A new article on the origin of DNA

[Arc F1]

So what? How is that a measure of complexity?

I've already moved on. The most fierce tool of the atheist is the report button. There's hardly ever room for discussion without someone getting bent out of shape.

 

[Tree of Life]

Maybe.

Returning to my point about clarity - it's very confusing when you say that science is not belief. It sounds like you're saying that no one believes in science or that science doesn't give us anything to believe in.

 

[Tree of Life]

@VirOptimus

You might instead opt to say that "science is not religious belief". I would have no problem with that statement.

Of course there are many scientists who are religious. And there are religious beliefs that creep into science and masquerade as science. Naturalism, for example, is a religious belief that masquerades as a scientific belief. But there is nothing scientific about naturalism.

 

[VirOptimus]

Returning to my point about clarity - it's very confusing when you say that science is not belief. It sounds like you're saying that no one believes in science or that science doesn't give us anything to believe in.

No, its not belief, its accepting physical reality.

Now, the philosophy of epistemology its quite complex and depending on which "school" you follow knowledge mean different things.

But its intellectualy dishonest to try to conflate epistemologial (sp?) knowledge with religious faith. It also brings forth a lot of other metaphysical problems.

 

[Speedwell]

@VirOptimus

But there is nothing scientific about naturalism.

LOL! I presume you mean metaphysical naturalism. The way you wrote it struck me as funny.

 

[durangodawood]

We aren't discussing whether it formed but how. DNA is way more complex than paper and ink so it would make sense that if things can form from thin air that simple things would be first. I don't see any fossils of money laying around. It could be anything I'm just using money for the lol factor. Besides it's not like either of us or anyone else is going to prove how DNA formed.

There's no known natural process for $100 bills to form on their own.

But it looks like we're discovering a natural process by which DNA can form.

Thats the main difference between the two, for the sake of this discussion.

 

[pitabread]

I've already moved on. The most fierce tool of the atheist is the report button. There's hardly ever room for discussion without someone getting bent out of shape.

I'm not bent out of shape. I'm just wondering how you are measuring complexity.

If you don't want to discuss it then so be it. But my conclusion is that you're not actually measuring anything in this instance.

 

[pitabread]

Yes that's true in particular instances. But the ToE is a universal theory about life on earth. It does not just attempt to explain particular data points, but all of life as we know it.

Okay. So?

 

[Tree of Life]

No, its not belief, its accepting physical reality.

Accepting = believing.

Now, the philosophy of epistemology its quite complex and depending on which "school" you follow knowledge mean different things.

But its intellectualy dishonest to try to conflate epistemologial (sp?) knowledge with religious faith. It also brings forth a lot of other metaphysical problems.

I recommend you take a second look at epistemology to clear your head a little bit on it.

 

[Tree of Life]

Okay. So?

I believe the point in dispute was that science is about pure empiricism. It's not. It makes much broader claims and forms theories based upon empirical data but also philosophical assumptions.

 

[Tree of Life]

LOL! I presume you mean metaphysical naturalism. The way you wrote it struck me as funny.

Yes metaphysical naturalism. Haha. If by "naturalist" you mean "one that studies and loves nature" then that can be scientific.

 

[VirOptimus]

Accepting = believing.



-snip-

Not really.

 

[pitabread]

I believe the point in dispute was that science is about pure empiricism. It's not. It makes much broader claims and forms theories based upon empirical data but also philosophical assumptions.

Well sure, there are philosophical assumptions for which science has any real meaning. Things like assuming the universe exists, that it is inherently objective and that we can interact with it.

One can certainly reject the philosophical bases by which science has any meaning. But so what?

 

[Tree of Life]

Not really.

Really. In the english world, when we accept an idea we believe it to be true. Those terms mean the same thing.

 

[durangodawood]

Accepting = believing.....

You are oversimplifying to the point that youre performing a rhetorical equivocation.

 

[VirOptimus]

Really. In the english world, when we accept an idea we believe it to be true. Those terms mean the same thing.

Pray tell, what is your point?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Can those right circumstances be created in a lab so that this can be observed? Or is this just theoretical?

The work in the linked article was done in a lab. The references to "theory" are about the usefulness of this discovery to abiogenesis theory. (I.e., the initiation of life, or proto-life.)

 

[Tree of Life]

Well sure, there are philosophical assumptions for which science has any real meaning. Things like assuming the universe exists, it is inherently objective and that we can interact with it.

One can certainly reject the philosophical bases by which science has any meaning. But so what?

There are plenty more assumptions that go into the big theories like the ToE.

So what? Someone might accept the empirical data points but take issue with some of the larger assumptions and might reasonably come to reject scientific theories like the ToE.

 

[Tree of Life]

Pray tell, what is your point?

I'm just trying to show you where you are being confusing. What is your point?

 

[pitabread]

There are plenty more assumptions that go into the big theories like the ToE. So what? Someone might accept the empirical data points but take issue with some of the larger assumptions and might reasonably come to reject scientific theories like the ToE.

Like what? What larger assumptions are you talking about?