Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[tas8831]

Also: you seem unaware that plenty of the "building blocks" of life, which are in itself quite complex organic molecules, are actually even found in space rocks. So clearly, not all complex organic molecules require oceans of water to form.

On the other hand, it is often claimed by creationists that water 'destroys' the same building blocks.

It is true that it was thought for some time that the 'building blocks' of living things (i.e., carbohydrates, nucleic acids, etc.) were very delicate and difficult to make - that specific , pure mixtures of precursors had to be present in certain proportions and all this (many creationists still insist this is the case). Then, as you mention, some of these things were found in meteorites. Some have been found on Mars.
Creationists like to hammer the Miller-Urey experiments, typically by misrepresenting them, but in fact the Miller-Urey and many similar experiments with differing conditions, components, etc. have all come to the same conclusions - bio-organic molecules are not really all that mysterious and 'impossible' to make without living things to make them.

You may have read about 'Miller's last experiment' - he and some of his students, in addition to real-time experiments, took various common precursors, stuck them in water and then stuck them in a deep freeze for years. Decades. Upon his retirement, these tubes were discovered and analyzed - and no heat, no sparks, no 'perfect' environment, and they still found organics.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think this subject is possibly a deviation from the thread. So I shan't continue.
It simply questions the perception of " fact"

My answer would have to be long.
But the essence point is you assume Copenhagen - ie the non classical quantum world - is alternative to multiverse. It isn't.

The following is not totally precise... its hard science to explain. And Copenhagen is not a single idea. It is a collective use of a word for a number of them. If you like the bohr perception of QM..

But Multiverse is in essence an attempt to rationalise what I am calling Copenhagen

It attempts to reconcile common day experience ( the unique line of state evolving through past to present) with the conjectured discontinuity resulting from wave collapse on observatuion creating a present, with Existence not determined till observation, so begging the question how can the past uniquely exist? Leading to Schrödinger's cat etc.

Einstein tried to keep classical with hidden variables. He failed,

One way of rationalising it is to say it's still a causal deterministic world , but one of an infinite number that you select on observation, which is rationised as the process of collapse. Which is a way of hiding the problem philosophically not solving it! So Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive, but in different universes which coexist, you are just lucky which you experience.

So Copenhagen/ multiverse are not alternative.
One is an attempt to rationalise the other. Badly in my view.

All beg the question - is objective wave function collapse a reality? Or not? I say it is just a model, so it is not reality.
So Multiverse to me is a very bad answer to a non existent question!

Enough of this.

All I pointed out is the presumed universe evolving entirely from causal deterministic phenomena , which paradigm is the essence of materialist beliefs and assumed by many atheists to be backed by science, is not what science thinks in the quantum world - which turns what you think you know on its head.

That was quite a long post. You could have just said "I have no intention of admitting I was wrong to ridicule you for your assertion, nor do I have any intention of admitting that I made an error." I would have admired the honesty in such a post. Best we don't speak any further.

 

[Mountainmike]

For goodness sake.
Your problem is oversimplification.

First - You need to get the idea about what the argument was all about!

The row between Einstein and Bohr was not in essence about wave function collapse - that was the detail, a sideshow, not the essence of the classical world objection.
Collapse. Multiverse, have all the same problems for classical physics.

Einstein was happy with a world in which all things became definedat collapse. That wasnt the primary problem.
The row (that went on for decades) between Bohr and Einstein and hopped from one issue to another all had the same essence

1/ that in Einsteins classical physics world all things had a unique state - it may not be known, it may even be unknowable, he was happy to add hidden variables, but it was a single state. Not a multiplicity of concurrent possibilities not defined till observation.
2/ So in his world particles were born for example as a left and right hand glove - when you observe the left, you know the other must be right, but they were never indeterminate, the left was always left, only your knowledge of them was indeterminate ' the state was UNIQUE at all times..

Bohrs world was the opposite
1/ In Bohrs world everying had all states concurrently. The defined state didnt even exist till observed
2/ The act of observation of a left hand glove, also created the right hand glove that was not in that state till the left was observed.
3/ And this has implications for multiplicity of past states, not just the current - as schrodinger noted.
4/ All the experiments done confirm this view.

Many worlds fundamentally doesnt change Bohrs view, it rationalises it in a different way.

Sure it gets rid of wave function collapse (but that was the detail - that of itself was not the issue for classical physics - it was the concurrent existence of all states, rather than single existence of one)
Everett leaves the philosophical problem unaltered It does it by making all states coexist, just in different universes. It is still the same problem. And Do you really think there are an infinite number of you?

It still kills the presumption of unique state of the universe.
And it is still the death of classical physics.

It is also a non starter (in my view) because it violates observations of the born rule amongst others indeed it presumes discrete states, not the fuzziness that is a wave equation. It fails on decoherence too - why we think the universe in macro state has the illusion of a single existence..
The problem I would have in explaining any of them, is by the time I reduce it to simple concepts, ( like the born rule issue) you would challenge the precepts because of the overs implification, and then you would tell me I am wrong again! There are many variants to everrett in cluding many minds. Multiverse is not one school of thought. They all have the same problems.

The reality is, that the philosophical arguments on all of this pretty much stopped at the time of the war, and never got going again. Dont think about it, and just use the math has been the mantra ever since.

And from the perspective I introduced it NOTHING has changed:

So back to the essence of why I mentioned it all.
Is about objective reality.

I said to those who use science to prop up their deterministic causal world which is their stated reason for not needing other explanation
(you have to admit that is mainstream atheist thinking)
I said that science does not have this nice clean causal deterministic world. And I used the arguments on quantum mechanics to illustrate it.
So in my view - hanging on to it as a philosophical prop for existence is to join an argument about the reality of existence, it doesnt solve the argument about the reasons for existence!


Does that explain any better?

I am certainly not after an argument for its own sake or belittling anyone

I am also tired of atheists arguing my knowledge of science is poor, simply because it is hard to explain hard science to them!

That was quite a long post. You could have just said "I have no intention of admitting I was wrong to ridicule you for your assertion, nor do I have any intention of admitting that I made an error." I would have admired the honesty in such a post. Best we don't speak any further.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And it is still the death of classical physics.

RIP. Welcome to 100 years ago.

I said to those who use science to prop up their deterministic causal world which is their stated reason for not needing other explanation
(you have to admit that is mainstream atheist thinking)

Why would I admit something so absurd?

Atheist thinking has no gods in it. This has nothing to do with causality or determinism or locality.

 

[Mountainmike]

Why would I admit something so absurd?
.

I am aware you would never admit it

 

[essentialsaltes]

I am aware you would never admit it

Perhaps you could name three mainstream atheist thinkers who prop up their worldview with a "deterministic causal world" (in the physics sense of those words), for whom QM would present some sort of problem.

 

[Mountainmike]

Atheist thinking has no gods in it.

On a more serious note than jibing as to whether you would ever admit what you believe!

I never do get this - so explain.
Most atheists on forums like this are at great pains to avoid admitting they believe in anything (not just not believing in a God.)

But If you accept the general etymology of believe:
Something like "have confidence in without complete demonstration"

On that basis from all your posts, you clearly" believe "in abiogenesis having happened as random chance biochemistry (I shall avoid using the word accident) -
that is you have confidence in it, not necessarily unshakeable,
and in that case you have no evidence it happened , or is happening, or a method for it.
You clearly think biochemistry is a strong enough weapon to solve the problem of how.

So it is clearly fair to say, "you have confidence without complete (or this case much ) demonstration.

So why are all atheists at pains to say they dont believe in anything!
When that shows you believe in abiogenesis.

It is a fair question. Do I get a fair answer?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Most atheists on forums like this are at great pains to avoid admitting they believe in anything (not just not believing in a God.)

Atheism doesn't entail any beliefs.

But using the common understanding of what 'believe' means, individuals (atheists and otherwise) believe all sorts of things. Not because they are atheists or theists, but because they hold ideas to be true with some level of confidence.

I believe Tallahassee is the capital of Florida. Never been there. But this is one of the many beliefs I have.

I believe that the history of earth shows that there was a time when there was no life. And obviously today there is life.

So I believe that living things arose from nonliving matter at some point in time.

I'm not an expert in biology or biochemistry, but it's fair to say that I believe this occurred in some fashion that doesn't violate what we know about chemistry.

But this "believing in" phrase just seems odd. I don't believe in the capitalness of Tallahassee.

I don't believe in evolution. I believe the theory provides the best explanation of the relevant evidence. In fact, it has been established to such an extent that I consider it to be a justified true belief. Again, loosely speaking, I know that the theory of evolution is the correct explanation of the data.

Abiogenesis is not at the same level of completeness as the theory of evolution. I believe something of the sort happened. But I don't believe in abiogenesis any more than I believe in evolution.

It is a fair question. Do I get a fair answer?

Judge for yourself.

 

[Mountainmike]

So I believe that living things arose from nonliving matter at some point in time.

......

I believe this occurred in some fashion that doesn't violate what we know about chemistry.

.

It is a fair answer.

I would also observe that where the theist regards the origin of life as either created or guided evolution ,

the statements you make above and I copy are a core belief echoed by most of those who call themselves atheist.

In my opinion: It is the essence of the most common atheist philosophy of the origin of life. There are few other alternatives available.

I don't decry it as abelief , you are welcome to it.

The thing I cannot accept is that atheists generally have no belief in some philosophy of origin of life ( i.e. Conviction without complete evidence). But Many refuse to use the word belief even if they share your statements above.

All young professional scientists are confronted by the question can science explain it all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a fair answer.

I would also observe that where the theist regards the origin of life as either created or guided evolution ,

the statements you make above and I copy are a core belief echoed by most of those who call themselves atheist.

In my opinion: It is the essence of the most common atheist philosophy of the origin of life. There are few other alternatives available.

I don't decry it as abelief , you are welcome to it.

The thing I cannot accept is that atheists generally have no belief in some philosophy of origin of life ( i.e. Conviction without complete evidence). But Many refuse to use the word belief even if they share your statements above.

All young professional scientists are confronted by the question can science explain it all.

There is no consensus among theists or even Christians. There are many Christians, especially Christian scientists that even accept abiogenesis.

 

[Mountainmike]

There is no consensus among theists or even Christians. There are many Christians, especially Christian scientists that even accept abiogenesis.

So do you believe in abiogenesis. That is life the result of random chance biochemistry? Again it is a fair question!

 

[USincognito]

So do you believe in abiogenesis.

No one "believes" in abiogenesis. Most accept it as a plausible origin for life on earth, others accept it as a possible origin of life on earth.

 

[Mountainmike]

No one "believes" in abiogenesis. Most accept it as a plausible origin for life on earth, others accept it as a possible origin of life on earth.

Read the etymology of words.

Belief is a " confidence without complete evidence"
So abiogenesis fits - it is clearly is a belief.

And since there are no or few other alternatives, it is not just a possibility, it is the possibility.
( other than sleight of hand... eg life came from somewhere else , which pushes the exact same problem somewhere else, it does not solve it)

I observe almost all atheists believe it, in the context of the definition of believe above.

But the broader question I am more interested in.
Why is it atheists are so reluctant to say they have any beliefs? They seem to regard it as a character flaw.

At some level they believe in a deterministic causal world, that will keep doing what it does, which is the reason they don't think a God is needed to rationalise experience.

Or perhaps it is only true of atheists who come to forums like this, therefore interested in discussion on it, and defending their position/ attacking theism - for which they need a position to defend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So do you believe in abiogenesis. That is life the result of random chance biochemistry? Again it is a fair question!

Why do creationists so often make the mistake of thinking that since they do not understand the science that it was by "chance"?

You did not ask a fair question since you had an incorrect assumption in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read the etymology of words.

Belief is a " confidence without complete evidence"
So abiogenesis fits - it is clearly is a belief.

And since there are no or few other alternatives, it is not just a possibility, it is the possibility.
( other than sleight of hand... eg life came from somewhere else , which pushes the exact same problem somewhere else, it does not solve it)

I observe almost all atheists believe it, in the context of the definition of believe above.

But the broader question I am more interested in.
Why is it atheists are so reluctant to say they have any beliefs? They seem to regard it as a character flaw.

At some level they believe in a deterministic causal world, that will keep doing what it does, which is the reason they don't think a God is needed to rationalise experience.

Or perhaps it is only true of atheists who come to forums like this, therefore interested in discussion on it, and defending their position/ attacking theism - for which they need a position to defend.

Etymology may help one understand a word, but it never defines it. A rational thinker accepts abiogenesis, but is open to other possibilities since abiogenesis is the only current concept that is supported by reliable evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

Etymology may help one understand a word, but it never defines it. A rational thinker accepts abiogenesis, but is open to other possibilities since abiogenesis is the only current concept that is supported by reliable evidence.

What other possibilities? - list yours.

Your mate Aaron Ra certainly believes and promotes abiogenesis, as do most atheists I see on forums, you defended it once I saw.

And let me point out it is not a product of critical thinking.

There is no evidence it did take place, no evidence it is still taking place, no known means to reproduce it , and no end mechanism conjectured for it.

So it is pure conjecture, not a hypothesis, and if you accept it at any level it is by belief not critical thinking, for which there is no more evidence that there is for creation.

I respect that belief. I do,

But accept it for what it is, if on balance you think it happened. It is a belief, maybe not unshakeable, a belief none the less.

The thing I don't get is why atheists seem ashamed or a weakness to admit they have beliefs. I as a scientist believe Copenhagen and multiverses are complete b@ll@x , born of an attempt to pretend a useful maths equation is actually describing the real world is where the philosophical problems happen, It's a firm belief. Scientists have them. Einstein believed in classical physics, whatever bohr proved to the contrary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What other possibilities? - list yours.

Your mate Aaron Ra certainly believes and promotes abiogenesis, as do most atheists I see on forums, you defended it once I saw.

And let me point out it is not a product of critical thinking.

There is no evidence it did take place, no evidence it is still taking place, no known means to reproduce it , and no end mechanism conjectured for it.

So it is pure conjecture, not a hypothesis, and if you accept it at any level it is by belief not critical thinking, for which there is no more evidence that there is for creation.

I respect that belief. I do,

But accept it for what it is, if on balance you think it happened. It is a belief, maybe not unshakeable, a belief none the less.

The thing I don't get is why atheists seem ashamed or a weakness to admit they have beliefs. I as a scientist believe Copenhagen and multiverses are complete b@ll@x , born of an attempt to pretend a useful maths equation is actually describing the real world is where the philosophical problems happen, It's a firm belief. Scientists have them. Einstein believed in classical physics, whatever bohr proved to the contrary.

Of course there is evidence that abiogenesis occurred. The fossil record provides that evidence. There is no doubt that there was some sort of abiogenesis event, that is separate from natural abiogenesis. At one point in our history there was no life. Later there was. That tells us something caused life to arise on this planet. For there to be no evidence the there could be no observable strata that shows a complete lack of life.

And yes of course I have defended the only rational process for life to arise here. And if you have seen me debate this before why did you ask for possible alternatives. There are two I can think of quickly. Life could have been planted by aliens. Or life could have been place here magically by a god.

And there are several hypotheses of abiogenesis covering different aspects of the event. I can link a source for you if you like.

 

[USincognito]

Read the etymology of words.

Etymology is the root, not the current definition. The root is comparable to the German glaube that means believe in the sense that "I believe I'll have the soup instead of the salad" or "I believe team X will win the championship".

But that doesn't matter since my comment referred to the acceptance of a plausible or possible origin for life on earth. Panspermia and creation by God are just as plausible or possible an origin for life on earth and none of those origins effects evolution one iota.

The origin of life on earth, no matter what it is, will not change evolution in any way.

 

[Mountainmike]

Two pieces of critical thinking for you.

1/ Evidence of a process for part of a journey is not evidence of process for the whole journey.
I can walk up a mountain to get closer to the moon. That is not evidence I can walk to the moon, or that walking towards it, is even the start of a journey to it.
So tinkering with part processes is not evidence the process took place, or even a part process was part of the process if it did.

You have no evidence whatsoever that abiogenesis did take place, is still taking place, it has never been reproduced, and you have no conjectured end to end mechanism for it.

So it is not the "rational" solution. Since it is not founded on evidence or conjectured process.

ANY confidence you have that it took place is pure belief. Nothing wrong with that, so long as you acknowledge that belief did not come from critical thinking,.


2/ You claim that others who say "abiogenesis is random chance" do not understand science.
I have to say the boot is on the other foot. All biochemistry is a sequence of events in quantum chemistry. Science has stated for over a century since Bohr, that quantum events are pure random chance, not the illusion of it. Ergo even if you are right about abiogenesis being a consequence of unaided biochemistry, it was clearly random chance. It seems from that you dont understand science. What I hate about these forums is the name calling and belittling. You should not have claimed "do not understand"

3/ I am still waiting...
You claimed as A possibility "abiogenesis as a result of random biochemistry progression from inorganics" (or whatever form of words you choose).

For you to claim it is only A possibiilty you must be aware of more.
Name them. is my challenge ( other than creation or intelligent guided , you dislike of course...)Saying it came from outerspace, shifts the problem it does not solve it.

I contend (from critical thinking ) abiogenesis the product of unguided biochemistry is the ONLY possibility compatible with atheism. And the fact it is pushed so hard by atheists, in spite of lack of evidence is born of the absence of alternatives. Nothing wrong with that belief. So long as it is acknowledged as a belief - and none try to claim a rational high ground for it.

Since I do have forensic evidence of life occurring other than evolution of theistic overtones. On evidence and rationality wars I win. But that needs another thread.

Of course there is evidence that abiogenesis occurred. The fossil record provides that evidence. There is no doubt that there was some sort of abiogenesis event, that is separate from natural abiogenesis. At one point in our history there was no life. Later there was. That tells us something caused life to arise on this planet. For there to be no evidence the there could be no observable strata that shows a complete lack of life.

And yes of course I have defended the only rational process for life to arise here. And if you have seen me debate this before why did you ask for possible alternatives. There are two I can think of quickly. Life could have been planted by aliens. Or life could have been place here magically by a god.

And there are several hypotheses of abiogenesis covering different aspects of the event. I can link a source for you if you like.

 

[Mountainmike]

As far as I am aware etymology is also the study of how the use of words has changed, not just the origin?
Not that it is a central issue, other than agreeing a definition of belief.

Which I regard as..
" confidence in something (or someone) without proof" or "confidence without complete evidence."

I agree with most of your post.

Etymology is the root, not the current definition. The root is comparable to the German glaube that means believe in the sense that "I believe I'll have the soup instead of the salad" or "I believe team X will win the championship".

But that doesn't matter since my comment referred to the acceptance of a plausible or possible origin for life on earth. Panspermia and creation by God are just as plausible or possible an origin for life on earth and none of those origins effects evolution one iota.

The origin of life on earth, no matter what it is, will not change evolution in any way.