remains faithful that it is a strictly mathematical problem."
          "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
          --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            I think the point is Boxing, that even in the face of no plausible model for the origin of biological life, the atheist remains faithful that it was strictly a materialistic event.
            Since your own model for the origins of biological life is not only even more implausible but contradicted by the limited evidence that is available, you are in no position to criticise.

            Roy
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

            Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
            Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Roy View Post
              Since your own model for the origins of biological life is not only even more implausible but contradicted by the limited evidence that is available, you are in no position to criticise.

              Roy
              Since the supernatural is not generally open to scientific investigation your point is moot.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                The argument here seems to be "we've not finished the task yet, therefore we never will". Aside from its vacuity, the argument ignores all the progress that has actually been made in the field: we're significantly closer to synthesizing all the nucleotides via energetically favorable reactions from raw materials that were present in the early solar system, we've got RNA-based RNA polymerases working, etc. The authors are correct that we don't have a complete overarching framework, but we're putting lots of joists in place.
                According to the Harold quote it looks like you are no closer to figuring it out.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  According to the Harold quote it looks like you are no closer to figuring it out.
                  Since when does "we may still be missing some essential insight" equate to "we are no closer to figuring it out?"
                  "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                  --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    According to the Harold quote it looks like you are no closer to figuring it out.
                    As in the other thread, you're flunking basic logic here. "Failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework" is not the same as failing to produce relevant and compelling evidence that does bring us closer to one. He suggests explicitly that we lack a central insight, even though we've produced lots of relevant data.

                    (See BP's post immediately above).
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Since the supernatural is not generally open to scientific investigation your point is moot.
                      At the same time, proposed actions by the supernatural that impact the natural world can be investigated. Consider a claim that God miraculously made the tower of Pizza. Clearly there are records that indicate otherwise, with the only real options being:

                      1) The records are forgeries (natural or divine)
                      2) The records we think tell us about the origins of the Tower of Pizza are by some inescapably large improbability actually referring to other things and they just appear to all be telling us about the origins of the tower of Pizza.*
                      3) God did not miraculously make the tower of Pizza.

                      So one must be careful how one exercises this particular exception. Especially when discussing origins. We can KNOW life was created over a long period of time unless the majority of the records of that history found in the Earth are some sort of forgery. So if our claim is that life has only been on the Earth for 6,000 years because God made life suddenly appear on the Earth miraculously in a myriad of forms just a few thousand years ago, then the evidence tells us that claim has only the same three options as the claim God miraculously made the tower of Pizza.


                      Jim

                      *in the Tower of Pizza analogy, 2 is effectively NOT an option. And almost no-one with a clear hold on reality would claim it is. For most of us that are aware of what the records are concerning the history of life and the universe, this is no better an option for the YEC proposal concerning the origins of life than it is for the Tower of Pizza.

                      But this is in fact where AIG,ICR, and most YEC's wage their battle over the plausibility of options 1 or 3 not being a preferred conclusion.

                      Options 3 in this case should not be defined as "God did not make life", but rather "God did not make life in a miraculous event in a multitude of extant forms over a period of a few days some 6-10000 years ago". IOW, the YEC claim being false in no way precludes God being the creator.
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-12-2014, 12:19 PM.
                      He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                      "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Consider a claim that God miraculously made the tower of Pizza.
                        Jim,

                        I think you mean the Tower of Pisa. Are you perchance feeling hungry?

                        Roy
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                        Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                          Since when does "we may still be missing some essential insight" equate to "we are no closer to figuring it out?"
                          OK, then how about this wording:

                          Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure - we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            OK, then how about this wording:

                            Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure - we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.
                            Yes, the Origin of Life field has failed to reach the ultimate goal. That is not the same as being "no closer to figuring it out." Once again, this is pretty well understood and accepted by philosophical naturalists. I'm not sure where the big "Ah-HA!" moment is supposed to be, in all this.
                            "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                            --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                              Yes, the Origin of Life field has failed to reach the ultimate goal. That is not the same as being "no closer to figuring it out." Once again, this is pretty well understood and accepted by philosophical naturalists. I'm not sure where the big "Ah-HA!" moment is supposed to be, in all this.
                              I'm not claiming it is a "Ah-HA!" moment. But the fact is the atheist still has hope or faith that it is all purely natural.
                              Last edited by seer; 12-12-2014, 01:33 PM.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              53 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              24 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                              2 responses
                              15 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-08-2020, 05:08 PM
                              3 responses
                              24 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X