Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2121181 > unrolled thread

abiogenesis not observed in nature

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

Contents

  abiogenesis not observed in nature Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-06-06 22:07 -0400
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 19:10 -0700
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-06-07 00:29 -0400
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:29 -0500
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 23:32 -0400
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-06-07 00:27 -0400
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 00:44 -0400
          Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:09 -0500
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:08 -0500
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-07 10:16 -0500
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-07 10:14 -0500
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 00:13 -0400
          Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:17 -0700
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 20:46 -0700
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-06-07 00:25 -0400
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 00:42 -0400
          Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:28 -0500
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:24 -0500
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 16:57 -0700
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:14 -0500
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 01:05 -0500
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 18:43 -0700
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Don Kresch <no@spam.org> - 2016-06-07 07:16 -0500
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-07 10:12 -0500
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-07 12:08 -0500
        Re: abiogenesis was not observed in nature by anyone who was not there when it happened Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-07 15:54 -0600
          Re: abiogenesis was not observed in nature by anyone who was not there when it happened John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-06-07 18:34 -0700
          Re: abiogenesis was not observed in nature by anyone who was not there when it happened Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 19:46 -0700
            Re: abiogenesis was not observed in nature by anyone who was not there when it happened "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 19:54 -0700
              Re: abiogenesis was not observed in nature by anyone who was not there when it happened Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:06 -0700
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 19:44 -0700
          Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 19:55 -0700
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-07 08:52 -0700
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 19:20 -0700
        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-08 05:58 -0500
          Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-08 06:01 -0700
            Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:17 -0700
              Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-08 10:53 -0500
                Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-09 07:50 -0700
                  Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-09 10:58 -0500
                    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-10 10:01 +1000
                    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-10 04:13 -0700
                      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-10 06:17 -0500
                        Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-10 06:01 -0700
                          Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-10 08:49 -0500
                            Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-10 07:19 -0700
              Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-09 07:55 -0700
              Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:48 -0700
                Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-10 05:41 -0700
              Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-09 17:42 -0500
            Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-08 10:52 -0500
          Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:34 -0700
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-07 09:07 -0700
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:30 -0700
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-08 12:38 +1000
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-08 06:25 -0500
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 20:41 -0700
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 14:47 -0700
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-09 18:08 -0500
      Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 18:23 -0700
    Re: abiogenesis not observed in nature WangoTango <Asgard24@mindspring.com> - 2016-06-16 18:53 -0400

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#2122688

On 10/06/2016 01:58, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 07:50:04 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 16:54:05 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:17:59 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
>>> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 14:01:48 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
>>>>> In article <gqtflbtsro0k0670pnj5ffunluj8re3fvq@4ax.com>,
>>>>>  Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
>>>>>> <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:52:22 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:07:11 UTC+1, Dale  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, the only logical alternative is that there has _always_ been life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think that is true for this planet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or anywhere else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It took something like ten billion years after the big bang for the
>>>>>> higher elements which form the basis of life to be distributed after
>>>>>> second generation stars went supernove.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some were formed by fusion during the life of the star, and  the even
>>>>>> higher  ones when it went supernova,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there certainly could not have been life at the point of the big
>>>>>> bang because there wasn't even matter until the expansion cooled it
>>>>>> down sufficiently - that was  only hydrogen with some helium and
>>>>>> _possibly_ a bit of lithium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That life is a "boundary condition" of our universe. Not - note =
>>>>>>> intelligence,
>>>>>>> but life. Which also implies a universe that has existed forever, which
>>>>>>> leaves
>>>>>>> no room for a creation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That the universe has existed forever is IMO the most logical way of looking
>>>>>>> at it.  No creation necessary.  I do like the notion that we are made of
>>>>>>> stardust.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It depends on what you mean by the word "universe".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we call the universe, originated with the big bang. Nobody knows
>>>>>> what, if anything, there was prior to that.
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't even know if time existed before. Or that there's any meaning
>>>>> to "before".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hence speculation about
>>>>>> multiverses, quantum events in a "something " or a "somewhere", a big
>>>>>> crunch, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if one of these previous "whatevers" had life, it was destroyed
>>>>>> in the big bang and everything had to start again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure there's the idea of panspermia but, ultimately, that still requires
>>>>>>>> abiogenesis, the only difference being where it happened.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's the unfashionable idea of Cartesian Dualism, but you _still_ need
>>>>>>>> abiogenesis. Say there were souls floating about that, doesn't
>>>>>>>> automatically
>>>>>>>> create bodies for them to incarnate in. Do discarnate souls actually
>>>>>>>> constitute life? I don't think so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are souls, outside somebody else's religious belief?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence, any evidence, that
>>>>> any such thing as a soul exists. Good thing I haven't been holding my
>>>>> breath.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has to be admitted, though, that science hasn't really got a convincing
>>>> explanation of consciousness as we experience it.
>>>
>>> Therefore we can make up something called a soul?
>>
>> Therefore we can speculate.
>
> About something totally unjustified?
>
> The concept of a soul is meaningless outside a few religions.
>
> So there's nothing to speculate about.
>

I would quibble with the limitation to "a few religions".  From what I 
can tell, all religions incorporate the concept.

Moreover, even non-theist philosophies have been known to accept the 
existence of a soul, most notably Socrates.

There is one secular definition of "soul" I have come across which I 
find  quite attractive: "soul is a word to designate an idea we invented 
to represent the sensation of being inhabited by an existence, by a 
conscience" (Cyrille Barrette).  As such, it is of course entirely 
unprovable.  What it does, however, is to demonstrate the attractiveness 
and near-ubiquity of the belief in a soul: it encapsulates our view of 
ourselves as unique individuals, the totality of our person as thinking, 
dreaming, feeling beings.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122851

On Thursday, 9 June 2016 16:58:14 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 07:50:04 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 16:54:05 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:17:59 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> >> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 14:01:48 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
> >> >> In article <gqtflbtsro0k0670pnj5ffunluj8re3fvq@4ax.com>,
> >> >>  Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
> >> >> > <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > >On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:52:22 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >> >> > >> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:07:11 UTC+1, Dale  wrote:
> >> >> > >> > abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
> >> >> > >>  
> >> >> > >> Well, the only logical alternative is that there has _always_ been life. 
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >I don't think that is true for this planet.  
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Or anywhere else.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > It took something like ten billion years after the big bang for the
> >> >> > higher elements which form the basis of life to be distributed after
> >> >> > second generation stars went supernove. 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Some were formed by fusion during the life of the star, and  the even
> >> >> > higher  ones when it went supernova,
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > And there certainly could not have been life at the point of the big
> >> >> > bang because there wasn't even matter until the expansion cooled it
> >> >> > down sufficiently - that was  only hydrogen with some helium and
> >> >> > _possibly_ a bit of lithium.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > >That life is a "boundary condition" of our universe. Not - note = 
> >> >> > >intelligence, 
> >> >> > >but life. Which also implies a universe that has existed forever, which 
> >> >> > >leaves 
> >> >> > >no room for a creation.
> >> >> > >> 
> >> >> > >That the universe has existed forever is IMO the most logical way of looking 
> >> >> > >at it.  No creation necessary.  I do like the notion that we are made of 
> >> >> > >stardust.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > It depends on what you mean by the word "universe".
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > What we call the universe, originated with the big bang. Nobody knows
> >> >> > what, if anything, there was prior to that. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> We don't even know if time existed before. Or that there's any meaning 
> >> >> to "before".
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Hence speculation about
> >> >> > multiverses, quantum events in a "something " or a "somewhere", a big
> >> >> > crunch, etc.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Even if one of these previous "whatevers" had life, it was destroyed
> >> >> > in the big bang and everything had to start again.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > >> Sure there's the idea of panspermia but, ultimately, that still requires 
> >> >> > >> abiogenesis, the only difference being where it happened.
> >> >> > >> 
> >> >> > >> There's the unfashionable idea of Cartesian Dualism, but you _still_ need 
> >> >> > >> abiogenesis. Say there were souls floating about that, doesn't 
> >> >> > >> automatically 
> >> >> > >> create bodies for them to incarnate in. Do discarnate souls actually 
> >> >> > >> constitute life? I don't think so.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > What are souls, outside somebody else's religious belief?
> >> >> 
> >> >> I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence, any evidence, that 
> >> >> any such thing as a soul exists. Good thing I haven't been holding my 
> >> >> breath.
> >> >> 
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >It has to be admitted, though, that science hasn't really got a convincing 
> >> >explanation of consciousness as we experience it.
> >> 
> >> Therefore we can make up something called a soul?
> >
> >Therefore we can speculate.
> 
> About something totally unjustified?
> 
> The concept of a soul is meaningless outside a few religions.
> 
> So there's nothing to speculate about.

Consciousness: It's not something we can convincingly deny the existence of since, effectively, consciousness is what we _are_. And the assumption that it's some kind of computational process isn't convincing. We don't even know what evolutionary purpose it might serve. As far as can be seen a "philosophical zombie" would multiply its genes as well as we do.

It's a rich playground for speculation, and likely to remain so.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122853

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 04:13:44 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
<malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 9 June 2016 16:58:14 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 07:50:04 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
>> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 16:54:05 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:17:59 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
>> >> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 14:01:48 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
>> >> >> In article <gqtflbtsro0k0670pnj5ffunluj8re3fvq@4ax.com>,
>> >> >>  Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
>> >> >> > <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > >On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:52:22 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>> >> >> > >> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:07:11 UTC+1, Dale  wrote:
>> >> >> > >> > abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
>> >> >> > >>  
>> >> >> > >> Well, the only logical alternative is that there has _always_ been life. 
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >I don't think that is true for this planet.  
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Or anywhere else.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > It took something like ten billion years after the big bang for the
>> >> >> > higher elements which form the basis of life to be distributed after
>> >> >> > second generation stars went supernove. 
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Some were formed by fusion during the life of the star, and  the even
>> >> >> > higher  ones when it went supernova,
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > And there certainly could not have been life at the point of the big
>> >> >> > bang because there wasn't even matter until the expansion cooled it
>> >> >> > down sufficiently - that was  only hydrogen with some helium and
>> >> >> > _possibly_ a bit of lithium.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > >That life is a "boundary condition" of our universe. Not - note = 
>> >> >> > >intelligence, 
>> >> >> > >but life. Which also implies a universe that has existed forever, which 
>> >> >> > >leaves 
>> >> >> > >no room for a creation.
>> >> >> > >> 
>> >> >> > >That the universe has existed forever is IMO the most logical way of looking 
>> >> >> > >at it.  No creation necessary.  I do like the notion that we are made of 
>> >> >> > >stardust.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > It depends on what you mean by the word "universe".
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > What we call the universe, originated with the big bang. Nobody knows
>> >> >> > what, if anything, there was prior to that. 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> We don't even know if time existed before. Or that there's any meaning 
>> >> >> to "before".
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > Hence speculation about
>> >> >> > multiverses, quantum events in a "something " or a "somewhere", a big
>> >> >> > crunch, etc.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Even if one of these previous "whatevers" had life, it was destroyed
>> >> >> > in the big bang and everything had to start again.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > >> Sure there's the idea of panspermia but, ultimately, that still requires 
>> >> >> > >> abiogenesis, the only difference being where it happened.
>> >> >> > >> 
>> >> >> > >> There's the unfashionable idea of Cartesian Dualism, but you _still_ need 
>> >> >> > >> abiogenesis. Say there were souls floating about that, doesn't 
>> >> >> > >> automatically 
>> >> >> > >> create bodies for them to incarnate in. Do discarnate souls actually 
>> >> >> > >> constitute life? I don't think so.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > What are souls, outside somebody else's religious belief?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence, any evidence, that 
>> >> >> any such thing as a soul exists. Good thing I haven't been holding my 
>> >> >> breath.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >It has to be admitted, though, that science hasn't really got a convincing 
>> >> >explanation of consciousness as we experience it.
>> >> 
>> >> Therefore we can make up something called a soul?
>> >
>> >Therefore we can speculate.
>> 
>> About something totally unjustified?
>> 
>> The concept of a soul is meaningless outside a few religions.
>> 
>> So there's nothing to speculate about.
>
>Consciousness: It's not something we can convincingly deny 
>the existence of since, effectively, consciousness is what we 
>_are_. And the assumption that it's some kind of computational 
>process isn't convincing. We don't even know what evolutionary 
>purpose it might serve. As far as can be seen a "philosophical 
>zombie" would multiply its genes as well as we do.

We weren't talking about consciousness, but about the theist's
hypothetical soul.

>It's a rich playground for speculation, and likely to remain so.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122883

On Friday, 10 June 2016 12:17:45 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 04:13:44 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Thursday, 9 June 2016 16:58:14 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 07:50:04 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> >> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 16:54:05 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:17:59 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> >> >> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 14:01:48 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <gqtflbtsro0k0670pnj5ffunluj8re3fvq@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >>  Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
> >> >> >> > <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > >On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:52:22 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >> >> >> > >> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:07:11 UTC+1, Dale  wrote:
> >> >> >> > >> > abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
> >> >> >> > >>  
> >> >> >> > >> Well, the only logical alternative is that there has _always_ been life. 
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >I don't think that is true for this planet.  
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > Or anywhere else.
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > It took something like ten billion years after the big bang for the
> >> >> >> > higher elements which form the basis of life to be distributed after
> >> >> >> > second generation stars went supernove. 
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > Some were formed by fusion during the life of the star, and  the even
> >> >> >> > higher  ones when it went supernova,
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > And there certainly could not have been life at the point of the big
> >> >> >> > bang because there wasn't even matter until the expansion cooled it
> >> >> >> > down sufficiently - that was  only hydrogen with some helium and
> >> >> >> > _possibly_ a bit of lithium.
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > >That life is a "boundary condition" of our universe. Not - note = 
> >> >> >> > >intelligence, 
> >> >> >> > >but life. Which also implies a universe that has existed forever, which 
> >> >> >> > >leaves 
> >> >> >> > >no room for a creation.
> >> >> >> > >> 
> >> >> >> > >That the universe has existed forever is IMO the most logical way of looking 
> >> >> >> > >at it.  No creation necessary.  I do like the notion that we are made of 
> >> >> >> > >stardust.
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > It depends on what you mean by the word "universe".
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > What we call the universe, originated with the big bang. Nobody knows
> >> >> >> > what, if anything, there was prior to that. 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> We don't even know if time existed before. Or that there's any meaning 
> >> >> >> to "before".
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > Hence speculation about
> >> >> >> > multiverses, quantum events in a "something " or a "somewhere", a big
> >> >> >> > crunch, etc.
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > Even if one of these previous "whatevers" had life, it was destroyed
> >> >> >> > in the big bang and everything had to start again.
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > >> Sure there's the idea of panspermia but, ultimately, that still requires 
> >> >> >> > >> abiogenesis, the only difference being where it happened.
> >> >> >> > >> 
> >> >> >> > >> There's the unfashionable idea of Cartesian Dualism, but you _still_ need 
> >> >> >> > >> abiogenesis. Say there were souls floating about that, doesn't 
> >> >> >> > >> automatically 
> >> >> >> > >> create bodies for them to incarnate in. Do discarnate souls actually 
> >> >> >> > >> constitute life? I don't think so.
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > What are souls, outside somebody else's religious belief?
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence, any evidence, that 
> >> >> >> any such thing as a soul exists. Good thing I haven't been holding my 
> >> >> >> breath.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It has to be admitted, though, that science hasn't really got a convincing 
> >> >> >explanation of consciousness as we experience it.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Therefore we can make up something called a soul?
> >> >
> >> >Therefore we can speculate.
> >> 
> >> About something totally unjustified?
> >> 
> >> The concept of a soul is meaningless outside a few religions.
> >> 
> >> So there's nothing to speculate about.
> >
> >Consciousness: It's not something we can convincingly deny 
> >the existence of since, effectively, consciousness is what we 
> >_are_. And the assumption that it's some kind of computational 
> >process isn't convincing. We don't even know what evolutionary 
> >purpose it might serve. As far as can be seen a "philosophical 
> >zombie" would multiply its genes as well as we do.
> 
> We weren't talking about consciousness, but about the theist's
> hypothetical soul.
> 

That's really just semantics. Once we get into dualism you can call the conscious self pretty much anything you like. The Self, the Atman, the Soul, it's all just names for the same thing.

We all know what we're talking about it, until we _think_ about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122900

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 06:01:16 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
<malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 10 June 2016 12:17:45 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 04:13:44 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
>> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Thursday, 9 June 2016 16:58:14 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 07:50:04 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
>> >> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 16:54:05 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:17:59 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
>> >> >> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> >On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 14:01:48 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article <gqtflbtsro0k0670pnj5ffunluj8re3fvq@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> >>  Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
>> >> >> >> > <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > >On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:52:22 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>> >> >> >> > >> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:07:11 UTC+1, Dale  wrote:
>> >> >> >> > >> > abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
>> >> >> >> > >>  
>> >> >> >> > >> Well, the only logical alternative is that there has _always_ been life. 
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >I don't think that is true for this planet.  
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > Or anywhere else.
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > It took something like ten billion years after the big bang for the
>> >> >> >> > higher elements which form the basis of life to be distributed after
>> >> >> >> > second generation stars went supernove. 
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > Some were formed by fusion during the life of the star, and  the even
>> >> >> >> > higher  ones when it went supernova,
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > And there certainly could not have been life at the point of the big
>> >> >> >> > bang because there wasn't even matter until the expansion cooled it
>> >> >> >> > down sufficiently - that was  only hydrogen with some helium and
>> >> >> >> > _possibly_ a bit of lithium.
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > >That life is a "boundary condition" of our universe. Not - note = 
>> >> >> >> > >intelligence, 
>> >> >> >> > >but life. Which also implies a universe that has existed forever, which 
>> >> >> >> > >leaves 
>> >> >> >> > >no room for a creation.
>> >> >> >> > >> 
>> >> >> >> > >That the universe has existed forever is IMO the most logical way of looking 
>> >> >> >> > >at it.  No creation necessary.  I do like the notion that we are made of 
>> >> >> >> > >stardust.
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > It depends on what you mean by the word "universe".
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > What we call the universe, originated with the big bang. Nobody knows
>> >> >> >> > what, if anything, there was prior to that. 
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> We don't even know if time existed before. Or that there's any meaning 
>> >> >> >> to "before".
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> > Hence speculation about
>> >> >> >> > multiverses, quantum events in a "something " or a "somewhere", a big
>> >> >> >> > crunch, etc.
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > Even if one of these previous "whatevers" had life, it was destroyed
>> >> >> >> > in the big bang and everything had to start again.
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > >> Sure there's the idea of panspermia but, ultimately, that still requires 
>> >> >> >> > >> abiogenesis, the only difference being where it happened.
>> >> >> >> > >> 
>> >> >> >> > >> There's the unfashionable idea of Cartesian Dualism, but you _still_ need 
>> >> >> >> > >> abiogenesis. Say there were souls floating about that, doesn't 
>> >> >> >> > >> automatically 
>> >> >> >> > >> create bodies for them to incarnate in. Do discarnate souls actually 
>> >> >> >> > >> constitute life? I don't think so.
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > What are souls, outside somebody else's religious belief?
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence, any evidence, that 
>> >> >> >> any such thing as a soul exists. Good thing I haven't been holding my 
>> >> >> >> breath.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It has to be admitted, though, that science hasn't really got a convincing 
>> >> >> >explanation of consciousness as we experience it.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Therefore we can make up something called a soul?
>> >> >
>> >> >Therefore we can speculate.
>> >> 
>> >> About something totally unjustified?
>> >> 
>> >> The concept of a soul is meaningless outside a few religions.
>> >> 
>> >> So there's nothing to speculate about.
>> >
>> >Consciousness: It's not something we can convincingly deny 
>> >the existence of since, effectively, consciousness is what we 
>> >_are_. And the assumption that it's some kind of computational 
>> >process isn't convincing. We don't even know what evolutionary 
>> >purpose it might serve. As far as can be seen a "philosophical 
>> >zombie" would multiply its genes as well as we do.
>> 
>> We weren't talking about consciousness, but about the theist's
>> hypothetical soul.
>> 
>
>That's really just semantics. Once we get into dualism you can call the 
>conscious self pretty much anything you like. The Self, the Atman, the 
>Soul, it's all just names for the same thing.
>
>We all know what we're talking about it, until we _think_ about it.

You're talking about something theists imagine can exist without the
substrate of  the brain.

Which  there is no reason even to speculate because it's just their
religious belief.

It would be like executing a computer program when there isn't a
processor for it to run on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122908

On Friday, 10 June 2016 14:49:39 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 06:01:16 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Friday, 10 June 2016 12:17:45 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 04:13:44 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> >> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On Thursday, 9 June 2016 16:58:14 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 07:50:04 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> >> >> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 16:54:05 UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:17:59 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> >> >> >> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 14:01:48 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In article <gqtflbtsro0k0670pnj5ffunluj8re3fvq@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >>  Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
> >> >> >> >> > <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > >On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:52:22 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > >> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:07:11 UTC+1, Dale  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > >> > abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
> >> >> >> >> > >>  
> >> >> >> >> > >> Well, the only logical alternative is that there has _always_ been life. 
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > >I don't think that is true for this planet.  
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > Or anywhere else.
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > It took something like ten billion years after the big bang for the
> >> >> >> >> > higher elements which form the basis of life to be distributed after
> >> >> >> >> > second generation stars went supernove. 
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > Some were formed by fusion during the life of the star, and  the even
> >> >> >> >> > higher  ones when it went supernova,
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > And there certainly could not have been life at the point of the big
> >> >> >> >> > bang because there wasn't even matter until the expansion cooled it
> >> >> >> >> > down sufficiently - that was  only hydrogen with some helium and
> >> >> >> >> > _possibly_ a bit of lithium.
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > >That life is a "boundary condition" of our universe. Not - note = 
> >> >> >> >> > >intelligence, 
> >> >> >> >> > >but life. Which also implies a universe that has existed forever, which 
> >> >> >> >> > >leaves 
> >> >> >> >> > >no room for a creation.
> >> >> >> >> > >> 
> >> >> >> >> > >That the universe has existed forever is IMO the most logical way of looking 
> >> >> >> >> > >at it.  No creation necessary.  I do like the notion that we are made of 
> >> >> >> >> > >stardust.
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > It depends on what you mean by the word "universe".
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > What we call the universe, originated with the big bang. Nobody knows
> >> >> >> >> > what, if anything, there was prior to that. 
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> We don't even know if time existed before. Or that there's any meaning 
> >> >> >> >> to "before".
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> > Hence speculation about
> >> >> >> >> > multiverses, quantum events in a "something " or a "somewhere", a big
> >> >> >> >> > crunch, etc.
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > Even if one of these previous "whatevers" had life, it was destroyed
> >> >> >> >> > in the big bang and everything had to start again.
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > >> Sure there's the idea of panspermia but, ultimately, that still requires 
> >> >> >> >> > >> abiogenesis, the only difference being where it happened.
> >> >> >> >> > >> 
> >> >> >> >> > >> There's the unfashionable idea of Cartesian Dualism, but you _still_ need 
> >> >> >> >> > >> abiogenesis. Say there were souls floating about that, doesn't 
> >> >> >> >> > >> automatically 
> >> >> >> >> > >> create bodies for them to incarnate in. Do discarnate souls actually 
> >> >> >> >> > >> constitute life? I don't think so.
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> > What are souls, outside somebody else's religious belief?
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence, any evidence, that 
> >> >> >> >> any such thing as a soul exists. Good thing I haven't been holding my 
> >> >> >> >> breath.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It has to be admitted, though, that science hasn't really got a convincing 
> >> >> >> >explanation of consciousness as we experience it.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Therefore we can make up something called a soul?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Therefore we can speculate.
> >> >> 
> >> >> About something totally unjustified?
> >> >> 
> >> >> The concept of a soul is meaningless outside a few religions.
> >> >> 
> >> >> So there's nothing to speculate about.
> >> >
> >> >Consciousness: It's not something we can convincingly deny 
> >> >the existence of since, effectively, consciousness is what we 
> >> >_are_. And the assumption that it's some kind of computational 
> >> >process isn't convincing. We don't even know what evolutionary 
> >> >purpose it might serve. As far as can be seen a "philosophical 
> >> >zombie" would multiply its genes as well as we do.
> >> 
> >> We weren't talking about consciousness, but about the theist's
> >> hypothetical soul.
> >> 
> >
> >That's really just semantics. Once we get into dualism you can call the 
> >conscious self pretty much anything you like. The Self, the Atman, the 
> >Soul, it's all just names for the same thing.
> >
> >We all know what we're talking about it, until we _think_ about it.
> 
> You're talking about something theists imagine can exist without the
> substrate of  the brain.
> 
> Which  there is no reason even to speculate because it's just their
> religious belief.
> 
> It would be like executing a computer program when there isn't a
> processor for it to run on.

Well, that's what's interesting. It doesn't seem like something which is a computational process. It doesn't seem to be physical, and it doesn't even seem to be a mental process. We have the physical world, which creates the substrait for the mental world, but consciousness seems to be observing the mental world from _outside_.

Is it another _level_ of emergent property?

Could it even be an elementary phenomenon?

Yes, I don't want the think about it because it looks like a chink in materialism, but it's dishonest to pretend its somehow not an issue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122476

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 23:39:58 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
> In article <9d5b4dd6-732c-484d-abe5-a85e22f13098@googlegroups.com>,
>  Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 14:01:48 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
> > > In article <gqtflbtsro0k0670pnj5ffunluj8re3fvq@4ax.com>,
> > >  Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
> > > > <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:52:22 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > > >> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:07:11 UTC+1, Dale  wrote:
> > > > >> > abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
> > > > >>  
> > > > >> Well, the only logical alternative is that there has _always_ been 
> > > > >> life. 
> > > > >
> > > > >I don't think that is true for this planet.  
> > > > 
> > > > Or anywhere else.
> > > > 
> > > > It took something like ten billion years after the big bang for the
> > > > higher elements which form the basis of life to be distributed after
> > > > second generation stars went supernove. 
> > > > 
> > > > Some were formed by fusion during the life of the star, and  the even
> > > > higher  ones when it went supernova,
> > > > 
> > > > And there certainly could not have been life at the point of the big
> > > > bang because there wasn't even matter until the expansion cooled it
> > > > down sufficiently - that was  only hydrogen with some helium and
> > > > _possibly_ a bit of lithium.
> > > > 
> > > > >That life is a "boundary condition" of our universe. Not - note = 
> > > > >intelligence, 
> > > > >but life. Which also implies a universe that has existed forever, which 
> > > > >leaves 
> > > > >no room for a creation.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >That the universe has existed forever is IMO the most logical way of 
> > > > >looking 
> > > > >at it.  No creation necessary.  I do like the notion that we are made of 
> > > > >stardust.
> > > > 
> > > > It depends on what you mean by the word "universe".
> > > > 
> > > > What we call the universe, originated with the big bang. Nobody knows
> > > > what, if anything, there was prior to that. 
> > > 
> > > We don't even know if time existed before. Or that there's any meaning 
> > > to "before".
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Hence speculation about
> > > > multiverses, quantum events in a "something " or a "somewhere", a big
> > > > crunch, etc.
> > > > 
> > > > Even if one of these previous "whatevers" had life, it was destroyed
> > > > in the big bang and everything had to start again.
> > > > 
> > > > >> Sure there's the idea of panspermia but, ultimately, that still 
> > > > >> requires 
> > > > >> abiogenesis, the only difference being where it happened.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> There's the unfashionable idea of Cartesian Dualism, but you _still_ 
> > > > >> need 
> > > > >> abiogenesis. Say there were souls floating about that, doesn't 
> > > > >> automatically 
> > > > >> create bodies for them to incarnate in. Do discarnate souls actually 
> > > > >> constitute life? I don't think so.
> > > > 
> > > > What are souls, outside somebody else's religious belief?
> > > 
> > > I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence, any evidence, that 
> > > any such thing as a soul exists. Good thing I haven't been holding my 
> > > breath.
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > It has to be admitted, though, that science hasn't really got a convincing 
> > explanation of consciousness as we experience it.
> 
> But they are at the beginning of learning just that. I'll wait for their 
> results before I even consider considering that any such thing as a soul 
> as something separate from the brain exists.
> 

To me consciousness seems like something qualitatively different from any kind of "computational" thought process. And it's slippery as hell because we can experience it, but not measure it.

None of the speculation I've seen so far has been convincing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122628

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 3:39:58 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <9d5b4dd6-732c-484d-abe5-a85e22f13098@googlegroups.com>,
>  Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 14:01:48 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
> > > In article <gqtflbtsro0k0670pnj5ffunluj8re3fvq@4ax.com>,
> > >  Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
> > > > <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:52:22 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > > >> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:07:11 UTC+1, Dale  wrote:
> > > > >> > abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
> > > > >>  
> > > > >> Well, the only logical alternative is that there has _always_ been 
> > > > >> life. 
> > > > >
> > > > >I don't think that is true for this planet.  
> > > > 
> > > > Or anywhere else.
> > > > 
> > > > It took something like ten billion years after the big bang for the
> > > > higher elements which form the basis of life to be distributed after
> > > > second generation stars went supernove. 
> > > > 
> > > > Some were formed by fusion during the life of the star, and  the even
> > > > higher  ones when it went supernova,
> > > > 
> > > > And there certainly could not have been life at the point of the big
> > > > bang because there wasn't even matter until the expansion cooled it
> > > > down sufficiently - that was  only hydrogen with some helium and
> > > > _possibly_ a bit of lithium.
> > > > 
> > > > >That life is a "boundary condition" of our universe. Not - note = 
> > > > >intelligence, 
> > > > >but life. Which also implies a universe that has existed forever, which 
> > > > >leaves 
> > > > >no room for a creation.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >That the universe has existed forever is IMO the most logical way of 
> > > > >looking 
> > > > >at it.  No creation necessary.  I do like the notion that we are made of 
> > > > >stardust.
> > > > 
> > > > It depends on what you mean by the word "universe".
> > > > 
> > > > What we call the universe, originated with the big bang. Nobody knows
> > > > what, if anything, there was prior to that. 
> > > 
> > > We don't even know if time existed before. Or that there's any meaning 
> > > to "before".
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Hence speculation about
> > > > multiverses, quantum events in a "something " or a "somewhere", a big
> > > > crunch, etc.
> > > > 
> > > > Even if one of these previous "whatevers" had life, it was destroyed
> > > > in the big bang and everything had to start again.
> > > > 
> > > > >> Sure there's the idea of panspermia but, ultimately, that still 
> > > > >> requires 
> > > > >> abiogenesis, the only difference being where it happened.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> There's the unfashionable idea of Cartesian Dualism, but you _still_ 
> > > > >> need 
> > > > >> abiogenesis. Say there were souls floating about that, doesn't 
> > > > >> automatically 
> > > > >> create bodies for them to incarnate in. Do discarnate souls actually 
> > > > >> constitute life? I don't think so.
> > > > 
> > > > What are souls, outside somebody else's religious belief?
> > > 
> > > I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence, any evidence, that 
> > > any such thing as a soul exists. Good thing I haven't been holding my 
> > > breath.
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > It has to be admitted, though, that science hasn't really got a convincing 
> > explanation of consciousness as we experience it.
> 
> But they are at the beginning of learning just that. I'll wait for their 
> results before I even consider considering that any such thing as a soul 
> as something separate from the brain exists.
> 
> -- 
> 
> JD
> 
> Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream 
> up a God superior to themselves. Most 
> Gods have the manners and morals of a 
> spoiled child.

That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call “free will” is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.-----------------Ayn Rand

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122867

In article <5f533a31-06d3-4d81-83ba-a247d50f623c@googlegroups.com>,
 Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 3:39:58 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <9d5b4dd6-732c-484d-abe5-a85e22f13098@googlegroups.com>,
> >  Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 14:01:48 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
> > > > In article <gqtflbtsro0k0670pnj5ffunluj8re3fvq@4ax.com>,
> > > >  Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
> > > > > <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > >On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:52:22 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > > > >> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:07:11 UTC+1, Dale  wrote:
> > > > > >> > abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
> > > > > >>  
> > > > > >> Well, the only logical alternative is that there has _always_ been 
> > > > > >> life. 
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I don't think that is true for this planet.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Or anywhere else.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It took something like ten billion years after the big bang for the
> > > > > higher elements which form the basis of life to be distributed after
> > > > > second generation stars went supernove. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Some were formed by fusion during the life of the star, and  the even
> > > > > higher  ones when it went supernova,
> > > > > 
> > > > > And there certainly could not have been life at the point of the big
> > > > > bang because there wasn't even matter until the expansion cooled it
> > > > > down sufficiently - that was  only hydrogen with some helium and
> > > > > _possibly_ a bit of lithium.
> > > > > 
> > > > > >That life is a "boundary condition" of our universe. Not - note = 
> > > > > >intelligence, 
> > > > > >but life. Which also implies a universe that has existed forever, 
> > > > > >which 
> > > > > >leaves 
> > > > > >no room for a creation.
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >That the universe has existed forever is IMO the most logical way of 
> > > > > >looking 
> > > > > >at it.  No creation necessary.  I do like the notion that we are 
> > > > > >made of 
> > > > > >stardust.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It depends on what you mean by the word "universe".
> > > > > 
> > > > > What we call the universe, originated with the big bang. Nobody knows
> > > > > what, if anything, there was prior to that. 
> > > > 
> > > > We don't even know if time existed before. Or that there's any meaning 
> > > > to "before".
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Hence speculation about
> > > > > multiverses, quantum events in a "something " or a "somewhere", a big
> > > > > crunch, etc.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Even if one of these previous "whatevers" had life, it was destroyed
> > > > > in the big bang and everything had to start again.
> > > > > 
> > > > > >> Sure there's the idea of panspermia but, ultimately, that still 
> > > > > >> requires 
> > > > > >> abiogenesis, the only difference being where it happened.
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> There's the unfashionable idea of Cartesian Dualism, but you 
> > > > > >> _still_ 
> > > > > >> need 
> > > > > >> abiogenesis. Say there were souls floating about that, doesn't 
> > > > > >> automatically 
> > > > > >> create bodies for them to incarnate in. Do discarnate souls 
> > > > > >> actually 
> > > > > >> constitute life? I don't think so.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What are souls, outside somebody else's religious belief?
> > > > 
> > > > I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence, any evidence, that 
> > > > any such thing as a soul exists. Good thing I haven't been holding my 
> > > > breath.
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > 
> > > It has to be admitted, though, that science hasn't really got a 
> > > convincing 
> > > explanation of consciousness as we experience it.
> > 
> > But they are at the beginning of learning just that. I'll wait for their 
> > results before I even consider considering that any such thing as a soul 
> > as something separate from the brain exists.
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > JD
> > 
> > Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream 
> > up a God superior to themselves. Most 
> > Gods have the manners and morals of a 
> > spoiled child.
> 
> That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which 
> you call “free will” is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will 
> you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you 
> make and determines your life and your character.-----------------Ayn Rand

Do you really need to quote that evil bitch?

-- 

JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream 
up a God superior to themselves. Most 
Gods have the manners and morals of a 
spoiled child.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122659

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 15:39:54 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <9d5b4dd6-732c-484d-abe5-a85e22f13098@googlegroups.com>,
> Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 14:01:48 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
>> > In article <gqtflbtsro0k0670pnj5ffunluj8re3fvq@4ax.com>,
>> >  Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
>> > > <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > >On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:52:22 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>> > > >> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:07:11 UTC+1, Dale  wrote:
>> > > >> > abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
>> > > >>  
>> > > >> Well, the only logical alternative is that there has _always_ been 
>> > > >> life. 
>> > > >
>> > > >I don't think that is true for this planet.  
>> > > 
>> > > Or anywhere else.
>> > > 
>> > > It took something like ten billion years after the big bang for the
>> > > higher elements which form the basis of life to be distributed after
>> > > second generation stars went supernove. 
>> > > 
>> > > Some were formed by fusion during the life of the star, and  the even
>> > > higher  ones when it went supernova,
>> > > 
>> > > And there certainly could not have been life at the point of the big
>> > > bang because there wasn't even matter until the expansion cooled it
>> > > down sufficiently - that was  only hydrogen with some helium and
>> > > _possibly_ a bit of lithium.
>> > > 
>> > > >That life is a "boundary condition" of our universe. Not - note = 
>> > > >intelligence, 
>> > > >but life. Which also implies a universe that has existed forever, which 
>> > > >leaves 
>> > > >no room for a creation.
>> > > >> 
>> > > >That the universe has existed forever is IMO the most logical way of 
>> > > >looking 
>> > > >at it.  No creation necessary.  I do like the notion that we are made of 
>> > > >stardust.
>> > > 
>> > > It depends on what you mean by the word "universe".
>> > > 
>> > > What we call the universe, originated with the big bang. Nobody knows
>> > > what, if anything, there was prior to that. 
>> > 
>> > We don't even know if time existed before. Or that there's any meaning 
>> > to "before".
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > Hence speculation about
>> > > multiverses, quantum events in a "something " or a "somewhere", a big
>> > > crunch, etc.
>> > > 
>> > > Even if one of these previous "whatevers" had life, it was destroyed
>> > > in the big bang and everything had to start again.
>> > > 
>> > > >> Sure there's the idea of panspermia but, ultimately, that still 
>> > > >> requires 
>> > > >> abiogenesis, the only difference being where it happened.
>> > > >> 
>> > > >> There's the unfashionable idea of Cartesian Dualism, but you _still_ 
>> > > >> need 
>> > > >> abiogenesis. Say there were souls floating about that, doesn't 
>> > > >> automatically 
>> > > >> create bodies for them to incarnate in. Do discarnate souls actually 
>> > > >> constitute life? I don't think so.
>> > > 
>> > > What are souls, outside somebody else's religious belief?
>> > 
>> > I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence, any evidence, that 
>> > any such thing as a soul exists. Good thing I haven't been holding my 
>> > breath.
>> 
>> It has to be admitted, though, that science hasn't really got a convincing 
>> explanation of consciousness as we experience it.

Which is no reason to invent something with no justification apart
from being the belief of one particular religion.

>But they are at the beginning of learning just that. I'll wait for their 
>results before I even consider considering that any such thing as a soul 
>as something separate from the brain exists.

Exactly.

There is nothing to consider as long as it remains merely somebody
else's religious  belief - which makes it not substantively different
than a potentially infinite number of equally unjustified beliefs.


peculate about 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122077

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 06:01:45 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <gqtflbtsro0k0670pnj5ffunluj8re3fvq@4ax.com>,
> Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
>> <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:52:22 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:07:11 UTC+1, Dale  wrote:
>> >> > abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
>> >>  
>> >> Well, the only logical alternative is that there has _always_ been life. 
>> >
>> >I don't think that is true for this planet.  
>> 
>> Or anywhere else.
>> 
>> It took something like ten billion years after the big bang for the
>> higher elements which form the basis of life to be distributed after
>> second generation stars went supernove. 
>> 
>> Some were formed by fusion during the life of the star, and  the even
>> higher  ones when it went supernova,
>> 
>> And there certainly could not have been life at the point of the big
>> bang because there wasn't even matter until the expansion cooled it
>> down sufficiently - that was  only hydrogen with some helium and
>> _possibly_ a bit of lithium.
>> 
>> >That life is a "boundary condition" of our universe. Not - note = 
>> >intelligence, 
>> >but life. Which also implies a universe that has existed forever, which 
>> >leaves 
>> >no room for a creation.
>> >> 
>> >That the universe has existed forever is IMO the most logical way of looking 
>> >at it.  No creation necessary.  I do like the notion that we are made of 
>> >stardust.
>> 
>> It depends on what you mean by the word "universe".
>> 
>> What we call the universe, originated with the big bang. Nobody knows
>> what, if anything, there was prior to that. 
>
>We don't even know if time existed before. Or that there's any meaning 
>to "before".

No, we don't - from our frame of reference. 

But if it happened in some undefined "somewhere" there will be
something analogous to time there, because all that is, is a sequence
of events.

Even if we don't know anything about it.

I've said elsewhere, that it's like the X in an unsolved equation -
it's an unknown quantity,

If the big bang were a quantum event in absolute nothing, then the
undefined "something" would be zero, and from that frame of reference,
time would also be zero.
 
>> Hence speculation about
>> multiverses, quantum events in a "something " or a "somewhere", a big
>> crunch, etc.
>> 
>> Even if one of these previous "whatevers" had life, it was destroyed
>> in the big bang and everything had to start again.
>> 
>> >> Sure there's the idea of panspermia but, ultimately, that still requires 
>> >> abiogenesis, the only difference being where it happened.
>> >> 
>> >> There's the unfashionable idea of Cartesian Dualism, but you _still_ need 
>> >> abiogenesis. Say there were souls floating about that, doesn't 
>> >> automatically 
>> >> create bodies for them to incarnate in. Do discarnate souls actually 
>> >> constitute life? I don't think so.
>> 
>> What are souls, outside somebody else's religious belief?
>
>I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence, any evidence, that 
>any such thing as a soul exists. Good thing I haven't been holding my 
>breath.

It's the theist's unjustified presumption which has no meaning outside
their religion.

>> >I don't think they constitute any part of reality.
>> >It's that pesky evidence thing again. (sigh)
>> 
>> Yep.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122621

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 3:59:01 AM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
> <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:52:22 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 03:07:11 UTC+1, Dale  wrote:
> >> > abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life
> >>  
> >> Well, the only logical alternative is that there has _always_ been life. 
> >
> >I don't think that is true for this planet.  
> 
> Or anywhere else.
> 
> It took something like ten billion years after the big bang for the
> higher elements which form the basis of life to be distributed after
> second generation stars went supernove. 
> 
> Some were formed by fusion during the life of the star, and  the even
> higher  ones when it went supernova,
> 
> And there certainly could not have been life at the point of the big
> bang because there wasn't even matter until the expansion cooled it
> down sufficiently - that was  only hydrogen with some helium and
> _possibly_ a bit of lithium.
> 

I still think it makes more sense that the universe is eternal and the Big Bang was just one of many such events that has been going on for trillions of years, scratch that, has been going on forever.  Something went bang.  Just because the concept of an eternal universe is difficult does not make it false. The singularity was all the matter in the universe compressed into a tiny speck that blew up.  Where did that matter come from?  I think it was always there.


> >That life is a "boundary condition" of our universe. Not - note = intelligence, 
> >but life. Which also implies a universe that has existed forever, which leaves 
> >no room for a creation.
> >> 
> >That the universe has existed forever is IMO the most logical way of looking 
> >at it.  No creation necessary.  I do like the notion that we are made of stardust.
> 
> It depends on what you mean by the word "universe".
> 


The sum total of that which exists.



> What we call the universe, originated with the big bang. Nobody knows
> what, if anything, there was prior to that. Hence speculation about
> multiverses, quantum events in a "something " or a "somewhere", a big
> crunch, etc.
> 
> Even if one of these previous "whatevers" had life, it was destroyed
> in the big bang and everything had to start again.
> 


Agreed, that is where the matter for the singularity came from.  Matter from previous incarnations.  It's like shampooing.  Wet, lather, rinse, repeat.



> >> Sure there's the idea of panspermia but, ultimately, that still requires 
> >> abiogenesis, the only difference being where it happened.
> >> 
> >> There's the unfashionable idea of Cartesian Dualism, but you _still_ need 
> >> abiogenesis. Say there were souls floating about that, doesn't automatically 
> >> create bodies for them to incarnate in. Do discarnate souls actually 
> >> constitute life? I don't think so.
> 
> What are souls, outside somebody else's religious belief?
> 

Imagination.---------------SpongeBob Squarepants


> >I don't think they constitute any part of reality.
> >It's that pesky evidence thing again. (sigh)
> 
> Yep.

Funny how reality always intrudes on fantasy.

George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and Christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.----------------------Sam Harris

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.---------------Richard Dawkins

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.------------------Thomas jefferson 	

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2121482

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 9:07:11 PM UTC-5, Dale wrote:
> [...]


Dale Kelly wants to dance around the fire with a bone in his nose 
until science figures out the complete answer to every question.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2121540

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:07:07 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 9:07:11 PM UTC-5, Dale wrote:
>> [...]
>
>
>Dale Kelly wants to dance around the fire with a bone in his nose 
>until science figures out the complete answer to every question.
>
...heh, heh..somebody should do a cartoon. 
The problem is, even if we had the complete answers, these hard
core creationists would still be dancing around the fire. They're
not interested in answers...only excuses to keep their god delusion
alive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2121777

On 7/06/2016 12:07 PM, Dale wrote:

> I am not proposing a "God(s) of the gaps" explanation, what I am
> saying is that we have ample evidence of biogenesis, eternal
> panspermia could be a possibility

Yet as you yourself seem to have noted, it's not consistent with the 
best theory we have of how the universe has evolved with time. That is, 
for eternal panspermia to be correct, our interpretation of what we see 
in the universe must be fundamentally wrong.

We don't see abiogenisis in nature, but would we expect to, even if it 
were occurring? Any newly appearing life would be incredibly primitive, 
and would just be a tasty morsel for the existing life forms. It would 
never get the chance to evolve into something more substantial. That 
option only existed on the early Earth when it was otherwise sterile.

In addition, abiogenisis may very well be extremely rare. It may be so 
rare that it was only a huge fluke that life appeared on Earth at all. 
How would we know?

Overall, at the moment, abiogenisis seems much more plausible that 
eternal panspermia, which, you may care to note, we also don't see in 
nature.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2121987

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:38:32 +1000, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>On 7/06/2016 12:07 PM, Dale wrote:
>
>> I am not proposing a "God(s) of the gaps" explanation, what I am
>> saying is that we have ample evidence of biogenesis, eternal
>> panspermia could be a possibility
>
>Yet as you yourself seem to have noted, it's not consistent with the 
>best theory we have of how the universe has evolved with time. That is, 
>for eternal panspermia to be correct, our interpretation of what we see 
>in the universe must be fundamentally wrong.
>
>We don't see abiogenisis in nature, but would we expect to, even if it 
>were occurring? Any newly appearing life would be incredibly primitive, 
>and would just be a tasty morsel for the existing life forms. It would 

Not just that, but the earliest life was anaerobic, releasing oxygen
as a by-product of its metabolism.

Oxygen is so reactive, that when so much had been produced that \
there wasn't anything left in the environment for it to react with, it
killed the organisms that had released it.

This was the first great extinction, without which we wouldn't have
the athmospheric oxygen required for modern life, which is descended
from the single-celled organisms that survived it,

So any naturally-occurring proto cells would be unlikely to survive.

>never get the chance to evolve into something more substantial. That 
>option only existed on the early Earth when it was otherwise sterile.

We've seen the formation of proto-cells in the lab, which metabolise,
reproduce and respond to environmental stimuli - which were the result
of duplicating simple natural processes, with no design involved,

One of the later stages, protein spheroids, has even been observed in
modern volcanic ash.

But I have no idea whether these were subjected to the next stage and
formed proto cells themselves.

>In addition, abiogenisis may very well be extremely rare. It may be so 
>rare that it was only a huge fluke that life appeared on Earth at all. 
>How would we know?

The amino acids have been shown to have been formed under a wide
variety of environments from the primeval Earth  (duplicated in the
lab) to interstellar dust clouds, so it would seem to imply that some
sort of life would be inevitable, given the right conditions and the
discovery of more and more extra-solar planets.

>Overall, at the moment, abiogenisis seems much more plausible that 
>eternal panspermia, which, you may care to note, we also don't see in 
>nature.

Panspermia only pushes it back a level, even eternal panspermia, But
would any pre-existing life have survived the big bang?

>Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2121815

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 7:07:11 PM UTC-7, Dale wrote:


.> abiogenesis is not observed in nature, life from non-life

Oh? 

If it were going on today, what would it look like?  What
would we look for?


Seth


> 
> biogenesis is observed in nature, life from life
> 
> even if an experimenter made life from non-life, the experimenter, the
> first causal step, is life, so it is biogenesis, life from life
> 
> I have heard the following debated
> 
> 1) life consists of non-life materials
> 
> 2) biogenesis does not fit with broader explanations like the big bang
> 
> as for (1), this might be true for plants, but for conscious life the
> debate of dualism remains, moreso the causal path is not proven, just
> because the parts are there doesn't imply causality
> 
> as for (2), there is no empirical "theory of everything" that is
> testable
> 
> I am not proposing a "God(s) of the gaps" explanation, what I am
> saying is that we have ample evidence of biogenesis, eternal
> panspermia could be a possibility
> --
> Dale
> http://www.dalekelly.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122626

Abiogenesis is NOT observed in nature,
and neither has it ever been observed
in a lab. But the collective is so far
removed from objective reality that it
continuously insists that abiogenesis
has been replicated under laboratory 
conditions!

(Using the Chrissy handle, it often
makes this insane claim WITHOUT ever
being challenged much less flamed)




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/145652171278

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122666

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:47:29 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
wrote:

>A

FRUITCAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2122723

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 2:47:32 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Abiogenesis is NOT observed in nature,
> and neither has it ever been observed
> in a lab. But the collective is so far
> removed from objective reality that it
> continuously insists that abiogenesis
> has been replicated under laboratory 
> conditions!
> 

Perhaps you can provide a quote from somewhere to back that claim up.
What I recall being said was that experiments into abiogenesis, well let's just let Rational Wiki tell you:  Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules. One of the popular current hypotheses involves chemical reactivity around hydrothermal vents.[1][2] This hypothesis has yet to be empirically proven although the current evidence is generally supportive of it. Give those crazy scientists a half billion or so years to play,[3] though, and they might do just as well as nature once did! 

Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. There may also be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life". Depending, of course, on the definition of life. This is something that Ben Stein is apparently willfully ignorant of.

An objection to the distinction is that it is goalpost moving but this would only be true if evolution at some point did try to explain the origin of life and then people moved away from it. This is not the case at all. Evolutionary theory started with the observation of the mutability of species - a property that only exists once life has begun, indeed later definitions of "life" have often used the ability to evolve as a key component. This, of course, has been known for some time as animals and crops have been selectively bred for thousands of years. Later, the idea was refined by Charles Darwin in the form of natural selection, where nature provides the selection criteria to drive evolution. At no point was evolution, nor natural selection, about explaining the origin of life. 

> (Using the Chrissy handle, it often
> makes this insane claim WITHOUT ever
> being challenged much less flamed)
> 
> 
> 
> 
Because it is eminently more logical than any kind of creator myth.  For this there is evidence, for God, not so much.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web