by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Rebel - Personally I also with my limited research believe direct evidence for the origin of life impossible.
Cofty - Don't you think you should thoroughly investigate the evidence before you declare something impossible?
Rebel - you sound like a bully who beats kids up at school
That is pathetic. It's the sort of comment that makes conversation almost impossible.
I will reply to other qs later.
Vidqun - I will do a thread in the near future to describe an interesting hypothesis for the origin of life that gets over all the objections you have raised and more.
Briefly for now - it is likely that life emerged in hydrothermal alkaline vents under the ocean.
re the origin of life: the hydrothermal alkaline vent theory is the most convincing for me but it does not have the most evidence to support it as yet. Dawkins gene hypothesis for the origin of life has the most evidence at the moment.
so this conundrum addresses which one we find the most convincing for the origin of life whether or not it has the most evidence viv, while theists find placing God at the beginning the most convincing and there is no real convincing evidence from science as yet to say they are wrong.
re your points, Prologos, I tend to favour punctuated gradualism and not the gradualism only model cos the punctuated evolution theory allows for the suppleness of evolution to work and enables the sort of coherence we would need to account for the development of imagination. so yes in general I agree with you and vidqun. (sorry I haven't paid as much attention to others on this thread who may have been saying the same thing - sanchy perhaps? if you are asking what else could account for the origin of life on earth and in relation to what you personally find the most convincing. unfortunately i can only hold so much material together on such a controversial thread.
@cofty
"What is this thing you call a soul?"
I know you want a scientific evidence to this question.
You maybe not be aware of that but you're blindy following a philosophical system called Positivism.
Positivism says that the only valid knowledge is science. They deny any other philosophical insight. Some even deny psychology. But Positivism is absurd because they see science as a magical wand (existing by itself) and can't see that science itself is a philosophical system. Positivism is pure absurd.
The soul can't be a problem to science because science is the quest for material properties and the soul is immaterial. But we can find material interactions with the soul.
The soul is a problem of philosophy.
When you ask for scientific evidence to a philosophical problem you're following the Positivism.
Positivism is the base of modern Atheism too. When someone says he's an atheist because there's no scientific evidence for God, for example. That's a positivist atheist and that's why atheists are always trying to hijack science.
The problem of soul have a lot of debate in philosophy and one of the definitions of the soul is it doesn't have any parts but it's responsible for high mental functionalities.
The soul have functions without organs. So when you see evidence for the sense of beauty in human behaviour (like art) and does not find the exact part of the body that produces it you're seeing a function of the soul. The non instinctive memory is another function of the soul. In other words no matter how hard you try you would not find the 9th symphony in Beethoven's brain.
Cofty I'm not trying to offend you. I admire your love for science and I think you're very intelligent. I'm just trying to exchange some philosophical knowledge with you.
Dawkins gene hypothesis for the origin of life has the most evidence at the moment - Ruby
Dawkins has no such hypothesis. The origin of genetic material is part of the process that occurred in hydrothermal vents.
The soul can't be a problem to science because science is the quest for material properties and the soul is immaterial. But we can find material interactions with the soul. - John_mann
No you can't find material interactions with the soul. You just made that up. Whether or not the "soul" interacts with material objects is 100% a question for science.
The soul is a problem of philosophy.
You still have to show why the soul belongs to the world philosophy rather than the world of make-believe.
The soul have functions without organs
What would you evidence be for that?
Are you conflating "soul" with consciousness? You still have all your work to do to show there are no naturalistic explanations for Beethoven's 9th symphony before you get to posit supernatural ones.
Occam's Razor.
The soul is a problem of philosophy.
No.
It is a problem of epistemology.
Occam's Razor and epistemology are philosophy.
Occam was a Catholic friar BTW.
Well, my job is done in this topic.
Cofty you still are using science methods to things that don't belongs to science. I told that is exactly what a positivist does. From now on you know you is a positivist. And positivism is more than wrong and false, is evil.
Well, my job is done in this topic. - John-Mann
If by your "job" you mean, make some evidence-free assertions and call others evil for being rational, then good job!
I like how he drops his biggest bombshell--the one that he throws out there like it's self-evident, yet would earn him billions of dollars and uncounted awards if he could demonstrate it--then declares his job is done.
John Mann-" Cofty you still are using science methods to things that don't belongs to science."
What else can he use to discuss a topic related to abiogenesis?
