pantheory

I vote for a volcanic eruption at that time as being the cause of this very cold year. This literally could be called the beginning of the dark ages, i.e. overcast and snow during the summer.

Of course abiogenesis means life coming from chemistry. This article, and related discoveries, are very interesting and could be related to such a process. But this new process whereby all 4 RNA elemental chemicals could be formed, only shows that under similar conditions this could happen, not necessarily how it actually did happen. Besides their creation of these four chemistries to form RNA, it is also necessary for their assembly after their creation, as well as considering how the conditions for their creation could have happened naturally. These processes may enable someone to eventually create a living entity from chemistry, which is the primary goal, but after this they need to theorize where such natural conditions might have existed, if in fact these were the methods whereby they formed naturally.

The problem is that science has primarily been built on the prior work of others. Not a bad thing, but about-faces are very difficult in science since that field of science would have to admit that many mistakes have been made and much money has been wrongly spent in that field. This means that once a totally-wrong theory becomes entrenched in the field, countless billions may be spent before it becomes obvious to most that the theory is wrong. For example, I run an organization called The Pantheory Research Organization and IMO maybe half of the primary theories in modern physics today are seriously flawed or totally wrong, again emphasizing the IMO aspect of it. This is not because anybody necessarily benefits from any particular theory, it is because most practitioners generally benefit from funding based upon the continuation of mainstream theories whatever they may be, or whether they are right or wrong. There is little funding available from all sources to investigate different scientific possibilities, theories or alternatives. This is a problem with scientific funding being discussed, which relates to a vulnerability of mainstream scientific practices and beliefs to the sometimes misguided business of science.

Thanks for your answer end3. Now I understand what you guys were saying. As for me, I actually have had great experiences with religions in general and have nothing against them excepting where demands or threats are made on someone contrary to their freewill to choose for themselves. As for me, religions of all varieties are anachronisms, out of touch with the "truths" of modern life and times and the obvious validity of the biological sciences. Christianity, the Abrahamic religions, spiritualism etc. to me are all just like believing in the gods of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, completely ridiculous. But I do respect a person's spiritual beliefs if they have a reasonable knowledge of alternative religions and related scientific explanations.

Yes, in religion all should realize IMO that all of the contentions of truth in religion are 100% BS. But in mainstream science humans know a great deal of truth many times explained from understandable perspective. But many also realize that many of the most treasured mainstream theories of today will be realized as being pure BS within a half a century from now. But humans using science have accomplished phenomenal things in engineering, and some irrefutable conclusions in theory, natural selection is an example of this. Feces-swinging primates in some ways maybe, but little of these disabilities relate to science and its principle methods of observation and logic IMO.

Sorry end3, I don't follow your answer, not because it is not a good one, I just don't know the difference between the old box, the new box, and what in general you are referring to. Will you please advise me?

OK

Yes, misguided funding can and has motivated wrong conclusions and has entrenched wrong theories IMO. I also agree that a number of the most revered theories of today will be shown to be somewhat, or totally wrong in the long run. But IMO there is also a great deal of generally valid mainstream scientific knowledge and related theories out there.

Disillusioned, "....there is no reason whatsoever to think that logic has any special power." I disagree on this one since IMHO logic and observation are all that we have to discern reality. ".....our ability to make sense is purely a product of how we have interacted with the material world." True "Therefore, logically, logic can say nothing about any hypothetical immaterial entities." I think one could logically say that any hypothetical immaterial entities probably don't exist if one believes that there is no reason or evidence for their existence. Of course beliefs are different, and also what seems logical to one person may not seem logical to another.

OK, let's say that the universe had an immaterial cause for its existence. Then what was the cause of that etc. what I'm talking about is an "ultimate cause," a cause without a cause for itself. If it is supernatural it cannot exist in the domain of logic if anything is possible. Yes, supernatural could mean outside of nature, different from the laws of physics and principles of science that we know of? But is it the most likely possibility? maybe not, but it is possible.

Of course any universe or anything had a beginning. What I'm talking about here is something that came "before" the beginning, a logical contradiction. It sounds only like semantics. But if something was the cause for our universe, what was the cause of that etc.? One ends up in an infinite series. An infinite series going backward in time could have had no beginning cause. On the other hand for a finite universe when time is equated with change, there could be no change before the first change. This, in the Big Bang model, is where the beginning entity also assertedly created time and space. This is where they get the idea that the universe is 13.8 billion years old based upon the theory that there was a beginning to it including time and space. The logical problem arises when one thinks that there could have been an "ultimate" cause for the beginning. Of course there could be a cause for it, but not an ultimate one outside of itself, otherwise one ends up in an infinite series of cause-and-effects again. In religion the argument relates to "the prime mover." The prime mover of course would have been God if there were such a thing. But the logicians then say "if God was the cause of everything, then what was the cause of God?" There are two major proposed answers to this. God is eternal, outside of time and logic, immortal. He has always existed. And the other well-known answer is that God created himself. Since anything supernatural could assertedly be possible, outside of logic, such answers are not logically satisfactory.

The primary driving force of evolution is not random, it is called natural selection. It is not a complicated theory and is relatively easy to understand. Those individuals that have the characteristics that enable them to survive and reproduce will have their genes carried on to the next generation. Those that do not have the right combination of these characteristics can parish (die) before their own reproduction takes place and if so their specific combination of genes will not then be passed on to future generations. In the long run only the genes of many generations of successful individuals will survive to form a prevailing population gene pool. If and when conditions of survival change, the environment will then select different characteristics that best suit the survival and reproduction of a particular species. By this process the appearance and characteristics of a population and species will change over time.

Yes, I agree that random chance cannot create consciousness, but IMO the consciousness that we know of is derived from a long series of evolution, basically animal evolution unless one considers that plants have a type of consciousness or believes in something supernatural. An eternal consciousness would be supernatural, yes? Outside of nature? un-testable? un-provable? seemingly not scientifically testable --like a spirit or god. Your quote: "It is absolutely 100 percent logical to posit an eternal consciousness that "dreams stuff into being" as its nature and that always dreams things because that is just what it does." Yes, such a think is possible but is there any more evidence for such a thing than there is for a god? Then again, what would be the cause of that? If none then it could be supernatural, outside the framework of time , or time (the first change ) could be the product of the first entities creation (as theorized for a Big Bang entity). Even if all of this were true, it would not change the fact that there cannot be a cause prior to an ultimate cause in a chain of events, a change before the first change, or a beginning to an infinite series going backward it time.

It would then just boil down to definitions. Is this superconsciousness part of this universe or not? If not what was its cause? ad infinitum. One names a cause for something, then must answer the question of the cause of that entity. Bottom line again is, there can be no ultimate cause for the beginning entity. Religious answers have been that God is eternal and outside of time. Or, God created himself. Logically IMO any kind of beginning to the universe could not have had a cause -- since any cause also requires a cause for itself according to cause-and-effect logic. Although I don't believe in a Big Bang beginning, I do believe in the idea that the beginning of the universe both created and defines time and space.

Your question is a fundamental question of both philosophy and cosmology. The question is often called the question of the "prime mover." Religious people have accepted God as the prime mover, the beginning entity that started it all. But logic would ask where did god come from? There are one of two answers: He has always existed, or he created himself. Maybe the best religious answer involving logic was this one: There was No Time Before times beginning (there was no change before the first change) Saint Augustine had two answers to those who asked what was God doing before creation. Jokingly he said, God was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. On a more serious level, he noted there was no such thing as time before God created it as well his other creations, therefore the question is meaningless. When God created the heavens and the earth He also accordingly created space and time. Before time began there was only eternity. God is a timeless being and time only began with His creation of the universe. As far as religious answers go this is a logical one. The Scientific answer would have some parallel logic to this answer above. First one must define the universe. Is this universe the one and only one? It could be a grouping of almost countless universes separated by space in between therm, or, it could collectively be the whole generally-contiguous shebang. Both of these possibilities could be lumped together if they fall within the same dimensions. Are there other universes outside our known dimensions? There could be, but what evidence do we have for there existence. The correct answer to this question is "little or none." Such a possibility is more in the line of speculation than science if it will forever be unobservable. As far as our known universe is concerned, either it had a beginning or it didn't. If it is the one and only universe and it had a beginning, the time-line of its existence could be considered a finite number of cause and effect sequences. If it is the one and only universe it would be logically impossible for there to have been a change to it before the first change of its beginning. If there was a cause for the first change, then what was the cause of that change, etc.? -- the sum of cause and effect sequences would then be a continuum going backward in time. It is logically impossible for the entirety of reality (a one and only universe) to have had a cause outside of itself, regardless of its beginning. If it is infinite in time, by definition it could not have had a cause, if finite, it also could not have had a cause since time would be an infinite series of prior causes and effects going backward in time. That's the simple answer to this and similar questions concerning a cause and the beginnings of the universe. Bottom line is that it is logically impossible for there to have been a cause for a "the prime mover," or for the one and only beginning.