e: thoughts on Jesus

On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:06:38 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
<alwaysaskingquestions@xxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ilas" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9A9CBCF66AC39lurker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:68r49jF2to7dpU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Ilas wrote:
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:68qokiF2ukkddU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Ernest Major wrote:

I guess that we will achieve abiogenesis in the laboratory within
the next 50 years

What makes you think that?

What makes you think we won't?

Lack of progress to date.

From 500BC, when it was first postulated, to about 1920ish we had very
little progress on splitting the atom, despite the rise and fall of some
great civiliations. That's 2400 years. Since 1920 we've managed to go from
splitting the atom to using that knowledge to build power stations, create
weapons that could destroy the planet and construct the LHC in Geneva to
attempt to unlock the mysteries of mass. That's in 90 years. Again, why do
you think the fact that we don't know what caused life to arise means we
can't know (I have a suspicion why you think that by the way).

Because AFAICS we haven't even established an agreed starting point. Every
scientist who looks at this seems to come up with a completely different
theory. Whilst we may find out something in the long term, I see nothing to
make me think that we are on the verge of any major breakthrough.

At the start of the Allied attempts to build an atomic bomb there was
no agreed starting point either. How to make the fissile material, how
to construct the bomb, even how to test it - all had may theoretical
routes. With money being no object, the Manhattan project ran many
development methods in parallel and achieved the goal.

With work on abiogenesis there is no urgency and very little money.
The result is a lot of very good ideas but not enough experimental
progress.

In reality we can NEVER know for certain, without a time machine,
which of the possible routes life actually took on Earth. But we can
be sure of one thing - it happened.

Out of interest, do you believe god
did it?

I don't think that it 'just happened' - I think it was triggered by
something we don't understand;

Well yes, that kind of goes without saying. If we did understand we
wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm not sure if you are intentionally agreeing with me there, accepted
scientific wisdom is that however it happened , it was the result of chance
chemical interactions.

That is all it can have been.

I believe there was an external influence, not
necessarily God but certainly something we cannot identify at this stage.

Then you just move the problem back one level. If this thing you call
"an external influence" started life on Earth then what planet did the
"an external influence" evolve on and what caused its abiogenesis?

whether or not that something was God
depends on your definition of God.

OK, by your definition then, do you believe god did it?

What I personally believe is irrelevant, I'm simply making the point that in
regard to both abiogenesis and study of the mind, there is lots of activity
and a plethora of ideas but very few actual conclusions that can be backed
up with hard science.

There is one conclusion - there is no evidence that a god was
involved.

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God of the gaps
    ... offensive both to God and to his servants. ... God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. ... meaning that life didn't arise here on Earth at all, ... When listing alternatives, I mention spontaneous abiogenesis, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God of the gaps
    ... >> offensive both to God and to his servants. ... Life arose as a consequence of natural scientific laws. ... Life came to Earth from somewhere else in space (panspermia), meaning that life didn't arise here on Earth at all, but just traveled here. ... When listing alternatives, I mention spontaneous abiogenesis, supernatural abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, local panspermia, global panspermia, directed panspermia and any others which have escaped my attention, but in a universe with a finite age the origin of life, rather than the origin of life on Earth, these collapse down to two alternatives - spontaneous abiogenesis and supernatural abiogenesis. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Craig Venter! Wow, What a Guy!
    ... for life to start from non-life. ... Self-replication is the *result* of abiogenesis. ... The stories men tell about God are neither self-consistent nor ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No Evidence for Protocell Given
    ... abiogenesis means God created life, ... former president of the Royal ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No Evidence for Protocell Given
    ... abiogenesis means God created life, ... They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." ...
    (talk.origins)