Jump to content
IGNORED

A Retraction Regarding Abiogenesis


one.opinion

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  6
  • Content Per Day:  0.00
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/25/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/21/1953

On 1/4/2018 at 2:34 PM, one.opinion said:

At what point will the atheistic version of life origins have to change to account for the lack of progress in this regard?

 

 

I'm not here to argue against belief in God but I don't think it makes sense to expect people who believe in a natural account for the origins of life to change that view based on a scarcity of evidence.  If it is laboratory evidence people want, I don't think they're going to be any more satisfied with attempts made thus far to establish the manner in which God created life.  It is fair to say the scientific evidence for either view is incomplete at best.  In the mean time both sides have their reasons for the belief they hold in this regard.  I don't think it is any more unreasonable to hold a basic belief in the completeness of the natural world than it is to hold a basic belief that in addition to the natural world we all believe exists, there also exists a supernatural world.  We may be on the same footing here, we are both relying on what we feel most strongly to be true where verification is for now out of reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.41
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

33 minutes ago, whateverist said:

I don't think it makes sense to expect people who believe in a natural account for the origins of life to change that view based on a scarcity of evidence.  If it is laboratory evidence people want, I don't think they're going to be any more satisfied with attempts made thus far to establish the manner in which God created life.  

This is true.  In part.   But it won't save anyone, will it ?  No.

By faith has always been the truth, revealed by faith, to those , to everyone, who seeks God.  Not to others.  No matter what you think, or they think, it doesn't matter, does it, if it cannot save anyone from their sins ?

Faith in God,  Faith in His Word,  hand in hand,  LIFE instead of death. 

In Jesus.  No other way.  Ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  6
  • Content Per Day:  0.00
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/25/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/21/1953

On 2/26/2018 at 8:01 AM, simplejeff said:

This is true.  In part.   But it won't save anyone, will it ?  No.

By faith has always been the truth, revealed by faith, to those , to everyone, who seeks God.  Not to others.  No matter what you think, or they think, it doesn't matter, does it, if it cannot save anyone from their sins ?

Faith in God,  Faith in His Word,  hand in hand,  LIFE instead of death. 

In Jesus.  No other way.  Ever. 

 

That seems fair.  I think of myself as a person of faith in whatever truth I may find, hence my username.  Not everything I believe true is based on evidence.  Most of what I believe about what matters regarding people is based on discovery made in reflection, which I know I cannot defend in a manner capable of  convincing every fair and impartial listener.  In that I have sympathy for the position of people with religious faith.  I assume you must feel as loyal to the truth you hold as I feel to the indefensible truth I have found.  In humility, I do not place my truth above yours but I remain faithful to my own.  After all, if I don't who will?

Edited by whateverist
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,502
  • Content Per Day:  0.67
  • Reputation:   662
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/4/2018 at 5:34 PM, one.opinion said:

On November 23, 2017, Jack Szostak asked for a retraction of an article his lab had published in 2016. This is not very remarkable until additional details of the background story are revealed. First, Jack Szostak shared the 2009 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work on telomeres (chromosome ends) and telomerase (the enzyme complex that builds them). Second, Szostak's retraction was for a paper in the field he has been working on for the last decade, pre-biotic chemistry - researching chemical complexes and reactions that would eventually (hypothetically) develop into processes inside functional cells. Third, this was Szostak's second retraction in this field of research. He previously retracted an article published in 2009, also related to pre-biotic chemistry. Fourth, Szostak initiated the retraction process himself, after learning that colleagues were unable to replicate his experiments. This is a bit unusual, as retractions are generally called for by someone other than the primary article author.

This raises the following two main questions for me:

1. Researchers have been working on pre-biotic chemistry since before Urey and Miller (1952), since they were working on hypotheses first presented by Oparin and Haldane. In the roughly 70 years since, very little discovery has been made in this regard. Generally, I tend to shy away from "God of the gaps" arguments, but at some point, there just may be a real gap! At what point will the atheistic version of life origins have to change to account for the lack of progress in this regard?

 

2. Although it is true that Szostak sought the retractions himself, his own colleagues brought problems to his attention and the retractions were actually made. I have read numerous posts here suggesting that scientists are more interested in maintaining their own pet hypotheses than pursuing truth - to the point of elaborate cover-ups of truth. Does this retraction by a well-known scientist bring that suggestion into question?

Scientists are people. Some people are in sin. Some are in denial re: the Bible and Christ. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy promoting mechanistic evolution--it's a beautiful tool if one wants to live as a scientist without a God who loves man and intervenes in human affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 04/01/2018 at 10:34 PM, one.opinion said:

At what point will the atheistic version of life origins have to change to account for the lack of progress in this regard?

Hi one. Been a while... hope you're well and having a good 2018 

You and I agree on Darwinian evolution if I recall. How long did it take for humanity to come to understand evolution as explanation for diversity of life? 

We've certainly evidence of building blocks but a definitive actual answer as to how chemistry became life I'm not so sure. Some here say it's impossible... that would require knowledge and testing of all possible variables and conditions of the early solar system and maybe beyond. Clearly that's not been done. Not been done and therefore God is an argument from ignorance fallacy. The God and then a particular God needs to be demonstrated. Same as those who think aliens did it or we live in a matrix or anything else.

The question itself is an immensely tough one to answer. Maybe we'll come up with a model or models of how it could happen.. maybe we'll be able to show it did happen a certain way. Say it takes 10 years or 100 years... does that not make it valid? Essentially don't know on any subject in our history remains don't know. 

Edited by Kevinb
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 04/01/2018 at 10:34 PM, one.opinion said:

I have read numerous posts here suggesting that scientists are more interested in maintaining their own pet hypotheses than pursuing truth - to the point of elaborate cover-ups of truth. Does this retraction by a well-known scientist bring that suggestion into question?

I've no doubt some scientists are this way... thankfully we've a plethora of scientists in all fields to peer review and hold them to account.. that's how it works right. Something doesn't become true because one scientist says it is... that needs to then be validated and falisified by his or her peers. This case from a singular authority without corroberative evidence and peer review isn't reliable... that's why we need peer review. The argument from authority stuff seems to be that of religions. It doesn't make sense to me when those who readily question authority when it occurs in the scientific but don't apply the same scepticism and reason when they look at religious books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Hi one. Been a while... hope you're well and having a good 2018 

Hey Kevin, you too!

 

3 hours ago, Kevinb said:

How long did it take for humanity to come to understand evolution as explanation for diversity of life? 

Agreed, this was quite a long time in the making. However, tremendous progress has been made in the area of understanding evolution, but there has been virtually no headway in the field of abiogenesis research. I think the biggest hurdle is that small-scale evolutionary changes are easily observed, whereas abiogenesis cannot be studied in the same way. 

3 hours ago, Kevinb said:

that would require knowledge and testing of all possible variables and conditions of the early solar system and maybe beyond. Clearly that's not been done. Not been done and therefore God is an argument from ignorance fallacy. The God and then a particular God needs to be demonstrated. Same as those who think aliens did it or we live in a matrix or anything else.

From a philosophical argument standpoint, this is certainly true. For the first part, our observations have been limited by our abilities. The second part requires a series of different arguments. I think I've mentioned it before, but I believe the best place to start looking for evidence of a "particular God" starts with the claims surrounding Jesus Christ. It is only a fringe minority of historians that argue against Jesus as a historical figure. Then, if you include the attempted cover-up by the religious and political powers after His resurrection, the eyewitnesses that saw Jesus after His death, the willingness of His followers to endure extreme persecution for no apparent benefit - all these collectively argue that what Jesus said about Himself could very well be true, or at least merit investigation.

3 hours ago, Kevinb said:

The question itself is an immensely tough one to answer. Maybe we'll come up with a model or models of how it could happen.. maybe we'll be able to show it did happen a certain way. Say it takes 10 years or 100 years... does that not make it valid?

Agreed, it's entirely possible that discoveries could be made in the future, but the duration of the gap, even with the modern analytical tools, makes the existing gap much more intriguing.

3 hours ago, Kevinb said:

I've no doubt some scientists are this way... thankfully we've a plethora of scientists in all fields to peer review and hold them to account..

Agreed here, too. There is a lot of skepticism about the peer review process among people outside of scientific fields. It is true that peer review does mean that true innovations in science (like Prusiner's work with prions) get slowed, but if evidence continues to support minority views, peer review is incredibly valuable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 26/02/2018 at 4:01 PM, simplejeff said:

This is true.  In part.   But it won't save anyone, will it ?  No.

By faith has always been the truth, revealed by faith, to those , to everyone, who seeks God.  Not to others.  No matter what you think, or they think, it doesn't matter, does it, if it cannot save anyone from their sins ?

Faith in God,  Faith in His Word,  hand in hand,  LIFE instead of death. 

In Jesus.  No other way.  Ever. 

What religion and God or gods couldn't we believe on faith? Faith is the justification all theists give to accept their view. How is faith a reliable path to truth when it gets people to any of 1000 gods and religions. This is what happens when humanity doesn't have any good evidence of god or gods.

All theists in the course of our history have believed their religious view to be correct... as an non believer it seems A God has done an awful job of announcing himself to the planet...it appears religious beliefs seem to be of local cultural notions based upon our lack of understanding of the world back then. God notions have evolved over time... now we're outside of the universe but that didn't use to be the case. Cultures have borrowed ideas off each other..tweaked and made it more personal to them. Resurrection and saviour gods... floods.. this isn't unique to christiantity and predates it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 08/01/2018 at 9:11 PM, missmuffet said:

The overwhelming evidence that life cannot come from non-life is a powerful indication that naturalism is not a realistic worldview. Life either had a natural origin (abiogenesis) or a supernatural origin (intelligent design). The scientific impossibility of abiogenesis is an argument for, at least, a supernatural originator. The only way to create even the most basic building blocks of life is in non-natural, highly designed, and tightly controlled conditions. That, by itself, makes it reasonable to presume that life cannot begin without intelligent intervention.

There is no evidence life can't come from non life. Where are the peer reviewed tests of ALL variables and conditions of the early solar system that proves it's impossible?  This is so far from having been done.  This is the burden of proof you have when say this. Else it's an appeal to our ignorance. It's also a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance to say when we don't know how thus far ergo God. Some of the building blocks and even some complicated chemistry has been discovered naturally... even in asteroids that have fallen to earth. We know prior to this stars make atoms as well. Let's not forget in 400 years of science so far we've only discovered natural laws without the requirement for any supernatural tinkering. So God involvement is now shifted back here? God of the gaps?  Look at everything that was attributed to gods pre science... it just appeals to our ignorance unless you can prove God did it and one God over a 1000 others did it? Besides in the absence of evidence and causality of any problem or question the answer rationally is don't know.... not don't know therefore this... this or any other this must be demonstrated to avoid fallacious arguements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 07/03/2018 at 1:55 PM, one.opinion said:

I think I've mentioned it before, but I believe the best place to start looking for evidence of a "particular God" starts with the claims surrounding Jesus Christ. It is only a fringe minority of historians that argue against Jesus as a historical figure.

Maybe start a thread for the evidence for Jesus if it starts there? Regarding fringe... most who write on this are Christians who start with the presupposition of accepting prior to writing. I know of little outside the bible to give evidence for the bible.

Edited by Kevinb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...