Quantum Physics and Evolutionay Biology: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Posted: 10 March 2016 11:08 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2008-11-10

I’m agnostic about the beginning of the universe and life. Naturalistic materialism claiming that the universe began with The Big Bang leaves unexplained the question of how the material that made up the big bang got there in the first place (and so on and so on, as an infinite regress). In terms of the origins of life, evolutionary biologists retain as their biggest embarrassment an inability to provide a model for how organic matter arose out of inorganic material. The theistic side fairs no better, though. Filling these gaps in knowledge with a creator God that explains them is like the ancient Greeks positing Helios dragging the sun across the sky. It is the “God of the Gaps” fallacy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2016 05:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20
john76 - 10 March 2016 11:08 AM

I’m agnostic about the beginning of the universe and life. Naturalistic materialism claiming that the universe began with The Big Bang leaves unexplained the question of how the material that made up the big bang got there in the first place (and so on and so on, as an infinite regress).

In terms of the origins of life, evolutionary biologists retain as their biggest embarrassment an inability to provide a model for how organic matter arose out of inorganic material.

I know of no naturalist who is embarrassed by this.  Scientists have no trouble admitting that they don’t yet know things. They tend to take it in their stride. It’s part of life. It’s theists who have a problem with not having an answer to every question. When they have a question with no answer they are happy to make something up and insist it’s true.


The theistic side fairs no better, though. Filling these gaps in knowledge with a creator God that explains them is like the ancient Greeks positing Helios dragging the sun across the sky. It is the “God of the Gaps” fallacy.

The difference between theists and naturalists (otherwise known as rational people) is that naturalists don’t make up answers. They are also not embarrassed by not knowing. If you know of any who are embarrassed, please identify them.  Naturalists are perfectly content to admit they don’t know and will have to wait for objective evidence to be discovered.  The only people who come close to beong embarrassed or discombobulated by not knowing are theists. Focus on them, instead. 

Lois

[ Edited: 10 March 2016 05:29 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2016 07:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
john76 - 10 March 2016 11:08 AM

I’m agnostic about the beginning of the universe and life. Naturalistic materialism claiming that the universe began with The Big Bang leaves unexplained the question of how the material that made up the big bang got there in the first place (and so on and so on, as an infinite regress). In terms of the origins of life, evolutionary biologists retain as their biggest embarrassment an inability to provide a model for how organic matter arose out of inorganic material. The theistic side fairs no better, though. Filling these gaps in knowledge with a creator God that explains them is like the ancient Greeks positing Helios dragging the sun across the sky. It is the “God of the Gaps” fallacy.

John, you’re falling behind if you think there are no models for how life may have formed from minerals.  In fact it was referred to in a recent discussion in another thread and subject category. 

As far as questions remaining in scientific explanations, that is and will always be the case.  Why should it be otherwise?  But scientific inquiries also rather continuously push back the borders of the unknown.  The “Gaps” are accepted as inevitable gaps, even as they shrink.  Theistic explanations just make shit up, because they can’t tolerate not having an absolute answer.  But they are left with absolute answers that are bullshit, i.e. they are naked emperors clothed in a pretend omniscience.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2016 07:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21

I don’t think he’s real. These are outdated discussions. Freshman level stuff. It’s like they come out of some high school philosophy text book.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2016 02:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  288
Joined  2016-01-29

john76 evolutionary biologists retain as their biggest embarrassment an inability to provide a model for how organic matter arose out of inorganic material.

There is no embarrassment.  Evolutionary biology does not address abiogenesis.

Further, your use of “organic” versus “inorganic” is not applicable.  “Organic” chemistry is simply the chemistry of carbon, living or not.  Living organisms are organic in that they are composed of carbon bearing molecules, as well as water and other inorganic molecules that are also found in living organisms. 

There is no problem of “organic” life somehow arising from “inorganic” non-living chemicals, since there are lots of organic (carbon bearing) molecules on Earth and throughout the universe.  There are even amino acids in space such as Glycine - CH2NH2COOH.

Imagine a crystal growing in aqueous solution, molecules bouncing about chaotically until they happen to land just the right way to attach themselves in a repeating pattern, then some break off in a chunk which becomes the seed for further growth, and on and on.  Rudimentary reproduction.

John, I suggest you search on “self replicating molecules”.  You will find that molecules can be alive.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2016 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Stardusty Psyche - 19 March 2016 02:07 PM

john76 evolutionary biologists retain as their biggest embarrassment an inability to provide a model for how organic matter arose out of inorganic material.

There is no embarrassment.  Evolutionary biology does not address abiogenesis.

Further, your use of “organic” versus “inorganic” is not applicable.  “Organic” chemistry is simply the chemistry of carbon, living or not.  Living organisms are organic in that they are composed of carbon bearing molecules, as well as water and other inorganic molecules that are also found in living organisms. 

There is no problem of “organic” life somehow arising from “inorganic” non-living chemicals, since there are lots of organic (carbon bearing) molecules on Earth and throughout the universe.  There are even amino acids in space such as Glycine - CH2NH2COOH.

Imagine a crystal growing in aqueous solution, molecules bouncing about chaotically until they happen to land just the right way to attach themselves in a repeating pattern, then some break off in a chunk which becomes the seed for further growth, and on and on.  Rudimentary reproduction.

John, I suggest you search on “self replicating molecules”.  You will find that molecules can be alive.

Indeed.  Given time (which our Universe has had a lot of) and the proper conditions (which have existed on Earth and no doubt elsewhere in our vast Universe) and natural selection processes, Life happens.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
‹‹ What is "Inductive Truth?"      Solipsism ››