One more Atheist add-on question...

[derrick09]

Hello again, here is another add on question to the questionnaire (I swear this is the last one)...

What is your most convincing theory for the origin of life?
From what I've studied thus far the best answer I could give would be that it started either with a primordial soup in oceans or lakes, or that it came from somewhere else in space via a meteor or asteroid, or that it started in volcanoes. Let me know if you would like to elaborate on these or add something completely different. Thank you all for your time and responses.

[hatsoff]

Hello again, here is another add on question to the questionnaire (I swear this is the last one)...

What is your most convincing theory for the origin of life?
From what I've studied thus far the best answer I could give would be that it started either with a primordial soup in oceans or lakes, or that it came from somewhere else in space via a meteor or asteroid, or that it started in volcanoes. Let me know if you would like to elaborate on these or add something completely different. Thank you all for your time and responses.

I do not have a theory on the origin of life. That is outside my area of expertise.

[DannyM]

Hello again, here is another add on question to the questionnaire (I swear this is the last one)...

What is your most convincing theory for the origin of life?
From what I've studied thus far the best answer I could give would be that it started either with a primordial soup in oceans or lakes, or that it came from somewhere else in space via a meteor or asteroid, or that it started in volcanoes. Let me know if you would like to elaborate on these or add something completely different. Thank you all for your time and responses.

I do not have a theory on the origin of life. That is outside my area of expertise.

So why reply? Did you think Derrick was talking to YOU personally?

[Gman]

Hello again, here is another add on question to the questionnaire (I swear this is the last one)...

What is your most convincing theory for the origin of life?
From what I've studied thus far the best answer I could give would be that it started either with a primordial soup in oceans or lakes, or that it came from somewhere else in space via a meteor or asteroid, or that it started in volcanoes. Let me know if you would like to elaborate on these or add something completely different. Thank you all for your time and responses.

Unfortunately people fail to read the science books that talk about the origin's of life.. Although they don't call it abiogenesis anymore, it is still clearly being taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly). This college Biology book below called "Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) explains very clearly the origin and evolution of microbial life through prokaryotes and protists. If want you to purchase this book then read the various sections on "The Origin of Species" and the "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life:

This is clearly an evolutionary process from the books perspective. The whole chapter devotes itself to evolution and how life arose from nonliving matter… Evolution IS being used by scientists to explain the origins of life.. Plain and simple.

“Similar experiments using various atmospheric conditions have also produced mixtures of organic compounds. Scientists now think that the composition of the atmosphere of early Earth was somewhat different from what Miller assumed in his historic first experiment. There is growing evidence that the early atmosphere was made up primarily of N2 and CO2, and so far, Miller-Urey-type experiments using such atmospheres have not produced organic molecules. Still, it is possible that small "pockets" of the early atmosphere-perhaps near volcanic openings-were similar to those used by Miller.

Alternatively, submerged volcanoes and deep-sea hydrothermal vents-gaps in the Earth's crust where hot water and minerals gush into deep oceans-may have provided the initial chemical resources for life. Such environments are among the most extreme in which life exists today, and some researchers favor the hypothesis that life may have begun in similar regions on early Earth.

Miller-Urey-type experiments demonstrate that the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules is possible. Support for this idea also comes from analyses of the chemical composition of meteorites. Fragments of a 4.5-billion-year-old meterorite collected in 1969 contain more than 80 amino acids. Remarkably, the proportions of these amino acids are similar to those produced in the Miller-Urey experiments.- ”Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) Pg. 295.

My anthropology book, called the “Essentials of Physical Anthropology” clearly says on pages 45 that all life on earth can be traced back at least 3.7 billion years, in the form of prokaryotic cells.. Structurally more complex cells appeared approximately 1.2 billion years ago, and these are referred to a eukaryotic cells in which all species arose from early prokaryotes over the course of time.

Recently in testing of clay catalysis hypothesis, David Deemer from UCSC, added a mixture of proteins, DNA and cell membranes to a little hot puddle (Kamchatka, Russia). “The “soup” ingredients largely disappeared in a few hours as they were stuck to the clay and couldn't assemble.” Science (2006) 311: 1081.

Darwin recognized how serious the Abiogenesis problem was for his theory, and once even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life “by the Creator” from the Conclusion from his book “Origin of Species."

Now Darwin did pose philosophical and theological questions for the origin's of life. Science books such as "Biology: Concepts and Connections" are trying to give ultimate explanations for the origin of life and clearly omit any intelligent designer from the books thus trying to pass off a philosophical/theological question as science or their science. And we can see this science is atheistic or atheistic evolution as opposed to Darwin's theistic evolution.

[hatsoff]

Science books such as "Biology: Concepts and Connections" are trying to give ultimate explanations for the origin of life and clearly omit any intelligent designer from the books thus trying to pass off a philosophical/theological question as science or their science.

Even from the one brief quotation you provided, it seems clear to me that the text was in fact quite careful to point out the weaknesses in current abiogenesis models, lest readers get the wrong impression that scientists are close to solving the mystery. Moreover, the mechanisms by which life arose on this planet are clearly in the domain of science. That they might have theological implications is for theologians to discuss, but the scientists will do their science quite independently of their objections.

[Gman]

Science books such as "Biology: Concepts and Connections" are trying to give ultimate explanations for the origin of life and clearly omit any intelligent designer from the books thus trying to pass off a philosophical/theological question as science or their science.

Even from the one brief quotation you provided, it seems clear to me that the text was in fact quite careful to point out the weaknesses in current abiogenesis models, lest readers get the wrong impression that scientists are close to solving the mystery. Moreover, the mechanisms by which life arose on this planet are clearly in the domain of science. That they might have theological implications is for theologians to discuss, but the scientists will do their science quite independently of their objections.

Oh, yes there are weaknesses in the abiogenesis models. That is why whenever you tackle the abiogenesis model it will automatically pose philosophical/theological implications. By default...

Again... There is no such thing as philosophy free science.. The question is, what is this theological statement doing in a college anthropology book?

“The relationship between science and religion has never been easy. While both serve, in their own ways, to explain phenomena, scientific explanations are based in data analysis and interpretation. Religion, meanwhile, is a system of beliefs not amenable to scientific testing and falsification; it is based in faith. “ page 39, Essentials of Physical Anthropology. 2008.

They clearly state that "Religion is not amenable to scientific testing and falsification; it is based in faith."

Even you beautifully fell into the philosophical/theological realm when you stated "Materialism accounts for consciousness just fine without invoking a mystical soul or other non-material substance."

You are just doing the same thing.. Trying to pass off your philosophical view (i.e. atheism) as science.

I also noticed your word "current model" implying that sometime in the future it will be figured out by atheistic evolution.

Don't forget, from their observable evidence, most biologists accept evolution through natural selection as the most plausible and best explanation for life. An explanation that doesn't include an intelligent designer..

[hatsoff]

The question is, what is this theological statement doing in a college anthropology book?

“The relationship between science and religion has never been easy. While both serve, in their own ways, to explain phenomena, scientific explanations are based in data analysis and interpretation. Religion, meanwhile, is a system of beliefs not amenable to scientific testing and falsification; it is based in faith. “ page 39, Essentials of Physical Anthropology. 2008.

They clearly state that "Religion is not amenable to scientific testing and falsification; it is based in faith."

This is an anthropological observation, not a theological statement. Remember, anthropology looks very closely at human habits and history. The quote you held up just now is not at all out of place.

Even you beautifully fell into the philosophical/theological realm when you stated "Materialism accounts for consciousness just fine without invoking a mystical soul or other non-material substance."

You are just doing the same thing.. Trying to pass off your philosophical view (i.e. atheism) as science.

Materialism is a common scientific assumption, but I would not say (nor have I) that my own personal position on philosophy of mind is a part of science.

I also noticed your word "current model" implying that sometime in the future it will be figured out by atheistic evolution.

I implied no such thing. In fact, I consider it rather unlikely that we will ever discover the precise mechanisms of abiogenesis on earth.

Don't forget, from their observable evidence, most biologists accept evolution through natural selection as the most plausible and best explanation for life. An explanation that doesn't include an intelligent designer..

As the explanation for the origin of species, absolutely, yes. This is due to the overwhelming evidence which supports evolutionary theory.

[Gman]

This is an anthropological observation, not a theological statement. Remember, anthropology looks very closely at human habits and history. The quote you held up just now is not at all out of place.

No... This is a a supposed "scientific" anthropological observation making a theological claim. Don't deny it..

I don't recall claiming that my position on philosophy of mind is determined by science.

You clearly stated materialism accounts for consciousness just fine without invoking a mystical soul or other non-material substance. You are clearly pulling your atheistic views out of science. Again science doesn't do that. People do.. It's how you interpret your science.

I implied no such thing. In fact, I consider it rather unlikely that we will ever discover the precise mechanisms of abiogenesis on earth.

I thought you said you had overwhelming evidence which supports the evolutionary theory?

As the explanation for the origin of species, absolutely, yes. This is due to the overwhelming evidence which supports evolutionary theory.

So where is your overwhelming evidence?

[Gman]

Materialism is a common scientific assumption, but I would not say (nor have I) that my own personal position on philosophy of mind is a part of science.

Changing your response I see.. Yes you have. You clearly stated that "materialism accounts for consciousness just fine without invoking a mystical soul or other non-material substance."

The definition of science doesn't, but people by default will..

[DannyM]

Materialism is a common scientific assumption, but I would not say (nor have I) that my own personal position on philosophy of mind is a part of science.

Changing your response I see.. Yes you have. You clearly stated that "materialism accounts for consciousness just fine without invoking a mystical soul or other non-material substance."

The definition of science doesn't, but people by default will..

Gman, somebody once said to me that the evolutionary theory doesn't require the existence of God. My, rather obvious, response was that the evolutionary theory also doesn't require the NONEXISTENCE of God. The materialist/atheist will invoke language that pretends or seeks to suggest that God's existence is somehow disproven; trouble is, this language is invoked to form a bogus assertion, while simultaneously doing NOTHING to negate God's existence/superintendence. Do you see what I'm saying?

[Gman]

Gman, somebody once said to me that the evolutionary theory doesn't require the existence of God. My, rather obvious, response was that the evolutionary theory also doesn't require the NONEXISTENCE of God. The materialist/atheist will invoke language that pretends or seeks to suggest that God's existence is somehow disproven; trouble is, this language is invoked to form a bogus assertion, while simultaneously doing NOTHING to negate God's existence/superintendence. Do you see what I'm saying?

It's apparent that any belief that questions the existence or non-existence of God is a theological question. Even if you say my science doesn't address God. If you omit God from the process, then life must have arisen on it's own by purposeless chemical evolution because there is no alternative. And after all Darwin explained that once you get live jump stated, you can carry it up to complex plants and animals and human beings.

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world and develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts.. The problem here is when people mix their philosophical views into science... Something they will always do to some extent. Even in "so called" science books...

[DannyM]

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world and develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts.. The problem here is when people mix their philosophical views into science... Something they will always do to some extent. Even in "so called" science books...

But naturalism, by very definition, cannot adjudicate on the supernatural. So why do so many seemingly sane people dismiss God on such a basis? Dogmatism? Desperation? It seems to me that to dismiss God you must first enter the philosophical, metaphysical and theological badlands rather than doing so on the strength of naturalistim.

[Gman]

But naturalism, by very definition, cannot adjudicate on the supernatural. So why do so many seemingly sane people dismiss God on such a basis? Dogmatism? Desperation? It seems to me that to dismiss God you must first enter the philosophical, metaphysical and theological badlands rather than doing so on the strength of naturalistim.

Yes.. It's a personification of nature, your environment, your views, etc. into anything.. Or someone could say that science negates the existence of God which is a philosophical move. Of course I would have to inject that into my own personal philosophy for it to be real to me..

[Byblos]

But naturalism, by very definition, cannot adjudicate on the supernatural. So why do so many seemingly sane people dismiss God on such a basis? Dogmatism? Desperation? It seems to me that to dismiss God you must first enter the philosophical, metaphysical and theological badlands rather than doing so on the strength of naturalistim.

I'd be very content with science not referencing God in any way but, at a minimum, recognizing its own limitation and making a full stop at attempting to answer what it cannot. Alas, not only it does not do that, it makes claims it cannot back up and puts them forth as fact.

[chance]

I don't care so much about where life started - but where it ends and what is beyond that.

God does not always explain, especially to early humans, how things worked fully - they had limited vocabulary and understanding as do young children.

How, or even why, is not as important as a relationship with God and where we are going, and what he desires from us as his children.

Coming from a soup or even a monkey is no more amazing to me that I am here because two people had sex and I started as nothing more than a sperm and an egg and evolved into who I am now.

Makes no difference from where one came from, only matters where they are going.