Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Theory Of Abiogensis Formulated


ficino

Recommended Posts

Jeremy England of MIT has formulated a theory of abiogenesis.  He maintains that complex carbon molecules, under certain conditions, inevitably develop the capacity to capture energy from their environment.  And this is the step needed to "create" life.

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/03/god_is_on_the_ropes_the_brilliant_new_science_that_has_creationists_and_the_christian_right_terrified/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, mymistake, I just discovered that you already posted on England's theory:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60625-jeremy-englands-abiogenesis/#.VKlkFMnD9IU

 

I don't know whether there has been any confirmation since last January when you posted about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, mymistake, I just discovered that you already posted on England's theory:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60625-jeremy-englands-abiogenesis/#.VKlkFMnD9IU

 

I don't know whether there has been any confirmation since last January when you posted about it.

 

 

It's all good.  More power to Mr. England.  Apparently in the last year his ideas have made progress and show promise.  We are still in the early stages but it is a nice development.

 

 

Once we have a good understanding of abiogenesis it will be fun watching the Christians find abiogenesis in the Bible (Hey, it was always there) and pick a new gap for God to hide in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once we have a good understanding of abiogenesis it will be fun watching the Christians find abiogenesis in the Bible (Hey, it was always there) and pick a new gap for God to hide in.

I have a gap for God to hide in. Oh wait, I'm sitting on it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creationists and the Christian right are not terrified by this at all, since their arguments have never been based on facts, evidences, or proofs, just rhetoric and logical fallacies. They will continue to use them regardless if Abiogenesis theories are accepted or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likewise, should the universe be found to be eternal... that will ruffle very few Christian feathers.

 

As Ironhorse has declared to us recently, he has faith in things unseen.

 

We can plug all the gaps and they'll just believe in what they can't see - not what they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

But, it makes their God and natural existence co-eternal. I don't believe that the Bible allows for nature (cosmos) and God to be co-eternal. There's an "In the Beginning God created...." but in an eternal cosmos both God and cosmos have always been - neither were ever created.

 

This is an apologetic hurdle that will be interesting to see play out. 

 

Talk about against the ropes......

 

I read the article on abiogenesis and enjoyed it. They'll fight anything. But this looks to be a swift kick in the nuts as far as that goes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Timaeus, Plato writes as though the universe began at a moment in time.  But one very ancient line of interpretation, of which Plutarch is an example, maintains that Plato speaks allegorically.  On this view, he uses the framework of temporal succession simply as a device to get across his real point, which is an ontological hierarchy.  In other words, "X created Y" is just a way of symbolizing how X is that upon which Y depends for its being.  But the dependency relation is eternal.

 

With enough ingenuity, allegorizing, etc. I think sophisticated Christians could spin an eternal universe.  There would be the old die-hards homeschooling their kids. 

 

I wonder what piece of market share Wm. Lane Craig will carve out of the multiverse, if he's still around when it's established as the dominant theory.  BAA already has predictions out on this, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Here's my biggest problem with the "god of the gaps" argument.  With each new gap that gets filled in, god must necessarily get smaller.  How small can a god get and still be considered omni-anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ficino wrote...
 
"With enough ingenuity, allegorizing, etc. I think sophisticated Christians could spin an eternal universe."
 
Let them, I say.  See if I care.  But the nanosecond they bring that spin here - they're my meat!  wink.png
 
"There would be the old die-hards homeschooling their kids."
 
Well, these UNsophisticated Christians have always gone by faith, rather than evidence - so no change there.
 
"I wonder what piece of the market share Wm. Lane Craig will carve out of the multiverse, if he's still around when it's established as the dominant theory."
 
He's already lied about the Initial Singularity Ficino and he's currently lying about the Copernican Principle and the Infinite Replication Paradox, so is the leopard really going to change it's spots?
 
Wendyshrug.gif
 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is on the ropes: The brilliant new science that has creationists and the Cristian Right terrified.

 

 

This is an interesting idea and "hypothesis" but think no one will be afraid of it since it seems extremely unlikely to be provable. For this reason IMO the headline is just sensationalism making an unsupportable statement, unlike the interesting hypothesis and related speculation involved.  smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

God is on the ropes: The brilliant new science that has creationists and the Cristian Right terrified.

 

 

This is an interesting idea and "hypothesis" but think no one will be afraid of it since it seems extremely unlikely to be provable. For this reason IMO the headline is just sensationalism making an unsupportable statement, unlike the interesting hypothesis and related speculation involved.  smile.png

 

 

 

Black Holes seemed extremely unlikely to be provable when Einstein put forward Relativity.  Who knows, in a hundred years (give or take) perhaps we will have the technology that will allow us to test it in the lab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

God is on the ropes: The brilliant new science that has creationists and the Cristian Right terrified.

 

 

This is an interesting idea and "hypothesis" but think no one will be afraid of it since it seems extremely unlikely to be provable. For this reason IMO the headline is just sensationalism making an unsupportable statement, unlike the interesting hypothesis and related speculation involved.  smile.png

 

 

 

Black Holes seemed extremely unlikely to be provable when Einstein put forward Relativity.  Who knows, in a hundred years (give or take) perhaps we will have the technology that will allow us to test it in the lab.

 

 

The nature of black holes is still unknown.

 

You might understand that Einstein's black holes, concerning a vacuous singularity, remains unproven. Einstein himself did not believe in their existence.

"Einstein denied several times that black holes could form." He denied that they could exist as vacuous points as his theory might imply -- and as many theorists today believe.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_unsuccessful_investigations

 

Instead we know by the evidence that "stellar black holes" are within a very small volume that have a gravitational potential equal to several solar masses, but that their actual nature remains unknown.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/black-holes/

 

So I would be very surprised if this new hypothesis somehow could ever be "proven."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

^You would be surprised if the abiogenesis theory could be proven based on your analogy with the uncertainty of black holes? 

 

I don't quite follow. The abiogenesis theory could be proven by finding it taking place on another planet or experimenting in labs creating the right conditions. I don't see how the lack of knowledge about black holes applies to the topic of abiogenesis? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^You would be surprised if the abiogenesis theory could be proven based on your analogy with the uncertainty of black holes? 

 

I don't quite follow. The abiogenesis theory could be proven by finding it taking place on another planet or experimenting in labs creating the right conditions. I don't see how the lack of knowledge about black holes applies to the topic of abiogenesis? 

 

No, I would not be surprised if abiogenisis theory were proven someday, only this interesting mathematical hypothesis of it smile.png In my opinion abiogenisis, in one form or another, is a certainty.

 

The Black Hole aspect and statement was my response to the statement and posting by mymistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm somewhat surprised at Pantheory's use of the word, 'proven' in this thread.

 

As a man of science I'd have expected him to have understood that proofs only exists in math and logic.

While in all other branches of science, a theory can be falsified or can be supported by evidence.  Therefore, black holes will always (by definition) remain forever unproven and un-provable.  The fault lies not in the lack of evidence for them but the poor understanding of the person using the word 'proven' where it doesn't apply.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

 

Concept of "scientific proof"

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popperonce wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory," and Satoshi Kanazawa has argued that "Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science."

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm somewhat surprised at Pantheory's use of the word, 'proven' in this thread.

 

As a man of science I'd have expected him to have understood that proofs only exists in math and logic.

While in all other branches of science, a theory can be falsified or can be supported by evidence.  Therefore, black holes will always (by definition) remain forever unproven and un-provable.  The fault lies not in the lack of evidence for them but the poor understanding of the person using the word 'proven' where it doesn't apply.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

 

Concept of "scientific proof"

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popperonce wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory," and Satoshi Kanazawa has argued that "Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science."

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I agree. The word proof should have been in quotes to be more accurate, or better wording might have been used such as "well-supported" theory, instead of proof or proven. My use, as you suggest, was more of the popular-media use of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm somewhat surprised at Pantheory's use of the word, 'proven' in this thread.

 

 

I'm kind of lazy with my use of that word too.  I understand it from an academic context.  However I have over 30 years of history using it from the Christian context and it's hard to break that habit.  I often catch myself slipping up and I'm sure there are times I don't catch myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm somewhat surprised at Pantheory's use of the word, 'proven' in this thread.

 

As a man of science I'd have expected him to have understood that proofs only exists in math and logic.

While in all other branches of science, a theory can be falsified or can be supported by evidence.  Therefore, black holes will always (by definition) remain forever unproven and un-provable.  The fault lies not in the lack of evidence for them but the poor understanding of the person using the word 'proven' where it doesn't apply.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

 

Concept of "scientific proof"

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popperonce wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory," and Satoshi Kanazawa has argued that "Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science."

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I agree. The word proof should have been in quotes to be more accurate, or better wording might have been used such as "well-supported" theory, instead of proof or proven. My use, as you suggest, was more of the popular-media use of the word.

 

 

Sorry Pantheory,

 

But the cat is out of the bag. 

 

You didn't use the word proof in it's popular-media context, but you're now trying to suggest that you did... to cover up your mistake.  Instead, your misuse of the word 'proof' reveals what you really are.  A charlatan who peddles pseudo-science and who undermines bona fide science for his own ends.

.

.

.

I'll direct MyMistake's and Joshpantera's attention to this... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Alternative_cosmology

 

and this... http://www.sciforums.com/threads/maybe-space-isnt-expanding-at-all.142685/page-3#post-3229838

 

...and let them draw their own conclusions about Forrest (Pantheory) Noble.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that connected to pantheory dot org?  I can't open it today but last time I visited I noticed it had major problems.

 

 

Like I said, I don't mind so much if pantheory made a mistake.  I've used the word "prove" incorrectly several times in this thread.  My apology for contributing to the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm somewhat surprised at Pantheory's use of the word, 'proven' in this thread.

 

As a man of science I'd have expected him to have understood that proofs only exists in math and logic.

While in all other branches of science, a theory can be falsified or can be supported by evidence.  Therefore, black holes will always (by definition) remain forever unproven and un-provable.  The fault lies not in the lack of evidence for them but the poor understanding of the person using the word 'proven' where it doesn't apply.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

 

Concept of "scientific proof"

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popperonce wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory," and Satoshi Kanazawa has argued that "Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science."

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I agree. The word proof should have been in quotes to be more accurate, or better wording might have been used such as "well-supported" theory, instead of proof or proven. My use, as you suggest, was more of the popular-media use of the word.

 

 

Sorry Pantheory,

 

But the cat is out of the bag. 

 

You didn't use the word proof in it's popular-media context, but you're now trying to suggest that you did... to cover up your mistake.  Instead, your misuse of the word 'proof' reveals what you really are.  A charlatan who peddles pseudo-science and who undermines bona fide science for his own ends.

.

.

.

I'll direct MyMistake's and Joshpantera's attention to this... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Alternative_cosmology

 

and this... http://www.sciforums.com/threads/maybe-space-isnt-expanding-at-all.142685/page-3#post-3229838

 

...and let them draw their own conclusions about Forrest (Pantheory) Noble.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

OK, I made a mistake in my use of the word "proof," but no need for your derogatory remarks. I might criticize others in their inappropriate use of the word "proof" but If so I would be more gentle than you concerning such criticism and would not make a big deal of it. Time for another beer :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once we have a good understanding of abiogenesis it will be fun watching the Christians find abiogenesis in the Bible (Hey, it was always there) and pick a new gap for God to hide in.

Kinda hard of bucking straight Genesis account of the living man evolving out of non-living dust by the infusion of electromagnetic particles dispersed by the pulsating flow of massless light molecules which emits massless light particles, or photons which charges the non-living matter, in whatever state, to become charged and initiate the life process within living matter. 

 

Plus, if all matter can neither be created nor destroyed then 'living' matter had to always exist so how can abiogenesis prove how energy can be created or destroyed which by concept is the meaning of living organism, matter to expend energy to perpetuate it own finite life process?

 

But I digress, I am trying to figure out what the LORD God had to dew in order to blow the wind, or pneuma into the body of dry dust particles He had stacked together to form the physical body of the man he was making, seems like to me the wind would blow the dust way, poor guy, imagine the supernatural ability it would take to stack that many particles together to form a actual human body, talk about having plenty of time, not to mention patience.  But then blowing the breathe of life and the dang thing blowing away before the body becomes infused with soul. 

 

Sorry, mymistake, I just discovered that you already posted on England's theory:

http://www.ex-christ...s/#.VKlkFMnD9IU

I don't know whether there has been any confirmation since last January when you posted about it.

I am not sure but maybe this might help show how non-living matter might become a living organism.

seeds.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Face palm........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Once we have a good understanding of abiogenesis it will be fun watching the Christians find abiogenesis in the Bible (Hey, it was always there) and pick a new gap for God to hide in.

Kinda hard of bucking straight Genesis account of the living man evolving out of non-living dust by the infusion of electromagnetic particles dispersed by the pulsating flow of massless light molecules which emits massless light particles, or photons which charges the non-living matter, in whatever state, to become charged and initiate the life process within living matter. 

 

Plus, if all matter can neither be created nor destroyed then 'living' matter had to always exist so how can abiogenesis prove how energy can be created or destroyed which by concept is the meaning of living organism, matter to expend energy to perpetuate it own finite life process?

 

But I digress, I am trying to figure out what the LORD God had to dew in order to blow the wind, or pneuma into the body of dry dust particles He had stacked together to form the physical body of the man he was making, seems like to me the wind would blow the dust way, poor guy, imagine the supernatural ability it would take to stack that many particles together to form a actual human body, talk about having plenty of time, not to mention patience.  But then blowing the breathe of life and the dang thing blowing away before the body becomes infused with soul. 

 

 

The Genesis account doesn't mention any of those modern concepts.  Genesis was written by ignorant men.

 

The fact that matter is eternal does not mean the condition of living is eternal.

 

Imaginary people didn't do anything.  The wind blows because it is hotter on some parts of Earth than on others.  It's not a miricle.  You also seem confused about dust becoming a human being.  There were hundreds of millions of years of evolution that happened between the first piece of dust being alive and the first human-like creature being born.

 

By the way seeds are dormant yet alive.  They have the ability to sense when the conditions are right to become active.  Unless you cook them they will follow their genetic code to, among other things, create new seeds which will also lie dormant waiting for the right conditions to grow.

 

But none of that matters to you because you have beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Once we have a good understanding of abiogenesis it will be fun watching the Christians find abiogenesis in the Bible (Hey, it was always there) and pick a new gap for God to hide in.

Kinda hard of bucking straight Genesis account of the living man evolving out of non-living dust by the infusion of electromagnetic particles dispersed by the pulsating flow of massless light molecules which emits massless light particles, or photons which charges the non-living matter, in whatever state, to become charged and initiate the life process within living matter.

 

Plus, if all matter can neither be created nor destroyed then 'living' matter had to always exist so how can abiogenesis prove how energy can be created or destroyed which by concept is the meaning of living organism, matter to expend energy to perpetuate it own finite life process?

 

But I digress, I am trying to figure out what the LORD God had to dew in order to blow the wind, or pneuma into the body of dry dust particles He had stacked together to form the physical body of the man he was making, seems like to me the wind would blow the dust way, poor guy, imagine the supernatural ability it would take to stack that many particles together to form a actual human body, talk about having plenty of time, not to mention patience. But then blowing the breathe of life and the dang thing blowing away before the body becomes infused with soul.

Sorry, mymistake, I just discovered that you already posted on England's theory:

http://www.ex-christ...s/#.VKlkFMnD9IU

I don't know whether there has been any confirmation since last January when you posted about it.

I am not sure but maybe this might help show how non-living matter might become a living organism.

seeds.jpg

It is hard to understand indeed. Even more difficult to understand when you appear to have little to no understanding of the basic principles that describe the universe. I do not mean this in the pejorative, but rather to point out that you will continue to struggle with even basic concepts without and background in the physical sciences. Even with background you will struggle as we all do. I am currently deep into a specialised field of biochemistry known as biotransformation. It is basically the study of enzymes, enzyme modulation and enzyme catalysis. I wish I could say I am developing profound insights into the biological world but all I am experiencing is confusion. I've devoted the last four days to one project and I'm not at all confident that my answers are going to be satisfactory. Now, I'm not the smartest person to live, so take that into consideration.

 

Now that we agree on how hard things are to understand, the impasse may very well be agreeing that understanding is possible and possible within a naturalistic context. This light and charge scenario you describe is not well informed. First, light is one manifestation of a broader concept known as electromagnetism. I think what you were referring to was photons exciting electrons? If so, this is roughly true and well verified. Light carries energy. The amount of energy is a function of the frequency of said light or the wavelength of said light. Then, you have electrons. Electrons can exist in so called orbitals around atoms. These orbitals have different energies. light can interact with electrons and give the electrons enough energy to move to different orbitals. This produces a sort of chemical gradient and can drive many of the chemical processes on the planet. Remember, nearly all of chemistry has to do with electrons and the making and breaking of the chemical bonds created by the outer electrons or valence electrons of atoms. From there, the simplest chemical systems can evolve. This is understood to an amazing level of detail, accuracy and precision. Therefore, it is accepted.

 

From there, we are trying to understand how these chemical systems in the early earth environment led to the development of complex molecules and how these molecules began to replicate. Currently, we can show through experiments how biological molecules such as urea are "spontaneously" generated. In fact we can do this with amino acids. The big issue is the generation of "information" carrying molecules such as RNA and DNA and the generation of proteins. This is a tall order and a work in progress but everything points to naturalistic processes. There is simply no evidence to suggest "supernatural" processes are occurring or occurred. Remember personal revelation and anecdote does not count unless it is in a highly descriptive frame work that makes predictions that anybody can test.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.