Where did life begin? (Merged)

[VOLatile]

Have you ever read about the Duhem–Quine thesis?

Not until now, but all I see is background assumptions. The Wikipedia article is a bit vague and confusing, in my inebriated state anyways.

 

[Rocky-Top 10EC]

Dinosaurs?

 

[VOLatile]

I agree that one cannot prove it scientifically.

I don't think that anyone should ever use the bible to try and prove a scientific theory. Religion and science are not incompatible. I don't think they even try to answer the same questions. One is about how things work, the other is about how we should act.

The Bible should never be used as scientific evidence strictly because nobody knows who wrote it, when it was written, or if it's even complete, among other reasons.

 

[Danl]

I am referring to physical laws.

What we define as natural laws are just our observations about how our universe works. Anything from outside our universe would not follow our natural laws and would consequently be un-natural.

Why would anything outside our current universe necessarily NOT follow the same physical laws as our current universe. Why would there necessarily be a complete set of different laws?

 

[txbo]

These answers are based on my understanding of the naturalistic explanations:

1) they are not in conflict to my understanding. I don't think the net inertia of the universe, taking all energy into account, changed with the big bang.

2) Conscience is a survival trait. Early hominids survive better in a cooperative group. Cooperation requires a certain degree of empathy. Conscience derives from this empathy. Those who showed such behavior are more desirable to the group. Those without a conscience exhibit anti-social tendencies that the group tends to reject. Those within the group mate, those outside of the group don't. The genes that affect empathy/conscience are passed on.

By the way, the idea of survival of the fittest or the strongest is incorrect, imo. The better idea is survival of the most adaptable.

1) If objects at rest stay at rest until acted upon by another force, there has to be some force not subject the physical law capable of starting objects in motion.

2) I get your point about adaptability. However, that doesn't explain morality. Anyone not useful to a group should be banished or killed.

3) If you replace survival of the fittest with survival of the most adaptable, don't you invalidate evolution?

 

[RespectTradition]

Not until now, but all I see is background assumptions. The Wikipedia article is a bit vague and confusing, in my inebriated state anyways.

One consequence of it is that no hypothesis can be tested divorced from its underlying assumptions. That is not the whole of it, but it is the part I was referencing. Basically, I was attempting to show that any scientific discussion rests on a set of assumptions.

 

[volsforever27]

You absolutely cannot have a scientific discussion based on assumptions, which is what the explanation for God is. If there is no empirical evidence to support a claim, then it becomes philosophical.

So the earth being round was philosophical?

 

[txbo]

It still is.

If you begin to understand survival of the fittest, then you'll realize that the two are completely compatible. Survival of the fittest is all about reproduction - not who can live the longest.

LOL! I understand it just fine. You're stuck in the Darwin/Spencer application of the definition as natural selection. But that's not the only application.

Most notably Thomas Hobbes uses it to define natural rights. Suggesting that our most basic right is to provide for our own survival. This he refers to as the "state of nature".

What is government if not the conquest of natural rights?

 

[RespectTradition]

There is empirical evidence available to the naked eye that the earth is round...

 

[Danl]

So the earth being round was philosophical?

Not sure what you're referring to, but there were empirical reasons that curious folks thought that the earth might be round. Ships disappearing over the horizon and travelers noticing that objects cast different length shadows at the same time of day and year in different places are two that I remember off the top of my head.

 

[volsforever27]

Not sure what you're referring to, but there were empirical reasons that curious folks thought that the earth might be round. Ships disappearing over the horizon and travelers noticing that objects cast different length shadows at the same time of day and year in different places are two that I remember off the top of my head.

I was referring to the fact that they had no way of measuring that... they had some good ideas and maybe common sense, but nothing definitive (that could be scientifically measured, anyway).

Plus, what is considered empirical? To me, the complexity of the human body and the fact that almost everything serves a purpose could be considered empirical (for the argument of intelligent design).

Seems like semantics to this humble believer.

 

[txbo]

I was referring to the fact that they had no way of measuring that... they had some good ideas and maybe common sense, but nothing definitive (that could be scientifically measured, anyway).

Plus, what is considered empirical? To me, the complexity of the human body and the fact that almost everything serves a purpose could be considered empirical (for the argument of intelligent design).

Seems like semantics to this humble believer.

True. Theory is not necessarily philosophical simply simply because it is not yet proven.

 

[RespectTradition]

I was referring to the fact that they had no way of measuring that... they had some good ideas and maybe common sense, but nothing definitive (that could be scientifically measured, anyway).

Plus, what is considered empirical? To me, the complexity of the human body and the fact that almost everything serves a purpose could be considered empirical (for the argument of intelligent design).

Seems like semantics to this humble believer.

The curvature of the earth could be, and was, measured.

 

[Danl]

I was referring to the fact that they had no way of measuring that... they had some good ideas and maybe common sense, but nothing definitive (that could be scientifically measured, anyway).

Not true. Measurements were made and fairly accurate computation was made about the circumference of the earth by ancients.

Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes (276–194 BC) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to fifteen percent.[17][18][19] Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual meridional circumference, 40,008 kilometres (24,860 mi). Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel.

Plus, what is considered empirical? To me, the complexity of the human body and the fact that almost everything serves a purpose could be considered empirical (for the argument of intelligent design).

Seems like semantics to this humble believer.

I think empirical means testable and measurable. I don't think your example is either, but hey, that's me

 

[volsforever27]

Not true. Measurements were made and fairly accurate computation was made about the circumference of the earth by ancients.

Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes (276–194 BC) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to fifteen percent.[17][18][19] Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual meridional circumference, 40,008 kilometres (24,860 mi). Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel.



I think empirical means testable and measurable. I don't think your example is either, but hey, that's me

But what about before Eratosthenes? And the thousands of years people looked up and wondered? Just because they couldn't measure it at that time didn't make it any less true.

This is why I hate debating these things on here. I'm not going to start posting a thousand links to different sites and quoting different historical figures. I just like having an open dialogue.

Once again, it comes back to some believing it can't be, therefore it isn't.

A good example I will use is the fact we're using radio waves to look for intelligent life. I would think that the chances intelligent life would be using radio waves is small... yet we continue to do so. We haven't found anything yet. Does that mean there's nothing out there? Or could it be that's their version of the telegraph?

 

[VOLatile]

But what about before Eratosthenes? And the thousands of years people looked up and wondered? Just because they couldn't measure it at that time didn't make it any less true.

This is why I hate debating these things on here. I'm not going to start posting a thousand links to different sites and quoting different historical figures. I just like having an open dialogue.

Once again, it comes back to some believing it can't be, therefore it isn't.

A good example I will use is the fact we're using radio waves to look for intelligent life. I would think that the chances intelligent life would be using radio waves is small... yet we continue to do so. We haven't found anything yet. Does that mean there's nothing out there? Or could it be that's their version of the telegraph?

This is kind of pointless. You're just grasping at at empty air. Until God is observed, he doesn't exist scientifically.

You have a hypothesis that God exists, it's not even a theory because it's not subject to the scientific method sans experimentation.

Frankly, you sound like a "God of the gaps" kind of person.

 

[Danl]

But what about before Eratosthenes? And the thousands of years people looked up and wondered? Just because they couldn't measure it at that time didn't make it any less true.

This is why I hate debating these things on here. I'm not going to start posting a thousand links to different sites and quoting different historical figures. I just like having an open dialogue.

Once again, it comes back to some believing it can't be, therefore it isn't.

A good example I will use is the fact we're using radio waves to look for intelligent life. I would think that the chances intelligent life would be using radio waves is small... yet we continue to do so. We haven't found anything yet. Does that mean there's nothing out there? Or could it be that's their version of the telegraph?

I'm not sure what we're talking about now. I was responding to a specific instance of empirical data being available and used in the case of the circumference of the earth in ancient times (more than 2000 years ago)

When you say "Once again, it comes back to some believing it can't be, therefore it isn't.", to what are you referring?

Sorry if I'm just dense.

 

[volsforever27]

This is kind of pointless. You're just grasping at at empty air. Until God is observed, he doesn't exist scientifically.

You have a hypothesis that God exists, it's not even a theory because it's not subject to the scientific method sans experimentation.

Frankly, you sound like a "God of the gaps" kind of person.

Frankly, I take you as seriously in this thread as I do any other (not very). I have a belief God exists, not a hypothesis. And you should be able to realize that my point is that perhaps we simply don't have the technology to prove God exists.

If you disagree, I'm ok with that.

I'm not sure what we're talking about now. I was responding to a specific instance of empirical data being available and used in the case of the circumference of the earth in ancient times (more than 2000 years ago)

When you say "Once again, it comes back to some believing it can't be, therefore it isn't.", to what are you referring?


Sorry if I'm just dense.

You're not dense, I just made a point earlier that if your attitude is that if there is no way something can be, than it isn't. It's hard to have a discussion with someone like that. I wasn't singling you out personally.

Also, my point was that we weren't always able to measure the earth. That's all. It didn't suddenly become round because we were able to.

 

[Danl]

Also, my point was that we weren't always able to measure the earth. That's all. It didn't suddenly become round because we were able to.

Good point.

After we were able to measure it and scientifically show that the earth was round, why wasn't that fact universally accepted?

After we were able to show that the sun, not the earth, was the center of our solar system, why was that fact not universally accepted?

 

[volsforever27]

Good point.

After we were able to measure it and scientifically show that the earth was round, why wasn't that fact universally accepted?

After we were able to show that the sun, not the earth, was the center of our solar system, why was that fact not universally accepted?

If you're asking my opinion, probably just stubbornness. Someone believes something long enough, it's hard to let go... that's true for believers and atheists alike.

Don't you believe that if by some miracle we were able to prove the existence of a Creator, that some would say it's "flawed data", or that "more research is needed" etc. ? I'm sure it works both ways, however.

 

[Danl]

If you're asking my opinion, probably just stubbornness. Someone believes something long enough, it's hard to let go... that's true for believers and atheists alike..

Just stubbornness......OK.... Are you pretty sure it was not because a certain group's power and beliefs would be called into question or something?

Don't you believe that if by some miracle we were able to prove the existence of a Creator, that some would say it's "flawed data", or that "more research is needed" etc. ? I'm sure it works both ways, however.

Maybe. But that hasn't happened yet.

Here's another one. What if, today,almost all scientists had empirical proof that the earth was much older than thought by a large group of people, like billions of years vs a few thousand years. Why wouldn't these people embrace this fact?


What if, today, almost all scientists had empirical data that showed that all present forms of life evolved from earlier forms of life? Would everyone embrace that? If not, why not?

 

[volsforever27]

Just stubbornness......OK.... Are you pretty sure it was not because a certain group's power and beliefs would be called into question or something?



Maybe. But that hasn't happened yet.

Here's another one. What if, today,almost all scientists had empirical proof that the earth was much older than thought by a large group of people, like billions of years vs a few thousand years. Why wouldn't these people embrace this fact?


What if, today, almost all scientists had empirical data that showed that all present forms of life evolved from earlier forms of life? Would everyone embrace that? If not, why not?

OK, now we're getting into religion and whether science is flawed or not.

There's no doubt certain religious leaders had too much control. That has nothing to do with God... that's all man. I'm pretty sure God never told anyone the earth was flat.

And if we're getting into evolution, I wouldn't say all scientists agree with this, as a matter of fact there are a lot that tend to think that is flawed as well. And as far as certain group's power, I would argue atheism is a religion itself.

 

[Danl]

OK, now we're getting into religion and whether science is flawed or not.

There's no doubt certain religious leaders had too much control.

I agree with you. How much is too much?

That has nothing to do with God... that's all man. I'm pretty sure God never told anyone the earth was flat.

I agree with you. Entirely.

And if we're getting into evolution, I wouldn't say all scientists agree with this, as a matter of fact there are a lot that tend to think that is flawed as well.

I completely disagree with you on this. Almost all scientists in fields related to anthropology are supporters of evolution. If you doubt this Google it. While you're at it Google Project Steve.



And as far as certain group's power, I would argue atheism is a religion itself.

Uh oh! Do you think I'm an atheist? I'm not. I do not take the bible literally, but I am not an atheist.

I would disagree that atheism is a religion, though.

 

[volsforever27]

Uh oh! Do you think I'm an atheist? I'm not. I do not take the bible literally, but I am not an atheist.

I would disagree that atheism is a religion, though.

No, sorry if I singled you out again. I was speaking in general terms.

I will look up what you're talking about, but while you're at it Google evolution is flawed... some pretty interesting stuff.

As far as atheism being a religion, The Supreme Court says it deserves the same protections as other religions, but I know where you're coming from. I simply mean it's (as Random House Dictionary puts it) "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe". It also calls "atheism" the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

Hope I'm making sense, the cold medicine is starting to take over. I will say the only proof I've ever seen against the existence of God is Jersey Shore.

 

[Danl]

I will say the only proof I've ever seen against the existence of God is Jersey Shore.

Then you must have gsvol on your ignore list.