• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Aristotle on the Origin of Life

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
And as you also know, the bible says the world and life on earth exist by magic, but doesn't tell us how magic works. Aristotle, being free of magic, is way way ahead of that.
Oh yes it did: By LIGHT as in the modern term of electromagnetic qualities and forces, inclusive the bio-electric one which is embedded in all life.
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Hubble’s own contributions to the expanding universe model, was the discovery of redshift in 1929, in which both Robertson (1924-25) and Lemaître (1927) have both independently proposed how to observe EM spectrum for astronomical bodies (eg stars, galaxies, etc) moving away from each others, as indications of universe expanding.

The discovery of redshift was the first evidence for the Big Bang theory.
And they all forgot that light is dispersed and changing frequensies on its travel to the Earth, causing their "Cosmic Standard Light" to seem farther away than it really was, hence also the false redshift measuring method and the assumed "expanding universe" idea, which again lead to the Big Bang phantasies.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
It is more than just maths.

Evidence is all about observation and what you can observe, then you can also:
  1. Measure,
  2. Quantify,
  3. Test,
  4. Verify or Refute
Since observations and measurements have been provided, then these are evidence, not merely equations or formulas or metrics.

While maths do play a role in most science, but it is the accumulated evidence that will determine whether the theory is factual and scientific.

The Big Bang theory is the only modern physical cosmology that are consistent with the verifiable evidence.
You confuse evidence with the hindsigt bias which constitutes the Big Bang theory.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Oh yes it did: By LIGHT as in the modern term of electromagnetic qualities and forces, inclusive the bio-electric one which is embedded in all life.
I ask again: what exactly happened when God said "(Let there be) light!" that brought light into being? What was the process, from command to result? Talk me through it.

(Afterwards we might look at related questions like, How did the world exist before the EM spectrum came into being?)
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
Oh yes it did: By LIGHT as in the modern term of electromagnetic qualities and forces, inclusive the bio-electric one which is embedded in all life.
I ask again: what exactly happened when God said "(Let there be) light!" that brought light into being? What was the process, from command to result? Talk me through it.
I don´t think "God said" anything at all in the Bible. The biblical "god thing" was/is just the ancient way of interpreting and describing "creative forces" in general, in our case the EM forces.
(Afterwards we might look at related questions like, How did the world exist before the EM spectrum came into being?)
When studying Comparative Religions and Mythology and Stories of Creation, most interpreters and scholars seem to take these stories to deal with the creation of the entire Universe, but in fact they deals "only" with the creation of the ancient known local part of the observable Universe, our Milky Way and its contents.

But in several religions there are a principle conviction of an eternal Universe where everything undergoes eternal cyclical changes between formation, dissolution and re-formation. In this way there was NO beginning and NO end and subsequently also NO Big Bang. So even "the EM spectrum" didn´t "come to being" It always was and is there.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Aristotle actually laid the groundwork the scientific method. Do you not think that Aristotle was as sure of his science as we are or ours? Probably, and yet we now know he wasn't close to the actual nature of things.

But that aside, the point of the OP was to muse on where science will be 2,000 years from now. Might we be proven to have as incomplete knowledge of nature as Aristotle? Isn't an open mind fundamental to science? Seems like a lot of "scientist" here do not exercise such and open mind. To many, we have arrived and that is the end of story.

i doubt it. Evolution has an amount of evidence that is comparable with the evidence that the earth is a spheroid.

So, since I doubt that in the future science will show that the earth is flat, or looks like a donut, I think that things like evolution and common descent will remain, as well.

Ciao

- viole
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
No it can't.

Of course it does and this is the nature of reality. Until people accept the simple fact that reality is chaotic and defined by logic rather than natural or supernatural law there may be no chance to progress much further in physical theory. This is caused by the fact that the tool we call "science" may have achieved as much understanding is possible due to the limitations of the experimental process. Without experiment there is no science and no experiment has yet to be designed that can unify and comprehend the elemental forces. This may be because axioms are incorrect and therefore this impasse could be surmounted but it's more likely caused by the subtlety of nature itself. There are numerous ways to get over the hump if the problem is the tool itself but it will require a new tool to operate in conjunction with it.

In reality nothing can be predicted because all things affect all other things in the moment but much more importantly even the most subtle events reverberate and are amplified through time. A butterfly in China has a tiny effect on its environment or the weather in the here and now but every single one of its actions which are the result of free will has a more profound effect on the future. The breeze stirred by a lackadaisical wing flap affects the future more and more until in only several days it causes a drought in Iran or a hurricane in Florida. It continues to grow through time until two galaxies collide that otherwise would not have.

Of course we can't predict the future because it would require we compute the wing flaps of every butterfly on every planet all the way back to the "beginning" and then the future will necessarily depend on events that have yet to occur. How are we to predict next week if we can't predict what every specific butterfly intends to do tomorrow?

We use a science that takes reality apart to learn about it. But when you take apart consciousness, reality, or logic, nothing remains. When we take apart the smallest building blocks (logic) we can't even compute both their speed and position. When we take apart nature to understand it we can create technology but this does not translate into understanding. We've merely peeled back another layer of the increasing complexity which is the logic of reality. This is why we are stuck and why cosmology is generating impossibilities. We may have already reduced reality as far as it can be reduced using experiment. This is a profound problem for the human race for myriad reasons. We must move forward but this may be an impossibility.

I believe the future lies in the past. The means to get through this is to form a new understanding and utilizing the number crunching capability of computers. We need to model butterflies and their consciousness. We must put reality back together again and when we do things will look different.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
i doubt it. Evolution has an amount of evidence that is comparable with the evidence that the earth is a spheroid.

So, since I doubt that in the future science will show that the earth is flat, or looks like a donut, I think that things like evolution and common descent will remain, as well.

No!

The earth is a sphere by definition. We can change definitions and make it any shape we want. We could call it "flat" but it would complicate the math. There is nothing supernatural about definitions. They are what they are whether they are understood or not.

"Evolution" is not by definition. Nobody died and made "survival of the fittest" the cause of change in species. We can't just look at old fossils and pronounce them the result of some process that has never been shown experimentally.

"Evolution" has changed a great deal in a century and a half and it's going to change a great deal more if history is any guide. The "fittest" hypotheses don't always survive and theory is often the result of the least likely hypotheses. Just like real life and death which are both always SUDDEN.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I can imagine two people on a mental meshed network in the year 4020 talking about what we knew in the year 2020. One of them might say, "In Bill Nye's days, they didn’t really understand much about biology, unlike what we understand today."


I think biologists are intelligent people, certainly not half-wits. It's not their fault they have incomplete knowledge of things. Clearly the ones who investigate life in the year 4020 will have a much larger pool of data from which they draw their conclusions.


I think it may be others harping about abiogenesis. I don't recall bringing it up other than possible replying to those who did.


I said they don't know anything? Not really. All I'm saying is the scientists 2,000 from now may know more.

This is all, a load of craps.

Science is about we have learned, what we have discovered, and what we can make use of TODAY.

There is no really no point in wildly speculating what science may or may not know in some 2000 years in the future?

Are you really so bloody absurd, that you are going to bring up scientific knowledge that we don’t have being better than today?

What possible use to drag up some imaginary science that won’t exist until 4020?

The only things we can learn is what are in the present, and what science there are in the past.

If there are something in the past that are outdated or incorrect, then have the current fields learned from these errors and presented something that’s better than previous and backed by verifiable evidence?

I am well aware that Abiogenesis isn’t science (because it is still a hypothesis), and there are still some questions unanswered, but science is about seeking answers to those questions, and that can only be done if they seek evidence.

Just about every fields in science, even those already accepted as scientific theories, aren’t complete, and there are more that we can learn, more that we explore or investigate, more that we could discover.

Science allow scientific theories to be incomplete, rrobs. There are still more that we learn about the Earth, this star (our sun), this Solar System, this galaxy, other stars from other galaxies.

Science isn’t scientific endeavors that end learning more.

It is creationists like yourself, that hinder enquiring knowledge, hinder progress, because of your personal religious beliefs and your religious agenda.

Sure we may know more 2000 years from now, but why are you continuously try to block what we can possibly know and learn with Abiogenesis?

You talk of scientists may knowing more 2000 years in the future, and yet, you want scientists to stop investigating the origin of life through Abiogenesis models.

That’s just you being bloody biased, [snip].
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cladking

Well-Known Member
Just about every fields in science, even those already accepted as scientific theories, aren’t complete, and there are more that we can learn, more that we explore or investigate, more that we could discover.

You are simply assuming that science is right and going to be even more right in the future.

This is highly illogical. Even if it were true the fact is the process of becoming "more right" can have very dramatic consequences on what we know and how we understand some things.

You are assuming extrapolation of scientific results are correct by definition. This is wrong; only experimental results are 'correct" by "definition" but extrapolation is at our own risk. Observation is not the same as experiment.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
And they all forgot that light is dispersed and changing frequensies on its travel to the Earth, causing their "Cosmic Standard Light" to seem farther away than it really was, hence also the false redshift measuring method and the assumed "expanding universe" idea, which again lead to the Big Bang phantasies.

[snip]

You you don’t understand the concept of photons and of the redshift, and yet you are going to argue against something that you are actually clueless about.

If you understood redshift, you would know that light tends to stretch, to increase its wavelength over time, shifting to the red side of the spectrum. And the more it lengthened, then it will go beyond the visible spectrum, such as the microwave wavelength..

Which is why radio telescopes are more often used, because these can detect photons in microwave spectrum.

It is why they launched spacecraft with specialized equipments that can detect cosmic microwave beyond our Solar System and even beyond our Milky Way, eg the older COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) mission (1990s), and the more recent WMAP (Wilkinson’s Microwave Anisotropy Probe) and Planck spacecraft missions.

Do you really think that astrophysicists and the people working at ESA, NASA and various other organisations involved in deep space surveys don’t understand concept the nature of light?

The redshift theory isn’t just measuring the shift towards redness, but also to measure the variations in light intensities, the absorption lines and the emission lines.

Why don’t you do some reading and researches, just to acquaint yourself with the subject and learn them before you reject the redshift and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation out of hand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gnostic

The Lost One
You are simply assuming that science is right and going to be even more right in the future.

Science allow for progress, and updating the current knowledge, which would include correcting past and present errors.

Do you really think science should stop learning because of past discovery, to halt all future progresses?

[snip]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cladking

Well-Known Member
Science allow for progress, and updating the current knowledge, which would include correcting past and present errors.

Do you really think science should stop learning because of past discovery, to halt all future progresses?

[snip]

Remind me again what conspiracy you think I believe in. It's just so absurd it's difficult to remember. Maybe you think everyone who doesn't agree with you is part of a conspiracy? Do you worry much about such things? Maybe you can adjust your tinfoil hat to compensate.

I never said science should stop. I've been saying that science is bogging down because it is approaching the limitations of the ability of experiment to reveal deeper and deeper reality. Without experiment there is no science.

This is manifesting in many ways but one of them is the advent of "Look and See Science" where experts study what is and make pronouncements based on appearances. One week it appears coffee is harmful and the next week it appears coffee is beneficial. One week the universe is a hologram and the next week there are an infinite number of ramps to build an infinite number of pyramids.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gnostic

The Lost One
Observation is not the same as experiment.

Experiments are observation, [snip].

Experiments are just testing and gathering evidence in controlled environments, like in labs. Here you can control the variables.

But we live in the real world, not in the lab. There are more to nature than in the lab. And since Natural Sciences are about the studies of nature, you cannot confine the observation in the lab experiments alone.

Other evidence needs to be acquired outside of the labs, hence fieldwork.

Experiments is all about observations. Your lab test results are all about observations, such as what you can observe or detect, what you measure, quantify, compare, test, verify/refute.

Experimental results are observations, [snip].

[snip]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gnostic

The Lost One
Remind me again what conspiracy you think I believe in. It's just so absurd it's difficult to remember. Maybe you think everyone who doesn't agree with you is part of a conspiracy? Do you worry much about such things? Maybe you can adjust your tinfoil hat to compensate.

I never said science should stop. I've been saying that science is bogging down because it is approaching the limitations of the ability of experiment to reveal deeper and deeper reality. Without experiment there is no science.

This is manifesting in many ways but one of them is the advent of "Look and See Science" where experts study what is and make pronouncements based on appearances. One week it appears coffee is harmful and the next week it appears coffee is beneficial. One week the universe is a hologram and the next week there are an infinite number of ramps to build an infinite number of pyramids.

Why do you keep bringing up pyramids, bloody ramps and Egyptology?

The Egyptologists rejected your personal theory. [snip].

[snip]

This thread isn’t about pyramids, ramps, funicular geysers or those evil Egyptologists.

Why don’t you stay on topic, instead of hijacking another thread talking about Egypt, which isn’t relevant here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shad

Veteran Member
According to Aristotle, "Life in the first instance, is formed by the inherent energy of the primary elements such as: Earth, Water, Air and Fire which molds and organizes inert matter into living things."Some examples of this idea are fireflies developed from the morning dew, bedbugs and lice developed from the slime of wells and mice along with some higher animals came from moist soil. Aristotle also felt that humans first appeared on Earth in the form of a worm." Age of Life on Earth - The Physics Factbook

I wonder if another two thousand years of research will lead to a conclusion that makes our current theory of evolution just as ridiculous. Can't say for sure, but if history is any guide, I'd say the chances are most excellent that such will be the case.

Probably not as the flaw in the idea is centered on elements. "Earth, Water, Air and Fire" We have moved on to a real system of the atomic table and molecules. For such a failure to be comparable the atomic system would have to fail completely. That is unlikely as the atomic system works in fields outside evolution daily. More so the topic of Aristotle is abiogenesis not evolution. This is a standard creationist mistake which you have repeated.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
This thread isn’t about pyramids, ramps, funicular geysers or those evil Egyptologists.

It's about the origin of life and Aristotle.

It's about modern beliefs concerning "evolution" which is mostly outside of experiment and about beginnings. It is about consciousness but you can't see that because you equate consciousness with reality itself since you are a member of Homo Omnisciencis.

Oh! And what is that conspiracy again. I'll write it down this time and pull it out anytime I need a good laugh.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Of course it does and this is the nature of reality. Until people accept the simple fact that reality is chaotic and defined by logic rather than natural or supernatural law there may be no chance to progress much further in physical theory. This is caused by the fact that the tool we call "science" may have achieved as much understanding is possible due to the limitations of the experimental process. Without experiment there is no science and no experiment has yet to be designed that can unify and comprehend the elemental forces. This may be because axioms are incorrect and therefore this impasse could be surmounted but it's more likely caused by the subtlety of nature itself. There are numerous ways to get over the hump if the problem is the tool itself but it will require a new tool to operate in conjunction with it.

In reality nothing can be predicted because all things affect all other things in the moment but much more importantly even the most subtle events reverberate and are amplified through time. A butterfly in China has a tiny effect on its environment or the weather in the here and now but every single one of its actions which are the result of free will has a more profound effect on the future. The breeze stirred by a lackadaisical wing flap affects the future more and more until in only several days it causes a drought in Iran or a hurricane in Florida. It continues to grow through time until two galaxies collide that otherwise would not have.

Of course we can't predict the future because it would require we compute the wing flaps of every butterfly on every planet all the way back to the "beginning" and then the future will necessarily depend on events that have yet to occur. How are we to predict next week if we can't predict what every specific butterfly intends to do tomorrow?

We use a science that takes reality apart to learn about it. But when you take apart consciousness, reality, or logic, nothing remains. When we take apart the smallest building blocks (logic) we can't even compute both their speed and position. When we take apart nature to understand it we can create technology but this does not translate into understanding. We've merely peeled back another layer of the increasing complexity which is the logic of reality. This is why we are stuck and why cosmology is generating impossibilities. We may have already reduced reality as far as it can be reduced using experiment. This is a profound problem for the human race for myriad reasons. We must move forward but this may be an impossibility.

I believe the future lies in the past. The means to get through this is to form a new understanding and utilizing the number crunching capability of computers. We need to model butterflies and their consciousness. We must put reality back together again and when we do things will look different.
You have no clue as to why chaos theory is known as the butterfly effect. It's not because of the flapping wings of a butterfly can cause a hurricane.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
It's about the origin of life and Aristotle.

It's about modern beliefs concerning "evolution" which is mostly outside of experiment and about beginnings. It is about consciousness but you can't see that because you equate consciousness with reality itself since you are a member of Homo Omnisciencis.

Oh! And what is that conspiracy again. I'll write it down this time and pull it out anytime I need a good laugh.

I don’t even believe in omniscience, cladking, so I don’t think I am this imagainary Homo Omnisciencsis of your own making.

Humans aren’t omniscient. Sciences aren’t omniscient. And none of religions around the world, including any scriptures or deities are omniscient.

This Homo Omnisciencis don’t exist, except in your conspiracy la-la world.

And you are still think like creationists, confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis.

You have been here long enough that you understand the differences between Abiogenesis and Evolution.

Evolution is about biodiversity, not about origin of first life on earth.

Biodiversity is about passing changes to descendants, where changed traits are through genetically DNA and/or RNA, so it require ancestors and descendants.

Abiogenesis is hypothetical model that formed from inorganic matters to organic matters, which will eventually to the earliest of life.

Here, with Abiogenesis, this study is before nucleic acids (eg DNA, RNA), before “genetics”, before “reproduction”.

Do you understand why is so important that scientists started their search with how inorganic matters form into amino acids?

If we were to look at human body molecular composition, about 60% or some more is made out of water, while 20% or so is made out of proteins. About 12% are fat (lipids), 1% for RNA, and only 0.1% for DNA.

These percentages are only for human bodies, so the percentages for other types of animals, as well as for plants, fungi, bacteria and archaea.

Water is inorganic molecules, but proteins are organic matters, and a protein is made out of chain of one or more amino acids...meaning amino acids are the building blocks of protein.

Different types of proteins can be found in our hair, skin, muscles, organs, and even in genes and cells.

There are over 500 different amino acids, but only from 20 to 23 different types of amino acids are found naturally in different types of proteins, hence these amino acids are referred to as being proteinogenic.

Since proteins are so essential for life, scientists have started their experiments with amino acids. The Miller-Urey experiment is just the first experiment, trying to replicate the conditions of early Earth environment. Since this first experiment, other scientists have added other inorganic chemical molecules/compounds that have Miller and Urey has left out, especially gases that were released by volcanic activities.

The fact that these experiments can be performed at all, indicate the hypothetical model is “FALSIFIABLE”.

That amino acids were found in 1969’s Murchison meteorite, indicate another possible model for Abiogenesis to be of extraterrestrial origins. The fact that amino acids were found at all, also make this alternative model to be “FALSIFIABLE”.

The fact that any experiments can be performed for Abiogenesis, indicate that while it doesn’t answer all the questions, the Abiogenesis’ explanations are on the right track.

Neither Intelligent Design, nor Michael Behe’s Irreducible Complexity have gone as far as Abiogenesis. Their failures of being “FALSIFIABLE” make these two concepts pseudoscience; the failure of being falsifiable, also disqualified ID & IC from being hypotheses.
 
Last edited:
Top