Life from Life
On July 3rd, 1998, I introduced
myself to the newsgroup talk.origins with the following provocative
argument: "Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical
to assume that living organisms have their origin in lifeless
matter. That’s the superstition of our time."
My position was apparently
so bewildering that several netizens at talk.origins believed
I was trolling. In those days, I didn't know what a cybertroll
was, so I thought they were referring to the very mythology they
were fighting so vehemently against with natural science and
rational logic as weapons. After a while, they became curious
about the sources of my notions, so I tried to introduce Rudolf
Steiner and anthroposophical literature.
"Talk.origins is a
Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological
and physical origins," their website tells us. "Most
discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution
controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin
of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology."
This means that talk.origins
is primarily a battle zone between materialistic Darwinists on
the one hand, and fundamentalist creationists on the other. Assuming
a middle position is bound to create confusion in these circles,
although later on, I joined the Darwinist sport of fundy-bashing
with threads like "Noah's Insects." This is why my
initial post was to a large extent addressed to Biblical creationists,
although only the Darwinists answered my challenge.
Anyway, the initial thread,
entitled "life from life," ended up counting no less
than 164 posts. It was all about little me defending the notion
of an alive, theistic origin of existence against an army of
sharp science freaks who fought for an inorganic origin of life
tooth and nail. I don't feel that I lost this war, but I didn't
influence any opponents' opinions, so it looks like a standoff,
or a draw. Or what does the reader think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve come
to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
Now for the real fun: Creationists and fundies,
I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us to galaxies
that are hundreds of millions of light years away. This means
that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds of millions
of years before it reached earth, so when we look into the telescope,
we are actually gazing hundreds of millions of years into the
past.
If the universe is as young as creationists
not only wish that it was, but insist that it is, the stars and
the galaxies in question would not have been visible from earth
because the light would still be in transit. It would be interesting
to get a creationist’s explanation for the fact that we
in fact can look hundreds of million years into the past like
that.
The way I understand it, the creationists
believe that the entire material universe came into being six
thousand years ago or a little more, and that absolutely everythinjg
that exists was manifested out of nothing during the course of
six or seven days and nights. One problem with that is that a
day and a night, i.e. a 24-hour period, is made possible by the
mutual movements of the earth, the moon, and the sun. This condition
does not exist before the third "day" in the first
chapter of Genesis. This means that the first two "days"
"nights" cannot have been 24-hour periods, but must
refer to something else. The Hebrew word "yom", which
is translated as "day", would perhaps be more accurately
translated as "time spirit" - at least for us spiritual
evolutionists.
I understand that "evolution" is
sometimes called "evilution" by creationists because
evolution or evilution was invented by Satan in order to make
man immoral. Thinking evilution or evolution immoralizes man
and increases his sinfulness, right?
The way I see it, the world would have been
standing still without evolution, without metamorphosis. Plants
wouldn’t grow, and a caterpillar would never become a butterfly.
Man would still have been sitting in that banana tree, looking
like a monkey and eating the forbidden fruit (the cursed banana
that made monkeys out of Adam and Eve. Eve couldn’t resist
it because it looked even more phallic than the serpent, and
that’s how sexual sin came into the world.)
So according to the creationists, everything
came into existence in one week six thousand years ago - like
Bishop Usher once figured out - and since then, everything has
been standing still, except that people have been born and died,
and Jesus has come and gone and is coming back soon to put an
end to everything that has just been standing there. Right?
Creationists must have something to say -
So Fundies, fundies - come out and play!
Tarjei Straume
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Scharle
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Sorry, I have to rate your attempt at trolling
as "Zero Billygoats".
Try a less discriminating group.
--
Tom Scharle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wade Hines
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can
give birth to cats? That looks extraordinarily impossible to
me, odds of worse than one in 10^100 or so.
So perhaps you have a more discrete beginning
you'ld like to put forward prior to discussing the logic of abiogenesis.
Life comes from life looks like exceedingly sloppy religion.
Now for the real fun: Creationists and
fundies, I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us
to galaxies that are hundreds of millions of light years away.
This means that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds
of millions of years before it reached earth, so when we look
into the telescope, we are actually gazing hundreds of millions
of years into the past.
You will have fun here. In particular because
your language is so very imprecise that you will gather friends
and foes like flies to __it. The problem you will face, is that
you will gather the wrong sorts of friends. They will be zealots
who choose to hear what they want from your happy talk.
Let me ask you a philosophical question. Does
the past exist?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Louann Miller
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
(ringing both creationist and evolutionary
doorbells and running away.)
I'm sorry. One of the first requirements of
the MST3K style of humor is that the person doing the mocking
must be either smarter or funnier than the original material.
Ideally, both.
Have a nice life.
--
Our ISP is cyberramp.net -- you know the routine...
For media based fan fiction check out
http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Louann Miller wrote:
(ringing both creationist and evolutionary
doorbells and running away.)
Wrong. Ringing both doorbells and waiting
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Honus
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Louann Miller wrote:
(ringing both creationist and evolutionary
doorbells and running away.)
Wrong. Ringing both doorbells and waiting
While you're doing that, why don't you try
holding your breath?
--
Remove NOSPAM from my address to reply by e-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curt Tabor
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Now for the real fun: Creationists and
fundies, I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us
to galaxies that are hundreds of millions of light years away.
This means that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds
of millions of years before it reached earth
Why? If God can POOF! life into existence,
why can't he also POOF! light waves into existence? If life needs
no source but God, why does light?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Curt Tabor wrote:
Now for the real fun: Creationists and
fundies, I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us
to galaxies that are hundreds of millions of light years away.
This means that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds
of millions of years before it reached earth
Why? If God can POOF! life into existence,
why can't he also POOF! light waves into existence? If life needs
no source but God, why does light?
You’ll have to ask a creationist about
that.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from living
beings.
So perhaps you have a more discrete beginning
you'ld like to put forward prior to discussing the logic of abiogenesis.
Life comes from life looks like exceedingly sloppy religion.
It is a simple piece of logic that backs up
all religions, plus occultism, theosophy, anthroposohy (spiritual
science).
Now for the real fun: Creationists and
fundies, I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us
to galaxies that are hundreds of millions of light years away.
This means that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds
of millions of years before it reached earth, so when we look
into the telescope, we are actually gazing hundreds of millions
of years into the past.
You will have fun here. In particular because
your language is so veryimprecise that you will gather friends
and foes like flies to __it. The problem you will face, is that
you will gather the wrong sorts of friends. They will be zealots
who choose to hear what they want from your happy talk.
So be it.
Let me ask you a philosophical question.
Does the past exist?
I would say yes, but perhaps that’s subjective?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your proof?
your evidence?
So perhaps you have a more discrete beginning
you'ld like to put forward prior to discussing the logic of abiogenesis.
Life comes from life looks like exceedingly sloppy religion.
It is a simple piece of logic that backs
up all religions, plus occultism, theosophy, anthroposohy (spiritual
science).
except that the logic fails because you said
its IMPOSSIBLE for life to have formed from non life.
that means you must know HOW it DID form.
ok, tell us!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
An infant comes from its parents. A plant
comes from its seed. All of living nature is the proof. Organic
organisms take nutrition from living, organic matter to build
up their forms.
So perhaps you have a more discrete beginning
you'ld like to put forward prior to discussing the logic of abiogenesis.
Life comes from life looks like exceedingly sloppy religion.
It is a simple piece of logic that backs
up all religions, plus occultism, theosophy, anthroposohy (spiritual
science).
except that the logic fails because you
said its IMPOSSIBLE for life to have formed from non life.
I prefer to put it this way: Non-life also
has its origin in life, whence everything originates.
that means you must know HOW it DID form.
If that be the premise, it should be equally
valid for all cosmologies, including yours.
ok, tell us!!
That’s quite a task, but I’ll start
browsing my bookshelves.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
An infant comes from its parents. A plant
comes from its seed. All of living nature is the proof.
Sorry, you seem to be using a radically different
meaning of the word _proof_ than science does. In fact, proof
doesn;t exist in science (only in axiomatic systems can one prove
anything). In science, a future observation may always refute
a notion. No matter how much evidence we gather to support an
idea, one counterexample can eliminate it entirely. Look to Newtonian
gravity for an example. That in present conditions we have not
observed a living organism arise from non-living matter (if you
can somehow reliably define the boundary between the two. I can't;
can you? (NB: This is a serious non-rhetorical question that
I want an answer to)) does not prove that life cannot arise from
non-life, especially when we have evidence that conditions in
the past were very different.
Organic organisms take nutrition from living,
organic matter to build up their forms.
Plants use energy from the sun, carbon dioxide
from whatever (not necessarily human beings, any carbon dioxide
will do), and minerals and other inorganic nutrients from soil.
Forms of bacteria take sustenance and nutrition from inorganic
(in both the "non-living" and "non-carbon"
sense of the term) materials near undersea vents. Life forms
do it all the time. Why can't a self-replicating chemical system
arive from non-living matter? I can't think of a good reason.
Can you? (NB: Again, a non-rhetorical question.)
So perhaps you have a more discrete beginning
you'ld like to put forward prior to discussing the logic of abiogenesis.
Life comes from life looks like exceedingly sloppy religion.
It is a simple piece of logic that backs
up all religions, plus occultism, theosophy, anthroposohy (spiritual
science).
except that the logic fails because you
said its IMPOSSIBLE for life to have formed from non life.
I prefer to put it this way: Non-life also
has its origin in life, whence everything originates.
Everything? Are you quite sure that you realize
the scope of that claim? Can we have some evidence?
that means you must know HOW it DID form.
If that be the premise, it should be equally
valid for all cosmologies, including yours.
No. We have some ideas, but it is still a
work in progress. However, we have no faith in that life did
arise from non-life. We only have evidence which points towards
it. We do not claim that it absolutely had to happen that way
or that other ways are categorically false. You claim that it
absolutely could not happen that way. You must show some evidence.
ok, tell us!!
That’s quite a task, but I’ll
start browsing my bookshelves.
It would be nice to get some references from
you.
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 13:55:12 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
An infant comes from its parents. A plant
comes from its seed. All of living nature is the proof. Organic
organisms take nutrition from living, organic matter to build
up their forms.
you are attempting to generalize from current
conditions to the beginning of life on earth. there were few
infants on earth 4.5 billion yrs ago. but you say you know HOW
life started. all i asked was for you to state your evidence,
not to tell us what is the current temperature outside your window.
except that the logic fails because you
said its IMPOSSIBLE for life to have formed from non life.
I prefer to put it this way: Non-life also
has its origin in life, whence everything originates.
again, i say prove it. we know that there
are planets with no life. we find evidence that the earth itself
was once lifeless. if this is the case then what happened to
the life that caused the earth to become lifeless?
you are building supposition on top of supposition
with NO evidence whatsoever.
that means you must know HOW it DID form.
If that be the premise, it should be equally
valid for all cosmologies, including yours.
ok, tell us!!
That’s quite a task, but I’ll
start browsing my bookshelves.
fine. until you pose evidence your statement
that all life comes from life is meaningless.
and you just admitted it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wade Hines
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
Wade Hines wrote:
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic. For instance,
are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
Here it comes.
Let's look at Tarjei's "logic".
Life comes from life is a statement like peach
trees come from peach pits.
In as much as they say, they are correct observations.
This does not say that new peach trees *only*
arise from peach tree pits.
The logic presented is so superficially flawed
that people go right past it to the baggage which is usually
associated with it.
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish
logic for why life *only* arises from life, though it seems to
be the point he wishes he could make.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Wade Hines wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs
can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
Here it comes.
Let's look at Tarjei's "logic".
Life comes from life is a statement like peach trees come from
peach pits.
In as much as they say, they are correct observations.
This does not say that new peach trees *only* arise from peach
tree pits.
The logic presented is so superficially flawed that people go
right past it to the baggage which is usually associated with
it.
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish logic for why life
*only* arises from life, though it seems to be the point he wishes
he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
Wade Hines wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs
can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
Here it comes.
Let's look at Tarjei's "logic".
Life comes from life is a statement like peach trees come from
peach pits.
In as much as they say, they are correct observations.
This does not say that new peach trees *only* arise from peach
tree pits.
The logic presented is so superficially flawed that people go
right past it to the baggage which is usually associated with
it.
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish logic for why life
*only* arises from life, though it seems to be the point he wishes
he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven.
Then why do you insist on making other ones?
We know it can't be disproven. You are saying nothing new in
this regard.
We also know that the idea that you are all
simply fevered dreams in my imagination also cannot be disproven.
It's simply an idea which has no evidence for it.
The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
That what you propose cannot be disproven?
Rational logic would say that we cannot disprove what you propose.
Or are you referring to another point which you are making?
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 14:57:11 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish
logic for why life *only* arises from life, though it seems to
be the point he wishes he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
Tarjei
that is not what you said. you said originally
that it was impossible. since the evidence indicates the earth
did not contain life at one point, and now does, your statement
was wrong
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 14:57:11 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish
logic for why life *only* arises from life, though it seems to
be the point he wishes he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
that is not what you said. you said originally
that it was impossible. since the evidence indicates the earth
did not contain life at one point, and now does, your statement
was wrong
If you quote me on that, I’ll respond
to it.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 14:57:11 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish
logic for why life *only* arises from life, though it seems to
be the point he wishes he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
that is not what you said. you said originally
that it was impossible. since the evidence indicates the earth
did not contain life at one point, and now does, your statement
was wrong
If you quote me on that, I’ll respond
to it.
No. Life did not come
from nothing. Life did not come from the lifeless. Life comes
from life.
Tarjei
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 17:15:48 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 14:57:11 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish
logic for why life *only* arises from life, though it seems to
be the point he wishes he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
that is not what you said. you said originally
that it was impossible. since the evidence indicates the earth
did not contain life at one point, and now does, your statement
was wrong
If you quote me on that, I’ll respond
to it.
Tarjei
alright. here you go:
From: Tarjei Straume
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: life from life
Date: 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new
here, I’ve come to play, and I’m looking forward to
some fun.
First off, I’ll declare
my disagreement with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic
evolution. Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical
to assume that living organisms have their origin in lifeless
matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
This "life comes from
life" things doesn't look like a good beginning for claims
of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings
proceed from living beings.
AND:
From: Tarjei Straume
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: life from life
Date: 3 Jul 1998 08:48:01 -0400
First off, I’ll declare
my disagreement with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic
evolution. Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical
to assume that living organisms have their origin in lifeless
matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
have fun!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 17:15:48 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 14:57:11 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish
logic for why life *only* arises from life, though it seems to
be the point he wishes he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
that is not what you said. you said originally
that it was impossible. since the evidence indicates the earth
did not contain life at one point, and now does, your statement
was wrong
If you quote me on that, I’ll respond
to it.
Tarjei
alright. here you go:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
First off, I’ll declare
my disagreement with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic
evolution. Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical
to assume that living organisms have their origin in lifeless
matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
I declare my opinion and my belief and how
it stands in oppposition to the
materialistic one. I find their assumption that life comes from
llifeless matter
illogical. Not one word about anything being "impossible
to prove".
This "life comes from
life" things doesn't look like a good beginning for claims
of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings
proceed from living beings.
Again, nothing about proofs or their impossibilities.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 18:54:40 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
that is not what you said. you said originally
that it was impossible. since the evidence indicates the earth
did not contain life at one point, and now does, your statement
was wrong
I declare my opinion and my belief and
how it stands in oppposition to the materialistic one. I find
their assumption that life comes from llifeless matter illogical.
Not one word about anything being "impossible to prove".
the materialistic one has zip to do with science.
many scientist have religious beliefs. so in addition to your
disproven idea that life always comes from life, you now need
to prove that materialism is a requisite for science.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: howard hershey
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve come to play, and I’m
looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution. Life comes
from life, and it is completely illogical to assume that living
organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s the
superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under current conditions,
life comes from life." Much of what science does is set
the conditions under which certain statements are true. What
alternative do you propose instead of life coming from something
lifeless at some point in the history of the universe? That life
always existed (even before the big bang)? The existing evidence
tends to refute that possibility. That rather than coming from
lifeless matter life came from nothing at all and is therefore
composed of nothing at all? The existing evidence tends to refute
that possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come
from lifeless material at some point in history. Whether one
thinks that that was an unplanned, accidental, purely materialistic
event or one directed in some manner by a Supreme Entity is beyond
the scope of science, which can only look at the material naturalistic
aspects of the process.
Why cannot creationists even think through
the logic of the words they use?
[snip remainder of troll]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution. Life comes
from life, and it is completely illogical to assume that living
organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s the
superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life did
not come from the lifeless. Life
comes from life.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
Whether one thinks that that was an unplanned,
accidental, purely materialistic event or one directed in some
manner by a Supreme Entity is beyond the scope of science, which
can only look at the material naturalistic aspects of the process.
If it is beyond the scope of science, you
cannot say that scientific evidence refutes the living origin
of life.
Why cannot creationists even think through
the logic of the words they use?
I’m waiting for them to find out.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: howard hershey
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
[snip]
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Exactly how do you propose life as we know
it to exist in the conditions of the Big Bang when life as we
know it cannot even exist in the much milder conditons of molten
lava on the earth or the surface of the sun? Why is there no
evidence of life earlier than 3.5 billion years before the present
on this planet? Like I said, the existing evidence (wrt the conditions
in which all known forms of life exist) tends to rule out this
possibility.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
As opposed to your alternative of life (as
we know it) existing under the conditions of the Big Bang? You
are aware that carbon (much less the organocabon molecules of
life) did not exist under those conditions? At least standard
abiogenesis does not require the invention of new forms of life
that are rather ethereal, but only the invention of life as we
know it.
Whether one thinks that that was an unplanned,
accidental, purely materialistic event or one directed in some
manner by a Supreme Entity is beyond the scope of science, which
can only look at the material naturalistic aspects of the process.
If it is beyond the scope of science, you
cannot say that scientific evidence refutes the living origin
of life.
What is beyond science is whether the materialistic process of
abiogenesis was or was not directed by a deity. What is not beyond
science is placing limits and conditions and sites under which
this materialistic process occurred. Life as we know it does
not exist under conditions which would prevail in the Big Bang.
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing, but has a material
basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life comes from
life" and assume that that prevails under all conditions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
[snip]
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Exactly how do you propose life as we know it to exist in the
conditions of the Big Bang when life as we know it cannot even
exist in the much milder conditons of molten lava on the earth
or the surface of the sun? Why is there no evidence of life earlier
than 3.5 billion years before the present on this planet?
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
Like I said, the existing evidence (wrt
the conditions in which all known forms of life exist) tends
to rule out this possibility.
Evidence proves or disproves. Tendencies are
something else, and in this case,
unspecified.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Granted. Other conditions are pure conjecture.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
As opposed to your alternative of life
(as we know it) existing under the conditions of the Big Bang?
You are aware that carbon (much less the organocabon molecules
of life) did not exist under those conditions? At least standard
abiogenesis does not require the invention of new forms of life
that are rather ethereal, but only the invention of life as we
know it.
Perhaps we still don’t know life, even
within the confines of our own present
earth condition.
Whether one thinks that that was an unplanned,
accidental, purely materialistic event or one directed in some
manner by a Supreme Entity is beyond the scope of science, which
can only look at the material naturalistic aspects of the process.
If it is beyond the scope of science, you
cannot say that scientific evidence refutes the living origin
of life.
What is beyond science is whether the materialistic
process of abiogenesis was or was not directed by a deity.
When phrased like this, the only alternative
to a material, lifeless, inorganic origin of organic cells would
be a "deity dictator" taken from the theology of organized
religion - in this case, a monotheistic religion. What I am implying
is that perhaps a more highly evolved species beyond the confines
of our physical senses may be the origin of "lower species"
including homo sapiens. And perhaps these again have their origin
elsewhere - still within the realm of living beings.
What is not beyond science is placing limits
and conditions and sites under which this materialistic process
occurred. Life as we know it does not exist under conditions
which would prevail in the Big Bang.
"Life conditions in the Big Bang"
is a thought experiment, nothing else.
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing,
but has a material basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life
comes from life" and assume that that prevails under all
conditions.
This is something that cannot be proven or
disproven by scientific means. It has to do with the attitude
with which one conducts one’s research, and which affects
one’s theories and hypotheses.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Scharle
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting
statements.
--
Tom Scharle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific
evidence can prove or disprove anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Scharle
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume writes:
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
You know, you probably are that unawares,
aren't you?
The lower grade of troll-wannabes often are.
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting
up a criterion of proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the
statement that you made. Can you prove that statement?
--
Tom Scharle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
You know, you probably are that unawares,
aren't you?
The lower grade of troll-wannabes often are.
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting up a criterion of
proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the statement that you
made. Can you prove that statement?
Evidence needs to be empirical. Even if we
can look back in time into distant galaxies by means of telescopes,
it is not possible to do the same with our own solar system.
I am not seeking to prove something, but to establish that my
spiritual-religious theory of evolution cannot be disproven.
There is a vital difference. If we end up by concluding that
NOTHING can be proven or known with certainty, I have made my
point.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roy.altholz
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote....
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
You know, you probably are that unawares,
aren't you?
The lower grade of troll-wannabes often are.
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting up a criterion of
proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the statement that you
made. Can you prove that statement?
Evidence needs to be empirical. Even if
we can look back in time into distant galaxies by means of telescopes,
it is not possible to do the same with our own solar system.
I am not seeking to prove something, but to establish that my
spiritual-religious theory of evolution cannot be disproven.
There is a vital difference. If we end up by concluding that
NOTHING can be proven or known with certainty, I have made my
point.
Tarjei
Some things can be know with more certanty
than others, and more credibly.
--
Boikat
"Facts are stupid things."
-- Ronald Reagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Scharle
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting
up a criterion of proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the
statement that you made. Can you prove that statement?
Evidence needs to be empirical. Even if
we can look back in time into distant galaxies by means of telescopes,
it is not possible to do the same with our own solar system.
I am not seeking to prove something, but to establish that my
spiritual-religious theory of evolution cannot be disproven.
There is a vital difference. If we end up by concluding that
NOTHING can be proven or known with certainty, I have made my
point.
"Evidence needs to be empirical."
Can you prove that? (Presumably, you have
some empirical proof of it?)
"...NOTHING can be proven or known with
certainty..."
Can you prove that?
Really low grade attempts.
Most creationists can do better than that.
--
Tom Scharle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
You know, you probably are that unawares,
aren't you?
The lower grade of troll-wannabes often are.
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting up a criterion of
proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the statement that you
made. Can you prove that statement?
Evidence needs to be empirical. Even if
we can look back in time into distant galaxies by means of telescopes,
it is not possible to do the same with our own solar system.
I am not seeking to prove something, but to establish that my
spiritual-religious theory of evolution cannot be disproven.
There is a vital difference. If we end up by concluding that
NOTHING can be proven or known with certainty, I have made my
point.
Science already does this. We know very well
that nothing can be proven or disproven with absolute certainty.
You are preaching to the choir. However, you then make statements
that imply that *you* are abolsutely certain. E.g.
from <359CFBF2.35CD135E@online.no>:
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
You make an absolute statement without a hint
of knowing that you could be wrong or even inaccurate. In addition,
you give no evidence to support your statement. If you want the
evidence we have for abiogenesis or the evidence we have that
supports what we suppose the conditions of Earth 3.5 bya, you
can search in the scientific journals for that evidence. It isn't
hard. Can you direct me to the evidence which supports your ideas?
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
You know, you probably are that unawares,
aren't you?
The lower grade of troll-wannabes often are.
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting up a criterion of
proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the statement that you
made. Can you prove that statement?
Evidence needs to be empirical. Even if
we can look back in time into distant galaxies by means of telescopes,
it is not possible to do the same with our own solar system.
I am not seeking to prove something, but to establish that my
spiritual-religious theory of evolution cannot be disproven.
There is a vital difference. If we end up by concluding that
NOTHING can be proven or known with certainty, I have made my
point.
Science already does this. We know very
well that nothing can be proven or disproven with absolute certainty.
You are preaching to the choir. However, you then make statements
that imply that *you* are abolsutely certain. E.g. from <359CFBF2.35CD135E@online.no>:
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
You make an absolute statement without
a hint of knowing that you could be wrong or even inaccurate.
It was partially intended as a provocation
as well as a declaration of opinion.
In addition, you give no evidence to support
your statement.
I have pointed to indications just like you
have.
If you want the evidence we have for abiogenesis
or the evidence we have that supports what we suppose the conditions
of Earth 3.5 bya, you can search in the scientific journals for
that evidence. It isn't hard. Can you direct me to the evidence
which supports your ideas?
If you visit my home page by the link below
and scroll down, you’ll find several links to electronic
bookstores that carry the literature I have been reading for
decades. If you search those booklists for science, it should
be possible to find the particular scientific field you may be
looking for. I especially recommend Georg Unger, who used to
be the head of the Department of Mathematics and Astronomy at
the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
You know, you probably are that unawares,
aren't you?
The lower grade of troll-wannabes often are.
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting up a criterion of
proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the statement that you
made. Can you prove that statement?
Evidence needs to be empirical. Even if
we can look back in time into distant galaxies by means of telescopes,
it is not possible to do the same with our own solar system.
I am not seeking to prove something, but to establish that my
spiritual-religious theory of evolution cannot be disproven.
There is a vital difference. If we end up by concluding that
NOTHING can be proven or known with certainty, I have made my
point.
Science already does this. We know very
well that nothing can be proven or disproven with absolute certainty.
You are preaching to the choir. However, you then make statements
that imply that *you* are abolsutely certain. E.g. from <359CFBF2.35CD135E@online.no>:
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
You make an absolute statement without
a hint of knowing that you could be wrong or even inaccurate.
It was partially intended as a provocation
as well as a declaration of opinion.
So you claim to be dishonest? Altering what
you say or the manner in which you say it to provoke a desired
response is dishonest. If it is not exactly what you believe,
do not say it. The question now: will you retract your claim?
In fact, since you have been so unclear by
clouding what you say with ulterior motives, could you please
give an exposition of what you believe, clearly and without alteration?
In addition, you give no evidence to support
your statement.
I have pointed to indications just like
you have.
I must have missed them, though I have read
everything you have posted here. I have seen you cite no evidence
that supports what you say.
If you want the evidence we have for abiogenesis
or the evidence we have that supports what we suppose the conditions
of Earth 3.5 bya, you can search in the scientific journals for
that evidence. It isn't hard. Can you direct me to the evidence
which supports your ideas?
If you visit my home page by the link below
and scroll down, you’ll find several links to electronic
bookstores that carry the literature I have been reading for
decades. If you search those booklists for science, it should
be possible to find the particular scientific field you may be
looking for. I especially recommend Georg Unger, who used to
be the head of the Department of Mathematics and Astronomy at
the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland.
I checked Anthropress and the Steiner College
bookstore. From what I saw (which is only the descriptions of
the books, I know, but no one bothered to place anything on the
web that gives anything substantial) is that, first there was
nothing that supported your idea (ethereal beings in Sol implanting
life onto Earth) and nothing that appears to contain evidence,
merely explanations of philosophies. If you can post some evidence
(i.e. observations that can be independently confirmed) then
we might get somewhere.
While you're at it, post what you really believe.
I hate to base everything that I say on what you *appear* to
believe.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 12:47:09 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
sure can. we can, for example, disprove the
old steady state theory of the universe. thus, again, you are
wrong.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
and there is where you fail.
Granted. Other conditions are pure conjecture.
and, again, your statement that life comes
from life is a failure
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing,
but has a material basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life
comes from life" and assume that that prevails under all
conditions.
This is something that cannot be proven
or disproven by scientific means. I
then why did you say it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 12:47:09 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
sure can. we can, for example, disprove
the old steady state theory of the universe. thus, again, you
are wrong.
You cannot prove how conditions were billions
of years ago. One can only speculate on the basis of probabilities.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
and there is where you fail.
I humbly fail to see my failure.
Granted. Other conditions are pure conjecture.
and, again, your statement that life comes
from life is a failure
Now THAT is unscientific dogmatism.
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing,
but has a material basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life
comes from life" and assume that that prevails under all
conditions.
This is something that cannot be proven
or disproven by scientific means.
then why did you say it?
Because the life coming from life is one of
the basic principles of the evolutionary theory to which I subscribe.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 18:40:57 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 12:47:09 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
sure can. we can, for example, disprove
the old steady state theory of the universe. thus, again, you
are wrong.
You cannot prove how conditions were billions
of years ago. One can only speculate on the basis of probabilities.
i didnt say you could. YOU posted above that
no theories could be DISPROVEN. that is false. and that is what
i posted. perhaps your spirits and genies can explain it for
you.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
and there is where you fail.
I humbly fail to see my failure.
because now you have to prove that the conditions
which formed life were the same conditions that exist today.
you're digging yourself a deeper hole
Granted. Other conditions are pure conjecture.
and, again, your statement that life comes
from life is a failure
Now THAT is unscientific dogmatism.
meaningless. virtually every statement you've
posted is either wrong, or is modified by you to become more
convoluted. if something is demonstrated to be wrong, its useless
to call it dogmatism when its pointed out that its wrong. a much
more useful piece of information would be to show WHY its wrong.
but your arguments have never had one piece
of evidence to back them up.
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing,
but has a material basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life
comes from life" and assume that that prevails under all
conditions.
This is something that cannot be proven
or disproven by scientific means.
then why did you say it?
Because the life coming from life is one
of the basic principles of the evolutionary theory to which I
subscribe.
except evolutionary theory doesnt say this.
evolutionary theory is silent on the origin of life. if this
is wrong, please cite the relevant information. so far your information
consists of the idea that there's life on the sun because the
spirit world causes it to bethere...
that would have given darwin a heart attack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: howard hershey
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
[snip]
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Exactly how do you propose life as we know it to exist in the
conditions of the Big Bang when life as we know it cannot even
exist in the much milder conditons of molten lava on the earth
or the surface of the sun? Why is there no evidence of life earlier
than 3.5 billion years before the present on this planet?
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
No more (indeed less so) than your assertion
that 'life has always and in all conditions come from life'.
Do you also assume that the earth also always existed? And that
the earth was always a site compatible with the continued existence
of life as we know it (i.e., was never molten)?
Like I said, the existing evidence (wrt
the conditions in which all known forms of life exist) tends
to rule out this possibility.
Evidence proves or disproves.
Evidence is *congruent with* (supports) or
*incongruent with* (fails to support) particular theories.
Tendencies are something else, and in this
case, unspecified.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Granted. Other conditions are pure conjecture.
Not at all. There are many non-conjectural
conditions where life as we know it will not produce life. The
surface of the sun being one. The early moments of the universe
being another. Molten lava being another. Under these conditions
life as we know it will cease. Since there is evidence against
a steady state universe and in favor of the big bang, the early
stages of the universe represent a condition in which life as
we know it will not exist. The ball is in your court. You need
to provide evidence that shows that the big bang is less well
supported than a steady state universe and that the earth was
in continuous existence as a body favorable for life as we know
it.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
As opposed to your alternative of life
(as we know it) existing under the conditions of the Big Bang?
You are aware that carbon (much less the organocabon molecules
of life) did not exist under those conditions? At least standard
abiogenesis does not require the invention of new forms of life
that are rather ethereal, but only the invention of life as we
know it.
Perhaps we still don’t know life,
even within the confines of our own present earth condition.
We sure do understand the material nature of life as we know
it enough to know that there are many conditions where it will
not exist.
Whether one thinks that that was an unplanned,
accidental, purely materialistic event or one directed in some
manner by a Supreme Entity is beyond the scope of science, which
can only look at the material naturalistic aspects of the process.
If it is beyond the scope of science, you
cannot say that scientific evidence refutes the living origin
of life.
What is beyond science is whether the materialistic
process of abiogenesis was or was not directed by a deity.
When phrased like this, the only alternative
to a material, lifeless, inorganic origin of organic cells would
be a "deity dictator" taken from the theology of organized
religion - in this case, a monotheistic religion. What I am implying
is that perhaps a more highly evolved species beyond the confines
of our physical senses may be the origin of "lower species"
including homo sapiens. And perhaps these again have their origin
elsewhere - still within the realm of living beings.
There is no effective difference between your
non-coporeal beings and the "deity dictator" other
than number, a point I agree is as unknown and unknowable. Having
life-as-we-know-it being made (using the material of life-as-we-know-it)
by some entity(ies) which is life-as-we-do-not-know-it *means*
that life-as-we-know-it had a moment of origin and did not always
arise by life-as-we-know-it coming from life-as-we-know-it. Life-as-we-know-it
was 'created' (in your proposal) out of the non-living material
of life-as-we-know-it.
What is not beyond science is placing limits and conditions
and sites under which this materialistic process occurred. Life
as we know it does not exist under conditions which would prevail
in the Big Bang.
"Life conditions in the Big Bang"
is a thought experiment, nothing else.
The current cosmological evidence is congruent
with the theory of the big bang. The current cosmological evidence
is incongruent with the theory of a steady state universe and/or
an eternal earth. Do you have an alternative explanation which
is congruent with the evidence? I.e., do you have a better cosmological
explanation which is congruent with your wild speculation that
life always existed?
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing,
but has a material basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life
comes from life" and assume that that prevails under all
conditions.
This is something that cannot be proven
or disproven by scientific means.
There are many known conditions where life-as-we-know-it
cannot come from life-as-we-know-it. These are conditions where
life-as-we-know-it cannot exist. The Big Bang/ early universe
is just one such condition. The early earth is another.
It has to do with the attitude with which
one conducts one’s research, and which affects one’s
theories and hypotheses.
It has to do with accepting the constraints
imposed by nature rather than taking a phrase like 'life comes
from life' and assuming that it holds in all conditions and making
it a meaningless mantra. And then simply asserting that conditions
where it cannot hold (like the Big Bang) do not exist (despite
this being the contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence
and knowledge about how the material universe works). It is you
that is letting a fixation on a single idea warp your perspective,
requiring you to reject independent findings in differrent fields.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
[snip]
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Exactly how do you propose life as we know it to exist in the
conditions of the Big Bang when life as we know it cannot even
exist in the much milder conditons of molten lava on the earth
or the surface of the sun? Why is there no evidence of life earlier
than 3.5 billion years before the present on this planet?
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
No more (indeed less so) than your assertion
that 'life has always and in all conditions come from life'.
Do you also assume that the earth also always existed? And that
the earth was always a site compatible with the continued existence
of life as we know it (i.e., was never molten)?
I believe the earth has its origin in earlier
embodiments of our solar system
Like I said, the existing evidence (wrt
the conditions in which all known forms of life exist) tends
to rule out this possibility.
Evidence proves or disproves.
Evidence is *congruent with* (supports)
or *incongruent with* (fails to support) particular theories.
Tendencies are something else, and in this
case, unspecified.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Granted. Other conditions are pure conjecture.
Not at all. There are many non-conjectural
conditions where life as we know it will not produce life. The
surface of the sun being one. The early moments of the universe
being another. Molten lava being another. Under these conditions
life as we know it will cease.
...but not life as we don’t know it.
The ancients worshipped the sun because it was the abode of the
gods.
Since there is evidence against a steady
state universe and in favor of the big bang, the early stages
of the universe represent a condition in which life as we know
it will not exist. The ball is in your court. You need to provide
evidence that shows that the big bang is less well supported
than a steady state universe and that the earth was in continuous
existence as a body favorable for life as we know it.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
As opposed to your alternative of life
(as we know it) existing under the conditions of the Big Bang?
You are aware that carbon (much less the organocabon molecules
of life) did not exist under those conditions? At least standard
abiogenesis does not require the invention of new forms of life
that are rather ethereal, but only the invention of life as we
know it.
Perhaps we still don’t know life,
even within the confines of our own present earth condition.
We sure do understand the material nature
of life as we know it enough to know that there are many conditions
where it will not exist.
Whether one thinks that that was an unplanned,
accidental, purely materialistic event or one directed in some
manner by a Supreme Entity is beyond the scope of science, which
can only look at the material naturalistic aspects of the process.
If it is beyond the scope of science, you
cannot say that scientific evidence refutes the living origin
of life.
What is beyond science is whether the materialistic
process of abiogenesis was or was not directed by a deity.
When phrased like this, the only alternative
to a material, lifeless, inorganic origin of organic cells would
be a "deity dictator" taken from the theology of organized
religion - in this case, a monotheistic religion. What I am implying
is that perhaps a more highly evolved species beyond the confines
of our physical senses may be the origin of "lower species"
including homo sapiens. And perhaps these again have their origin
elsewhere - still within the realm of living beings.
There is no effective difference between
your non-coporeal beings and the "deity dictator" other
than number, a point I agree is as unknown and unknowable. Having
life-as-we-know-it being made (using the material of life-as-we-know-it)
by some entity(ies) which is life-as-we-do-not-know-it *means*
that life-as-we-know-it had a moment of origin and did not always
arise by life-as-we-know-it coming from life-as-we-know-it. Life-as-we-know-it
was 'created' (in your proposal) out of the non-living material
of life-as-we-know-it.
How about life-as-we-know-it having its origin
in life-as-we-don’t-know-it? A valid thought experiment.
What is not beyond science is placing limits
and conditions and sites under which this materialistic process
occurred. Life as we know it does not exist under conditions
which would prevail in the Big Bang.
Life conditions in the Big Bang" is
a thought experiment, nothing else.
The current cosmological evidence is congruent
with the theory of the big bang. The current cosmological evidence
is incongruent with the theory of a steady state universe and/or
an eternal earth. Do you have an alternative explanation which
is congruent with the evidence? I.e., do you have a better cosmological
explanation which is congruent with your wild speculation that
life always existed?
I do, but it would take me a very long time
to post and a long time to read.
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing,
but has a material basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life
comes from life" and assume that that prevails under all
conditions.
This is something that cannot be proven
or disproven by scientific means.
There are many known conditions where life-as-we-know-it
cannot come from life-as-we-know-it. These are conditions where
life-as-we-know-it cannot exist. The Big Bang/ early universe
is just one such condition. The early earth is another.
Material-biological life, yes. but if I say
that material-biological life has its origin in supersensible
life, the Big Bang does not have to be the beginning.
It hasto do with the attitude with which
one conducts one’s research, and which affects one’s
theories and hypotheses.
It has to do with accepting the constraints
imposed by nature rather than taking a phrase like 'life comes
from life' and assuming that it holds in all conditions and making
it a meaningless mantra. And then simply asserting that conditions
where it cannot hold (like the Big Bang) do not exist (despite
this being the contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence
and knowledge about how the material universe works).
The definition of life I deal with is not
limited to matter.
It is you that is letting a fixation on
a single idea warp your perspective, requiring you to reject
independent findings in differrent fields.
When I say that life comes from life, it is
presented as my theory which cannot be empirically disproven.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
howard hershey wrote:
[snip]
The current cosmological evidence is congruent
with the theory of the big bang. The current cosmological evidence
is incongruent with the theory of a steady state universe and/or
an eternal earth. Do you have an alternative explanation which
is congruent with the evidence? I.e., do you have a better cosmological
explanation which is congruent with your wild speculation that
life always existed?
I do, but it would take me a very long
time to post and a long time to read.
Too late. Go ahead; we're used to it in this
newsgroup. It's a hell of a lot better than not even attempting
to support what you post.
[snip]
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: howard hershey
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
howard hershey wrote:
[snip]
The current cosmological evidence is congruent
with the theory of the big bang. The current cosmological evidence
is incongruent with the theory of a steady state universe and/or
an eternal earth. Do you have an alternative explanation which
is congruent with the evidence? I.e., do you have a better cosmological
explanation which is congruent with your wild speculation that
life always existed?
I do, but it would take me a very long
time to post and a long time to read.
It is clear that in order to do so he redefines
'life' such that it is a term that has no relationship to life-as-we-know-it
or to any material living organism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
howard hershey says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
howard hershey wrote:
[snip]
The current cosmological evidence is congruent
with the theory of the big bang. The current cosmological evidence
is incongruent with the theory of a steady state universe and/or
an eternal earth. Do you have an alternative explanation which
is congruent with the evidence? I.e., do you have a better cosmological
explanation which is congruent with your wild speculation that
life always existed?
I do, but it would take me a very long
time to post and a long time to read.
It is clear that in order to do so he redefines
'life' such that it is a term that has no relationship to life-as-we-know-it
or to any material living organism.
Actually, he defines life to be everything
(or everything to be alive; I'm not sure if there's a distinction).
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ty Shrake
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 11:38:42 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution. Life comes
from life, and it is completely illogical to assume that living
organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s the
superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
It does NOW. But life either had a beginning or it has been here
since the first moment of the universe. Since the early history
of the universe did not have the conditions needed to sustain
life (million degree temperatures come to mind) then life is
not likely to have existed in the very early universe (say, even,
the first minute). Therefore life arose later. In other words,
there was a time when there was no life (unless you have an extremely
broad definition of life). So life, in principle, DID arise from
lifeless matter. You're going to have to show that modern cosmology
is incorrect regarding the early universe to get around this,
and given your clear appreciation of astronomy I don't think
you will be too inclined to do that. Even if you are inclined
you'll have an awful time proving it.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
Again, I refer you to the cosmology of the
early universe. If you agree that the early universe was an extremely
hot place (I don't think you'll find any cosmologist arguing
against that idea) then you will need to show how life could
be sustained in such an environment. You will also need to show
how the complex molecules that make up life were both created
and sustained in this environment. This will be difficult because
those same molecules and compounds break down at those temperatures
today. Furthermore, some of the heavy elements needed for sustained
life could only be created later, after star formation. So you
will also need to show how the heavy elements were created without
star formation. Unless of course you have an entirely novel concept
of life that is a deviation from what is commonly understood
(reproducing organisms, etc....). Until you show all of these
things your claim, to couch it in your own terms, is pure unsubstantiated
fantasy.
Ty Shrake
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Ty Shrake wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:38:42 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution. Life comes
from life, and it is completely illogical to assume that living
organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s the
superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
It does NOW. But life either had a beginning
or it has been here since the first moment of the universe. Since
the early history of the universe did not have the conditions
needed to sustain life (million degree temperatures come to mind)
then life is not likely to have existed in the very early universe
(say, even, the first minute).
This conjecture is based upon the assumption
that life as we know it cannot exist independently of material-biological
substance. I hold a different view based upon a spiritual-religious
Weltanschauung.
Therefore life arose later. In other words,
there was a time when there was no life (unless you have an extremely
broad definition of life).
Yes, I have a broad definition of life, and
I have no faith in a time with no life - past, present or future.
So life, in principle, DID arise from lifeless
matter.
I disagree.
You're going to have to show that modern
cosmology is incorrect regarding the early universe to get around
this, and given your clear appreciation of astronomy I don't
think you will be too inclined to do that. Even if you are inclined
you'll have an awful time proving it.
Conditions in the universe, or in our solar
system, in very far ancient times cannot be made subject to scientific
proof or disproof. So I do not need to produce counterproof to
say that something is not proven.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
Again, I refer you to the cosmology of
the early universe. If you agree that the early universe was
an extremely hot place (I don't think you'll find any cosmologist
arguing against that idea) then you will need to show how life
could be sustained in such an environment.
The sun is an extremely hot place, and it
is the origin of all life as we know it. It is because the sun
is the abode of the gods; that is why there were sun cults in
ancient times. The presence of a higher species on the sun, for
those who go along with it of course, indicates not only that
non-material life can be sustained, but that the heat and the
light of the sun is generated by living beings.
You will also need to show how the complex
molecules that make up life were both created and sustained in
this environment. This will be difficult because those same molecules
and compounds break down at those temperatures today.
I do have some literature that deals with
this; just give me some time to find it.
Furthermore, some of the heavy elements
needed for sustained life could only be created later, after
star formation. So you will also need to show how the heavy elements
were created without star formation. Unless of course you have
an entirely novel concept of life that is a deviation from what
is commonly understood (reproducing organisms, etc....). Until
you show all of these things your claim, to couch it in your
own terms, is pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
And so is any claim to the contrary.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: howard hershey
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Ty Shrake wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:38:42 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
[snip]
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
It does NOW. But life either had a beginning
or it has been here since the first moment of the universe. Since
the early history of the universe did not have the conditions
needed to sustain life (million degree temperatures come to mind)
then life is not likely to have existed in the very early universe
(say, even, the first minute).
This conjecture is based upon the assumption
that life as we know it cannot exist independently of material-biological
substance. I hold a different view based upon a spiritual-religious
Weltanschauung.
I see that we have a vitalist here. 'Life-as-we-know-it'
is something with no measureable substance or material existence
that floats around in the aether separate from these coporeal
bodies. Unfortunately, that is not 'life' as science defines
it, which does require some sort of intimate connection to those
pesky carbon-based mostly bags of water.
[snip]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Ty Shrake wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:38:42 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
[snip]
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
It does NOW. But life either had a beginning
or it has been here since the first moment of the universe. Since
the early history of the universe did not have the conditions
needed to sustain life (million degree temperatures come to mind)
then life is not likely to have existed in the very early universe
(say, even, the first minute).
This conjecture is based upon the assumption
that life as we know it cannot exist independently of material-biological
substance. I hold a different view based upon a spiritual-religious
Weltanschauung.
I see that we have a vitalist here. 'Life-as-we-know-it'
is something with no measureable substance or material existence
that floats around in the aether separate from these coporeal
bodies. Unfortunately, that is not 'life' as science defines
it, which does require some sort of intimate connection to those
pesky carbon-based mostly bags of water.
There are several branches of science - fringe
sciences today, perhaps, but not in the future - that work with
a much broader definition of life - especially in alternative
medicine.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jerry Grushow
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Ty Shrake wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:38:42 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
[snip]
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
It does NOW. But life either had a beginning
or it has been here since the first moment of the universe. Since
the early history of the universe did not have the conditions
needed to sustain life (million degree temperatures come to mind)
then life is not likely to have existed in the very early universe
(say, even, the first minute).
JG:
The universe cycles from big bang to big bang every 1042.75 billion
years as per Dot theory calculations. The first big bang was
very weak and was over a billion cycles earlier. There was no
actual life at that time. As the Mind of the Universe formed
at the highest light speeds, there was simultanteous basic forms
of life at our light speeds. It took many perhaps several million
big bang cycles before the eye was produced. This enabled our
coexisting higher light speed lifeform (God) to look into this
lower universe. Then thing moved upward from there. At some time
in the cycle as the universe wraps and the minimum to maximum
radius decreases, man came into existence. Once man was produced
the first time, the image of man remained in the mind of God.
Thereafter, this image drives the evolutionary process for each'
new big bang. Thus life comes from life, now although in the
far past, life was merely a property of space and time and given
enough time and the right condtions upon any one of a billion
Earths, life came into being. Once one Earth gave birth to life,
this entered the mind of God and this intelligence flowed into
all other Earths.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ty Shrake
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 13:36:07 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Ty Shrake wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:38:42 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution. Life comes
from life, and it is completely illogical to assume that living
organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s the
superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
It does NOW. But life either had a beginning
or it has been here since the first moment of the universe. Since
the early history of the universe did not have the conditions
needed to sustain life (million degree temperatures come to mind)
then life is not likely to have existed in the very early universe
(say, even, the first minute).
This conjecture is based upon the assumption
that life as we know it cannot exist independently of material-biological
substance. I hold a different view based upon a spiritual-religious
Weltanschauung.
So now we get to the meat and potatos don't
we... Your definition of life is much different than that of
science. If one maintains the definition that science has provided
then my statements are completely valid, but since you want to
change the rules and define life ANY DAMN WAY AT ALL then the
rules of science no longer apply. So if you are going to ask
the questions that you do then have the sense (and courtesy)
to inform everyone that, oh, by the way, your definition of life
is well outside of the definition accepted by science. Don't
ask for scientific answers to a question that presupposed unscientific
concepts.
Therefore life arose later. In other words,
there was a time when there was no life (unless you have an extremely
broad definition of life).
Yes, I have a broad definition of life,
and I hav no faith in a time with no life - past, present or
future.
You could have mentioned this crucial fact
in your opening statements.
So life, in principle, DID arise from lifeless
matter.
I disagree.
You're going to have to show that modern
cosmology is incorrect regarding the early universe to get around
this, and given your clear appreciation of astronomy I don't
think you will be too inclined to do that. Even if you are inclined
you'll have an awful time proving it.
Conditions in the universe, or in our solar
system, in very far ancient times cannot be made subject to scientific
proof or disproof.
Oh yes they can. In fact, everytime you look
into the night sky your are, as you said yourself, looking into
the past. If you see 10,000 galaxies that are all a billion light
years from earth and they are all extremely hot, and you have
either never observed a cold one or observed one only rarely,
then you can safely assume that our galaxy probably existed under
similar conditions a billion years ago. Furthermore, the existence
of heavy elements on earth proves that the earth was once part
of a very hot nuclear fusion process some time in the past. Moreover,
we can, for brief periods of time, replicate these very hot conditions
in the laboratory. We can actually measure the effects of heat
on matter *as it happens*. If this isn't enough for you I guess
only a miracle would be. You obviously haven't been reading very
much scientific literature.
So I do not need to produce counterproof
to say that something is not proven.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
Again, I refer you to the cosmology of
the early universe. If you agree that the early universe was
an extremely hot place (I don't think you'll find any cosmologist
arguing against that idea) then you will need to show how life
could be sustained in such an environment.
The sun is an extremely hot place, and
it is the origin of all life as we know it. It is because the
sun is the abode of the gods; that is why there were sun cults
in ancient times. The presence of a higher species on the sun,
for those who go along with it of course, indicates not only
that non-material life can be sustained, but that the heat and
the light of the sun is generated by living beings.
This is just complete blather. You have no
idea what you are talking about. Are you some sort of shaman
or something?
You will also need to show how the complex
molecules that make up life were both created and sustained in
this environment. This will be difficult because those same molecules
and compounds break down at those temperatures today.
I do have some literature that deals with
this; just give me some time to find it.
If I bother to continue wasting my time with
you in this thread I can tell you that you are going to need
it.
Furthermore, some of the heavy elements
needed for sustained life could only be created later, after
star formation. So you will also need to show how the heavy elements
were created without star formation. Unless of course you have
an entirely novel concept of life that is a deviation from what
is commonly understood (reproducing organisms, etc....). Until
you show all of these things your claim, to couch it in your
own terms, is pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
And so is any claim to the contrary.
What? What the hell kind of answer is that?
....This last reply you posted has done it.
You are just blathering here with no understanding of science
or what I am saying to you. I have deeper conversations with
my dog (his name is Einstein, by the way).
Go away and learn something about science.
Take a few classes for Pete's sake...
Ty Shrake
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Ty Shrake wrote:
<snip>
This conjecture is based upon the assumption
that life as we know it cannot exist independently of material-biological
substance. I hold a different view based upon a spiritual-religious
Weltanschauung.
So now we get to the meat and potatos don't
we... Your definition of life is much different than that of
science. If one maintains the definition that science has provided
then my statements are completely valid, but since you want to
change the rules and define life ANY DAMN WAY AT ALL then the
rules of science no longer apply.
If materialistic science cannot provide a
satisfactory definition of life, if it is possible to broaden
the defition of life beyond the boundaries of this science, the
rules of science are in no way invalidated thereby.
So if you are going to ask the questions
that you do then have the sense (and courtesy) to inform everyone
that, oh, by the way, your definition of life is well outside
of the definition accepted by science. Don't ask for scientific
answers to a question that presupposed unscientific concepts.
I did not.Anyone who admits that life cannot
be defined wíthin the sole confines of biology, chemistry
and physics must conclude that materialistic science is incapable
of defining life at all.
Therefore life arose later. In other words,
there was a time when there was no life (unless you have an extremely
broad definition of life).
Yes, I have a broad definition of life,
and I have no faith in a time with no life - past, present or
future.
You could have mentioned this crucial fact
in your opening statements.
I thought I’d be arguing with creationists,
but you must have chased them away.
So life, in principle, DID arise from lifeless
matter.
An assumption not substantiated by hard evidence.
You're going to have to show that modern
cosmology is incorrect regarding the early universe to get around
this, and given your clear appreciation of astronomy I don't
think you will be too inclined to do that. Even if you are inclined
you'll have an awful time proving it.
I am under no obligation to prove or disprove
any cosmology - only to explain, describe, or indicate why I
subscribe to an alternative one. And if anyone wants to examine
its validity, I refer to the literature concerned.
Conditions in the universe, or in our solar
system, in very far ancient times cannot be made subject to scientific
proof or disproof.
Oh yes they can. In fact, everytime you
look into the night sky your are, as you said yourself, looking
into the past. If you see 10,000 galaxies that are all a billion
light years from earth and they are all extremely hot, and you
have either never observed a cold one or observed one only rarely,
then you can safely assume that our galaxy probably existed under
similar conditions a billion years ago.
Is that a safe assumption? Even if the assumption
feels safe for you, it ain’t necessarily so.
Furthermore, the existence of heavy elements
on earth proves that the earth was once part of a very hot nuclear
fusion process some time in the past.
I agree with that assumption.
Moreover, we can, for brief periods of
time, replicate these very hot conditions in the laboratory.
We can actually measure the effects of heat on matter *as it
happens*. If this isn't enough for you I guess only a miracle
would be. You obviously haven't been reading very much scientific
literature.
I read quite a bit, but I don’t take
everything I read as gospel truth.
So I do not need to produce counterproof
to say that something is not proven.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
Again, I refer you to the cosmology of
the early universe. If you agree that the early universe was
an extremely hot place (I don't think you'll find any cosmologist
arguing against that idea) then you will need to show how life
could be sustained in such an environment.
The sun is an extremely hot place, and
it is the origin of all life as we know it. It is because the
sun is the abode of the gods; that is why there were sun cults
in ancient times. The presence of a higher species on the sun,
for those who go along with it of course, indicates not only
that non-material life can be sustained, but that the heat and
the light of the sun is generated by living beings.
This is just complete blather. You have
no idea what you are talking about. Are you some sort of shaman
or something?
No, only an anthroposophist. I have been studying
anthroposophy for three decades, which means that I do know what
I am talking about.
You will also need to show how the complex
molecules that make up life were both created and sustained in
this environment. This will be difficult because those same molecules
and compounds break down at those temperatures today.
I do have some literature that deals with
this; just give me some time to find it.
If I bother to continue wasting my time
with you in this thread I can tell you that you are going to
need it.
Furthermore, some of the heavy elements
needed for sustained life could only be created later, after
star formation. So you will also need to show how the heavy elements
were created without star formation. Unless of course you have
an entirely novel concept of life that is a deviation from what
is commonly understood (reproducing organisms, etc....). Until
you show all of these things your claim, to couch it in your
own terms, is pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
And so is any claim to the contrary.
What? What the hell kind of answer is that?
....This last reply you posted has done it. You are just blathering
here with no understanding of science or what I am saying to
you. I have deeper conversations with my dog (his name is Einstein,
by the way).
Go away and learn something about science. Take a few classes
for Pete's sake...
And perhaps you should learn something about
spiritual science.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ty Shrake
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 17:40:43 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Ty Shrake wrote:
<snip>
This conjecture is based upon the assumption
that life as we know it cannot exist independently of material-biological
substance. I hold a different view based upon a spiritual-religious
Weltanschauung.
So now we get to the meat and potatos don't
we... Your definition of life is much different than that of
science. If one maintains the definition that science has provided
then my statements are completely valid, but since you want to
change the rules and define life ANY DAMN WAY AT ALL then the
rules of science no longer apply.
If materialistic science cannot provide
a satisfactory definition of life, if it is possible to broaden
the defition of life beyond the boundaries of this science, the
rules of science are in no way invalidated thereby.
Here AGAIN it's OK to go WAY beyond want is
accepted in the scientific community. This is always your little
escape hatch. And if you think " the rules of science are
in no way invalidated thereby" (Nice try at pomposity) by
going WELL outside of what is scientifically verifiable then
you clearly don't know jack squat about science.
So if you are going to ask the questions
that you do then have the sense (and courtesy) to inform everyone
that, oh, by the way, your definition of life is well outside
of the definition accepted by science. Don't ask for scientific
answers to a question that presupposed unscientific concepts.
I did not.Anyone who admits that life cannot
be defined wíthin the sole confines of biology, chemistry
and physics must conclude that materialistic science is incapable
of defining life at all.
Uh... OK....next time try to provide an answer
that actually makes sense...
Therefore life arose later. In other words,
there was a time when there was no life (unless you have an extremely
broad definition of life).
Yes, I have a broad definition of life,
and I have no faith in a time with no life - past, present or
future.
You could have mentioned this crucial fact
in your opening statements.
I thought I’d be arguing with creationists,
but you must have chased them away.
So life, in principle, DID arise from lifeless
matter.
An assumption not substantiated by hard
evidence.
You are as bad as a creationist because you
are clearly incapable of seeing the scientific facts as they
are. The concept that life arose from non living matter is DEFINITELY
substantiated by science and simple logic, whether your personal
religious beliefs agree with this or not. And isn't this what
this ultimately boils down to.... your personal religious beliefs?
You're going to have to show that modern
cosmology is incorrect regarding the early universe to get around
this, and given your clear appreciation of astronomy I don't
think you will be too inclined to do that. Even if you are inclined
you'll have an awful time proving it.
I am under no obligation to prove or disprove
any cosmology - only to explain, describe, or indicate why I
subscribe to an alternative one. And if anyone wants to examine
its validity, I refer to the literature concerned.
You ARE under some obligation to make claims
that don't COMPLETELY DEFY cosmology. And as far as examining
the validity of your view, please provide references to "the
literature concerned".
Conditions in the universe, or in our solar
system, in very far ancient times cannot be made subject to scientific
proof or disproof.
Oh yes they can. In fact, everytime you
look into the night sky your are, as you said yourself, looking
into the past. If you see 10,000 galaxies that are all a billion
light years from earth and they are all extremely hot, and you
have either never observed a cold one or observed one only rarely,
then you can safely assume that our galaxy probably existed under
similar conditions a billion years ago.
Is that a safe assumption? Even if the
assumption feels safe for you, it ain’t necessarily so.
You bet it's a safe assumption. If you see 10,000 trees with
branches, except for number 387, which did not have branches,
would you assume that number 10,001 would also have branches?
If not then explain why you think it is AS LIKELY for number
10,001 to NOT have branches as to have branches.
Furthermore, the existence of heavy elements
on earth proves that the earth was once part of a very hot nuclear
fusion process some time in the past.
I agree with that assumption.
Good, but since you define life to your own
liking your agreement serves no purpose....
Moreover, we can, for brief periods of
time, replicate these very hot conditions in the laboratory.
We can actually measure the effects of heat on matter *as it
happens*. If this isn't enough for you I guess only a miracle
would be. You obviously haven't been reading very much scientific
literature.
I read quite a bit, but I don’t take
everything I read as gospel truth.
Neither do I, but if I tell you that an experiement
has been performed and it is documented in such and such periodical
are you going to say that the experiement is a sham (as if it
were never performed?) What parts of science do you take as the
truth and what parts don't you? Do you think the scientific method
really allows you to be flexible with this?
So I do not need to produce counterproof
to say that something is not proven.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
Again, I refer you to the cosmology of
the early universe. If you agree that the early universe was
an extremely hot place (I don't think you'll find any cosmologist
arguing against that idea) then you will need to show how life
could be sustained in such an environment.
The sun is an extremely hot place, and
it is the origin of all life as we know it. It is because the
sun is the abode of the gods; that is why there were sun cults
in ancient times. The presence of a higher species on the sun,
for those who go along with it of course, indicates not only
that non-material life can be sustained, but that the heat and
the light of the sun is generated by living beings.
This is just complete blather. You have
no idea what you are talking about. Are you some sort of shaman
or something?
No, only an anthroposophist. I have been
studying anthroposophy for three decades, which means that I
do know what I am talking about.
Tell me, what accredited university awards degrees in "anthroposophy"?
You clearly DON'T KNOW what you are talking about, at least with
regard to science.
After spending half of my day responding to
your psuedo rational blather I am convinced that you sir are
ill informed and unprepeared.
You will also need to show how the complex
molecules that make up life were both created and sustained in
this environment. This will be difficult because those same molecules
and compounds break down at those temperatures today.
I do have some literature that deals with
this; just give me some time to find it.
If I bother to continue wasting my time
with you in this thread I can tell you that you are going to
need it.
Furthermore, some of the heavy elements
needed for sustained life could only be created later, after
star formation. So you will also need to show how the heavy elements
were created without star formation. Unless of course you have
an entirely novel concept of life that is a deviation from what
is commonly understood (reproducing organisms, etc....). Until
you show all of these things your claim, to couch it in your
own terms, is pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
And so is any claim to the contrary.
What? What the hell kind of answer is that?
....This last reply you posted has done it. You are just blathering
here with no understanding of science or what I am saying to
you. I have deeper conversations with my dog (his name is Einstein,
by the way).
Go away and learn something about science. Take a few classes
for Pete's sake...
And perhaps you should learn something
about spiritual science.
Blah, blah, blah..... I studied Buddhism for
4 years under my Tae Kwon Do master (Master Chung in Birmingham,
Alabama if you care to check references)... I don't need your
high and mighty preaching. There is nothing scientific about
spiritualism (even Master Chung will tell you this)... get that
through your terribly dull cranium andmaybe we can talk science.
Good bye and good riddance...
Ty Shrake
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 11:38:42 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution. Life comes
from life, and it is completely illogical to assume that living
organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s the
superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
since natural life did not always exist (look
at mars, for example) your logic is a failure
If it is beyond the scope of science, you
cannot say that scientific evidence refutes the living origin
of life.
sure can. because there are lifeless planets
in the solar system,and the evidence indicates the earth was
at one time lifeless
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:38:42 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution. Life comes
from life, and it is completely illogical to assume that living
organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s the
superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
since natural life did not always exist
(look at mars, for example) your logic is a failure
The fact that biological-material life forms
are not everywyere present does not invalidate the logic in question.
If it is beyond the scope of science, you
cannot say that scientific evidence refutes the living origin
of life.
sure can. because there are lifeless planets
in the solar system,and the evidence indicates the earth was
at one time lifeless
When you say "indicates", you mean
subjective interpretation of external data. That is not scientific
evidence or proof. The absence of biological life forms does
not disprove the existence of spiritual beings.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 13:59:28 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
since natural life did not always exist
(look at mars, for example) your logic is a failure
The fact that biological-material life
forms are not everywyere present does not invalidate the logic
in question.
what it DOES indicate is that non-life is
possible. since that is the case, its obvious that the same condition
on earth could (and the evidence indicates DID) exist at some
point. this falisfies your argument.
sure can. because there are lifeless planets
in the solar system, and the evidence indicates the earth was
at one time lifeless
When you say "indicates", you
mean subjective interpretation of external data. That is not
scientific evidence or proof. The absence of biological life
forms does not disprove the existence of spiritual beings.
oh. you're right. it doesnt. it doesnt prove
the non existence of unicorns or puff the magic dragon either.
excuse me. i thought you were talking about
rational existence. i didnt realize peter paul and mary were
also part of your magic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
since natural life did not always exist
(look at mars, for example) your logic is a failure
The fact that biological-material life
forms are not everywyere present does not invalidate the logic
in question.
what it DOES indicate is that non-life
is possible.
An indication implies an assumption, or a
hypothsis. I have not endeavored to refute or alter the indication
in question, only to point out that alternative hypotheses and
assumptions may be equally valid.
since that is the case, its obvious that
the same condition on earth could (and the evidence indicates
DID) exist at some point. this falisfies your argument.
An indication cannot falsify anything.
sure can. because there are lifeless planets
in the solar system, and the evidence indicates the earth was
at one time lifeless
When you say "indicates", you
mean subjective interpretation of external data. That is not
scientific evidence or proof. The absence of biological life
forms does not disprove the existence of spiritual beings.
oh. you're right. it doesnt. it doesnt
prove the non existence of unicorns or puff the magic dragon
either.
It certainly doesn’t.
excuse me. i thought you were talking about
rational existence. i didnt realize peter paul and mary were
also part of your magic.
We were. But I also take non-rational, or
extra-rational thinking into account which is cognizant of the
existence of a spiritual world behind the the veil of the physical
senses which is the origin of the material universe.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 16:05:26 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
what it DOES indicate is that non-life
is possible.
An indication implies an assumption, or
a hypothsis. I have not endeavored to refute or alter the indication
in question, only to point out that alternative hypotheses and
assumptions may be equally valid.
no, you havent. you made a statement: life
necessarily originates from life
you have failed to present evidence that proves
this is true OR to counter the examples that show its wrong
since that is the case, its obvious that
the same condition on earth could (and the evidence indicates
DID) exist at some point. this falisfies your argument.
An indication cannot falsify anything.
it sure can cast doubt on the assertion that
'life MUST originate from life'.
excuse me. i thought you were talking about
rational existence. i didnt realize peter paul and mary were
also part of your magic.
We were. But I also take non-rational,
or extra-rational thinking into account which is cognizant of
the existence of a spiritual world behind the the veil of the
physical senses which is the origin of the material universe.
again, you know this how?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 16:05:26 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
what it DOES indicate is that non-life
is possible.
An indication implies an assumption, or
a hypothsis. I have not endeavored to refute or alter the indication
in question, only to point out that alternative hypotheses and
assumptions may be equally valid.
no, you havent. you made a statement: life
necessarily originates from life
In my opening statement I declared my point
of view.
you have failed to present evidence that
proves this is true OR to counter the examples that show its
wrong
There are no such examples to counter.
since that is the case, its obvious that
the same condition on earth could (and the evidence indicates
DID) exist at some point. this falisfies your argument.
An indication cannot falsify anything.
it sure can cast doubt on the assertion
that 'life MUST originate from life'.
Doubt is very healthy. I have not intended
to take it away from you.
excuse me. i thought you were talking about
rational existence. i didnt realize peter paul and mary were
also part of your magic.
We were. But I also take non-rational,
or extra-rational thinking into account which is cognizant of
the existence of a spiritual world behind the the veil of the
physical senses which is the origin of the material universe.
again, you know this how?
Through my studies. But if it’s of any
comfort to you, there is plenty of room for doubt.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 17:52:27 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
no, you havent. you made a statement: life
necessarily originates from life
In my opening statement I declared my point
of view.
which is stated above. you offer no evidence.
you offer no rebuttal to those who do cite information that counters
yours.
you have failed to present evidence that
proves this is true OR to counter the examples that show its
wrong
There are no such examples to counter.
i know. thats what i said about your argument;
it lacks substance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wade Hines
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
What alternative do you propose instead
of life coming from something lifeless at some point in the history
of the universe? That life always existed (even before the big
bang)?
Exactly.
I thought there was no "before"
the big bang. The big bang created space-time as I understand.
Is the exactly encoding some logic I missed, or is this a new
kind of logic?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
What alternative do you propose instead
of life coming from something lifeless at some point in the history
of the universe? That life always existed (even before the big
bang)?
Exactly.
I thought there was no "before"
the big bang. The big bang created space-time as I understand.
Then spiritual life existed before space-time.
Is the exactly encoding some logic I missed,
or is this a new kind of logic?
It is rather ancient logic. Gnostic literature
deals with it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roy.altholz
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote...
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
What alternative do you propose instead
of life coming from something lifeless at some point in the history
of the universe? That life always existed (even before the big
bang)?
Exactly.
I thought there was no "before"
the big bang. The big bang created space-time as I understand.
Then spiritual life existed before space-time.
Unprovable. Physical life is another matter.
(No pun intended!)
Is the exactly encoding some logic I missed,
or is this a new kind of logic?
It is rather ancient logic. Gnostic literature
deals with it.
Pantheism?
--
Boikat
"Facts are stupid things."
-- Ronald Reagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
roy.altholz wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote...
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
What alternative do you propose instead
of life coming from something lifeless at some point in the history
of the universe? That life always existed (even before the big
bang)?
Exactly.
I thought there was no "before"
the big bang. The big bang created space-time as I understand.
Then spiritual life existed before space-time.
Unprovable. Physical life is another matter.
(No pun intended!)
Is the exactly encoding some logic I missed,
or is this a new kind of logic?
It is rather ancient logic. Gnostic literature
deals with it.
Pantheism?
In many ways I consider myself a pantheist.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roy.altholz
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote...
roy.altholz wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote...
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
What alternative do you propose instead
of life coming from something lifeless at some point in the history
of the universe? That life always existed (even before the big
bang)?
Exactly.
I thought there was no "before"
the big bang. The big bang created space-time as I understand.
Then spiritual life existed before space-time.
Unprovable. Physical life is another matter.
(No pun intended!)
Is the exactly encoding some logic I missed,
or is this a new kind of logic?
It is rather ancient logic. Gnostic literature
deals with it.
Pantheism?
In many ways I consider myself a pantheist.
The way I understand modern pantheism, it
pretty much accept the universe for what they believe it is,
"The Universe as God" is a phrase that I read some
years ago, and pretty much accepted science, including evolution,
since that is the means to understanding the universe. After
all, so far all the little fiddly bits from different branches
of the sciences fit and support other branches of the sciences.
This, from what I understand, is why Pnatheists believe what
they do.
--
Boikat
"Facts are stupid things."
-- Ronald Reagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Paine
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
Oh no..here we go yet again...same questions,
same wrong assumptions, same denial of facts and evidence...same
lack of logic and reason.....
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
What does atheism have to do with anything?
There are many christian (and other religion) scientists who
believe in what you mislabel as "materialistic evolution"
Strike 1!
Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
What you consider illogical is unimportant.
Just because you can't see and/or understand the facts does not
make ambiogenisis a superstition.
Strike 2!
Now for the real fun: Creationists and
fundies, I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us
to galaxies that are hundreds of millions of light years away.
This means that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds
of millions of years before it reached earth, so when we look
into the telescope, we are actually gazing hundreds of millions
of years into the past.
If the universe is as young as creationists not only wish that
it was, but insist that it is, the stars and the galaxies in
question would not have been visible from earth because the light
would still be in transit. It would be interesting to get a creationist’s
explanation for the fact that we in fact can look hundreds of
million years into the past like that.
The way I understand it, the creationists believe that the entire
material universe came into being six thousand years ago or a
little more, and that absolutely everythinjg that exists was
manifested out of nothing during the course of six or seven days
and nights. One problem with that is that a day and a night,
i.e. a 24-hour period, is made possible by the mutual movements
of the earth, the moon, and the sun. This condition does not
exist before the third "day" in the first chapter of
Genesis. This means that the first two "days" "nights"
cannot have been 24-hour periods, but must refer to something
else. The Hebrew word "yom", which is translated as
"day", would perhaps be more accurately translated
as "time spirit" - at least for us spiritual evolutionists.
I understand that "evolution" is sometimes called "evilution"
by creationists because evolution or evilution was invented by
Satan in order to make man immoral. Thinking evilution or evolution
immoralizes man and increases his sinfulness, right?
The way I see it, the world would have been standing still without
evolution, without metamorphosis. Plants wouldn’t grow,
and a caterpillar would never become a butterfly. Man would still
have been sitting in that banana tree, looking like a monkey
and eating the forbidden fruit (the cursed banana that made monkeys
out of Adam and Eve. Eve couldn’t resist it because it looked
even more phallic than the serpent, and that’s how sexual
sin came into the world.)
So according to the creationists, everything came into existence
in one week six thousand years ago - like Bishop Usher once figured
out - and since then, everything has been standing still, except
that people have been born and died, and Jesus has come and gone
and is coming back soon to put an end to everything that has
just been standing there. Right?
Creationists must have something to say -
So Fundies, fundies - come out and play!
You're looking for a fight.....not the responsible
exchange of information and
ideas. Even though we usually end up in more than a few hell
raising
discussions, I don't think anyone comes in here just looking
for a fight.
Strike3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Thomas Paine wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve come to play, and I’m
looking forward to some fun.
Oh no..here we go yet again...same questions,
same wrong assumptions, same denial of facts and evidence...same
lack of logic and reason.....
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
What does atheism have to do with anything?
There are many christian (and other religion) scientists who
believe in what you mislabel as "materialistic evolution"
Let me phrase it more precisely: I am in the
strongest disagreement with the atheistically oriented materialistic
theory of evolution. If some people have attached Christian or
Buddhist beliefs to this, it is still materialistic.
Strike 1!
Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
What you consider illogical is unimportant.
Just because you can't see and/or understand the facts does not
make ambiogenisis a superstition.
I would still insist that it is an error to
believe that organic life has its origin in inorganic, lifeless
matter.
> Strike 2!
Perhaps you think you’re playing baseball,
but you cannot refute every argument or statement with which
you disagree with a "strike". It looks like authoritarian
church dogmatism.
You're looking for a fight.....not the
responsible exchange of information and ideas.
Your strike, not mine.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J. Pieret
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote...
[Various snips]
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun. First
off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists who
believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Let me phrase it more precisely: I am in
the strongest disagreement with the atheistically oriented materialistic
theory of evolution. If some people have attached Christianm
or Buddhist beliefs to this, it is still materialistic.
Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
I would still insist that it is an error
to believe that organic life has its origin in inorganic, lifeless
matter.
First of all, define the difference between
"inorganic, lifeless matter" and (presumably) organic,
living matter (i.e. the difference between the carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, etc. that makes up your body and the same elements that
make up the Earth).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
J. Pieret wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote...
[Various snips]
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun. First
off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists who
believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Let me phrase it more precisely: I am in
the strongest disagreement with the atheistically oriented materialistic
theory of evolution. If some people have attached Christianm
or Buddhist beliefs to this, it is still materialistic.
Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
I would still insist that it is an error
to believe that organic life has its origin in inorganic, lifeless
matter.
First of all, define the difference between
"inorganic, lifeless matter" and (presumably) organic,
living matter (i.e. the difference between the carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, etc. that makes up your body and the same elements that
make up the Earth).
Right off the top of my head: Organic matter
consists of living cells that build up bodies which consume nutrition
and propagate their species, that grow, wither. and die. Inorganic
matter is the part of nature that is outside these processes
even though mineral substances are part of the material bodies
of living species.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
J. Pieret wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote...
[Various snips]
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun. First
off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists who
believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Let me phrase it more precisely: I am in
the strongest disagreement with the atheistically oriented materialistic
theory of evolution. If some people have attached Christianm
or Buddhist beliefs to this, it is still materialistic.
Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
I would still insist that it is an error
to believe that organic life has its origin in inorganic, lifeless
matter.
First of all, define the difference between
"inorganic, lifeless matter" and (presumably) organic,
living matter (i.e. the difference between the carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, etc. that makes up your body and the same elements that
make up the Earth).
Right off the top of my head: Organic matter
consists of living cells that build up bodies which consume nutrition
and propagate their species, that grow, wither. and die. Inorganic
matter is the part of nature that is outside these processes
even though mineral substances are part of the material bodies
of living species.
But they are still alive, right? In what matter
are they alive? Is your only quibble with abiogenesis that non-life
does not exist?
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 08:48:01 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution
meaningless. atheism has nothing to do with
science, nor does xtianity
.. Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
uh, and you know this how? since you made
the statement that its impossible you must KNOW how life started
tell us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 08:48:01 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution
meaningless. atheism has nothing to do
with science, nor does xtianity
Our religions and philosophies do influence
the nature and direction of scientific research, hypotheses,
and theories, so I cannot concur that they have nothing to do
with each other.
.. Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
uh, and you know this how? since you made
the statement that its impossible you must KNOW how life started
tell us.
Why assume that life has ever "started"?
That is pure conjecture.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ty Shrake
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 12:28:10 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 08:48:01 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution
meaningless. atheism has nothing to do
with science, nor does xtianity
Our religions and philosophies do influence
the nature and direction of scientific research, hypotheses,
and theories, so I cannot concur that they have nothing to do
with each other.
.. Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
uh, and you know this how? since you made
the statement that its impossible you must KNOW how life started
tell us.
Why assume that life has ever "started"?
That is pure conjecture.
Wrong. This is not pure conjecture. Again,
as I said in my other posting in this thread, you will have to
show that either ...
1. The early universe was able to sustain
life, despite million degree temperatures (provide evidence please).
or....
2. Life was in some other form in the early
universe (provide evidence please).
And again, as per my other posting, the only
way around this is to redefine the common understanding of 'life'.
Since you have not done this I can only assume you mean carbon
based reproducing
organisms. If you have not altered the definition of life and
cannot explain, with evidence, how the 2 items listed above could
be possible, then there is no other conclusion to reach. The
VERY early universe was a place of extreme temperature and a
world populated mostly by subatomic particles. Our current understanding
of life, with all of the observations we have made of it, STRONGLY
suggests that there is no way life, in the forms we know, could
have existed at that time. Therefore, the notion that life actually
DID start at some later time is NOT pure conjecture. It's a rational
conclusion based on the incompatibility between the conditions
of the early universe and the conditions required to sustain
life.
Ty Shrake
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Ty Shrake wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 12:28:10 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 08:48:01 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution
meaningless. atheism has nothing to do
with science, nor does xtianity
Our religions and philosophies do influence
the nature and direction of scientific research, hypotheses,
and theories, so I cannot concur that they have nothing to do
with each other.
.. Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
uh, and you know this how? since you made
the statement that its impossible you must KNOW how life started
tell us.
Why assume that life has ever "started"?
That is pure conjecture.
Wrong. This is not pure conjecture. Again,
as I said in my other posting in this thread, you will have to
show that either ...
1. The early universe was able to sustain life, despite million
degree temperatures (provide evidence please).
or....
2. Life was in some other form in the early universe (provide
evidence please).
You are implying that the idea that life has
had a "start" is a scientific fact rather than a theory,
and then you try to lay the burden of proof on the skeptics.
That does not get us anywhere.
And again, as per my other posting, the
only way around this is to redefine the common understanding
of 'life'. Since you have not done this I can only assume you
mean carbon based reproducing organisms.
Wrong.
If you have not altered the definition
of life and cannot explain, with evidence, how the 2 items listed
above could be possible, then there is no other conclusion to
reach. The VERY early universe was a place of extreme temperature
and a world populated mostly by subatomic particles.
and spiritual beings who were thus embodied
in these substances. (Everything in existence is imbued with
life, even inorganic matter. But since we’re talking about
the organic, we’ll stick to that.)
Our current understanding of life, with
all of the observations we have made of it, STRONGLY suggests
that there is no way life, in the forms we know, could have existed
at that time.
...based upon a strictly materialistic definition
of life.
Therefore, the notion that life actually
DID start at some later time is NOT pure conjecture. It's a rational
conclusion based on the incompatibility between the conditions
of the early universe and the conditions required to sustain
life.
The deepest mysteries of existence are not
always best approached by means of rational logic alone.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
Ty Shrake wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 12:28:10 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 08:48:01 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution
meaningless. atheism has nothing to do
with science, nor does xtianity
Our religions and philosophies do influence
the nature and direction of scientific research, hypotheses,
and theories, so I cannot concur that they have nothing to do
with each other.
.. Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
uh, and you know this how? since you made
the statement that its impossible you must KNOW how life started
tell us.
Why assume that life has ever "started"?
That is pure conjecture.
Wrong. This is not pure conjecture. Again,
as I said in my other posting in this thread, you will have to
show that either ...
1. The early universe was able to sustain life, despite million
degree temperatures (provide evidence please).
or....
2. Life was in some other form in the early universe (provide
evidence please).
You are implying that the idea that life
has had a "start" is a scientific fact rather than
a theory, and then you try to lay the burden of proof on the
skeptics. That does not get us anywhere.
It is most certainly not a theory (a theory
explains observations) and probably not really a fact either
(an observation) but rather an inference from the available evidence
that we have and can independently confirm. We have no absolute
certainty as you seem to have, but it is congruent with all of
the evidence that we have, whereas your idea does not.
And again, as per my other posting, the
only way around this is to redefine the common understanding
of 'life'. Since you have not done this I can only assume you
mean carbon based reproducing organisms.
Wrong.
Then please redefine life (hell, give us *a*
definition of life).
If you have not altered the definition
of life and cannot explain, with evidence, how the 2 items listed
above could be possible, then there is no other conclusion to
reach. The VERY early universe was a place of extreme temperature
and a world populated mostly by subatomic particles.
and spiritual beings who were thus embodied
in these substances. (Everything in existence is imbued with
life, even inorganic matter. But since we’re talking about
the organic, we’ll stick to that.)
So what *is* life? You still have yet to tell
us what you think life is.
Our current understanding of life, with
all of the observations we have made of it, STRONGLY suggests
that there is no way life, in the forms we know, could have existed
at that time.
...based upon a strictly materialistic
definition of life.
I'm not even sure that we *have* one. What
is your definition of life, by the way?
Therefore, the notion that life actually
DID start at some later time is NOT pure conjecture. It's a rational
conclusion based on the incompatibility between the conditions
of the early universe and the conditions required to sustain
life.
The deepest mysteries of existence are
not always best approached by means of rational logic alone.
What do you propose instead? It has worked
well enough for many years. You will have to propose some thing
that works better.
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
Why assume that life has ever "started"?
That is pure conjecture.
Wrong. This is not pure conjecture. Again,
as I said in my other posting in this thread, you will have to
show that either ...
1. The early universe was able to sustain life, despite million
degree temperatures (provide evidence please).
or....
2. Life was in some other form in the early universe (provide
evidence please).
You are implying that the idea that life
has had a "start" is a scientific fact rather than
a theory, and then you try to lay the burden of proof on the
skeptics. That does not get us anywhere.
It is most certainly not a theory (a theory
explains observations) and probably not really a fact either
(an observation) but rather an inference from the available evidence
that we have and can independently confirm. We have no absolute
certainty as you seem to have, but it is congruent with all of
the evidence that we have, whereas your idea does not.
My idea is not disproven by your evidence.
For this reason, it is equally congruent with scientific facts.
And again, as per my other posting, the
only way around this is to redefine the common understanding
of 'life'. Since you have not done this I can only assume you
mean carbon based reproducing organisms.
Wrong.
Then please redefine life (hell, give us
*a* definition of life).
A new, clear definition of life is currently
being worked on in medicine and biology, and I am not an expert
in any of these fields. I COULD say that life is God, or I could
say that life is an energy capable of incorporating biological
substance - but I will disagree with the definition of life as
a "biological unit" or anything similar.
If you have not altered the definition
of life and cannot explain, with evidence, how the 2 items listed
above could be possible, then there is no other conclusion to
reach. The VERY early universe was a place of extreme temperature
and a world populated mostly by subatomic particles.
and spiritual beings who were thus embodied
in these substances. (Everything in existence is imbued with
life, even inorganic matter. But since weíre talking about
the organic, we'll stick to that.)
So what *is* life? You still have yet to
tell us what you think life is.
I just did above.
Our current understanding of life, with
all of the observations we have made of it, STRONGLY suggests
that there is no way life, in the forms we know, could have existed
at that time.
...based upon a strictly materialistic
definition of life.
I'm not even sure that we *have* one. What
is your definition of life, by the way?
As answered above.
Therefore, the notion that life actually
DID start at some later time is NOT pure conjecture. It's a rational
conclusion based on the incompatibility between the conditions
of the early universe and the conditions required to sustain
life.
A rational conjecture, but still a conjecture.
The deepest mysteries of existence are
not always best approached by means of rational logic alone.
What do you propose instead? It has worked
well enough for many years.
Only for about 500 years.
You will have to propose some thing that
works better.
They will have to be explored empirically.
The links are found on my home site below, near the bottom of
the page.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mel turner
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote..
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
[snippety]
My idea is not disproven by your evidence.
For this reason, it is equally congruent with scientific facts.
Or rather, it is a vaguely mystical notion
that is untestable by any observable facts.
And again, as per my other posting, the
only way around this is to redefine the common understanding
of 'life'. Since you have not done this I can only assume you
mean carbon based reproducing organisms.
Wrong.
Then please redefine life (hell, give us
*a* definition of life).
A new, clear definition of life is currently
being worked on in medicine and biology,
Any new scientific definition of life according
to biology and medicine would seem to be something very different
from whatever you have in mind.
and I am not an expert in any of these
fields. I COULD say that life is God, or I could say that life
is an energy capable of incorporating biological substance -
but I will disagree with the definition of life as a "biological
unit" or anything similar.
This has all just been pointless semantics,
then. A biologist will define "life" as a property
of biological organisms [i.e., it will be something about physiology/metabolism/growth/development/reproduction...],
and you want to talk instead about some spiritual/vitalistic
force that you think is behind life's existence. Can you agree
that the purely material phenomena that biologists want to talk
about do exist and are worth
discussing? If so, why not let them continue to use the word
"life" for that, and come up with another one for your
own concept? "Spirit" or "life-force" or
"God" or whatever. Maybe then there will be less talking
past each other...
cheers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
mel turner wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote..
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
[snippety]
My idea is not disproven by your evidence.
For this reason, it is equally congruent with scientific facts.
Or rather, it is a vaguely mystical notion
that is untestable by any observable facts.
Untestability and unprovability are not the
same.
And again, as per my other posting, the
only way around this is to redefine the common understanding
of 'life'. Since you have not done this I can only assume you
mean carbon based reproducing organisms.
Wrong.
Then please redefine life (hell, give us
*a* definition of life).
A new, clear definition of life is currently
being worked on in medicine and biology,
Any new scientific definition of life according
to biology and medicine would seem to be something very different
from whatever you have in mind.
Not anthroposophical medicine and related
fields.
and I am not an expert in any of these
fields. I COULD say that life is God, or I could say that life
is an energy capable of incorporating biological substance -
but I will disagree with the definition of life as a "biological
unit" or anything similar.
This has all just been pointless semantics,
then. A biologist will define "life" as a property
of biological organisms [i.e., it will be something about physiology/metabolism/growth/development/reproduction...],
and you want to talk instead about some spiritual/vitalistic
force that you think is behind life's existence. Can you agree
that the purely material phenomena that biologists want to talk
about do exist and are worth discussing?
Yes. But this ng is about origins.
If so, why not let them continue to use
the word "life" for that, and come up with another
one for your own concept? "Spirit" or "life-force"
or "God" or whatever. Maybe then there will be less
talking past each other...
Like I said, spiritual considerations are
highly relevant to the discussion about the origin of life.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
mel turner wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote..
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
[snippety]
My idea is not disproven by your evidence.
For this reason, it is equally congruent with scientific facts.
Or rather, it is a vaguely mystical notion
that is untestable by any observable facts.
Untestability and unprovability are not
the same.
Right. Everything is unprovable except in
axiomatic systems like mathematics where the conclusions are
bound by the axioms. There are a lot of things that are testable.
Science concerns itself with testable predictions, not provable
ones.
Your idea is unprovable. So what? Only things
like Pythagorean's Theorem aren't (and then they are bounded
by certain axioms and postulates). That puts your idea in no
special regard. Your idea is also untestable. What observation
would cause you to not believe in your idea?
And again, as per my other posting, the
only way around this is to redefine the common understanding
of 'life'. Since you have not done this I can only assume you
mean carbon based reproducing organisms.
Wrong.
Then please redefine life (hell, give us
*a* definition of life).
A new, clear definition of life is currently
being worked on in medicine and biology,
Any new scientific definition of life according
to biology and medicine would seem to be something very different
from whatever you have in mind.
Not anthroposophical medicine and related
fields.
They aren't science. From what I've seen,
they subscribe to no scientific methodology that I could discern.
If you can show me to be wrong, please do so. Quote something
substantial (with appropriate attribution, of course).
and I am not an expert in any of these
fields. I COULD say that life is God, or I could say that life
is an energy capable of incorporating biological substance -
but I will disagree with the definition of life as a "biological
unit" or anything similar.
This has all just been pointless semantics,
then. A biologist will define "life" as a property
of biological organisms [i.e., it will be something about physiology/metabolism/growth/development/reproduction...],
and you want to talk instead about some spiritual/vitalistic
force that you think is behind life's existence. Can you agree
that the purely material phenomena that biologists want to talk
about do exist and are worth discussing?
Yes. But this ng is about origins.
Now do you have any evidence to support your
idea? Why should I reject science for your idea?
If so, why not let them continue to use
the word "life" for that, and come up with another
one for your own concept? "Spirit" or "life-force"
or "God" or whatever. Maybe then there will be less
talking past each other...
Like I said, spiritual considerations are
highly relevant to the discussion about the origin of life.
I thought you said that it had no origin?
Please, I ask again, state your idea fully and clearly. We don't
care how long it is, those who do not wish to read it will skip
it.
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
mel turner wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote..
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
[snippety]
My idea is not disproven by your evidence.
For this reason, it is equally congruent with scientific facts.
Or rather, it is a vaguely mystical notion
that is untestable by any observable facts.
Untestability and unprovability are not
the same.
Right. Everything is unprovable except
in axiomatic systems like mathematics where the conclusions are
bound by the axioms. There are a lot of things that are testable.
Science concerns itself with testable predictions, not provable
ones.
Your idea is unprovable. So what? Only things like Pythagorean's
Theorem aren't (and then they are bounded by certain axioms and
postulates).
I agree. Pythagoras' cosmology, by the way,
was considerably closer to reality than the popular ones of the
present day.
That puts your idea in no special regard.
Your idea is also untestable. What observation would cause you
to not believe in your idea?
If I were a sculptor who made a beautiful
woman in stone or in wood, fell in love with my creation, and
she became alive and breathing by magic, in flesh and blood.
then I would accept that life may arise from inorganic substances
alone.
And again, as per my other posting, the
only way around this is to redefine the common understanding
of 'life'. Since you have not done this I can only assume you
mean carbon based reproducing organisms.
Wrong.
Then please redefine life (hell, give us
*a* definition of life).
A new, clear definition of life is currently
being worked on in medicine and biology,
Any new scientific definition of life according
to biology and medicine would seem to be something very different
from whatever you have in mind.
Not anthroposophical medicine and related
fields.
They aren't science. From what I've seen,
they subscribe to no scientific methodology that I could discern.
If you can show me to be wrong, please do so. Quote something
substantial (with appropriate attribution, of course).
Here is a quote from Physicians' Association
for Anthroposophical Medicine:
What is Anthroposophically Extended Medicine?
Anthroposophically-extended Medicine is a
holistic and human-centered approach to medicine. It recognizes
and uses the vast information acquired by modern medicine in
the fields of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, and diagnosis.
Then it goes one step further, adding a knowledge of the laws
of the living organism, of the psyche and the spirit derived
from a spiritual scientific methodology to that which is known
by conventional scientific means. This requires - besides the
ongoing professional, personal and moral development - the active
inner participation in spiritual scientific studies outlined
by Rudolf Steiner.
The result is an integrated image of the whole
human being in illness and in health. This makes it possible
to have a holistic but also rational approach to physiology,
pathology and therapy.
The Anthroposophical physician strives together
with his/her patient to perceive the meaning of the illness with
a view toward physical, soul and spiritual development and against
the background of a rational study of individual biography.
Closely associated with Anthroposophically-extended
Medicine is Anthroposophical curative education and social therapy,
bringing new approaches to understanding the needs of children
and adults with developmental disabilities for instance through
the Camphill village movement.
A new approach to healing and therapeutic
substances can be found by considering the individual manifestations
of illness on the one hand, and exploring the evolutionary relationship
between the human being and the other kingdoms of nature in which
remedial substances are found, on the other.
Through this methodical study, many new effective
medications have been developed, as well as new methods for preparing
medications.
A vital aspect of the practice of Anthroposophically-extended
Medicine is the use of the complementary therapies which have
been developed or enriched through Anthroposophy. These include
therapeutic eurythmy (movement therapy); sculpture, painting,
music and speech therapy; physical therapies, including rhythmic
massage, hydrotherapy, compresses and external applications;
and psychological counseling.
Additional information may be obtained at
http://www.anthroposophy.org.nz/Sections/Medical/AEM.htm
and I am not an expert in any of these
fields. I COULD say that life is God, or I could say that life
is an energy capable of incorporating biological substance -
but I will disagree with the definition of life as a "biological
unit" or anything similar.
This has all just been pointless semantics,
then. A biologist will define "life" as a property
of biological organisms [i.e., it will be something about physiology/metabolism/growth/development/reproduction...],
and you want to talk instead about some spiritual/vitalistic
force that you think is behind life's existence. Can you agree
that the purely material phenomena that biologists want to talk
about do exist and are worth discussing?
Absolutely.
Yes. But this ng is about origins.
Now do you have any evidence to support
your idea? Why should I reject science for your idea?
You shouldn’t accept my idea if it entails
rejecting science.
If so, why not let them continue to use
the word "life" for that, and come up with another
one for your own concept? "Spirit" or "life-force"
or "God" or whatever. Maybe then there will be less
talking past each other...
Like I said, spiritual considerations are
highly relevant to the discussion about the origin of life.
I thought you said that it had no origin?
Individual species and life forms and conditions
have their origin. What I am questioning is the assumption that
there was a time when no life existed.
Please, I ask again, state your idea fully
and clearly. We don't care how long it is, those who do not wish
to read it will skip it.
Very well. Fasten your seatbelts, and I’ll
do my best. In the meantime, you may take a fast peak at the
following URLs:
http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=0880104899
http://www.steinercollege.org/RSCPCatalog.pdf
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mel turner
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote..
mel turner wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote..
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
[snippety]
My idea is not disproven by your evidence.
For this reason, it is equally congruent with scientific facts.
Or rather, it is a vaguely mystical notion
that is untestable by any observable facts.
Untestability and unprovability are not
the same.
Closely related, however ["to test"
is actually an old meaning of the word
"prove"]. Scientific models are never "proven",
but they are tested. Is your
idea potentially testable [= falsifiable]?
[snip]
Any new scientific definition of life according
to biology and medicine would seem to be something very different
from whatever you have in mind.
Not anthroposophical medicine and related
fields.
I'm unfamiliar with the term.
and I am not an expert in any of these
fields. I COULD say that life is God, or I could say that life
is an energy capable of incorporating biological substance -
but I will disagree with the definition of life as a "biological
unit" or anything similar.
This has all just been pointless semantics,
then. A biologist will define "life" as a property
of biological organisms [i.e., it will be something about physiology/metabolism/growth/development/reproduction...],
and you want to talk instead about some spiritual/vitalistic
force that you think is behind life's existence. Can you agree
that the purely material phenomena that biologists want to talk
about do exist and are worth discussing?
Yes. But this ng is about origins.
Yes, but most of us are talking about the
origin & diversification of species of organisms [evolution],
and to a lesser extent about the beginnings of the molecular/biochemical
phenomena that biologists like to call "life" [abiogenesis].
Or do you wish to argue that these materialistic
subjects can't ever be discussed separately from your ideas about
an underlying eternal life-force?
If so, why not let them continue to use
the word "life" for that, and come up with another
one for your own concept? "Spirit" or "life-force"
or "God" or whatever. Maybe then there will be less
talking past each other...
Like I said, spiritual considerations are
highly relevant to the discussion about the origin of life.
Fair enough. Lots of folks will agree with
something like this [theistic evolution]. But can you make a
scientific case for this view [ie., one that could be supported
or rejected by studying evidence]?
cheers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
Why assume that life has ever "started"?
That is pure conjecture.
Wrong. This is not pure conjecture. Again,
as I said in my other posting in this thread, you will have to
show that either ...
1. The early universe was able to sustain life, despite million
degree temperatures (provide evidence please).
or....
2. Life was in some other form in the early universe (provide
evidence please).
You are implying that the idea that life
has had a "start" is a scientific fact rather than
a theory, and then you try to lay the burden of proof on the
skeptics. That does not get us anywhere.
It is most certainly not a theory (a theory
explains observations) and probably not really a fact either
(an observation) but rather an inference from the available evidence
that we have and can independently confirm. We have no absolute
certainty as you seem to have, but it is congruent with all of
the evidence that we have, whereas your idea does not.
My idea is not disproven by your evidence.
For this reason, it is equally congruent with scientific facts.
It does not disprove your evidence under the
rigid definition of _disprove_ (i.e. absolute refutation) but
the evidence is very much against it. In any case, your idea
is useless. I could say that Queen Maeve, a cat, created the
Universe Last Thursday with the appearance of age, but it gets
me nowhere. I can't test it. Nothing I can do can ever refute
it. It fits all of the evidence because Queen Maeve is omnipotent
and can make it seem like you have memories from before Last
Thursday, but it is useless. It gets me nowhere in much the same
way that your idea gets me nowhere.
And again, as per my other posting, the
only way around this is to redefine the common understanding
of 'life'. Since you have not done this I can only assume you
mean carbon based reproducing organisms.
Wrong.
Then please redefine life (hell, give us
*a* definition of life).
A new, clear definition of life is currently
being worked on in medicine and biology, and I am not an expert
in any of these fields. I COULD say that life is God, or I could
say that life is an energy capable of incorporating biological
substance - but I will disagree with the definition of life as
a "biological unit" or anything similar.
It would be a circular definition in any case
as the word _biological_ means "having to do with life"
and it is not the definition used by science. So what do you
mean when you say _life_ and how do you differentiate between
life and non-life?
If you have not altered the definition
of life and cannot explain, with evidence, how the 2 items listed
above could be possible, then there is no other conclusion to
reach. The VERY early universe was a place of extreme temperature
and a world populated mostly by subatomic particles.
and spiritual beings who were thus embodied
in these substances. (Everything in existence is imbued with
life, even inorganic matter. But since weíre talking about
the organic, we'll stick to that.)
So what *is* life? You still have yet to
tell us what you think life is.
I just did above.
No, you sidestepped the issue and said what
you disagree with as a definition of life. You still haven't
given us a definition. You still haven't given a clear boundary
between life and non-life which you think there is.
Our current understanding of life, with
all of the observations we have made of it, STRONGLY suggests
that there is no way life, in the forms we know, could have existed
at that time.
...based upon a strictly materialistic
definition of life.
I'm not even sure that we *have* one. What
is your definition of life, by the way?
As answered above.
Therefore, the notion that life actually
DID start at some later time is NOT pure conjecture. It's a rational
conclusion based on the incompatibility between the conditions
of the early universe and the conditions required to sustain
life.
A rational conjecture, but still a conjecture.
He said _conclusion_, not _conjecture_.
The deepest mysteries of existence are
not always best approached by means of rational logic alone.
What do you propose instead? It has worked
well enough for many years.
Only for about 500 years.
A time of much advancement compared to the
2 million years before it.
You will have to propose some thing that
works better.
They will have to be explored empirically.
What is "they"?
The links are found on my home site below,
near the bottom of the page.
Saw them, but they still don't explain much.
Most didn't deal with what we are talking about and the one's
that do want me to buy lots of books.
[snip]
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
Why assume that life has ever "started"?
That is pure conjecture.
Wrong. This is not pure conjecture. Again,
as I said in my other posting in this thread, you will have to
show that either ...
1. The early universe was able to sustain life, despite million
degree temperatures (provide evidence please).
or....
2. Life was in some other form in the early universe (provide
evidence please).
You are implying that the idea that life
has had a "start" is a scientific fact rather than
a theory, and then you try to lay the burden of proof on the
skeptics. That does not get us anywhere.
It is most certainly not a theory (a theory
explains observations) and probably not really a fact either
(an observation) but rather an inference from the available evidence
that we have and can independently confirm. We have no absolute
certainty as you seem to have, but it is congruent with all of
the evidence that we have, whereas your idea does not.
My idea is not disproven by your evidence.
For this reason, it is equally congruent with scientific facts.
It does not disprove your evidence under
the rigid definition of _disprove_ (i.e. absolute refutation)
but the evidence is very much against it. In any case, your idea
is useless. I could say that Queen Maeve, a cat, created the
Universe Last Thursday with the appearance of age, but it gets
me nowhere. I can't test it. Nothing I can do can ever refute
it. It fits all of the evidence because Queen Maeve is omnipotent
and can make it seem like you have memories from before Last
Thursday, but it is useless. It gets me nowhere in much the same
way that your idea gets me nowhere.
And again, as per my other posting, the
only way around this is to redefine the common understanding
of 'life'. Since you have not done this I can only assume you
mean carbon based reproducing organisms.
Wrong.
Then please redefine life (hell, give us
*a* definition of life).
A new, clear definition of life is currently
being worked on in medicine and biology, and I am not an expert
in any of these fields. I COULD say that life is God, or I could
say that life is an energy capable of incorporating biological
substance - but I will disagree with the definition of life as
a "biological unit" or anything similar.
It would be a circular definition in any
case as the word _biological_ means "having to do with life"
and it is not the definition used by science. So what do you
mean when you say _life_ and how do you differentiate between
life and non-life?
When it boils down to it, I don't think there
is any such tthing as non-life or non-existence. Even the rocks
and all "dead" minerals have some kind of consciousness.
The only thing that may be defined is the relationship between
physical-spiritual and purely spiritual existence, but that would
be too wide a scope to enter into.
If you have not altered the definition
of life and cannot explain, with evidence, how the 2 items listed
above could be possible, then there is no other conclusion to
reach. The VERY early universe was a place of extreme temperature
and a world populated mostly by subatomic particles.
and spiritual beings who were thus embodied
in these substances. (Everything in existence is imbued with
life, even inorganic matter. But since weíre talking about
the organic, we'll stick to that.)
So what *is* life? You still have yet to
tell us what you think life is.
I just did above.
No, you sidestepped the issue and said
what you disagree with as a definition of life. You still haven't
given us a definition. You still haven't given a clear boundary
between life and non-life which you think there is.
Like I just said, I do not believe in non-life.
Our current understanding of life, with
all of the observations we have made of it, STRONGLY suggests
that there is no way life, in the forms we know, could have existed
at that time.
...based upon a strictly materialistic
definition of life.
I'm not even sure that we *have* one. What
is your definition of life, by the way?
As answered above.
Therefore, the notion that life actually
DID start at some later time is NOT pure conjecture. It's a rational
conclusion based on the incompatibility between the conditions
of the early universe and the conditions required to sustain
life.
A rational conjecture, but still a conjecture.
He said _conclusion_, not _conjecture_.
A concluding process is a mental conjecture.
The deepest mysteries of existence are
not always best approached by means of rational logic alone.
What do you propose instead? It has worked
well enough for many years.
Only for about 500 years.
A time of much advancement compared to
the 2 million years before it.
Posterity may not necessarily regard a cultural
epoch dominated almost exclusively by the rational intellect
as preferable to the epochs preceding and succeeding it.
You will have to propose some thing that
works better.
They will have to be explored empirically.
What is "they"?
Things that work better.
The links are found on my home site below,
near the bottom of the page.
Saw them, but they still don't explain
much. Most didn't deal with what we are talking about and the
one's that do want me to buy lots of books.
You could write down the titles and check
them out at the library. The Los Angeles Library used to have
an impressive collection.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
Why assume that life has ever "started"?
That is pure conjecture.
Wrong. This is not pure conjecture. Again,
as I said in my other posting in this thread, you will have to
show that either ...
1. The early universe was able to sustain life, despite million
degree temperatures (provide evidence please).
or....
2. Life was in some other form in the early universe (provide
evidence please).
You are implying that the idea that life
has had a "start" is a scientific fact rather than
a theory, and then you try to lay the burden of proof on the
skeptics. That does not get us anywhere.
It is most certainly not a theory (a theory
explains observations) and probably not really a fact either
(an observation) but rather an inference from the available evidence
that we have and can independently confirm. We have no absolute
certainty as you seem to have, but it is congruent with all of
the evidence that we have, whereas your idea does not.
My idea is not disproven by your evidence.
For this reason, it is equally congruent with scientific facts.
It does not disprove your evidence under
the rigid definition of _disprove_ (i.e. absolute refutation)
but the evidence is very much against it. In any case, your idea
is useless. I could say that Queen Maeve, a cat, created the
Universe Last Thursday with the appearance of age, but it gets
me nowhere. I can't test it. Nothing I can do can ever refute
it. It fits all of the evidence because Queen Maeve is omnipotent
and can make it seem like you have memories from before Last
Thursday, but it is useless. It gets me nowhere in much the same
way that your idea gets me nowhere.
No response?
And again, as per my other posting, the
only way around this is to redefine the common understanding
of 'life'. Since you have not done this I can only assume you
mean carbon based reproducing organisms.
Wrong.
Then please redefine life (hell, give us
*a* definition of life).
A new, clear definition of life is currently
being worked on in medicine and biology, and I am not an expert
in any of these fields. I COULD say that life is God, or I could
say that life is an energy capable of incorporating biological
substance - but I will disagree with the definition of life as
a "biological unit" or anything similar.
It would be a circular definition in any
case as the word _biological_ means "having to do with life"
and it is not the definition used by science. So what do you
mean when you say _life_ and how do you differentiate between
life and non-life?
When it boils down to it, I don't think
there is any such tthing as non-life or non-existence. Even the
rocks and all "dead" minerals have some kind of consciousness.
The only thing that may be defined is the relationship between
physical-spiritual and purely spiritual existence, but that would
be too wide a scope to enter into.
Okay, so *everything* is alive. Where exactly
does this get us? You still haven't given us an indication of
the quality with which they are alive. That is, what does everything
have in common by which we can call them alive?
If you have not altered the definition
of life and cannot explain, with evidence, how the 2 items listed
above could be possible, then there is no other conclusion to
reach. The VERY early universe was a place of extreme temperature
and a world populated mostly by subatomic particles.
and spiritual beings who were thus embodied
in these substances. (Everything in existence is imbued with
life, even inorganic matter. But since weíre talking about
the organic, we'll stick to that.)
So what *is* life? You still have yet to
tell us what you think life is.
I just did above.
No, you sidestepped the issue and said
what you disagree with as a definition of life. You still haven't
given us a definition. You still haven't given a clear boundary
between life and non-life which you think there is.
Like I just said, I do not believe in non-life.
Then why did you say:
I prefer to put it this
way: Non-life also has its origin in life, whence everything
originates.
Our current understanding of life, with
all of the observations we have made of it, STRONGLY suggests
that there is no way life, in the forms we know, could have existed
at that time.
...based upon a strictly materialistic
definition of life.
I'm not even sure that we *have* one. What
is your definition of life, by the way?
As answered above.
Therefore, the notion that life actually
DID start at some later time is NOT pure conjecture. It's a rational
conclusion based on the incompatibility between the conditions
of the early universe and the conditions required to sustain
life.
A rational conjecture, but still a conjecture.
He said _conclusion_, not _conjecture_.
A concluding process is a mental conjecture.
Only when there is a questionable lack of
evidence. It isn't perfect, of course; nothing is. But it is
the best we have. Propose something better.
The deepest mysteries of existence are
not always best approached by means of rational logic alone.
What do you propose instead? It has worked
well enough for many years.
Only for about 500 years.
A time of much advancement compared to
the 2 million years before it.
Posterity may not necessarily regard a
cultural epoch dominated almost exclusively by the rational intellect
as preferable to the epochs preceding and succeeding it.
Perhaps. The same can be said of *any* cultural
epoch. There is no distinction in this regard.
You will have to propose some thing that
works better.
They will have to be explored empirically.
What is "they"?
Things that work better.
So are you going to propose something that
can be explored empirically? Everything that you have written
so far indicates that you will not do so.
The links are found on my home site below,
near the bottom of the page.
Saw them, but they still don't explain
much. Most didn't deal with what we are talking about and the
one's that do want me to buy lots of books.
You could write down the titles and check
them out at the library. The Los Angeles Library used to have
an impressive collection.
It's only been a couple hours. Give me time.
I'll see if they exist in my
library.
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 14:15:40 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Ty Shrake wrote:
Wrong. This is not pure conjecture. Again,
as I said in my other posting in this thread, you will have to
show that either ...
1. The early universe was able to sustain life, despite million
degree temperatures (provide evidence please).
or....
2. Life was in some other form in the early universe (provide
evidence please).
You are implying that the idea that life
has had a "start" is a scientific fact rather than
a theory, and then you try to lay the burden of proof on the
skeptics. That does not get us anywhere.
he is simply asking a logical question. life
requires structure. you cant have life w/o molecules, atoms,
etc.
but molecules dont exist above a few thousand
degrees. and atoms themselves start to break down at higher temperatures.
so answer his question.
and spiritual beings who were thus embodied in these substances.
(Everything in existence is imbued with life, even inorganic
matter. But since we’re talking about the organic, we’ll
stick to that.)
where do these wierdos come from?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Honus
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
where do these wierdos come from?
Sporting goods stores. In the fishing section,
next to the trolling
tackle.
--
Death to Trolls. Death to Spammers.
Remove NOSPAM from my address to reply by
e-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Honus says...
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
where do these wierdos come from?
Sporting goods stores. In the fishing section,
next to the trolling tackle.
He's not a troll. He has a web page. Trolls
are usually too lazy to make one. You might want to check it
out at http://uncletaz.com/
It's funnier than the stuff he posts here. (No Tarjei, this is
not a gratuitous insult, simply my opinion of the page.)
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 20:34:14 -0400, Honus wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
where do these wierdos come from?
Sporting goods stores. In the fishing section,
next to the trolling tackle.
--
also, under local bridges, overpasses, etc...trolls
also frequent these locations as they dont like to take baths
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 12:28:10 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 08:48:01 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution
meaningless. atheism has nothing to do
with science, nor does xtianity
Our religions and philosophies do influence
the nature and direction of scientific research, hypotheses,
and theories, so I cannot concur that they have nothing to do
with each other.
wrong. because science controls for this.
if it didnt, japanese shinto scientists would have different
views on science than american scientists who are xtians.
so your point is falsified and its wrong.
.. Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
uh, and you know this how? since you made
the statement that its impossible you must KNOW how life started
tell us.
Why assume that life has ever "started"?
That is pure conjecture.
DUH!!! because we know
1. the earth was at one time lifeless
2. it has life now
to get from point 1 to point 2 requires a
beginning of life...
figure it out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 12:28:10 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 08:48:01 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution
meaningless. atheism has nothing to do
with science, nor does xtianity
Our religions and philosophies do influence
the nature and direction of scientific research, hypotheses,
and theories, so I cannot concur that they have nothing to do
with each other.
wrong. because science controls for this.
if it didnt, japanese shinto scientists would have different
views on science than american scientists who are xtians.
The sciences are already diverging in all
kinds of directions - e.g. orthodox medicine, natural medicine,
etc. Some scientists combine them, others establish their own
branch and disagree with the rest.
so your point is falsified and its wrong.
If you sleep better feeling that way, you’re
welcome.
.. Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
uh, and you know this how? since you made
the statement that its impossible you must KNOW how life started
Is there no alternative? What about uncertainty
and wonder?
Why assume that life has ever "started"?
That is pure conjecture.
DUH!!! because we know
Sounds like materialistic fundamentalism to
me.
1. the earth was at one time lifeless
How do you know? You cannot have been there
and seen it for youreself if it was lifeless as long as you are
a living being.
2. it has life now
to get from point 1 to point 2 requires a beginning of life...
..providing that you accept point 1, which
I don’t.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 14:24:00 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
wrong. because science controls for this.
if it didnt, japanese shinto scientists would have different
views on science than american scientists who are xtians.
The sciences are already diverging in all
kinds of directions - e.g. orthodox medicine, natural medicine,
etc. Some scientists combine them, others establish their own
branch and disagree with the rest.
really? what physical sciences 'disagree'
with the rest? as to 'natural medicine' you havent proved it
uses scientific methodology or is a science at all.
so your point is falsified and its wrong.
If you sleep better feeling that way, you’re
welcome
all i can tell you is what the evidence indicates.
when you find a
japanese scientist who thinks shintoism proves that quantum mechanics
is true only in japan you let me know, ok?
.. Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
uh, and you know this how? since you made
the statement that its impossible you must KNOW how life started
Is there no alternative? What about uncertainty
and wonder
what about it?
Why assume that life has ever "started"?
That is pure conjecture.
DUH!!! because we know
Sounds like materialistic fundamentalism
to me.
and you sound like you're guessing to me.
1. the earth was at one time lifeless
How do you know? You cannot have been there
and seen it for youreself if it was lifeless as long as you are
a living being.
because
1. thats what the evidence indicates
2. we know there are lifeless planets.
2. it has life now
to get from point 1 to point 2 requires a beginning of life...
..providing that you accept point 1, which
I don’t.
yes i know you refuse to accept the limits
of science and prefer magic to evidence. we scientists tend to
be a little more hard headed about evidence. we like to have
some before making up theories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 14:24:00 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
wrong. because science controls for this.
if it didnt, japanese shinto scientists would have different
views on science than american scientists who are xtians.
The sciences are already diverging in all
kinds of directions - e.g. orthodox medicine, natural medicine,
etc. Some scientists combine them, others establish their own
branch and disagree with the rest.
really? what physical sciences 'disagree'
with the rest? as to 'natural medicine' you havent proved it
uses scientific methodology or is a science at all.
I would have to leave that kind of "proof"
or explanations to homeopaths and other non-orthodox physicians
If you search the web on the subject, you find what you’re
looking for.
so your point is falsified and its wrong.
If you sleep better feeling that way, you’re
welcome
all i can tell you is what the evidence
indicates.
Indications do not falsify anybody’s
point.
when you find a japanese scientist who
thinks shintoism proves that quantum mechanics is true only in
japan you let me know, ok?
Did you ever read the "Tao of Physics"?
.. Life comes from life, and it is completely
illogical to assume that living organisms have their origin in
lifeless matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
uh, and you know this how? since you made
the statement that its impossible you must KNOW how life started
Is there no alternative? What about uncertainty
and wonder
what about it?
Why assume that life has ever "started"?
That is pure conjecture.
DUH!!! because we know
Sounds like materialistic fundamentalism
to me.
and you sound like you're guessing to me.
And you’re not? Who are "we",
and how do "you" know that life "started"?
1. the earth was at one time lifeless
How do you know? You cannot have been there
and seen it for youreself if it was lifeless as long as you are
a living being.
because
1. thats what the evidence indicates
...and indications imply only guesses.
2. we know there are lifeless planets.
So? The sun is also viewed as "lifeless",
but this is not backed up by proof what spiritual life is concerned.
<snip>
yes i know you refuse to accept the limits
of science and prefer magic to evidence.
It is not a matter of preferring magic to
materialistic science, but of adding it - spicing it, if you
like.
we scientists tend to be a little more
hard headed about evidence. we like to have some before making
up theories.
I have done my homework on epistemology, and
the theories in question are not of my
own making.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 16:38:10 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
really? what physical sciences 'disagree'
with the rest? as to 'natural medicine' you havent proved it
uses scientific methodology or is a science at all.
I would have to leave that kind of "proof"
or explanations to homeopaths and other non-orthodox physicians
If you search the web on the subject, you find what you’re
looking for.
you made the assertion. so prove it. you seem
to be pretty good at making up things then dropping them. you
must believe what you believe about science, presumably, due
to the evidence.
so far you've presented none and refused to
deal with the counter examples that indicate you're wrong.
so your point is falsified and its wrong.
If you sleep better feeling that way, you’re
welcome
all i can tell you is what the evidence
indicates.
Indications do not falsify anybody’s
point.
and assertions without evidence are not a
point.
when you find a japanese scientist who
thinks shintoism proves that quantum mechanics is true only in
japan you let me know, ok?
Did you ever read the "Tao of Physics"?
gee did that appear in the 'japanese journal
of physics'? or the 'journal of the electrochemical society'?
if so, i missed it.
because
1. thats what the evidence indicates
...and indications imply only guesses.
2. we know there are lifeless planets.
So? The sun is also viewed as "lifeless",
but this is not backed up by proof what spiritual life is concerned.
oh. i didnt realize that the 'spirtual life'
was a part of physics or biology. does CERN or fermilab have
a 'spiritual life' web page i can visit?
<snip>
yes i know you refuse to accept the limits
of science and prefer magic to evidence.
It is not a matter of preferring magic
to materialistic science, but of adding it - spicing it, if you
like.
science does not need this kind of help. if
so, please prove how it improves a fault of science. science
is BY DEFINITION limited to the material. just like bowling is
limited to bowling. if you want magic, consult a ouija board.
we scientists tend to be a little more
hard headed about evidence. we like to have some before making
up theories.
I have done my homework on epistemology,
and the theories in question are not of my own making.
neither are the conclusions. and you havent
done your homework on epistemology. because it demands nothing
of what you've written.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 16:38:10 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
really? what physical sciences 'disagree'
with the rest? as to 'natural medicine' you havent proved it
uses scientific methodology or is a science at all.
I would have to leave that kind of "proof"
or explanations to homeopaths and other non-orthodox physicians
If you search the web on the subject, you find what you’re
looking for.
you made the assertion. so prove it. you
seem to be pretty good at making up things then dropping them.
you must believe what you believe about science, presumably,
due to the evidence.
Convincing evidence to me is not necessarily
equally convincing to anyone else with a different disposition
of soul. I have links to appropriate electronic bookstores and
related sites on my home page.
so far you've presented none and refused
to deal with the counter examples that indicate you're wrong.
It’s fruitless to counter indications
with indications. I have not been proven wrong - that’s
the point.
so your point is falsified and its wrong.
If you sleep better feeling that way, you’re
welcome
all i can tell you is what the evidence
indicates.
Indications do not falsify anybody’s
point.
and assertions without evidence are not
a point.
which makes assertions and indications almost
equally valid. Neither is proof.
when you find a japanese scientist who
thinks shintoism proves that quantum mechanics is true only in
japan you let me know, ok?
Did you ever read the "Tao of Physics"?
gee did that appear in the 'japanese journal
of physics'? or the 'journal of the electrochemical society'?
if so, i missed it.
because
1. thats what the evidence indicates
...and indications imply only guesses.
2. we know there are lifeless planets.
So? The sun is also viewed as "lifeless",
but this is not backed up by proof what spiritual life is concerned.
oh. i didnt realize that the 'spirtual
life' was a part of physics or biology.
Then you’ve learned something new.
does CERN or fermilab have a 'spiritual
life' web page i can visit?
I dunno. Check it out.
<snip>
yes i know you refuse to accept the limits
of science and prefer magic to evidence.
It is not a matter of preferring magic
to materialistic science, but of adding it - spicing it, if you
like.
science does not need this kind of help.
I disagree.
if so, please prove how it improves a fault
of science. science is BY DEFINITION limited to the material.
just like bowling is limited to bowling. if you want magic, consult
a ouija board.
we scientists tend to be a little more
hard headed about evidence. we like to have some before making
up theories.
I have done my homework on epistemology,
and the theories in question are not of my own making.
neither are the conclusions. and you havent
done your homework on epistemology. because it demands nothing
of what you've written.
Have you read any critics of Kant?
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 18:27:38 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
you made the assertion. so prove it. you
seem to be pretty good at making up things then dropping them.
you must believe what you believe about science, presumably,
due to the evidence.
Convincing evidence to me is not necessarily
equally convincing to anyone else with a different disposition
of soul. I have links to appropriate electronic bookstores and
related sites on my home page.
dispositions of souls are not science. that
is why buddhists, xtians, jews, moslems and atheists can all
do science.
so far you've presented none and refused
to deal with the counter examples that indicate you're wrong.
It’s fruitless to counter indications
with indications. I have not been proven wrong - that’s
the point.
sure have. you said evolutionary biology states
that life always comes from life. thats wrong. evolutionary biology
says zip about the origin of life
you said a theory about the early universe
could not be disproven. the steady state theory was disproven.
you are wrong.
care to go on?
oh. i didnt realize that the 'spirtual
life' was a part of physics or biology.
Then you’ve learned something new.
me and a million other scientists. can you
arrange for puff the magic dragon to show up at semicon west
in a few weeks?
science does not need this kind of help.
I disagree.
we scientists dont. thank you.
neither are the conclusions. and you havent
done your homework on epistemology. because it demands nothing
of what you've written.
Have you read any critics of Kant?
no critic of kant said that there was spiritual
life on the sun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Taylor
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
...
I would have to leave that kind of "proof" or explanations
to homeopaths and other non-orthodox physicians If you search
the web on the subject, you find what you’re looking for.
...
Did you ever read the "Tao of Physics"?
The sources you suggest are "non-orthodox",
which is a very polite name for them. Why don't you look at some
of the orthodox sciences too. There are many mainline criticisms
of homeopathy and of Capra (Yes I have read Capra.) Maybe there
is a _reason_they are orthodox, i.e widely accepted.
So? The sun is also viewed as "lifeless",
but this is not backed up by proof what spiritual life is concerned.
...
It is not a matter of preferring magic to materialistic science,
but of adding it - spicing it, if you like.
Well, that's one way of putting it.
Larry Taylor
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: RD Heilman
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, Im new here, Ive come to play,
and Im looking forward to some fun.
First off, Ill declare my disagreement with the atheists who
believe in a strictly materialistic evolution. Life comes from
life, and it is completely illogical to assume that living organisms
have their origin in lifeless matter. Thats the superstition
of our time.
Welcome, Tarjei.
I'm sure you will find many people on this
NG who will disagree with you that life from non - life (Biogenesis)
is superstition.
But life MUST have come from non - life. Four
and one half billion years ago life on this planet did NOT exist:
(3.8) billion years ago, it did exist. So life did in fact come
from non- life there is no other alternative.
Now for the real fun: Creationists and fundies, I hope you come
out to play. A telescope can take us to galaxies that are hundreds
of millions of light years away. This means that the light from
those stars had to travel hundreds of millions of years before
it reached earth, so when we look into the telescope, we are
actually gazing hundreds of millions of years into the past.
If the universe is as young as creationists not only wish that
it was, but insist that it is, the stars and the galaxies in
question would not have been visible from earth because the light
would still be in transit. It would be interesting to get a creationists
explanation for the fact that we in fact can look hundreds of
million years into the past like that.
I personally think that creationist who believe this are the
vast minority. In terms of eternity, six thousand, sixty thousand,
or sixty billion years is all the same. It is all meaningless.
What percentage of eternity is 60 billion?
The way I understand it, the creationists
believe that the entire material universe came into being six
thousand years ago or a little more, and that absolutely everything
that exists was manifested out of nothing during the course of
six or seven days and nights.
Ignoring the time factor, everything began
with and came out of the Big Bang some 15 billion years ago (+/--)
a couple of billion years. This was the Beginning of time and
space and matter and the laws of physics as we know them in our
universe.
You cannot ask what was _before_ the big bang,
since there was no time hence no before. You can not ask what
caused the Big Bang since cause and effect (laws of physics)
did not exist until a split second _after_ the big bang. Where
in space did it happen? There was no space before the big bang
since there was no before.
If you were able to run time backwards from
the present, you would come to some point in space at .000000000I
sec. after the explosion. But there could be nothing(?) 1 trillionth
of a sec. after that? Where did the matter in the universe come
from? The Big Bang. And where did the energy that compressed
then released the energy of the big bang come from and what was
the compressing enerigy? This I believe is beyond science. There
is no answer, and this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
If religion and philosophy has a place in human thought this
is it.
On this NG many people have asked "Where
did God come from?" There is no answer to this question
either, so in the final analysis if I deny God's existance, I'm
still faced with the unknown and unknowable questions as they
pertain to the Big Bang. The fact is, life, matter, time, space,
you and I exist, therefore, there had to be a beginning. But
in a non - antropic universe, what would reality be if intelligence
did not exist to perceive it?
In the book, Schrondingers Cat, by John Grishen(sp)
he draws an illustration representing the antropic
universe and intelligence in the shape of a "U". On
one arm he represents the stars planets etc. - the
universe, and on the other arm he represents intelligence as
a eye stairing across the chasm. In this view it required more
than ten billion years for the universe to percieve of itself
and its existance.
Best wishes,
RD Heilman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
RD Heilman wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, Im new here, Ive come to play,
and Im looking forward to some fun.
First off, Ill declare my disagreement with the atheists who
believe in a strictly materialistic evolution. Life comes from
life, and it is completely illogical to assume that living organisms
have their origin in lifeless matter. Thats the superstition
of our time.
Welcome, Tarjei.
I'm sure you will find many people on this
NG who will disagree with you that life from non - life (Biogenesis)
is superstition.
But life MUST have come from non - life.
Sounds like a dogmatic decree.
Four and one half billion years ago life
on this planet did NOT exist:
That is not proven.
(3.8) billion years ago, it did exist.
So life did in fact come from non- life there is no other alternative.
The idea of a lifeless earth is pure conjecture
which cannot be proven.
Now for the real fun: Creationists and
fundies, I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us
to galaxies that are hundreds of millions of light years away.
This means that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds
of millions of years before it reached earth, so when we look
into the telescope, we are actually gazing hundreds of millions
of years into the past.
If the universe is as young as creationists not only wish that
it was, but insist that it is, the stars and the galaxies in
question would not have been visible from earth because the light
would still be in transit. It would be interesting to get a creationists
explanation for the fact that we in fact can look hundreds of
million years into the past like that.
I personally think that creationist who
believe this are the vast minority. In terms of eternity, six
thousand, sixty thousand, or sixty billion years is all the same.
It is all meaningless. What percentage of eternity is 60 billion?
The way I understand it, the creationists
believe that the entire material universe came into being six
thousand years ago or a little more, and that absolutely everything
that exists was manifested out of nothing during the course of
six or seven days and nights.
Ignoring the time factor, everything began
with and came out of the Big Bang some 15 billion years ago (+/--)
a couple of billion years. This was the Beginning of time and
space and matter and the laws of physics as we know them in our
universe.
You cannot ask what was _before_ the big bang, since there was
no time hence no before. You can not ask what caused the Big
Bang since cause and effect (laws of physics) did not exist until
a split second _after_ the big bang. Where in space did it happen?
There was no space before the big bang since there was no before.
If you were able to run time backwards from the present, you
would come to some point in space at .000000000I sec. after the
explosion. But there could be nothing(?) 1 trillionth of a sec.
after that? Where did the matter in the universe come from? The
Big Bang.
Where is the hard evidence of this?
And where did the energy that compressed
then released the energy of the big bang come from and what was
the compressing enerigy? This I believe is beyond science.
Beyond the science of the present day.
There is no answer, and this is an unsatisfactory
state of affairs. If religion and philosophy has a place in human
thought this is it.
As a cultural heretic, I think that religion,
philosophy, science and art
should all be reunited (like in antiquity).
On this NG many people have asked "Where
did God come from?" There is no answer to this question
either, so in the final analysis if I deny God's existance, I'm
still faced with the unknown and unknowable questions as they
pertain to the Big Bang. The fact is, life, matter, time, space,
you and I exist, therefore, there had to be a beginning.
Perhaps a beginning is just something "demanded"
by man.
But in a non - antropic universe, what
would reality be if intelligence did not exist to perceive it?
In the book, Schrondingers Cat, by John Grishen(sp) he draws
an illustration representing the antropic universe and intelligence
in the shape of a "U". On one arm he represents the
stars planets etc. - the universe, and on the other arm he represents
intelligence as a eye stairing across the chasm. In this view
it required more than ten billion years for the universe to percieve
of itself and its existance.
Nice and thoughtful reflections.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ty Shrake
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 12:58:18 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
RD Heilman wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, Im new here, Ive come to play,
and Im looking forward to some fun.
First off, Ill declare my disagreement with the atheists who
believe in a strictly materialistic evolution. Life comes from
life, and it is completely illogical to assume that living organisms
have their origin in lifeless matter. Thats the superstition
of our time.
Welcome, Tarjei. I'm sure you will find
many people on this NG who will disagree with you that life from
non - life (Biogenesis) is superstition. But life MUST have come
from non - life.
Sounds like a dogmatic decree.
Four and one half billion years ago life
on this planet did NOT exist:
That is not proven.
(3.8) billion years ago, it did exist.
So life did in fact come from non- life there is no other alternative.
The idea of a lifeless earth is pure conjecture
which cannot be proven.
Now for the real fun: Creationists and
fundies, I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us
to galaxies that are hundreds of millions of light years away.
This means that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds
of millions of years before it reached earth, so when we look
into the telescope, we are actually gazing hundreds of millions
of years into the past.
If the universe is as young as creationists not only wish that
it was, but insist that it is, the stars and the galaxies in
question would not have been visible from earth because the light
would still be in transit. It would be interesting to get a creationists
explanation for the fact that we in fact can look hundreds of
million years into the past like that.
I personally think that creationist who
believe this are the vast minority. In terms of eternity, six
thousand, sixty thousand, or sixty billion years is all the same.
It is all meaningless. What percentage of eternity is 60 billion?
The way I understand it, the creationists
believe that the entire material universe came into being six
thousand years ago or a little more, and that absolutely everything
that exists was manifested out of nothing during the course of
six or seven days and nights.
Ignoring the time factor, everything began
with and came out of the Big Bang some 15 billion years ago (+/--)
a couple of billion years. This was the Beginning of time and
space and matter and the laws of physics as we know them in our
universe.
You cannot ask what was _before_ the big bang, since there was
no time hence no before. You can not ask what caused the Big
Bang since cause and effect (laws of physics) did not exist until
a split second _after_ the big bang. Where in space did it happen?
There was no space before the big bang since there was no before.
If you were able to run time backwards from the present, you
would come to some point in space at .000000000I sec. after the
explosion. But there could be nothing(?) 1 trillionth of a sec.
after that? Where did the matter in the universe come from? The
Big Bang.
Where is the hard evidence of this?
You clearly don't have the grasp of cosmology
I thought you had on the basis of your first posting. How can
you argue against a young earth scenario by using the light year
argument and yet still fail to grasp even the rudiments of Big
Bang theory (now called Inflation theory just so your're up to
date).
Your grasp of anything is pretty tenuous at
this point.
And where did the energy that compressed
then released the energy of the big bang come from and what was
the compressing enerigy? This I believe is beyond science.
Beyond the science of the present day.
There is no answer, and this is an unsatisfactory
state of affairs. If religion and philosophy has a place in human
thought this is it.
As a cultural heretic, I think that religion,
philosophy, science and art should all be reunited (like in antiquity).
On this NG many people have asked "Where
did God come from?" There is no answer to this question
either, so in the final analysis if I deny God's existance, I'm
still faced with the unknown and unknowable questions as they
pertain to the Big Bang. The fact is, life, matter, time, space,
you and I exist, therefore, there had to be a beginning.
Perhaps a beginning is just something "demanded"
by man.
Complete piffle. A snowflake has a beginning...
is that something mankind demanded? Or, if this is out of context
for you, the sun had a beginning.... and yet man wasn't even
around to demand it. Your argument is just wandering aimlessly
now...
But in a non - antropic universe, what
would reality be if intelligence did not exist to perceive it?
In the book, Schrondingers Cat, by John Grishen(sp) he draws
an illustration representing the antropic universe and intelligence
in the shape of a "U". On one arm he represents the
stars planets etc. - the universe, and on the other arm he represents
intelligence as a eye stairing across the chasm. In this view
it required more than ten billion years for the universe to percieve
of itself and its existance.
Nice and thoughtful reflections.
Not from you!
Ty Shrake
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Ty Shrake wrote:
<snip>
Ignoring the time factor, everything began
with and came out of the Big Bang some 15 billion years ago (+/--)
a couple of billion years. This was the Beginning of time and
space and matter and the laws of physics as we know them in our
universe.
You cannot ask what was _before_ the big bang, since there was
no time hence no before. You can not ask what caused the Big
Bang since cause and effect (laws of physics) did not exist until
a split second _after_ the big bang. Where in space did it happen?
There was no space before the big bang since there was no before.
If you were able to run time backwards from the present, you
would come to some point in space at .000000000I sec. after the
explosion. But there could be nothing(?) 1 trillionth of a sec.
after that? Where did the matter in the universe come from? The
Big Bang.
Where is the hard evidence of this?
You clearly don't have the grasp of cosmology
I thought you had on the basis of your first posting. How can
you argue against a young earth scenario by using the light year
argument and yet still fail to grasp even the rudiments of Big
Bang theory (now called Inflation theory just so your're up to
date).
I am not ignorant of the theory - the point
is that this theory has become almost a dogmatic religion. The
idea that cause and effect occurred a split second after the
big bang - that’s a thought experiment (to use an Einstein-term).
To get a firm basis for a healthy cosmology
what origins are concerned, I recommend the Vedic Scriptures
of the Hindus, the oldest literature on earth.
Your grasp of anything is pretty tenuous
at this point.
And where did the energy that compressed
then released the energy of the big bang come from and what was
the compressing enerigy? This I believe is beyond science.
Beyond the science of the present day.
There is no answer, and this is an unsatisfactory
state of affairs. If religion and philosophy has a place in human
thought this is it.
As a cultural heretic, I think that religion,
philosophy, science and art should all be reunited (like in antiquity).
On this NG many people have asked "Where
did God come from?" There is no answer to this question
either, so in the final analysis if I deny God's existance, I'm
still faced with the unknown and unknowable questions as they
pertain to the Big Bang. The fact is, life, matter, time, space,
you and I exist, therefore, there had to be a beginning.
Perhaps a beginning is just something "demanded"
by man.
Complete piffle. A snowflake has a beginning...
is that something mankind demanded? Or, if this is out of context
for you, the sun had a beginning.... and yet man wasn't even
around to demand it. Your argument is just wandering aimlessly
now...
What I mean is this: The idea that once upon
the time, or once upon BEFORE time, nothing existed - THAT is
something demanded by man.
But in a non - antropic universe, what
would reality be if intelligence did not exist to perceive it?
If there were no consciousness, no being,
there would be no reality. The non-material, lifeless universe
of the past is a product of our thinking. Without our thoughts,
it would not exist.
In the book, Schrondingers Cat, by John
Grishen(sp) he draws an illustration representing the antropic
universe and intelligence in the shape of a "U". On
one arm he represents the stars planets etc. - the universe,
and on the other arm he represents intelligence as a eye stairing
across the chasm. In this view it required more than ten billion
years for the universe to percieve of itself and its existance.
Nice and thoughtful reflections.
Not from you!
Are we grouchy today or what?
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ty Shrake
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 14:44:19 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Ty Shrake wrote:
><snip>
Ignoring the time factor, everything began
with and came out of the Big Bang some 15 billion years ago (+/--)
a couple of billion years. This was the Beginning of time and
space and matter and the laws of physics as we know them in our
universe.
You cannot ask what was _before_ the big bang, since there was
no time hence no before. You can not ask what caused the Big
Bang since cause and effect (laws of physics) did not exist until
a split second _after_ the big bang. Where in space did it happen?
There was no space before the big bang since there was no before.
If you were able to run time backwards from the present, you
would come to some point in space at .000000000I sec. after the
explosion. But there could be nothing(?) 1 trillionth of a sec.
after that? Where did the matter in the universe come from? The
Big Bang.
Where is the hard evidence of this?
You clearly don't have the grasp of cosmology
I thought you had on the basis of your first posting. How can
you argue against a young earth scenario by using the light year
argument and yet still fail to grasp even the rudiments of Big
Bang theory (now called Inflation theory just so your're up to
date).
I am not ignorant of the theory - the point
is that this theory has become almost a dogmatic religion. The
idea that cause and effect occurred a split second after the
big bang - that’s a thought experiment (to use an Einstein-term).
To get a firm basis for a healthy cosmology what origins are
concerned, I recommend the Vedic Scriptures of the Hindus, the
oldest literature on earth.
OK, so to answer scientific questions we should use religious
texts? ... And by the way, I have read a good deal of Hindu and
Buddhist literature and it's great if you're a Hindu or a Buddhist,
but if you're a scientist it doesn't help very much.
Your grasp of anything is pretty tenuous
at this point.
And where did the energy that compressed
then released the energy of the big bang come from and what was
the compressing enerigy? This I believe is beyond science.
Beyond the science of the present day.
There is no answer, and this is an unsatisfactory
state of affairs. If religion and philosophy has a place in human
thought this is it.
As a cultural heretic, I think that religion,
philosophy, science and art should all be reunited (like in antiquity).
On this NG many people have asked "Where
did God come from?" There is no answer to this question
either, so in the final analysis if I deny God's existance, I'm
still faced with the unknown and unknowable questions as they
pertain to the Big Bang. The fact is, life, matter, time, space,
you and I exist, therefore, there had to be a beginning.
Perhaps a beginning is just something "demanded"
by man.
Complete piffle. A snowflake has a beginning...
is that something mankind demanded? Or, if this is out of context
for you, the sun had a beginning.... and yet man wasn't even
around to demand it. Your argument is just wandering aimlessly
now...
What I mean is this: The idea that once
upon the time, or once upon BEFORE time, nothing existed - THAT
is something demanded by man.
Says who? The simple fact is that the question
of WHAT existed before the Big Bang (or for that matter if there
even was a *before* to speak of) is completely outside the scope
of science. Whether something or nothing existed is irrelevant.
And if human beings *demand* something to be there then that
is the fault of human beings, but it simply doesn't fall under
the scope of science.
More to the point, since I don't demand it
I stand as a living counter example to your bald generalization
that *man* demands it and therefore your statement is false.
But in a non - antropic universe, what
would reality be if intelligence did not exist to perceive it?
If there were no consciousness, no being,
there would be no reality. The non-material, lifeless universe
of the past is a product of our thinking. Without our thoughts,
it would not exist.
OK, this is pure Idealism. Take this to one
of the religious or philosophical news groups. You won't have
much success here.
In the book, Schrondingers Cat, by John
Grishen(sp) he draws an illustration representing the antropic
universe and intelligence in the shape of a "U". On
one arm he represents the stars planets etc. - the universe,
and on the other arm he represents intelligence as a eye stairing
across the chasm. In this view it required more than ten billion
years for the universe to percieve of itself and its existance.
Nice and thoughtful reflections.
Not from you!
Are we grouchy today or what?
No, just to the point. What you originally
posed as as scientific question was in fact, as some inquiry
has revealed, a religious question. I have nothing against your
religion and in fact I am a great admirer of Eastern thought
(much more so than Western religious thought), but don't pose
as one thing only to move as another. You'll get caught for sure...
Ty Shrake
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Ty Shrake wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 14:44:19 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Ty Shrake wrote:
<snip>
Ignoring the time factor, everything began
with and came out of the Big Bang some 15 billion years ago (+/--)
a couple of billion years. This was the Beginning of time and
space and matter and the laws of physics as we know them in our
universe. You cannot ask what was _before_ the big bang, since
there was no time hence no before. You can not ask what caused
the Big Bang since cause and effect (laws of physics) did not
exist until a split second _after_ the big bang. Where in space
did it happen? There was no space before the big bang since there
was no before.
If you were able to run time backwards from the present, you
would come to some point in space at .000000000I sec. after the
explosion. But there could be nothing(?) 1 trillionth of a sec.
after that? Where did the matter in the universe come from? The
Big Bang.
Where is the hard evidence of this?
You clearly don't have the grasp of cosmology
I thought you had on the basis of your first posting. How can
you argue against a young earth scenario by using the light year
argument and yet still fail to grasp even the rudiments of Big
Bang theory (now called Inflation theory just so your're up to
date).
I am not ignorant of the theory - the point
is that this theory has become almost a dogmatic religion. The
idea that cause and effect occurred a split second after the
big bang - that’s a thought experiment (to use an Einstein-term).
To get a firm basis for a healthy cosmology
what origins are concerned, I recommend the Vedic Scriptures
of the Hindus, the oldest literature on earth.
OK, so to answer scientific questions we
should use religious texts? ... And by the way, I have read a
good deal of Hindu and Buddhist literature and it's great if
you're a Hindu or a Buddhist, but if you're a scientist it doesn't
help very much.
I respectfully disagree.
Your grasp of anything is pretty tenuous
at this point.
And where did the energy that compressed
then released the energy of the big bang come from and what was
the compressing enerigy? This I believe is beyond science.
Beyond the science of the present day.
There is no answer, and this is an unsatisfactory
state of affairs. If religion and philosophy has a place in human
thought this is it.
As a cultural heretic, I think that religion,
philosophy, science and art should all be reunited (like in antiquity).
On this NG many people have asked "Where
did God come from?" There is no answer to this question
either, so in the final analysis if I deny God's existance, I'm
still faced with the unknown and unknowable questions as they
pertain to the Big Bang. The fact is, life, matter, time, space,
you and I exist, therefore, there had to be a beginning.
Perhaps a beginning is just something "demanded"
by man.
Complete piffle. A snowflake has a beginning...
is that something mankind demanded? Or, if this is out of context
for you, the sun had a beginning.... and yet man wasn't even
around to demand it. Your argument is just wandering aimlessly
now...
What I mean is this: The idea that once
upon the time, or once upon BEFORE time, nothing existed - THAT
is something demanded by man.
Says who? The simple fact is that the question
of WHAT existed before the Big Bang (or for that matter if there
even was a *before* to speak of) is completely outside the scope
of science. Whether something or nothing existed is irrelevant.
And if human beings *demand* something to be there then that
is the fault of human beings, but it simply doesn't fall under
the scope of science.
More to the point, since I don't demand it I stand as a living
counter example to your bald generalization that *man* demands
it and therefore your statement is false.
Then what is truth?
But in a non - antropic universe, what
would reality be if intelligence did not exist to perceive it?
If there were no consciousness, no being,
there would be no reality. The non-material, lifeless universe
of the past is a product of our thinking. Without our thoughts,
it would not exist.
OK, this is pure Idealism. Take this to
one of the religious or philosophical news groups. You won't
have much success here.
I’ve been there, but I LOVE strong opposition.
In the book, Schrondingers Cat, by John
Grishen(sp) he draws an illustration representing the antropic
universe and intelligence in the shape of a "U". On
one arm he represents the stars planets etc. - the universe,
and on the other arm he represents intelligence as a eye stairing
across the chasm. In this view it required more than ten billion
years for the universe to percieve of itself and its existance.
Nice and thoughtful reflections.
Not from you!
Are we grouchy today or what?
No, just to the point. What you originally
posed as as scientific question was in fact, as some inquiry
has revealed, a religious question. I have nothing against your
religion and in fact I am a great admirer of Eastern thought
(much more so than Western religious thought), but don't pose
as one thing only to move as another. You'll get caught for sure...
I honestly haven’t posed as anything
- it’s been straight from the liver all the way.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Taylor
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
...(comments on Big Bang by Ty Shrake)
I am not ignorant of the theory - the point
is that this theory has become almost a dogmatic religion.
Nonsense, there is still lots of debate among
scientific cosmologists concerning the existence and nature of
the big bang.
The idea that cause and effect occurred
a split second after the big bang - that’s a thought experiment
(to use an Einstein-term).
I'm afraid this statement contridicts your
profession of non-ignorance. The big bang has nothing to do with
the above statement. There are popular books on the subject by
reputable scientists. e.g. The First Three Minutes, The Big Bang,
etc.
To get a firm basis for a healthy cosmology what origins are
concerned, I recommend the Vedic Scriptures of the Hindus, the
oldest literature on earth.
Healthy? What do you mean by healthy? I have nothing against
Vedanta, but it hardly claims to be scientifically accurate.
Or maybe you're a Vedic fundamentalist??
Larry Taylor
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Larry Taylor wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
...(comments on Big Bang by Ty Shrake)
I am not ignorant of the theory - the point is that this theory
has become almost a dogmatic religion.
Nonsense, there is still lots of debate
among scientific cosmologists concerning the existence and nature
of the big bang.
I wasn’t referring to the researchers.
The idea that cause and effect occurred
a split second after the big bang - that’s a thought experiment
(to use an Einstein-term).
I'm afraid this statement contridicts your
profession of non-ignorance. The big bang has nothing to do with
the above statement. There are popular books on the subject by
reputable scientists. e.g. The First Three Minutes, The Big Bang,
etc.
The statement I answered was snipped.
To get a firm basis for a healthy cosmology
what origins are concerned, I recommend the Vedic Scriptures
of the Hindus, the oldest literature on earth.
Healthy? What do you mean by healthy? I have nothing against
Vedanta, but it hardly claims to be scientifically accurate.
Or maybe you're a Vedic fundamentalist??
I welcome amusing labels.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Scharle
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
That is not proven.
[...snip...]
There is something a bit charming about this
kind of self-defeating rhetoric. (Calling it "logic"
is rather much of a stretch, isn't it?)
--
Tom Scharle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Painter
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote...
The idea of a lifeless earth is pure conjecture which cannot
be proven. .
Where is the hard evidence of this?
Beyond the science of the present day.
Perhaps a beginning is just something "demanded" by
man.
Looked promising at first but by the time
I reached the end of the current thread I see someone with a
limited knowledge of what science is and some dogmatic views.
Today is the second day of the universe and I ask Maeve why she
allows such things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roy.altholz
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Mike Painter wrote...
Tarjei Straume wrote...
The idea of a lifeless earth is pure conjecture
which cannot be proven. .
Where is the hard evidence of this?
Beyond the science of the present day.
> >
Perhaps a beginning is just something "demanded" by
man.
Looked promising at first but by the time
I reached the end of the current thread I see someone with a
limited knowledge of what science is and some dogmatic views.
Today is the second day of the universe and I ask Maeve why she
allows such things.
Maybe if we cleaned the litterboxes more often.........?
--
Boikat
"Facts are stupid things."
-- Ronald Reagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Honus
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Mike Painter wrote:
Today is the second day of the universe
and I ask Maeve why she allows such things.
You talk to her? Directly? So *you* must be
the guy I'm supposed to be sending my tithes too! I've been looking
for you. <gbg>
--
Remove NOSPAM from my address to reply by e-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Honus
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Welcome, Tarjei.
I'm sure you will find many people on this
NG who will disagree with you that life from non - life (Biogenesis)
is superstition. But life MUST have come from non - life.
Sounds like a dogmatic decree.
Four and one half billion years ago life
on this planet did NOT exist:
That is not proven.
(3.8) billion years ago, it did exist.
So life did in fact come from non- life there is no other alternative.
The idea of a lifeless earth is pure conjecture
which cannot be proven.
So how's about instead of pooh-poohing what
everybody says you tell us *your* idea of where life came from...and
be specific.
Now for the real fun: Creationists and
fundies, I hope you come out to play.
From the look of things so far, even *they*
would walk all over you. Set aside the ganja for awhile, eh?
<Good big bang stuff snipped>
Where is the hard evidence of this?
Have you bothered to look anywhere?
And where did the energy that compressed
then released the energy of the big bang come from and what was
the compressing enerigy? This I believe is beyond science.
So was the ability to place men on the moon.
I guess it's a good thing that what you believe is irrelevant
to science at large, huh?
As a cultural heretic, I think that religion,
philosophy, science and art should all be reunited (like in antiquity).
"As a cultural heretic"? Whose antiquity
are you referring to? Whose religion? Whose philosophy? Whose
art? "...like in antiquity"....pft. First off, my religion,
my philosophy and my science have been united
beautifully, and I'll thank you not to screw around with it.
In the past, Bad Things have always happened to people that tried
to do what you're suggesting. Learn from history and don't try
to bring on "The Dark Ages Part II".
http://uncletaz.com/
And if it weren't for the fact that you have
a website that shows too much work to indicate simple deceit
and seems to be legit, I'd swear you were Maycock.
--
Death to Trolls. Death to Spammers.
Remove NOSPAM from my address to reply by e-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Honus wrote:
<snip>
And where did the energy that compressed
then released the energy of the big bang come from and what was
the compressing enerigy? This I believe is beyond science.
So was the ability to place men on the
moon. I guess it's a good thing that what you believe is irrelevant
to science at large, huh?
You’ve just responded to something not
written by me. It happens easily when a thread gets long.
As a cultural heretic, I think that religion,
philosophy, science and art should all be reunited (like in antiquity).
"As a cultural heretic"? Whose
antiquity are you referring to?
Ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and the
Orient.
Whose religion? Whose philosophy? Whose
art? "...like in antiquity"....pft. First off, my religion,
my philosophy and my science have been united beautifully, and
I'll thank you not to screw around with it. In the past, Bad
Things have always happened to people that tried to do what you're
suggesting.
Learn from history and don't try to bring
on "The Dark Ages Part II".
http://uncletaz.com/
And if it weren't for the fact that you
have a website that shows too much work to indicate simple deceit
and seems to be legit, I'd swear you were Maycock.
Did you try some links at the bottom....?
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Honus
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Honus wrote:
<snip>
And where did the energy that compressed
then released the energy of the big bang come from and what was
the compressing enerigy? This I believe is beyond science.
So was the ability to place men on the
moon. I guess it's a good thing that what you believe is irrelevant
to science at large, huh?
You’ve just responded to something
not written by me. It happens easily when a thread gets long.
Oops. My apologies.
As a cultural heretic, I think that religion,
philosophy, science and art should all be reunited (like in antiquity).
"As a cultural heretic"? Whose
antiquity are you referring to?
Ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and
the Orient.
Proving my point, IMO. None of those listed
have congruent belief systems, so wishing for the good old days
when all was united is just silly. Those things may have been
united in country "A", but country "B"
(with a different religion wouldn't agree.) Since parts of the
natural world are universal and don't give a damn about borders,
gravity being an example, your "Unification Theory"
just won't work.
Whose religion? Whose philosophy? Whose
art? "...like in antiquity"....pft.
http://uncletaz.com/
And if it weren't for the fact that you
have a website that shows too much work to indicate simple deceit
and seems to be legit, I'd swear you were Maycock.
Did you try some links at the bottom....?
What does that have to do with my idle speculation?
Do you mean to say that I may be right after all?
--
Death to Trolls. Death to Spammers.
Remove NOSPAM from my address to reply by
e-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Honus wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Honus wrote:<snip>
And where did the energy that compressed
then released the energy of the big bang come from and what was
the compressing enerigy? This I believe is beyond science.
So was the ability to place men on the
moon. I guess it's a good thing that what you believe is irrelevant
to science at large, huh?
You’ve just responded to something
not written by me. It happens easily when a thread gets long.
Oops. My apologies.
As a cultural heretic, I think that religion,
philosophy, science and art should all be reunited (like in antiquity).
"As a cultural heretic"? Whose
antiquity are you referring to?
Ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and
the Orient.
Proving my point, IMO. None of those listed
have congruent belief systems, so wishing for the good old days
when all was united is just silly.
I am not "wishing for the good old days."
I am merely pointing out that e.g. in Mesopotamia, science and
religion were united in the art of astrology. Anthroposophists
do not wish to return to astrology, but have developed a new
science called "new astronomy", i.e. a spiritual astronomy
for the future that has certain traits in common with ancient
astrology (which is not to be confused with modern astrology
which has succumbed to superstition).
Those things may have been united in country
"A", but country "B" (with a different religion
wouldn't agree.) Since parts of the natural world are universal
and don't give a damn about borders, gravity being an example,
your "Unification Theory" just won't work.
Your rendition of my statement concerned is
no longer recognizable. There are already new sciences at work
all over the world where these elements are combined, working
into the future.
Whose religion? Whose philosophy? Whose
art? "...like in antiquity"....pft.
http://uncletaz.com/
And if it weren't for the fact that you
have a website that shows too much work to indicate simple deceit
and seems to be legit, I'd swear you were Maycock.
Did you try some links at the bottom....?
What does that have to do with my idle
speculation? Do you mean to say that I may be right after all?
About what?
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elmer Bataitis
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/04
Tarjei Straume wrote:
I agree. Pythagoras' cosmology, by the
way, was considerably closer to reality than the popular ones
of the present day.
And the evidence that you can provide that
supports your contention that Pythagorean cosmology is closer
to reality than, e.g., the Big Bang, is....????
Coming soon to a bookstore near you: "Bird
Entrails and the Stock Market". Sheest.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elmer Bataitis
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/04
Tarjei Straume wrote:
I believe the earth has its origin in earlier
embodiments of our solar system
Believe anything you want. It's a free country.
The question is: what kind of evidence do you have that supports
your belief??
When I say that life comes from life, it
is presented as my theory which cannot be empirically disproven.
It would actually be your hypothesis, not
your theory. But the problem is that the empirical evidence does
tend to disprove your hypothesis. IOW the Big Bang is evidenced
all over the place, which also implies that life was at one time
nonlife.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/04
Ty Shrake wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 17:40:43 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Ty Shrake wrote:
<snip>
This conjecture is based upon the assumption
that life as we know it cannot exist independently of material-biological
substance. I hold a different view based upon a spiritual-religious
Weltanschauung.
So now we get to the meat and potatos don't
we... Your definition of life is much different than that of
science. If one maintains the definition that science has provided
then my statements are completely valid, but since you want to
change the rules and define life ANY DAMN WAY AT ALL then the
rules of science no longer apply.
If materialistic science cannot provide
a satisfactory definition of life, if it is possible to broaden
the defition of life beyond the boundaries of this science, the
rules of science are in no way invalidated thereby.
Here AGAIN it's OK to go WAY beyond want
is accepted in the scientific community. This is always your
little escape hatch. And if you think " the rules of science
are in no way invalidated thereby" (Nice try at pomposity)
by going WELL outside of what is scientifically verifiable then
you clearly don't know jack squat about science.
If anyone feels offended by the expansion
of the scientific method to the realm of the spiritual, may I
humbly inform you that this is not my own doing. If you check
out some of the links I provide for those who wish to examine
the sources, as well as some links on my own web page, you may
be alarmed to discover that there are people all over the world
who subscribe, research and pursue this.
If the definition of science thus presented
fails to meet the limitations of the scientific community, so
be it. It may be compared to the heretics who defied the church
in the Middle Ages. It remains to be seen which concept of science
will hold sway in say 500 years hence.
Personally I am not a scientist, but a freelance
writer and editor of an Anarchist magazine in Norway; all I can
do is point to organizations and institutions that practice spiritual
science and related disciplines.
So if you are going to ask the questions
that you do then have the sense (and courtesy) to inform everyone
that, oh, by the way, your definition of life is well outside
of the definition accepted by science. Don't ask for scientific
answers to a question that presupposed unscientific concepts.
Yet I do. but the scientific answers that
I find come from quarters with a less limited definition of science.
I did not. Anyone who admits that life
cannot be defined wíthin the sole confines of biology,
chemistry and physics must conclude that materialistic science
is incapable of defining life at all.
I disagree. Materialistic science is perfectly
capable of defining biological life, or "life-as-the-scientific-community-knows-it".
Uh... OK....next time try to provide an
answer that actually makes sense...
Therefore life arose later. In other words,
there was a time when there was no life (unless you have an extremely
broad definition of life).
Yes, I have a broad definition of life,
and I have no faith in a time with no life - past, present or
future.
You could have mentioned this crucial fact
in your opening statements.
I didn’t think of it then, because I
didn’t know which direction this thread would take me.
I thought I’d be arguing with creationists,
but you must have chased them away.
So life, in principle, DID arise from lifeless
matter.
An assumption not substantiated by hard
evidence.
You are as bad as a creationist because
you are clearly incapable of seeing the scientific facts as they
are. The concept that life arose from non living matter is DEFINITELY
substantiated by science and simple logic, whether your personal
religious beliefs agree with this or not.
Has it been proven beyond resonable doubt?
And isn't this what this ultimately boils
down to.... your personal religious beliefs?
I’ll be very honest with you on that:
No. It boils down to my conviction that spiritual science works.
You're going to have to show that modern
cosmology is incorrect regarding the early universe to get around
this, and given your clear appreciation of astronomy I don't
think you will be too inclined to do that. Even if you are inclined
you'll have an awful time proving it.
Modern cosmology does not have to be incorrect
unless it is stated that life originating from non-life is a
scientific fact. The rest of this task I would turn over to an
anthroposophical astro-physicist, mathematician, or astronomer,
or I would at least need the time to acquire the appropriate
books.
I am under no obligation to prove or disprove
any cosmology - only to explain, describe, or indicate why I
subscribe to an alternative one. And if anyone wants to examine
its validity, I refer to the literature concerned.
You ARE under some obligation to make claims
that don't COMPLETELY DEFY cosmology. And as far as examining
the validity of your view, please provide references to "the
literature concerned".
Here is a link for starters:
http://www.goetheanum.ch/
(Knowledge of German may be an advantage here.)
Here is another good site:
http://www.steinercollege.org/
From these web pages you can trace the links
to "the literature concerned" in any field you like.
Conditions in the universe, or in our solar
system, in very far ancient times cannot be made subject to scientific
proof or disproof.
Oh yes they can. In fact, everytime you
look into the night sky your are, as you said yourself, looking
into the past. If you see 10,000 galaxies that are all a billion
light years from earth and they are all extremely hot, and you
have either never observed a cold one or observed one only rarely,
then you can safely assume that our galaxy probably existed under
similar conditions a billion years ago.
Is that a safe assumption? Even if the
assumption feels safe for you, it ain’t necessarily so.
You bet it's a safe assumption. If you
see 10,000 trees with branches, except for number 387, which
did not have branches, would you assume that number 10,001 would
also have branches? If not then explain why you think it is AS
LIKELY for number 10,001 to NOT have branches as to have branches.
Granted. But there is always an element of
doubt that our present methods of observation may appear a lot
less reliable in the future than they do today. Still, I am not
at odds with the conditions you have just described, but only
saying that we may not always view them that way.
Furthermore, the existence of heavy elements
on earth proves that the earth was once part of a very hot nuclear
fusion process some time in the past.
I agree with that assumption.
Good, but since you define life to your
own liking your agreement serves no purpose....
I don’t see how the nuclear fusion process
can get in the way of life coming from life.
Moreover, we can, for brief periods of
time, replicate these very hot conditions in the laboratory.
We can actually measure the effects of heat on matter *as it
happens*. If this isn't enough for you I guess only a miracle
would be. You obviously haven't been reading very much scientific
literature.
I read quite a bit, but I don’t take
everything I read as gospel truth.
Neither do I, but if I tell you that an
experiement has been performed and it is documented in such and
such periodical are you going to say that the experiement is
a sham (as if it were never performed?) What parts of science
do you take as the truth and what parts don't you? Do you think
the scientific method really allows you to be flexible with this?
No, I accept all such research and the results
of it. The only reason I sometimes take what I read in popular
scientific magazines with a pinch of salt, is that once I read
that some anthropologists had " discovered" why we
walk on two legs with an erect spine: The female half-monkey,
our ancestor, had to raise herself up when carrying wood into
the cave.
So I do not need to produce counterproof
to say that something is not proven.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
Again, I refer you to the cosmology of
the early universe. If you agree that the early universe was
an extremely hot place (I don't think you'll find any cosmologist
arguing against that idea) then you will need to show how life
could be sustained in such an environment.
The sun is an extremely hot place, and
it is the origin of all life as we know it. It is because the
sun is the abode of the gods; that is why there were sun cults
in ancient times. The presence of a higher species on the sun,
for those who go along with it of course, indicates not only
that non-material life can be sustained, but that the heat and
the light of the sun is generated by living beings.
This is just complete blather. You have
no idea what you are talking about. Are you some sort of shaman
or something?
No, only an anthroposophist. I have been
studying anthroposophy for three decades, which means that I
do know what I am talking about.
Tell me, what accredited university awards
degrees in "anthroposophy"?
The researchers take their degrees in materialistic
scientific fields before they combine it with anthroposophy.
Other questions may be answered by Rudolf Steiner College in
California. The link to their site is given above.
You clearly DON'T KNOW what you are talking
about, at least with regard to science.
You are entitled to your opinion. I admit
that I am not a scientist, and if you are, I’m at a disadvantage.
But I still think you exaggerate the extent of my ignorance due
to misunderstandings.
After spending half of my day responding
to your psuedo rational blather I am convinced that you sir are
ill informed and unprepeared.
Unprepared for what? The End of the World?
the Nova of the Sun?
You will also need to show how the complex
molecules that make up life were both created and sustained in
this environment. This will be difficult because those same molecules
and compounds break down at those temperatures today.
I do have some literature that deals with
this; just give me some time to find it.
If I bother to continue wasting my time
with you in this thread I can tell you that you are going to
need it.
Furthermore, some of the heavy elements
needed for sustained life could only be created later, after
star formation. So you will also need to show how the heavy elements
were created without star formation. Unless of course you have
an entirely novel concept of life that is a deviation from what
is commonly understood (reproducing organisms, etc....). Until
you show all of these things your claim, to couch it in your
own terms, is pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
And so is any claim to the contrary.
What? What the hell kind of answer is that?
....This last reply you posted has done it. You are just blathering
here with no understanding of science or what I am saying to
you. I have deeper conversations with my dog (his name is Einstein,
by the way).
I’m sure you and Einstein communicate
beautifully.
Go away and learn something about science.
Take a few classes for Pete's sake...
And perhaps you should learn something
about spiritual science.
Blah, blah, blah..... I studied Buddhism
for 4 years under my Tae Kwon Do master (Master Chung in Birmingham,
Alabama if you care to check references)... I don't need your
high and mighty preaching. There is nothing scientific about
spiritualism (even Master Chung will tell you this)... get that
through your terribly dull cranium and maybe we can talk science.
Good bye and good riddance...
Ty Shrake
Did I insult Einstein?
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Johnston
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/04
Tarjei Straume wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 12:47:09 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
sure can. we can, for example, disprove
the old steady state theory of the universe. thus, again, you
are wrong.
You cannot prove how conditions were billions
of years ago. One can only speculate on the basis of probabilities.
The same is true about the present. We always
can only speculate on the basis of probabilities.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
and there is where you fail.
I humbly fail to see my failure.
Life comes from life is an adequate generalisation,
but like all generalisations room exists for an exception, and
all that is required is one exception. Unless it is shown that
there is some reason why life can't come from unliving materials,
which would be difficult since all life is composed of unliving
materials, there is no basis to assume that LCFL is a fundamental
principle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/04
David Johnston wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 12:47:09 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
sure can. we can, for example, disprove
the old steady state theory of the universe. thus, again, you
are wrong.
You cannot prove how conditions were billions
of years ago. One can only speculate on the basis of probabilities.
The same is true about the present. We
always can only speculate on the basis of probabilities.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
and there is where you fail.
I humbly fail to see my failure.
Life comes from life is an adequate generalisation,
but like all generalisations room exists for an exception, and
all that is required is one exception. Unless it is shown that
there is some reason why life can't come from unliving materials,
which would be difficult since all life is composed of unliving
materials, there is no basis to assume that LCFL is a fundamental
principle.
I get your point, but permit me to make one
comparison: My computer is made from mineral substances found
in nature. A future researcher may discover it and argue that
one cannot disprove that the operative system, the software,
etc. comes from a primordial soup consisting of silicon, plastic,
etc. - and that it may have been brought into operation by a
jolt of electricity when struck by lightening.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/04
Ty Shrake wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 18:08:38 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Ty Shrake wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 14:44:19 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Ty Shrake wrote:
<snip>
Ignoring the time factor, everything began
with and came out of the Big Bang some 15 billion years ago (+/--)
a couple of billion years. This was the Beginning of time and
space and matter and the laws of physics as we know them in our
universe.
You cannot ask what was _before_ the big bang, since there was
no time hence no before. You can not ask what caused the Big
Bang since cause and effect (laws of physics) did not exist until
a split second _after_ the big bang. Where in space did it happen?
There was no space before the big bang since there was no before.
If you were able to run time backwards from the present, you
would come to some point in space at .000000000I sec. after the
explosion. But there could be nothing(?) 1 trillionth of a sec.
after that? Where did the matter in the universe come from? The
Big Bang.
Where is the hard evidence of this?
You clearly don't have the grasp of cosmology
I thought you had on the basis of your first posting. How can
you argue against a young earth scenario by using the light year
argument and yet still fail to grasp even the rudiments of Big
Bang theory (now called Inflation theory just so your're up to
date).
I am not ignorant of the theory - the point
is that this theory has become almost a dogmatic religion. The
idea that cause and effect occurred a split second after the
big bang - that’s a thought experiment (to use an Einstein-term).
To get a firm basis for a healthy cosmology what origins are
concerned, I recommend the Vedic Scriptures of the Hindus, the
oldest literature on earth.
OK, so to answer scientific questions we
should use religious texts? ... And by the way, I have read a
good deal of Hindu and Buddhist literature and it's great if
you're a Hindu or a Buddhist, but if you're a scientist it doesn't
help very much.
I respectfully disagree.
Your grasp of anything is pretty tenuous
at this point.
And where did the energy that compressed
then released the energy of the big bang come from and what was
the compressing enerigy? This I believe is beyond science.
Beyond the science of the present day.
There is no answer, and this is an unsatisfactory
state of affairs. If religion and philosophy has a place in human
thought this is it.
As a cultural heretic, I think that religion,
philosophy, science and art should all be reunited (like in antiquity).
On this NG many people have asked "Where
did God come from?" There is no answer to this question
either, so in the final analysis if I deny God's existance, I'm
still faced with the unknown and unknowable questions as they
pertain to the Big Bang. The fact is, life, matter, time, space,
you and I exist, therefore, there had to be a beginning.
Perhaps a beginning is just something "demanded"
by man.
Complete piffle. A snowflake has a beginning...
is that something mankind demanded? Or, if this is out of context
for you, the sun had a beginning.... and yet man wasn't even
around to demand it. Your argument is just wandering aimlessly
now...
What I mean is this: The idea that once
upon the time, or once upon BEFORE time, nothing existed - THAT
is something demanded by man.
Says who? The simple fact is that the question
of WHAT existed before the Big Bang (or for that matter if there
even was a *before* to speak of) is completely outside the scope
of science. Whether something or nothing existed is irrelevant.
And if human beings *demand* something to be there then that
is the fault of human beings, but it simply doesn't fall under
the scope of science.
More to the point, since I don't demand it I stand as a living
counter example to your bald generalization that *man* demands
it and therefore your statement is false.
Then what is truth?
Nice question. Too bad nobody alive now
or in all of history can satisfactorily answer it...
This was the famous pregnant question from
Pontius Pilate when Christ uttered the words, "I am the
way, the truth, and the life..."
But in a non - antropic universe, what
would reality be if intelligence did not exist to perceive it?
If there were no consciousness, no being,
there would be no reality. The non-material, lifeless universe
of the past is a product of our thinking. Without our thoughts,
it would not exist.
OK, this is pure Idealism. Take this to
one of the religious or philosophical news groups. You won't
have much success here.
I’ve been there, but I LOVE strong
opposition.
The stick around and keep talking...
PS: What shoe size do you wear????
Eleven. Got some nice boots for me or something?
I’ll make a note about putting my snail mail address on
my web page...
In the book, Schrondingers Cat, by John
Grishen(sp) he draws an illustration representing the antropic
universe and intelligence in the shape of a "U". On
one arm he represents the stars planets etc. - the universe,
and on the other arm he represents intelligence as a eye stairing
across the chasm. In this view it required more than ten billion
years for the universe to percieve of itself and its existance.
Nice and thoughtful reflections.
Not from you!
Are we grouchy today or what?
No, just to the point. What you originally
posed as as scientific question was in fact, as some inquiry
has revealed, a religious question. I have nothing against your
religion and in fact I am a great admirer of Eastern thought
(much more so than Western religious thought), but don't pose
as one thing only to move as another. You'll get caught for sure...
As pointed out earlier, I’m a cultural
heretic who mixes scientific inquiry with religious elements.
That’s anthroposophy the way I understand it.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elmer Bataitis
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/04
Tarjei Straume wrote:
As pointed out earlier, I’m a cultural
heretic who mixes scientific inquiry with religious elements.
That’s anthroposophy the way I understand it.
Sounds more like groovy teenage solipsism
to me ;-)
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
I get your point, but permit me to make
one comparison: My computer is made from mineral substances found
in nature. A future researhcer may discover it and argue that
one cannot disprove that the operative system, the software,
etc. comes from a primordial soup consisting of silicon, plastic,
etc. - and that it may have been brought into operation by a
jolt of electricity when struck by lightening.
If the future changes the laws of chemistry
and physics as we know them such that microchip like structures
natually arise from silicone and transitor-like activity is seen
to form spontaneousy in albeit much simple forms, that future
researching would be forced to consider the possibility.
An interesting scenario. If a future like
that should arise, and someone claimed that "technology
comes from man", the enlightened minds of that age would
refuse to accept it because it was untestable.
Only if all evidence of human's making
technology gets wiped out. Considering it's one of our most significant
deviations from animals, I don't think it will disappear entirely
while the technonology continues.
Just one little comment: Technology is
a biproduct of self-dependent thinking enabled by the special
structure of the brain resulting from the vertical position of
the spine, and THAT is what distinguishes us from the animal
species.
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed
literature, please.
Something can be completely untestable,
yet true. We know that. We accept that. You're not rocking the
boat. You are no heretic.
Oh that hurts. I prefer being called an
idiot.
I know. I know. True, nonetheless.
If a person speculating today had virtually
no knowledge of the inate behavior of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen,
Sulfer, Phosphorous and assorted salts, it might seem just as
unlikely for biochemistry to spontaneously arise as it seems
for computers to just happen. But then what is the speculation
of someone so ill informed really worth?
Intimate knowledge of how mineral substances
behave and interact does not ipso facto add one iota to the probability
of the spontaneous, happenstance emergence of life.
These aren't exclusively mineral substances.
They are us. We are stardust. What makes us so different from
them? What is the vital difference between the processes that
go on inside us and those in a primordial soup? Why do you have
such a hard time with mystery and wonder?
First off, I believe that mystery and wonder
are necessary motivators for human progress in all fields - in
science, art, and religion. Secondly, consider this: You say
"I think..."; you don’t say "My brain cells
think..." During the course of seven years, every cell in
the body has been replaced by new ones. When you cut your nails,
you’re cutting off food that you ate several years ago.
You cannot say that you *are* these substances that are simply
passing though you just like the air is going in and out of your
lungs. The mineral substances, including flesh and blood, is
only our external clothing just like clothes that get worn out
and need to be replaced.
<Shrug> So consciousness is the "continuity
of experience" rather than a simple state of molecular configurations.
The processes that those molecules go through are what I was
driving at. What makes those processes in biologically inactive
matter different from those in biologically active matter?
Of course we are stardust, but we are also
the living beings that have been nurtured by the sun, the giver
of life.
Your point?
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Ty Shrake wrote:
On 4 Jul 1998 01:26:32 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
OK, now I KNOW you're a complete idiot. Look below at the section
that starts with "I did not. Anyone who admits that life...."
Go on... scroll down and look...
[snip]
I disagree. Materialistic science is perfectly
capable of defining biological life, or "life-as-the-scientific-community-knows-it".
So, you DISAGREE WITH YOURSELF.... YOU
made the statement above! In other words, you made one statement,
snipped out my response to it, read your own statement again
at a later time and then disagreed with it.
It’s because life is very difficult
to define, and whether or not it is possible to define it at
all depends upon the context in which a definition is required.
Defining it is easy.
Not as long as we live in a complex universe.
Definitions are arbitrary.
It's trying to rigidly determine whether
or not something is alive (i.e. making a sharp division between
life and non-life) and maintaining a correspondence with intuitive
notions of what is alive.
I concur with that approach when "biological-life-as-we-know-it"
is the question.
I am deeply sorry. I lost my train of thought
by the end of that long sentence. Please append "that is
the difficult part" to that sentence and re-respond.
Thus biology usually uses a continuum rather
than strict categories. You do not.
No comment.
Why not?
Life in the broadest meaning of the world
cannot be defined scientifically.
Such a definition cannot be *used* by science
when you use the broadest meaning possible (i.e. everythin, the
definition you use) since it thoroughly undermines the purpose
of making definitions.
If a given phenomenon or concept lies beyond
the boundaries of materialistic science, it should be accepted
that definitions cannot always be made.
Then the word cannot be used.
Biological "life-as-we-know-it",
on the other hand, does not elude such definitions.
Not sure how you intend "elude"
to mean.
dodge
Okay, how does it fit in with the sentence
and the conversation?
Besides, you should look up in a dictionary
or an encyclopaedia to find out what an idiot is.
_idiot_: a human being conspicuously deficient
in mental powers and in the capacity for self-protection
(Funk & Wagnalls International Dictionary, 1976)
I’ll think about hiring some bodyguards
plus a secretary to operate my keyboard.
Tarjei
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yahweh@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
Tarjei Straume wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
since natural life did not always exist
(look at mars, for example) your logic is a failure
The fact that biological-material life
forms are not everywyere present does not invalidate the logic
in question.
what it DOES indicate is that non-life
is possible.
An indication implies an assumption, or
a hypothsis. I have not endeavored to refute or alter the indication
in question, only to point out that alternative hypotheses and
assumptions may be equally valid.
There are always alternative answers. However,
they are not equally valid. The prefered answer is the simplest.
Why? Because that's the one that is usually right. Why is the
simplest answer usually rignt? Beats me.
since that is the case, its obvious that
the same condition on earth could (and the evidence indicates
DID) exist at some point. this falisfies your argument.
An indication cannot falsify anything.
Your "argument" doesn't really need
to be falsified, since you have offered no substantiating evidence.
Below, you tell us why.
sure can. because there are lifeless planets
in the solar system,and the evidence indicates the earth was
at one time lifeless>
When you say "indicates", you
mean subjective interpretation of external data. That is not
scientific evidence or proof. The absence of biological life
forms does not disprove the existence of spiritual beings.
oh. you're right. it doesnt. it doesnt
prove the non existence of unicorns or puff the magic dragon
either.
It certainly doesn’t.
excuse me. i thought you were talking about
rational existence. i didnt realize peter paul and mary were
also part of your magic.
We were. But I also take non-rational,
or extra-rational thinking into account which is cognizant of
the existence of a spiritual world behind the the veil of the
physical senses which is the origin of the material universe.
The "non-rational" is apparent.
What the hell is "extra-rational"? Please define both
"rational" and "extra-rational".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Stirling Walker
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
Dear members of this fascinating discussion
thread:
I came here after seeing a forwarded message
from Tarjei (hvordan står det til?) on an Anthroposophical
mailing list for scientists.
I am not a professional natural scientist,
but I am a self-employed spiritual scientist who has been making
my living as a researcher and consultant in the field of Anthroposophy
for some time.
What Ty Shrake is missing, and what let to
his angry denunciation of Tarjei's mental abilities, is the distinction
which has (oh-so-gradually) begun to be cognized in this group
between "biological
life," or, as Tarjei also said, "life-as-(materialist)
science-knows-it," and life in the sense in which Tarjei
grasps it. The whole debate and misunderstanding on Ty's part
derives from people's unawareness, clearly, that y'all are simply
talking about different realities using the same word (this has
become obvious to some by now, I guess.)
Ty: Tarjei did _not_ contradict or disagree
with himself! On the one hand he talked about the possibility
that natural science _cannot_ successfully define "life,"
meaning, in that instance, life understood anthroposophically;
and on the other, he admitted that natural science _can_ define
_biological life_, or _"life-as-(materialistic) science-knows-it,"
which is a _different meaning_ for the word "life"
than his first statement.
Apologies for having to clarify this, to those
who could see Ty's mistake; I hope Ty can see it, now!
Other than this problem of seeing how definitions
underly communication problems, Tarjei seems to me to be doing
a bang-up job of representing anthroposophical thinking here.
Yours truly,
Jack
P.S. I welcome e-mail, since I won't be following
this thread
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Honus
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
John Stirling Walker wrote:
Other than this problem of seeing how definitions
underly communication problems, Tarjei seems to me to be doing
a bang-up job of representing anthroposophical thinking here.
I find that a bit alarming.
P.S. I welcome e-mail, since I won't be
following this thread
WebTV again. Hmmm.
--
Death to Trolls. Death to Spammers.
Remove NOSPAM from my address to reply by
e-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
On 5 Jul 1998 20:58:04 -0400, John Stirling
Walker wrote:
Dear members of this fascinating discussion
thread:
I am not a professional natural scientist, but I am a self-employed
spiritual scientist who has been making my living as a researcher
and consultant in the field of Anthroposophy for some time.
why do 'spirtualists', and religious fundamentalists
feel the need to call themselves scientists? what is it about
science that makes them feel inadequate to deal with their issues
w/o getting them sanctioned by science?
are they THAT insecure?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
John Stirling Walker says...
Dear members of this fascinating discussion thread:
I came here after seeing a forwarded message from Tarjei (hvordan
står det til?) on an Anthroposophical mailing list for
scientists.
I am not a professional natural scientist, but I am a self-employed
spiritual scientist who has been making my living as a researcher
and consultant in the field of Anthroposophy for some time.
What Ty Shrake is missing, and what let to his angry denunciation
of Tarjei's mental abilities, is the distinction which has (oh-so-gradually)
begun to be cognized in this group between "biological life,"
or, as Tarjei also said, "life-as-(materialist) science-knows-it,"
and life in the sense in which Tarjei grasps it. The whole debate
and misunderstanding on Ty's part derives from people's unawareness,
clearly, that y'all are simply talking about different realities
using the same word (this has become obvious to some by now,
I guess.)
To me at least. I fully realize that Tarjei
at least and maybe all anthroposophists have chosen to coopt
the word _life_ and apply a new meaning to it. Misunderstandings
would be much less common if people use a shared lexicon. As
it is, the major responsibility is on the anthroposophists. If
you choose to use non-standard definitions, you can't blame anyone
else that people don't understand you. My question is why they
do this to themselves.
Ty: Tarjei did _not_ contradict or disagree
with himself! On the one hand he talked about the possibility
that natural science _cannot_ successfully define "life,"
meaning, in that instance, life understood anthroposophically;
and on the other, he admitted that natural science_can_ define
_biological life_, or _"life-as-(materialistic) science-knows-it,"
which is a _different meaning_ for the word "life"
than his first statement.
Apologies for having to clarify this, to those who could see
Ty's mistake; I hope Ty can see it, now!
Other than this problem of seeing how definitions underly communication
problems, Tarjei seems to me to be doing a bang-up job of representing
anthroposophical thinking here.
I am very, very sorry to hear that.
Yours truly,
Jack
P.S. I welcome e-mail, since I won't be following this thread
[e-mailed and posted]
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Your idea is unprovable.
So what? Only things like Pythagorean's Theorem aren't (and then
they are bounded by certain axioms and postulates).
I agree. Pythagoras, cosmology,
by the was, was considerably closer to reality than the popular
ones of the present day.
Evidence? or simply more
assertion? I wasn't talking about his cosmology; his geometric
thereom relating the lengths of the sides of right triangles
in a plane. His cosmology was his own mysticism (he wasn't any
scientist; evidence be damned, he made up what felt nice to him).
Then his theorem isn’t
worth much either - he just made it up because it felt nice to
him.
Oh, it has great utility.
It is very useful when using Euclidean spaces for finding the
distance between two points given Cartesian coordinates. Given
the axiomatic framework he used, the Pythagorean Theorem is proved
and can be used whenever we have that framework (such as when
we are dealing with Euclidean spaces). He didn't just make it
up because it felt good to him. It was the end result of a train
of logic from a set of axioms (which he made up because they
were convenient) as long as we are working within those axioms,
the theorem holds, and there are many, many instances where they
do and where the theorem is very useful. When did you last take
a math class?
Before I graduated decades
ago. The point is that if you take the life work of an initiate
like Pythagoras, divide it up and say, "This is useful because
it can be utilized by pure logic.
It's more like "This
is useful because I can find the distance between two points
in Euclidean space using Cartesian coordinates."
That, on the other hand,
involves religion, so he must have made it up because it felt
good to him"
"That, on the other hand
does nothing for me."
- when you do that, you
apply a prejudicial bias which tears up Pythagoras’ genius.
His geometry was part of his cosmology, one of his many tools
to cognize the cosmos.
I doubt he actually cared
about how the Universe worked. All indications point to his trying
to apply his prejudices to the Universe.
That puts your idea in
no special regard. Your idea is also untestable. What observation
would cause you to not believe in your idea?
If I were a sculptor who
made a beautiful woman in stone or in wood, fell in love with
my creation, and she became alive and breathing by magic, in
flesh and blood. then I would accept that life may arise from
inorganic substances alone.
But stone and wood are
alive according to you.
True. But conscious, biological
life arising spontaneously out of mineral substances, though
the latter be a manifestation or ossification of life, is what
the question is all about. But as you can see, our languages
need more words for "life", a broader and more precise
vocabulary.
You see, there is a broader
vocabulary for dealing with the concept you keep referring to.
"Spirit", "ethereal", "vital essence",
"quintessence", etc. Instead of using these terms,
you have decided to lump them together into one word and use
that word exclusively even though every one else is using the
broader, more precise vocabulary. You are criticizing yourself.
Take your own advice.
Of course I am criticizing
myself. Without self-criticism we get nowhere. And what I am
trying to do, is to "crawl inside the skin of the dragon".
Then take your own advice
for once.
The words you suggest above
would be more confusing if they did not reflect exactly what
is meant in spiritual science. "Vital essence," for
instance, is used by New Age and normally refers to what theosophists
and anthroposophists call "ether". "Spirit"
is not to be comfused with ether, astrality, or soul. But all
of this is life.
All of these words have a
significantly smaller population that gets utterly confused when
you use them than when you use _life_.
A human being consists
of four members: 1) a physical body, which he has in common with
all mineral bodies, 2) an etheric body (also called vital body),
which he has in common with the plants and which in humans is
the bearer of thoughts and memories, 3) an astral body, or soul,
which is connected the central nervous system and which man shares
with warmblooded vertebrates, and 4) the "I", which
makes self-dependent thinking possible. There are potentially
three additional higher members in man which will evolve in the
future.
Evidence?
And again, as per my other
posting, the only way around this is
to redefine the common understanding of 'life'. Since you have
not
done this I can only assume you mean carbon based reproducing
organisms.
>Wrong.
Then please redefine life
(hell, give us *a* definition of life).
A new, clear definition
of life is currently being worked on in medicine and biology,
Any new scientific definition
of life according to biology and medicine would seem to be something
very different from whatever you have in mind.
Not anthroposophical medicine
and related fields.
They aren't science. From
what I've seen, they subscribe to no scientific methodology that
I could discern. If you can show me to be wrong, please do so.
Quote something substantial (with appropriate attribution, of
course).
Here is a quote from Physicians'
Association for Anthroposophical Medicine:
[snip]
The above only mentions
scientific methods as a side issue. And when it does do so, it
references an "extended" spiritual science, which isn't
science.
I disagree.
When it says that mainstream
science supports it, it gives no specifics.
No response?
I cannot answer questions
on behalf of medicine, whether it is orthodox or alternative.
Additional information
may be obtained at
http://www.anthroposophy.org.nz/Sections/Medical/AEM.htm
All I found was what you
quoted, a short article on what PAAM is, how to become an Anthroposophic
Physician and how to become a member of PAAM. Not exactly relevant
additional information, is it?
I would not know. I just
picked up that page spontaneously on search when you asked for
it. Perhaps there are other web sites. Were there no links?
Nope. Still in construction.
<snip>
Now do you have any evidence
to support your idea? Why should I reject science for your idea?
You shouldn’t accept
my idea if it entails rejecting science.
It does.
t does according to your
thinking, not to mine.
We are talking about my
acceptance. Your thinking is irrelevant until you can manage
to convince me to use it.
I am not selling you a
product. I am only pointing out that alternative sciences exist.
You are free to accept or reject it.
I was pointing out that your
thinking means squat to me because you offered that adopting
your idea did not entail rejecting science under your thinking.
If you choose the former
but need more info, or need to be convinced for that matter,
I simply point to the particular subject, scientific field, or
topic that is closest to your personal interest or curiosity.
You asked me if anthroposophical medicine had anything to do
with cancer treatment. I answered affirmative and came with suggestions
where you might pick up more info. If I had been a doctor or
a nurse with plenty of medical experience, it would have been
a different matter.
If you are interested, I would recommend a book by Dr. Victor
Bott entitled "Anthroposophical Medicine - Spiritual Science
and the Art of Healing" (1984).
Thank you. Now why should
I reject science to adopt your idea?
If so, why not let them
continue to use the word "life" for that, and come
up with another one for your own concept? "Spirit"
or "life-force" or "God" or whatever. Maybe
then there will be less talking past each other...
Like I said, spiritual
considerations are highly relevant to the discussion about the
origin of life.
I thought you said that
it had no origin?
Individual species and
life forms and conditions have their origin.
Then I am curious why you
used the phrase "origin of life".
When I assume, which I
do, that life has always existed, "origin of life"
is, in fact, a contradiction in terms
No kidding. When you assume
your conclusion, you can all sorts of silly things. Try assuming
as little as possible and then be prepared to change those assumptions
when observation does not support or actively contradicts them.
Try growing up. It's a tough, but utterly necessary process.
If my assumption were positively
disproven, I would naturally drop it.
Positively disproving something
is impossible outside of axiomatic systems.
But if you were to say
that you base nothing on unproven assumptions (like the origin
of life), you wouldn’t be honest.
I don't. I say that I base
most everything on well-supported assumptions which I am very
willing to change as the available evidence does. It's still
imperfect, but it's the best we have.
which may perhaps only
be modified by an expanded vocabulary. The Lapps in the north
of Scandinavia have 40 or 50 words for "snow". Why
do we only have one for "life"?
As I've said, we don't
have just one word for the concept you call life. You are the
only one insisting that we use only life.
The other words you suggested
were useless.
Much less so than the one
_life_.
What I am questioning is
the assumption that there was a time when no life existed.
If we define life to be
everything, then we have no argument. I don't see how such a
definition is useful, however. I can see how harmful it can be.
When science says that life-as-we-know-it probably arose from
non-life, it means that non-selfreplicating, non-homeostatic
chemicals formed into a (or many) selfreplicating, homeostatic
systems which evolved into present-day lifeforms.
The theory appears to be
flawed, but when it is phrased "Science says...." it’s
about as authoritarian as "The Bible says..."
Did you bother to notice
the "probably"?
Yes I did, but it’s
a probability that is fervently believed in. It is not the scenario
in its apprearance I’m at odds with, but its supposition
of cause and effect.
The way science usually works
is that an idea is held while the available evidence supports
it. When evidence comes along to refute it or cast significant
doubt on it, it is abandoned. If an idea is held for very long
it is because the evidence supports it well for very long. Yes,
there are human beings involved; consequently the process is
imperfect. But it is one of the most error-correcting tools we
have. When you can show evidence that they are wrong, they will
cease to believe. You have not done that.
Especially when there are
so many sciences.
Fine, place the word _mainstream_
before the word _science_ and you will get what I was trying
to say.
I get it: Go with the crowd.
Sigh. You read what you wish
into everything, don't you? I was marking out a specific group
(as a subset from the whole of all "sciences") that
was saying "that life-as-we-know-it probably arose from
non-life" and meant "that non-selfreplicating, non-homeostatic
chemicals formed into a (or many) selfreplicating, homeostatic
systems which evolved into present-day lifeforms." I was
clearing up meanings of statements. Now that the meaning is clear,
quit dodging the issue.
Please, I ask again, state
your idea fully and clearly. We don't care how long it is, those
who do not wish to read it will skip it.
Very well. Fasten your
seatbelts, and I’ll do my best. In the meantime, you may
take a fast peak at the following URLs:
http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=0880104899
http://www.steinercollege.org/RSCPCatalog.pdf
They'll have to wait until
a library opens up. Question: are there any such books on treating
cancer? If there are any of validity, they should be in the Scientific
Library at the National Cancer Institute (Frederick Cancer Research
Facility) where I work.
I know there is an anthroposophical
cancer treatment center in Switzerland called the Lukas Clinic,
and the anthroposophical medical center in Jarna, Sweden, is
also doing such work I think. Whether or not they should be in
the National Cancer Institute library depends upon mutual acceptance.
Does the National Cancer Institute support laboratory animal
research, for instance?
Yes.
In that case, enthusiasm
among anthroposophical doctors to be associated with it would
probably be minimal.
Or do they accept alternative
medicine?
Getting grants for it would
be somewhat difficult, especially since it doesn't fit into any
one of the existing labs. However, since NIH (which we are a
subsidiary of) has recently said that some alternative medicine
actually works (taijiquan, etc.) for some things, I wouldn't
be surprised if we didn't sometime soon, though probably at Bethesda.
How many of their members
practice such medicine?
We don't have memberships;
we have jobs. We are an active research laboratory.
I’m not asking you,
but only suggesting what kind of questions to ask.
Your query about books for treating cancer should perhaps be
directed to:
http://www.goetheanum.ch/
and try to locate the medical section.
Doesn't exist on the Web.
Try the Jarna Bridge in
Sweden at
http://www.antronet.se/pres-eng.htm
Not enough in English, sorry.
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yahweh@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
Tarjei Straume wrote:
RD Heilman wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, Im new here, Ive come to play,
and Im looking forward to some fun.
First off, Ill declare my disagreement with the atheists who
believe in a strictly materialistic evolution. Life comes from
life, and it is completely illogical to assume that living organisms
have their origin in lifeless matter. Thats the superstition
of our time.
Welcome, Tarjei.
I'm sure you will find many people on this
NG who will disagree with you that life from non - life (Biogenesis)
is superstition. But life MUST have come from non - life.
Sounds like a dogmatic decree.
Four and one half billion years ago life
on this planet did NOT exist:
That is not proven.
(3.8) billion years ago, it did exist.
So life did in fact come from non- life there is no other alternative.
The idea of a lifeless earth is pure conjecture
which cannot be proven.
Now for the real fun: Creationists and
fundies, I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us
to galaxies that are hundreds of millions of light years away.
This means that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds
of millions of years before it reached earth, so when we look
into the telescope, we are actually gazing hundreds of millions
of years into the past.
If the universe is as young as creationists not only wish that
it was, but insist that it is, the stars and the galaxies in
question would not have been visible from earth because the light
would still be in transit. It would be interesting to get a creationists
explanation for the fact that we in fact can look hundreds of
million years into the past like that.
I personally think that creationist who
believe this are the vast minority. In terms of eternity, six
thousand, sixty thousand, or sixty billion years is all the same.
It is all meaningless. What percentage of eternity is 60 billion?
The way I understand it, the creationists
believe that the entire material universe came into being six
thousand years ago or a little more, and that absolutely everything
that exists was manifested out of nothing during the course of
six or seven days and nights.
Ignoring the time factor, everything began
with and came out of the Big Bang some 15 billion years ago (+/--)
a couple of billion years. This was the Beginning of time and
space and matter and the laws of physics as we know them in our
universe.
You cannot ask what was _before_ the big bang, since there was
no time hence no before. You can not ask what caused the Big
Bang since cause and effect (laws of physics) did not exist until
a split second _after_ the big bang. Where in space did it happen?
There was no space before the big bang since there was no before.
If you were able to run time backwards from the present, you
would come to some point in space at .000000000I sec. after the
explosion. But there could be nothing(?) 1 trillionth of a sec.
after that? Where did the matter in the universe come from? The
Big Bang.
Where is the hard evidence of this?
And where did the energy that compressed
then released the energy of the big bang come from and what was
the compressing enerigy? This I believe is beyond science.
Beyond the science of the present day.
There is no answer, and this is an unsatisfactory
state of affairs. If religion and philosophy has a place in human
thought this is it.
As a cultural heretic, I think that religion,
philosophy, science and art should all be reunited (like in antiquity).
On this NG many people have asked "Where
did God come from?" There is no answer to this question
either, so in the final analysis if I deny God's existance, I'm
still faced with the unknown and unknowable questions as they
pertain to the Big Bang. The fact is, life, matter, time, space,
you and I exist, therefore, there had to be a beginning.
Perhaps a beginning is just something "demanded"
by man.
But in a non - antropic universe, what
would reality be if intelligence did not exist to perceive it?
In the book, Schrondingers Cat, by John Grishen(sp) he draws
an illustration representing the antropic universe and intelligence
in the shape of a "U". On one arm he represents the
stars planets etc. - the universe, and on the other arm he represents
intelligence as a eye stairing across the chasm. In this view
it required more than ten billion years for the universe to percieve
of itself and its existance.
Nice and thoughtful reflections.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
Wow! A supporter of Hoyle's old steady-state
model of the universe. I thought you guys all died!
You really are putting forth the theory that
there was no beginning to the universe: as it is, so has it always
been...
Right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Curt Tabor wrote:
Why? If God can POOF! life into existence,
why can't he also POOF! light waves into existence? If life needs
no source but God, why does light?
You’ll have to ask a creationist about
that.
Well, I'm asking you. You did say that
only life comes from life. What exactly did you mean by that?
That life existed before non-life or "lifeless
matter".
Note to others: he defines everything to
be alive.
Excuse me for making assumptions, but that
is standard cretinist boilerplate.
Perhaps this is the only, or at least one
of the few, valid point(s) the creationists have to go on.
What life form was it that you think begat
life on this planet?
A higher, older, more advanced form of
life. Indications of the nature of this, or these, form(s] of
life are to be found in classical religious literature, in mythology
and legends, and advanced poetry.
Damn good stories, most of them. What makes
them accurate statements of truth which should be taken with
precedence over what we can directly observe?
I have not mentioned anything about precedence.
The most genuine and authentic among these stories WERE direct
observations of supersensible phenomena and events. It is called
seership.
What is your evidence for this? You obviously
believe it. Why?
Materialists believe that myths and legends
are pure fantasies unconnected with reality, but this is not
the case. The further we go back in history, the more physical
events are intermingled with spiritual happenings.
We also see people in harder times, less
possibility of observation of the natural world, and a damn strong
need for cultural identity. Which is more likely: that their
spiritual beliefs are an accurate depiction of all reality, as
many (most?) claim, or that they are stories that made them feel
good and kept them together in a semi-stable culture to deal
with a cold, harsh world that would likely kill the whole lot
if they didn't? The first feels a whole lot better than the second,
but which is more likely?
The latter of the two is pure fantasy arising
from modern superstitions about antiquity.
Very well supported by the evidence. Do you
have contradictory evidence?
The Bible is a typical example of this,
and so is the lore of the Vikings and the ancient Greeks (Homer).
The Vedas of India are perhaps the most fascinating of all.
But what evidence supports them? All we
have to go on is that they said they are right. That we can independently
confirm parts of them does not imply the whole is accurate: humans
are very good at half-truths. So I ask, what evidence?
The best approach is to compare literature
from widely different sources.
All that would point to is a similar experience.
According to the evidence, life sucked pretty much the same all
over the world.
Apart from literature, there is no external
evidence for supernatural history (and neither for the life of
Christ for that matter), and for this reason, it falls outside
the scope of materialistic science. Spiritual science, however,
points to methods of research that can be conducted by anyone
with sufficient will power and endurance to develop spiritual
organs of perception. In this way, each individual must seek
out the evidence on his own.
So how does "spiritual science"
search for these things?
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dick
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dick wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dick wrote:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
I will use this definition from the online Websters Dictionary:
an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism,
growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
Trees are alive, bacteria are alive. Rocks aren't. Air isn't.
Water isn't.
First of all, at one time there was no
life on earth, unless you are talking about panspermia life arose
here on earth from non-life.
Everything that exists, including matter
or chemical substances, is dependent upon life. So I disagree
that there was an earth with no life.
Neither rocks, nor water, nor the basic
elements depend on life for anything. If you believe any different
may I suggest a drug treatment program.
There are poets and artists who talk to
the elements every day, and you want them arrested by the drug
squad for not thinking the way you do.
Poets and artists who talk to elements? Well,
just because they talk to them does not mean said elements are
alive. And I never said anything about having them, or you arrested.
I simply suggested one avenue to have your mental problem taken
care of.
If life existed before space-time, there
cannot have been a "somewhere else" in the universe.
Nothing existed.
It is self-evident that you were not there,
so you have no empirical substance for your allegation.
It is self-evident that you do not have a
clue as to what you are claiming. No, I wasn't there. But we
do see evidence of what happened. Unlike your ideas which are
built on pure religious speculation
Was God, then, non-life?
Yep, he is not life. Besides, he did not
beget life, he formed it from the dust of the earth.
I see. A dead god making life out of dead
matter.
I dead not say god was dead, I said he was
non life. The god of the bible is a spiritual being, and does
not meet the criteria for life.
Your logic is even better, that God was
non-life who created life in his own non-life image. Now THAT’S
theology.
Yep, theology as I learned it. However,
it doesn't matter if god is alive or not. God formed life from
dust, not from reproduction. Thus abiogenesis.
The external forms (bodies) were made of
dust. The soul and spirit came from the living God or Gods. Check
any creation story from any religion, and ask some theologians.
The claim of a living god is not the same
as biological life. Besides, haven't you noticed, religion often
bears little resemblance to science, and should not be considered
the same.
Dick (Chris) Craven
Mark of the Beast Recipient June 1998.
Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
email: dickcr@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Let's not have two versions of the conversation
going at one time. My experience has been that doing so only
confuses both parties. I don't mind private e-mail, but let's
keep such either exactly what we post or not what we post at
all. Am I making sense; I'm not so sure.
Perfectly.
The "vaguely mystical" notions
of which I have scratched the surface are not untestable, but
their scientific testing requires exceptionally hard work during
the course of many years.
The amount of work is not the issue. How
can it be tested?
The best reliable method consists of developing
spiritual organs of perception so that one can conduct this kind
of research oneself. Although there is a School of Spiritual
Science in Dornach (of which I know very little) that works toward
this goal, the world has yet not heard of anyone capable of conducting
this research except the founder of Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner.
He did write several books with detailed instructions about how
to prepare onself for such research, but they are extremely exacting
to practice.
I can't see what he sees, so I'll just have
to take his word for it?
It is however possible to test some results
of Steiner’s research without possessing the science of
seership. This testing consists of making certain observations
of natural phenomena that most people are unaccustomed to make
and pay special attention to details that are normally overlooked.
It's called science. And it doesn't confirm
what Steiner says (or what you say Steiner say).
[snip]
If so, why not let them continue to use
the word "life" for that, and come up with another
one for your own concept? "Spirit" or "life-force"
or "God" or whatever. Maybe then there will be less
talking past each other...
Like I said, spiritual considerations are
highly relevant to the discussion about the origin of life.
I thought you said that it had no origin?
Origin of life is the topic of discussion.
Even if life as an energy or as a universal consciousness has
always existed, this does not mean that you and I, "life
as we know it" and all the animal and plant species don’t
have an origin. Every living being has an origin, but this does
not mean that there has been a time when no life existed.
Right. We were talking about the possible
origin of life-as-we-know-it from not-life-as-we-know-it, be
the latter non-life or some extended definition of life. You
use a definition for the term _life_ that is much different from
what anyone not an anthroposophist defines it.
I must emphasize that these definitions,
or attempts at definitions, are my own. They do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of other anthroposohists.
Okay, so that *really* limits the number of
people who can understand you to one. Yourself. The purpose of
defining terms is to serve as a common ground for discussion.
They have no other purpose.
That's alright in and of itself, but when
people are communicating, definitions should be chosen such that
all parties can come to some agreement on clear, least-ambiguous
definitions. Your trying to talk to a very wide group of people,
none of whom that I know of are anthroposophists. They have a
different definition for the term _life_. You have to accomodate
for that if you want anyone to know what you are saying. Otherwise,
lines are crossed, and we can't tell what you are saying, much
less understand it and deal with it. That is your responsibility
as the initiator of discussion and extreme minority. Not that
we don't have any responsibility to compromise on a definition.
It is unreasonable to always expect the other person to conform.
However, your definition is too broad, vague, and empty.
I’m still working on that.
If I understand you right, under your definition
of the term _life_, everything is alive. But that doesn't tell
me what quality everything shares with everything else such that
they can be considered alive under this definition.
This is difficult. On one hand I am of
the opinion that everything is alive - a concept I believe I
share with most theosophists and anthroposophists. On the other
hand, there is a clear distinction to be made between the animate
and the inanimate, between the dead and the living, between a
living human being and a corpse. That is why I wish there were
at least two words for "life." But I’ll get back
to this and get it somewhat clarified by quoting some of my sources.
Well, animate and inanimate is a start. A
small one, but it's a start.
Please, I ask again, state your idea fully
and clearly. We don't care how long it is, those who do not wish
to read it will skip it.
Very well. Stand by and be ready to beam
onboard.
Standing by. Post it to the newsgroup as
well.
You have asked me to explain more fully
my view of cosmogenesis and related topics. This may require
a few days of preparation. In the meantime, I am posting a third
"anthroposophical morsel" on my home page, i.e. a third
lecture by Rudolf Steiner, entitled "The Ahrimanic Deception".
I have to clear some copyright restrictions on this one, so while
I’m waiting for response from Anthroposophic Press in New
York and the Goethanum in Dornach, Switzerland, you might like
to make a hard copy (if you’re interested) just IN CASE
I am turned down.
My choice of "anthroposophical morsels" are less relevant
to science and cosmogenesis and more to religion. My reason for
doing this is to clear up some misconceptions about Rudolf Steiner
in orthodox Christian circles while at the same time asserting
my right to be a Christian and still call myself an anarchist.
"The Ahrimanic Deception" may yet have an important
relevance to our discussion because it sheds light on my disagreement
with certain trends of thought that are preponderant within the
scientific community and in this group.
I expect my postings to my home page (the lecture) and to the
group (answering your post) to be completed by tomorrow morning
(Monday).
Tarjei
Home Page:
http://uncletaz.com/
[To any "happened-to-drop-by-the-thread-people":
I'm sorry if you don't care
about all this. We'll move to email-only if you want.]
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dick
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
honus1@earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote:
John Stirling Walker wrote:
Other than this problem of seeing how definitions
underly communication problems, Tarjei seems to me to be doing
a bang-up job of representing anthroposophical thinking here.
I find that a bit alarming.
Fuzzy terms, represented by fuzzy thinking.
He is absolutely correct.
P.S. I welcome e-mail, since I won't be
following this thread (no time): Geistesforscher@webtv.net
WebTV again. Hmmm.
Yep, the lowest common denominator intelligence
wise we see on the web. At least with AOL the user had to be
smart enough to turn on a computer and insert a disk. With webtv,
they don't even need to be that smart.
Dick (Chris) Craven
Mark of the Beast Recipient June 1998.
Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
email: dickcr@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yahweh@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/05
Tarjei wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs
can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
Here it comes.
Let's look at Tarjei's "logic".
Life comes from life is a statement like peach trees come from
peach pits.
In as much as they say, they are correct observations.
This does not say that new peach trees *only* arise from peach
tree pits.
The logic presented is so superficially flawed that people go
right past it to the baggage which is usually associated with
it.
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish logic for why life
*only* arises from life, though it seems to be the point he wishes
he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
Tarjei
Actually, no. Your "life ONLY comes from
life" assertion is disprovable. As soon as life is created
in the lab from nonliving materials, your theory is disproven.
It may take a while, though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
I get your point, but permit me to make
one comparison: My computer is made from mineral substances found
in nature. A future researhcer may discover it and argue that
one cannot disprove that the operative system, the software,
etc. comes from a primordial soup consisting of silicon, plastic,
etc. - and that it may have been brought into operation by a
jolt of electricity when struck by lightening.
If the future changes the laws of chemistry
and physics as we know them such that microchip like structures
natually arise from silicone and transitor-like activity is seen
to form spontaneousy in albeit much simple forms, that future
researching would be forced to consider the possibility.
An interesting scenario. If a future like
that should arise, and someone claimed that "technology
comes from man", the enlightened minds of that age would
refuse to accept it because it was untestable.
Only if all evidence of human's making
technology gets wiped out. Considering it's one of our most significant
deviations from animals, I don't think it will disappear entirely
while the technonology continues.
Just one little comment: Technology is
a biproduct of self-dependent thinking enabled by the special
structure of the brain resulting from the vertical position of
the spine, and THAT is what distinguishes us from the animal
species.
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed
literature, please.
Look: I am not writing this from a library
or with a list of quotes with references next to me. The literature
that I do have is supplied with inadequate indexes. And I won’t
spend the whole night on it.
Something can be completely untestable,
yet true. We know that. We accept that. You're not rocking the
boat. You are no heretic.
Oh that hurts. I prefer being called an
idiot.
I know. I know. True, nonetheless.
If a person speculating today had virtually
no knowledge of the inate behavior of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen,
Sulfer, Phosphorous and assorted salts, it might seem just as
unlikely for biochemistry to spontaneously arise as it seems
for computers to just happen. But then what is the speculation
of someone so ill informed really worth?
Intimate knowledge of how mineral substances
behave and interact does not ipso facto add one iota to the probability
of the spontaneous, happenstance emergence of life.
These aren't exclusively mineral substances.
They are us. We are stardust. What makes us so different from
them? What is the vital difference between the processes that
go on inside us and those in a primordial soup? Why do you have
such a hard time with mystery and wonder?
First off, I believe that mystery and wonder
are necessary motivators for human progress in all fields - in
science, art, and religion. Secondly, consider this: You say
"I think..."; you don’t say "My brain cells
think..." During the course of seven years, every cell in
the body has been replaced by new ones. When you cut your nails,
you’re cutting off food that you ate several years ago.
You cannot say that you *are* these substances that are simply
passing though you just like the air is going in and out of your
lungs. The mineral substances, including flesh and blood, is
only our external clothing just like clothes that get worn out
and need to be replaced.
<Shrug> So consciousness is the "continuity
of experience" rather than a simple state of molecular configurations.
The processes that those molecules go through are what I was
driving at. What makes those processes in biologically inactive
matter different from those in biologically active matter?
I don’t have sufficient knowledge of
microbiology to answer that question, but I’ll forward it.
But the fact that when a person dies, the processes in his body
change radically; it gradually dissolves, and the substances
return to where they came from - this indicates that there must
be a significant difference.
Of course we are stardust, but we are also
the living beings that have been nurtured by the sun, the giver
of life.
Your point?
That not everything that proceeds from the
sun is of a material character.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
I get your point, but permit me to make
one comparison: My computer is made from mineral substances found
in nature. A future researhcer may discover it and argue that
one cannot disprove that the operative system, the software,
etc. comes from a primordial soup consisting of silicon, plastic,
etc. - and that it may have been brought into operation by a
jolt of electricity when struck by lightening.
If the future changes the laws of chemistry
and physics as we know them such that microchip like structures
natually arise from silicone and transitor-like activity is seen
to form spontaneousy in albeit much simple forms, that future
researching would be forced to consider the possibility.
An interesting scenario. If a future like
that should arise, and someone claimed that "technology
comes from man", the enlightened minds of that age would
refuse to accept it because it was untestable.
Only if all evidence of human's making
technology gets wiped out. Considering it's one of our most significant
deviations from animals, I don't think it will disappear entirely
while the technonology continues.
Just one little comment: Technology is
a biproduct of self-dependent thinking enabled by the special
structure of the brain resulting from the vertical position of
the spine, and THAT is what distinguishes us from the animal
species.
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed
literature, please.
Look: I am not writing this from a library
or with a list of quotes with references next to me. The literature
that I do have is supplied with inadequate indexes. And I won’t
spend the whole night on it.
Then don't make claims you can't support.
Something can be completely untestable,
yet true. We know that. We accept that. You're not rocking the
boat. You are no heretic.
Oh that hurts. I prefer being called an
idiot.
I know. I know. True, nonetheless.
If a person speculating today had virtually
no knowledge of the inate behavior of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen,
Sulfer, Phosphorous and assorted salts, it might seem just as
unlikely for biochemistry to spontaneously arise as it seems
for computers to just happen. But then what is the speculation
of someone so ill informed really worth?
Intimate knowledge of how mineral substances
behave and interact does not ipso facto add one iota to the probability
of the spontaneous, happenstance emergence of life.
These aren't exclusively mineral substances.
They are us. We are stardust. What makes us so different from
them? What is the vital difference between the processes that
go on inside us and those in a primordial soup? Why do you have
such a hard time with mystery and wonder?
First off, I believe that mystery and wonder
are necessary motivators for human progress in all fields - in
science, art, and religion. Secondly, consider this: You say
"I think..."; you don’t say "My brain cells
think..." During the course of seven years, every cell in
the body has been replaced by new ones. When you cut your nails,
you’re cutting off food that you ate several years ago.
You cannot say that you *are* these substances that are simply
passing though you just like the air is going in and out of your
lungs. The mineral substances, including flesh and blood, is
only our external clothing just like clothes that get worn out
and need to be replaced.
<Shrug> So consciousness is the "continuity
of experience" rather than a simple state of molecular configurations.
The processes that those molecules go through are what I was
driving at. What makes those processes in biologically inactive
matter different from those in biologically active matter?
I don’t have sufficient knowledge
of microbiology to answer that question, but I’ll forward
it. But the fact that when a person dies, the processes in his
body change radically; it gradually dissolves, and the substances
return to where they came from - this indicates that there must
be a significant difference.
So chemical laws change when someone dies?
Where do you get this from?
Of course we are stardust, but we are also
the living beings that have been nurtured by the sun, the giver
of life.
Your point?
That not everything that proceeds from
the sun is of a material character.
I'm not seeing how it fits into the conversation.
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mike.darnell@usa.net
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Tarjei Straume wrote:
David Johnston wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 12:47:09 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
sure can. we can, for example, disprove
the old steady state theory of the universe. thus, again, you
are wrong.
You cannot prove how conditions were billions
of years ago. One can only speculate on the basis of probabilities.
The same is true about the present. We
always can only speculate on the basis of probabilities.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
and there is where you fail.
I humbly fail to see my failure.
Life comes from life is an adequate generalisation,
but like all generalisations room exists for an exception, and
all that is required is one exception. Unless it is shown that
there is some reason why life can't come from unliving materials,
which would be difficult since all life is composed of unliving
materials, there is no basis to assume that LCFL is a fundamental
principle.
I get your point, but permit me to make
one comparison: My computer is made from mineral substances found
in nature. A future researhcer may discover it and argue that
one cannot disprove that the operative system, the software,
etc. comes from a primordial soup consisting of silicon, plastic,
etc. - and that it may have been brought into operation by a
jolt of electricity when struck by lightening.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
Possibilities exist. Umm hmmm. If a workable
mechanism can be devised whereby computers can be constructed
in spontaneously out of primordial soup, then the theory would
have some credence. However, the preferred theory is the simplest.
If your future researcher is unaware of the existence of a technological
civilization which was in existence at the time your computer
was constructed, his would be a reasonable theory. Naturally,
it would be rejected in favor of a theory stating that "humans
constructed this computer" when evidence of human civilization
was discovered.
This is analogous to the current state of
theories about the origin of life. The first theory proposed
was that "The gods did it". This was later simplified
to "God did it". However, the lack of supporting evidence
for the existence of gods has cast serious doubt on this theory.
Current research shows great promise of developing life spontaneously
under conditions which were likely to have existed during the
early development of the Earth. Therefore, it is likely that
life developed from nonliving materials.
You are using the same old "you can't
DISPROVE my theory" technique favored by UFO cults. This
is caused by a deep misunderstanding of how science works. A
theory, when developed, MUST offer conditions which would disprove
it, or else it is not a scientific theory. When you state "you
can't disprove my theory", you are really saying "my
theory is non-scientific."
If you think you are opening peoples minds
to other possibilities, you are wasting your time. Just throwing
out a string of hingly improbable, unprovable "possibilities"
is perhaps good in fiction (e.g., the X-Files), but it's poor
science. Presenting hard data, followed by a solidly thought
out theory to explain the data, and verifiable predictions developed
from the theory is the way to go. Mystic revelations just don't
cut it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
mike.darnell@usa.net wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
David Johnston wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 12:47:09 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
sure can. we can, for example, disprove
the old steady state theory of the universe. thus, again, you
are wrong.
You cannot prove how conditions were billions
of years ago. One can only speculate on the basis of probabilities.
The same is true about the present. We
always can only speculate on the basis of probabilities.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
and there is where you fail.
I humbly fail to see my failure.
Life comes from life is an adequate generalisation,
but like all generalisations room exists for an exception, and
all that is required is one exception. Unless it is shown that
there is some reason why life can't come from unliving materials,
which would be difficult since all life is composed of unliving
materials, there is no basis to assume that LCFL is a fundamental
principle.
I get your point, but permit me to make
one comparison: My computer is made from mineral substances found
in nature. A future researhcer may discover it and argue that
one cannot disprove that the operative system, the software,
etc. comes from a primordial soup consisting of silicon, plastic,
etc. - and that it may have been brought into operation by a
jolt of electricity when struck by lightening.
Possibilities exist. Umm hmmm. If a workable
mechanism can be devised whereby computers can be constructed
in spontaneously out of primordial soup, then the theory would
have some credence. However, the preferred theory is the simplest.
If your future researcher is unaware of the existence of a technological
civilization which was in existence at the time your computer
was constructed, his would be a reasonable theory. Naturally,
it would be rejected in favor of a theory stating that "humans
constructed this computer" when evidence of human civilization
was discovered.
This is analogous to the current state of theories about the
origin of life. The first theory proposed was that "The
gods did it". This was later simplified to "God did
it". However, the lack of supporting evidence for the existence
of gods has cast serious doubt on this theory. Current research
shows great promise of developing life spontaneously under conditions
which were likely to have existed during the early development
of the Earth. Therefore, it is likely that life developed from
nonliving materials.
You are using the same old "you can't DISPROVE my theory"
technique favored by UFO cults. This is caused by a deep misunderstanding
of how science works. A theory, when developed, MUST offer conditions
which would disprove it, or else it is not a scientific theory.
When you state "you can't disprove my theory", you
are really saying "my theory is non-scientific."
If you think you are opening peoples minds to other possibilities,
you are wasting your time. Just throwing out a string of hingly
improbable, unprovable "possibilities" is perhaps good
in fiction (e.g., the X-Files), but it's poor science. Presenting
hard data, followed by a solidly thought out theory to explain
the data, and verifiable predictions developed from the theory
is the way to go. Mystic revelations just don't cut it.
In response to requests in this thread, I’m
in the process of posting a few texts on my web site and supply
the direct links at this group. If I’m wasting my time trying
to open minds to other possibilities, this is not entirely my
fault. It only means that those who MIGHT be interested or curious,
may follow the links I provide and ferret out literature that
deals with these topics in a more comprehensive way.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Yahweh@my-dejanews.com wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
since natural life did not always exist
(look at mars, for example) your logic is a failure
The fact that biological-material life
forms are not everywyere present does not invalidate the logic
in question.
what it DOES indicate is that non-life
is possible.
An indication implies an assumption, or
a hypothsis. I have not endeavored to refute or alter the indication
in question, only to point out that alternative hypotheses and
assumptions may be equally valid.
There are always alternative answers. However,
they are not equally valid. The prefered answer is the simplest.
Preferred by whom? Isn’t a preference
a subjective act?
Why? Because that's the one that is usually
right. Why is the simplest answer usually rignt? Beats me.
since that is the case, its obvious that
the same condition on earth could (and the evidence indicates
DID) exist at some point. this falisfies your argument.
An indication cannot falsify anything.
Your "argument" doesn't really
need to be falsified, since you have offered no substantiating
evidence. Below, you tell us why.
sure can. because there are lifeless planets
in the solar system,and the evidence indicates the earth was
at one time lifeless
When you say "indicates", you
mean subjective interpretation of external data. That is not
scientific evidence or proof. The absence of biological life
forms does not disprove the existence of spiritual beings.
oh. you're right. it doesnt. it doesnt
prove the non existence of unicorns or puff the magic dragon
either.
It certainly doesn’t.
excuse me. i thought you were talking about
rational existence. i didnt realize peter paul and mary were
also part of your magic.
We were. But I also take non-rational,
or extra-rational thinking into account which is cognizant of
the existence of a spiritual world behind the the veil of the
physical senses which is the origin of the material universe.
The "non-rational" is apparent.
What the hell is "extra-rational"? Please define both
"rational" and "extra-rational".
"Extra-rational" means that it cannot
be grasped within the limited scope of pure logic.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Splifford
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 5 Jul 1998 20:58:04 -0400, John Stirling
Walker wrote:
Dear members of this fascinating discussion
thread:
I am not a professional natural scientist, but I am a self-employed
spiritual scientist who has been making my living as a researcher
and consultant in the field of Anthroposophy for some time.
why do 'spirtualists', and religious fundamentalists
feel the need to call themselves scientists?
To try to fool the ignorant into thinking
that fundies might actually have a clue.
what is it about science that makes them
feel inadequate to deal with their issues w/o getting them sanctioned
by science?
Science has a clue. Fundies don't.
are they THAT insecure?
Yes.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance
with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3)
A person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elmer Bataitis
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
John Stirling Walker wrote:
Dear members of this fascinating discussion
thread: I came here after seeing a forwarded message from Tarjei
(hvordan står det til?) on an Anthroposophical mailing
list for scientists. I am not a professional natural scientist,
but I am a self-employed spiritual scientist...
You are not a professional natural scientist,
yet you claim to be a spirtual scientist. What the hell does
this mean?
...who has been making my living as a researcher
and consultant in the field of Anthroposophy for some time. What
Ty Shrake is missing, and what let to his angry denunciation
of Tarjei's mental abilities, is the distinction which has (oh-so-gradually)
begun to be cognized in this group between "biological life,"
or, as Tarjei also said, "life-as-(materialist) science-knows-it,"
and life in the sense in which Tarjei grasps it. The whole debate
and misunderstanding on Ty's part derives from people's unawareness,
clearly, that y'all are simply talking about different realities
using the same word (this has become obvious to some by now,
I guess.)
Ty: Tarjei did _not_ contradict or disagree
with himself! On the one hand he talked about the possibility
that natural science _cannot_ successfully define "life,"
meaning, in that instance, life understood anthroposophically;
and on the other, he admitted that natural science _can_ define
_biological life_, or _"life-as-(materialistic) science-knows-it,"
which is a _different meaning_ for the word "life"
than his first statement.
The whole point of having a shared terminology
is to enable communication. If someone uses a different meaning
for a word they should have no complaints about being misunderstood.
Apologies for having to clarify this, to
those who could see Ty's mistake; I hope Ty can see it, now!
Other than this problem of seeing how definitions underly communication
problems, Tarjei seems to me to be doing a bang-up job of representing
anthroposophical thinking here.
Good God! This is really frightening if true.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Honus
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Elmer Bataitis wrote:
John Stirling Walker wrote:
I am not a professional natural scientist,
but I am a self-employed spiritual scientist...
You are not a professional natural scientist,
yet you claim to be a spirtual scientist. What the hell does
this mean?
It's New Age speak for "quack".
--
Death to Trolls. Death to Spammers.
Remove NOSPAM from my address to reply by
e-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andre G Isaak
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Tarjei Straume wrote:
I agree. Pythagoras, cosmology, by the was, was considerably
closer to reality than the popular ones of the present day.
This is the second time one of your posts
included the above sentence.
It was unparsable the first time round. Why
do you think we'll have any better luck with it the second time?
Andre
"Eat no beans lest they be thy grandparents!!"
- Pythagoras, misquoted from memory
--
Andre G Isaak agisaak@linguist.umass.edu
Department of Linguistics (413) 586-8949 (Res)
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Yahweh@my-dejanews.com wrote:
<snip>
Wow! A supporter of Hoyle's old steady-state
model of the universe. I thought you guys all died!
You really are putting forth the theory that there was no beginning
to the universe: as it is, so has it always been...
Right?
If there were no beginning to the universe,
it would always have been in evolution. For this reason, it cannot
always have "been as it is". (Besides, this is my specuation
only, i.e. not necessarily representative of anthroposophy.)
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Yahweh@my-dejanews.com says...
Tarjei wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
Wade Hines wrote:
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs
can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
Here it comes.
Let's look at Tarjei's "logic".
Life comes from life is a statement like peach trees come from
peach pits.
In as much as they say, they are correct observations.
This does not say that new peach trees *only* arise from peach
tree pits.
The logic presented is so superficially flawed that people go
right past it to the baggage which is usually associated with
it.
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish logic for why life
*only* arises from life, though it seems to be the point he wishes
he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
Tarjei
Actually, no. Your "life ONLY comes
from life" assertion is disprovable. As soon as life is
created in the lab from nonliving materials, your theory is disproven.
It may take a while, though.
You see, the problem with arguing with Tarjei
is that he uses a non-standard definition of _life_. To him everything
(yes, *everything*) is alive because it moves and changes.
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Curt Tabor wrote:
Why? If God can POOF! life into existence,
why can't he also POOF! light waves into existence? If life needs
no source but God, why does light?
You’ll have to ask a creationist about
that.
Well, I'm asking you. You did say that
only life comes from life. What exactly did you mean by that?
That life existed before non-life or "lifeless
matter".
Note to others: he defines everything to
be alive.
Excuse me for making assumptions, but that
is standard cretinist boilerplate.
Perhaps this is the only, or at least one
of the few, valid point(s) the creationists have to go on.
What life form was it that you think begat
life on this planet?
A higher, older, more advanced form of
life. Indications of the nature of this, or these, form(s] of
life are to be found in classical religious literature, in mythology
and legends, and advanced poetry.
Damn good stories, most of them. What makes
them accurate statements of truth which should be taken with
precedence over what we can directly observe?
I have not mentioned anything about precedence.
The most genuine and authentic among these stories WERE direct
observations of supersensible phenomena and events. It is called
seership.
What is your evidence for this? You obviously
believe it. Why?
You’ll have to read spiritual-scientific
literature to find the answers to this -
including why I believe it.
Materialists believe that myths and legends
are pure fantasies unconnected with reality, but this is not
the case. The further we go back in history, the more physical
events are intermingled with spiritual happenings.
We also see people in harder times, less
possibility of observation of the natural world, and a damn strong
need for cultural identity. Which is more likely: that their
spiritual beliefs are an accurate depiction of all reality, as
many (most?) claim, or that they are stories that made them feel
good and kept them together in a semi-stable culture to deal
with a cold, harsh world that would likely kill the whole lot
if they didn't? The first feels a whole lot better than the second,
but which is more likely?
The latter of the two is pure fantasy arising
from modern superstitions about antiquity.
Very well supported by the evidence. Do
you have contradictory evidence?
What you call "more likely" is not
supported by evidence. Neither is it a criterion for a fact that
it should "feel less good" to be true.
The Bible is a typical example of this,
and so is the lore of the Vikings and the ancient Greeks (Homer).
The Vedas of India are perhaps the most fascinating of all.
But what evidence supports them? All we
have to go on is that they said they are right. That we can independently
confirm parts of them does not imply the whole is accurate: humans
are very good at half-truths. So I ask, what evidence?
The best approach is to compare literature
from widely different sources.
All that would point to is a similar experience.
According to the evidence, life sucked pretty much the same all
over the world.
Apart from literature, there is no external
evidence for supernatural history (and neither for the life of
Christ for that matter), and for this reason, it falls outside
the scope of materialistic science. Spiritual science, however,
points to methods of research that can be conducted by anyone
with sufficient will power and endurance to develop spiritual
organs of perception. In this way, each individual must seek
out the evidence on his own.
So how does "spiritual science"
search for these things?
Try this book: "Spiritual Research: Methods
and Results" by Rudolf Steiner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Curt Tabor wrote:
Why? If God can POOF! life into existence,
why can't he also POOF! light waves into existence? If life needs
no source but God, why does light?
You’ll have to ask a creationist about
that.
Well, I'm asking you. You did say that
only life comes from life. What exactly did you mean by that?
That life existed before non-life or "lifeless
matter".
Note to others: he defines everything to
be alive.
Excuse me for making assumptions, but that
is standard cretinist boilerplate.
Perhaps this is the only, or at least one
of the few, valid point(s) the creationists have to go on.
What life form was it that you think begat
life on this planet?
A higher, older, more advanced form of
life. Indications of the nature of this, or these, form(s] of
life are to be found in classical religious literature, in mythology
and legends, and advanced poetry.
Damn good stories, most of them. What makes
them accurate statements of truth which should be taken with
precedence over what we can directly observe?
I have not mentioned anything about precedence.
The most genuine and authentic among these stories WERE direct
observations of supersensible phenomena and events. It is called
seership.
What is your evidence for this? You obviously
believe it. Why?
You’ll have to read spiritual-scientific
literature to find the answers to this - including why I believe
it.
No, I can't tell why *you* believe it from
the literature. It has to be somehwere near to the front of your
mind to constantly believe it. Have you buried it beyond recall?
Has it become such an integral part of your psyche that it cannot
be removed? Have you let yourself abandon the Universe in such
a drastic way?
Materialists believe that myths and legends
are pure fantasies unconnected with reality, but this is not
the case. The further we go back in history, the more physical
events are intermingled with spiritual happenings.
We also see people in harder times, less
possibility of observation of the natural world, and a damn strong
need for cultural identity. Which is more likely: that their
spiritual beliefs are an accurate depiction of all reality, as
many (most?) claim, or that they are stories that made them feel
good and kept them together in a semi-stable culture to deal
with a cold, harsh world that would likely kill the whole lot
if they didn't? The first feels a whole lot better than the second,
but which is more likely?
The latter of the two is pure fantasy arising
from modern superstitions about antiquity.
Very well supported by the evidence. Do
you have contradictory evidence?
What you call "more likely" is
not supported by evidence.
I am asking you a question, not answering
it for you. Answer the question.
Neither is it a criterion for a fact that
it should "feel less good" to be true.
I know. Feeling, good, bad, indifferent is
irrelevant to whatever truth
exists. It is simply that human beings have a tendency to choose
the
feel-good "truths" in the absence of or in contradiction
to the evidence. I
was trying to head that off. Now answer the question.
The Bible is a typical example of this,
and so is the lore of the Vikings and the ancient Greeks (Homer).
The Vedas of India are perhaps the most fascinating of all.
But what evidence supports them? All we
have to go on is that they said they are right. That we can independently
confirm parts of them does not imply the whole is accurate: humans
are very good at half-truths. So I ask, what evidence?
The best approach is to compare literature
from widely different sources.
All that would point to is a similar experience.
According to the evidence, life sucked pretty much the same all
over the world.
Apart from literature, there is no external
evidence for supernatural history (and neither for the life of
Christ for that matter), and for this reason, it falls outside
the scope of materialistic science. Spiritual science, however,
points to methods of research that can be conducted by anyone
with sufficient will power and endurance to develop spiritual
organs of perception. In this way, each individual must seek
out the evidence on his own.
So how does "spiritual science"
search for these things?
Try this book: "Spiritual Research:
Methods and Results" by Rudolf Steiner.
If it's in the library.
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
What life form was it that you think begat
life on this planet?
A higher, older, more advanced form of
life. Indications of the nature of this, or these, form(s] of
life are to be found in classical religious literature, in mythology
and legends, and advanced poetry.
Damn good stories, most of them. What makes
them accurate statements of truth which should be taken with
precedence over what we can directly observe?
I have not mentioned anything about precedence.
The most genuine and authentic among these stories WERE direct
observations of supersensible phenomena and events. It is called
seership.
What is your evidence for this? You obviously
believe it. Why?
You’ll have to read spiritual-scientific
literature to find the answers to this - including why I believe
it.
No, I can't tell why *you* believe it from
the literature. It has to be somehwere near to the front of your
mind to constantly believe it. Have you buried it beyond recall?
Has it become such an integral part of your psyche that it cannot
be removed?
Why does it have to be removed?
Have you let yourself abandon the Universe
in such a drastic way?
I have not abandoned the material universe,
but you have abandoned the spiritual one.
Materialists believe that myths and legends
are pure fantasies unconnected with reality, but this is not
the case. The further we go back in history, the more physical
events are intermingled with spiritual happenings.
We also see people in harder times, less
possibility of observation of the natural world, and a damn strong
need for cultural identity. Which is more likely: that their
spiritual beliefs are an accurate depiction of all reality, as
many (most?) claim, or that they are stories that made them feel
good and kept them together in a semi-stable culture to deal
with a cold, harsh world that would likely kill the whole lot
if they didn't? The first feels a whole lot better than the second,
but which is more likely?
The latter of the two is pure fantasy arising
from modern superstitions about antiquity.
Very well supported by the evidence. Do
you have contradictory evidence?
What you call "more likely" is
not supported by evidence.
I am asking you a question, not answering
it for you. Answer the question.
Neither is it a criterion for a fact that
it should "feel less good" to be true.
I know. Feeling, good, bad, indifferent
is irrelevant to whatever truth exists. It is simply that human
beings have a tendency to choose the feel-good "truths"
in the absence of or in contradiction to the evidence. I was
trying to head that off. Now answer the question.
If I have evidence which is contradictory
to the materialistic-scientific superstition? Yes I do, but that
does not mean that the evidence at hand would be acceptable to
you. Here is a concrete example:
Let us say that I’m a subscriber to the
materialistic world view. Then I notice something. Every spring
I see the flowers growing in the gardens. This makes an impression
on me which I can recall any time, in any season of the year.
what I notice is that what I call real, i.e. the flowers external
to me, they come and
go, but my inner picture of them is something that lasts. This
makes me reconsider my world view and read philosophy, science
and religion. And I come to the conclusion that because my inner
picture of the flowers is something that lasts, it must be real,
while the external phenomenon appears and disappears, so it must
be illusory in character. To me, this is evidence that contradicts
the materialistic superstition.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
What life form was it that you think begat
life on this planet?
A higher, older, more advanced form of
life. Indications of the nature of this, or these, form(s] of
life are to be found in classical religious literature, in mythology
and legends, and advanced poetry.
Damn good stories, most of them. What makes
them accurate statements of truth which should be taken with
precedence over what we can directly observe?
I have not mentioned anything about precedence.
The most genuine and authentic among these stories WERE direct
observations of supersensible phenomena and events. It is called
seership.
What is your evidence for this? You obviously
believe it. Why?
You’ll have to read spiritual-scientific
literature to find the answers to this - including why I believe
it.
No, I can't tell why *you* believe it from
the literature. It has to be somehwere near to the front of your
mind to constantly believe it. Have you buried it beyond recall?
Has it become such an integral part of your psyche that it cannot
be removed?
Why does it have to be removed?
It should be *able* to be removed at a moment's
notice. You cannot deal with a fundamentally surprising universe
by holding desperately onto an idea.
Have you let yourself abandon the Universe
in such a drastic way?
I have not abandoned the material universe,
but you have abandoned the spiritual one.
You do not seem to wish or be able to explain
why you believe something. When you forget why, you can not reevaluate
that belief. Without that capability to constantly reevaluate
yourself, you are dead to the universe. You are locked, incapable,
closed. You become nothing.
Materialists believe that myths and legends
are pure fantasies unconnected with reality, but this is not
the case. The further we go back in history, the more physical
events are intermingled with spiritual happenings.
We also see people in harder times, less
possibility of observation of the natural world, and a damn strong
need for cultural identity. Which is more likely: that their
spiritual beliefs are an accurate depiction of all reality, as
many (most?) claim, or that they are stories that made them feel
good and kept them together in a semi-stable culture to deal
with a cold, harsh world that would likely kill the whole lot
if they didn't? The first feels a whole lot better than the second,
but which is more likely?
The latter of the two is pure fantasy arising
from modern superstitions about antiquity.
Very well supported by the evidence. Do
you have contradictory evidence?
What you call "more likely" is
not supported by evidence.
I am asking you a question, not answering
it for you. Answer the question.
Neither is it a criterion for a fact that
it should "feel less good" to be true.
I know. Feeling, good, bad, indifferent
is irrelevant to whatever truth exists. It is simply that human
beings have a tendency to choose the feel-good "truths"
in the absence of or in contradiction to the evidence. I was
trying to head that off. Now answer the question.
Still waiting.
If I have evidence which is contradictory
to the materialistic-scientific superstition?
No, which of the two cases I proposed is the
more likely.
Yes I do, but that does not mean that the
evidence at hand would be acceptable to you.
Very likely true. Now I could simply be an
arrogant bastard, or I could have
a very real point about the inadequacy of the evidence. Which
is more likely,
and which feels better to you?
Here is a concrete example:
Let us say that I’m a subscriber to the materialistic world
view. Then I notice something. Every spring I see the flowers
growing in the gardens. This makes an impression on me which
I can recall any time, in any season of the year. what I notice
is that what I call real, i.e. the flowers external to me, they
come and go, but my inner picture of them is something that lasts.
This makes me reconsider my world view and read philosophy, science
and religion. And I come to the conclusion that because my inner
picture of the flowers is something that lasts, it must be real,
while the external phenomenon appears and disappears, so it must
be illusory in character. To me, this is evidence that contradicts
the materialistic superstition.
Sure memories are real. They are as real as
they flowers that fade and die. They change, alter, fade, and
die as well. There is no need to invoke a supernatural soul to
recognize the reality of a memory. Why do you think that it is?
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
What life form was it that you think begat
life on this planet?
A higher, older, more advanced form of
life. Indications of the nature of this, or these, form(s] of
life are to be found in classical religious literature, in mythology
and legends, and advanced poetry.
Damn good stories, most of them. What makes
them accurate statements of truth which should be taken with
precedence over what we can directly observe?
I have not mentioned anything about precedence.
The most genuine and authentic among these stories WERE direct
observations of supersensible phenomena and events. It is called
seership.
What is your evidence for this? You obviously
believe it. Why?
You’ll have to read spiritual-scientific
literature to find the answers to this -
including why I believe it.
No, I can't tell why *you* believe it from
the literature. It has to be somehwere near to the front of your
mind to constantly believe it. Have you buried it beyond recall?
Has it become such an integral part of your psyche that it cannot
be removed?
Why does it have to be removed?
It should be *able* to be removed at a
moment's notice. You cannot deal with a fundamentally surprising
universe by holding desperately onto an idea.
Have you let yourself abandon the Universe
in such a drastic way?
I have not abandoned the material universe,
but you have abandoned the spiritual one.
You do not seem to wish or be able to explain
why you believe something. When you forget why, you can not reevaluate
that belief. Without that capability to constantly reevaluate
yourself, you are dead to the universe. You are locked, incapable,
closed. You become nothing.
Non-life. I must be living (or non-living)
proof of your theory.
Materialists believe that myths and legends
are pure fantasies unconnected with reality, but this is not
the case. The further we go back in history, the more physical
events are intermingled with spiritual happenings.
We also see people in harder times, less
possibility of observation of the natural world, and a damn strong
need for cultural identity. Which is more likely: that their
spiritual beliefs are an accurate depiction of all reality, as
many (most?) claim, or that they are stories that made them feel
good and kept them together in a semi-stable culture to deal
with a cold, harsh world that would likely kill the whole lot
if they didn't? The first feels a whole lot better than the second,
but which is more likely?
The latter of the two is pure fantasy arising
from modern superstitions about antiquity.
Very well supported by the evidence. Do
you have contradictory evidence?
What you call "more likely" is
not supported by evidence.
I am asking you a question, not answering
it for you. Answer the question.
Neither is it a criterion for a fact that
it should "feel less good" to be true.
I know. Feeling, good, bad, indifferent
is irrelevant to whatever truth exists. It is simply that human
beings have a tendency to choose the feel-good "truths"
in the absence of or in contradiction to the evidence. I was
trying to head that off. Now answer the question.
Still waiting.
If I have evidence which is contradictory
to the materialistic-scientific superstition?
No, which of the two cases I proposed is
the more likely.
I answer that too - it was the first one.
The man of antiquity, especially in very ancient times, say between
five and ten thousdand years ago, had no religion because he
saw and heard supernatural phenomena. Later, as the external
senses and the intellect developed, the atavistic clairvoyance
gradually disappeared. Then religion emerged, based upon cosmic
memories and upon revelations from the spiritual world.
Yes I do, but that does not mean that the
evidence at hand would be acceptable to you.
Very likely true. Now I could simply be
an arrogant bastard, or I could have a very real point about
the inadequacy of the evidence. Which is more likely, and which
feels better to you?
Here is a concrete example:
Let us say that I’m a subscriber to the materialistic world
view. Then I notice something. Every spring I see the flowers
growing in the gardens. This makes an impression on me which
I can recall any time, in any season of the year. what I notice
is that what I call real, i.e. the flowers external to me, they
come and go, but my inner picture of them is something that lasts.
This makes me reconsider my world view and read philosophy, science
and religion. And I come to the conclusion that because my inner
picture of the flowers is something that lasts, it must be real,
while the external phenomenon appears and disappears, so it must
be illusory in character. To me, this is evidence that contradicts
the materialistic superstition.
Sure memories are real. They are as real
as they flowers that fade and die. They change, alter, fade,
and die as well. There is no need to invoke a supernatural soul
to recognize the reality of a memory. Why do you think that it
is?
Your first steps in the direction of spiritual
science and cognition does not consist of conjuring up an external
soul, but discovering the sense-tools in your own.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
What life form was it that you think begat
life on this planet?
A higher, older, more advanced form of
life. Indications of the nature of this, or these, form(s] of
life are to be found in classical religious literature, in mythology
and legends, and advanced poetry.
Damn good stories, most of them. What makes
them accurate statements of truth which should be taken with
precedence over what we can directly observe?
I have not mentioned anything about precedence.
The most genuine and authentic among these stories WERE direct
observations of supersensible phenomena and events. It is called
seership.
What is your evidence for this? You obviously
believe it. Why?
ou’ll have to read spiritual-scientific
literature to find the answers to this - including why I believe
it.
No, I can't tell why *you* believe it from
the literature. It has to be
>> >> somehwere near to the front of your mind to
constantly believe it. Have you buried it beyond recall? Has
it become such an integral part of your psyche that it cannot
be removed?
Why does it have to be removed?
It should be *able* to be removed at a
moment's notice. You cannot deal with a fundamentally surprising
universe by holding desperately onto an idea.
Have you let yourself abandon the Universe
in such a drastic way?
I have not abandoned the material universe,
but you have abandoned the spiritual one.
You do not seem to wish or be able to explain
why you believe something. When you forget why, you can not reevaluate
that belief. Without that capability to constantly reevaluate
yourself, you are dead to the universe. You are locked, incapable,
closed. You become nothing.
Non-life. I must be living (or non-living)
proof of your theory.
You have an amazing capacity to not read.
Materialists believe that myths and legends
are pure fantasies unconnected with reality, but this is not
the case. The further we go back in history, the more physical
events are intermingled with spiritual happenings.
We also see people in harder times, less
possibility of observation of the natural world, and a damn strong
need for cultural identity. Which is more likely: that their
spiritual beliefs are an accurate depiction of all reality, as
many (most?) claim, or that they are stories that made them feel
good and kept them together in a semi-stable culture to deal
with a cold, harsh world that would likely kill the whole lot
if they didn't? The first feels a whole lot better than the second,
but which is more likely?
The latter of the two is pure fantasy arising
from modern superstitions about antiquity.
Very well supported by the evidence. Do
you have contradictory evidence?
What you call "more likely" is
not supported by evidence.
I am asking you a question, not answering
it for you. Answer the question.
Neither is it a criterion for a fact that
it should "feel less good" to be true.
I know. Feeling, good, bad, indifferent
is irrelevant to whatever truth exists. It is simply that human
beings have a tendency to choose the feel-good "truths"
in the absence of or in contradiction to the evidence. I was
trying to head that off. Now answer the question.
Still waiting.
If I have evidence which is contradictory
to the materialistic-scientific superstition?
No, which of the two cases I proposed is
the more likely.
I answer that too - it was the first one.
The man of antiquity, especially in very ancient times, say between
five and ten thousdand years ago, had no religion because he
saw and heard supernatural phenomena. Later, as the external
senses and the intellect developed, the atavistic clairvoyance
gradually disappeared. Then religion emerged, based upon cosmic
memories and upon revelations from the spiritual world.
All I am seeing is assertion. Is that valid?
Is my saying "No it isn't." equally valid? Do you enjoy
this? Wouldn't you rather be having a real discussion?
Yes I do, but that does not mean that the
evidence at hand would be acceptable to you.
Very likely true. Now I could simply be
an arrogant bastard, or I could have a very real point about
the inadequacy of the evidence. Which is more likely, and which
feels better to you?
Here is a concrete example:
Let us say that I’m a subscriber to the materialistic world
view. Then I notice something. Every spring I see the flowers
growing in the gardens. This makes an impression on me which
I can recall any time, in any season of the year. what I notice
is that what I call real, i.e. the flowers external to me, they
come and go, but my inner picture of them is something that lasts.
This makes me reconsider my world view and read philosophy, science
and religion. And I come to the conclusion that because my inner
picture of the flowers is something that lasts, it must be real,
while the external phenomenon appears and disappears, so it must
be illusory in character. To me, this is evidence that contradicts
the materialistic superstition.
Sure memories are real. They are as real
as they flowers that fade and die. They change, alter, fade,
and die as well. There is no need to invoke a supernatural soul
to recognize the reality of a memory. Why do you think that it
is?
Your first steps in the direction of spiritual
science and cognition does not consist of conjuring up an external
soul, but discovering the sense-tools in your own.
I have five of them already. I meditate. I
do taijiquan. What else is there to do? Smoke dope?
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
You do not seem to wish or be able to explain
why you believe something. When you forget why, you can not reevaluate
that belief. Without that capability to constantly reevaluate
yourself, you are dead to the universe. You are locked, incapable,
closed. You become nothing.
Non-life. I must be living (or non-living)
proof of your theory.
You have an amazing capacity to not read.
<snip>
All I am seeing is assertion. Is that valid?
Is my saying "No it isn't." equally valid? Do you enjoy
this? Wouldn't you rather be having a real discussion?
Certainly. I’ll move to point zero, or
point A if you like, and start with epistemology, which I’ll
get into on a new thread. In that way, I shouldn’t repeat
the mistake of presupposing that the definitions in question
are easy to grasp withour an appropriate overture - which, however,
may take some time to prepare.
<snip>
Sure memories are real. They are as real
as they flowers that fade and die. They change, alter, fade,
and die as well. There is no need to invoke a supernatural soul
to recognize the reality of a memory. Why do you think that it
is?
Your first steps in the direction of spiritual
science and cognition does not consist of conjuring up an external
soul, but discovering the sense-tools in your own.
I have five of them already. I meditate.
I do taijiquan. What else is there to do? Smoke dope?
That worked for Arthur Connan-Doyle, Aldous
Huxley and some others, but it ought to be discouraged for obvious
reasons, and for me it does nothing.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Dick wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dick wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dick wrote:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
I will use this definition from the online Websters Dictionary:
an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism,
growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
Trees are alive, bacteria are alive. Rocks aren't. Air isn't.
Water isn't.
First of all, at one time there was no
life on earth, unless you are talking about panspermia life arose
here on earth from non-life.
Everything that exists, including matter
or chemical substances, is dependent upon life. So I disagree
that there was an earth with no life.
Neither rocks, nor water, nor the basic
elements depend on life for anything. If you believe any different
may I suggest a drug treatment program.
There are poets and artists who talk to
the elements every day, and you want them arrested by the drug
squad for not thinking the way you do.
Poets and artists who talk to elements?
Well, just because they talk to them does not mean said elements
are alive.
Not to you.
And I never said anything about having
them, or you arrested. I simply suggested one avenue to have
your mental problem taken care of.
You suggested drug treatment - a voluntary
one, I understand. The point you made was that those who regard
elements as something alive, are junkies.
If life existed before space-time, there
cannot have been a "somewhere else" in the universe.
Nothing existed.
It is self-evident that you were not there,
so you have no empirical substance for your allegation.
It is self-evident that you do not have
a clue as to what you are claiming. No, I wasn't there. But we
do see evidence of what happened. Unlike your ideas which are
built on pure religious speculation
They are not my ideas alone.
Was God, then, non-life?
Yep, he is not life. Besides, he did not beget life, he formed
it from the dust of the earth.
I see. A dead god making life out of dead
matter.
I dead not say god was dead, I said he
was non life.
What is the difference?
The god of the bible is a spiritual being,
and does not meet the criteria for life.
So a spiritual being is something dead, something
non-life?
Your logic is even better, that God was
non-life who created life in his own non-life image. Now THAT’S
theology.
Yep, theology as I learned it. However,
it doesn't matter if god is alive or not. God formed life from
dust, not from reproduction. Thus abiogenesis.
The external forms (bodies) were made of
dust. The soul and spirit came from the living God or Gods. Check
any creation story from any religion, and ask some theologians.
The claim of a living god is not the same
as biological life. Besides, haven't you noticed, religion often
bears little resemblance to science, and should not be considered
the same.
Orthodox traditional religion, yes. Modern
spiritual science, however, has religious elements in it to which
a scientific approach is taken.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Let's not have two versions of the conversation
going at one time. My experience has been that doing so only
confuses both parties. I don't mind private e-mail, but let's
keep such either exactly what we post or not what we post at
all. Am I making sense; I'm not so sure.
Perfectly.
The "vaguely mystical" notions
of which I have scratched the surface are not untestable, but
their scientific testing requires exceptionally hard work during
the course of many years.
The amount of work is not the issue. How
can it be tested?
The best reliable method consists of developing
spiritual organs of perception so that one can conduct this kind
of research oneself. Although there is a School of Spiritual
Science in Dornach (of which I know very little) that works toward
this goal, the world has yet not heard of anyone capable of conducting
this research except the founder of Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner.
He did write several books with detailed instructions about how
to prepare onself for such research, but they are extremely exacting
to practice.
can't see what he sees, so I'll just have
to take his word for it?
Only the part that makes sense to you because
it is confirmed by your other sources of knowledge and cognition.
It is however possible to test some results
of Steiner’s research without possessing the science of
seership. This testing consists of making certain observations
of natural phenomena that most people are unaccustomed to make
and pay special attention to details that are normally overlooked.
It's called science. And it doesn't confirm
what Steiner says (or what you say Steiner say).
How do you know?
[snip]
If so, why not let them continue to use
the word "life" for that, and come up with another
one for your own concept? "Spirit" or "life-force"
or "God" or whatever. Maybe then there will be less
talking past each other...
Like I said, spiritual considerations are
highly relevant to the discussion about the origin of life.
I thought you said that it had no origin?
Origin of life is the topic of discussion.
Even if life as an energy or as a universal consciousness has
always existed, this does not mean that you and I, "life
as we know it" and all the animal and plant species don’t
have an origin. Every living being has an origin, but this does
not mean that there has been a time when no life existed.
Right. We were talking about the possible
origin of life-as-we-know-it from not-life-as-we-know-it, be
the latter non-life or some extended definition of life. You
use a definition for the term _life_ that is much different from
what anyone not an anthroposophist defines it.
I must emphasize that these definitions,
or attempts at definitions, are my own. They do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of other anthroposohists.
Okay, so that *really* limits the number
of people who can understand you to one. Yourself.
Only if everybody was equally reluctant to
try to grasp what the other party is saying.
The purpose of defining terms is to serve
as a common ground for discussion. They have no other purpose.
I agree. But definitions may also evolve during
the course of a discussion.
<snip>
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Let's not have two versions of the conversation
going at one time. My experience has been that doing so only
confuses both parties. I don't mind private e-mail, but let's
keep such either exactly what we post or not what we post at
all. Am I making sense; I'm not so sure.
Perfectly.
The "vaguely mystical" notions
of which I have scratched the surface are not untestable, but
their scientific testing requires exceptionally hard work during
the course of many years.
The amount of work is not the issue. How
can it be tested?
The best reliable method consists of developing
spiritual organs of perception so that one can conduct this kind
of research oneself. Although there is a School of Spiritual
Science in Dornach (of which I know very little) that works toward
this goal, the world has yet not heard of anyone capable of conducting
this research except the founder of Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner.
He did write several books with detailed instructions about how
to prepare onself for such research, but they are extremely exacting
to practice.
I can't see what he sees, so I'll just
have to take his word for it?
Only the part that makes sense to you because
it is confirmed by your other sources of knowledge and cognition.
Thus far from what you have said: zip.
It is however possible to test some results
of Steiner’s research without possessing the science of
seership. This testing consists of making certain observations
of natural phenomena that most people are unaccustomed to make
and pay special attention to details that are normally overlooked.
It's called science. And it doesn't confirm
what Steiner says (or what you say Steiner say).
How do you know?
We have no evidence of ethereal beings in
Sol. We have no evidence whatsoever of any form of spiritual
aspect of the Universe. We have no evidence for an infinite heirarchy
of beings upon which "lower" levels are dependant.
We have no evidence that physical laws change between biologically
active matter and biologically inactive matter.
[snip]
If so, why not let them continue to use
the word "life" for that, and come up with another
one for your own concept? "Spirit" or "life-force"
or "God" or whatever. Maybe then there will be less
talking past each other...
Like I said, spiritual considerations are
highly relevant to the discussion about the origin of life.
I thought you said that it had no origin?
Origin of life is the topic of discussion.
Even if life as an energy or as a universal consciousness has
always existed, this does not mean that you and I, "life
as we know it" and all the animal and plant species don’t
have an origin. Every living being has an origin, but this does
not mean that there has been a time when no life existed.
Right. We were talking about the possible
origin of life-as-we-know-it from not-life-as-we-know-it, be
the latter non-life or some extended definition of life. You
use a definition for the term _life_ that is much different from
what anyone not an anthroposophist defines it.
I must emphasize that these definitions,
or attempts at definitions, are my own. They do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of other anthroposohists.
Okay, so that *really* limits the number
of people who can understand you to one. Yourself.
Only if everybody was equally reluctant
to try to grasp what the other party is saying.
I've gotten to the point that I can understand
what you are saying. You still can't read a post talking about
"life from non-life" without going into conniptions.
At least you don't respond as if you do. You have the unwillingness
to follow your own suggestions. You refuse to be specific in
terminology. You place the sole responsibility of compromise
on everyone else.
The purpose of defining terms is to serve
as a common ground for discussion. They have no other purpose.
I agree. But definitions may also evolve
during the course of a discussion.
Sure. If agreed by both parties and common
ground is maintained at any specific time. So? Evolution of the
definitions is not the issue. Not having any in common is.
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
The "vaguely mystical" notions
of which I have scratched the surface are not untestable, but
their scientific testing requires exceptionally hard work during
the course of many years.
The amount of work is not the issue. How
can it be tested?
The best reliable method consists of developing
spiritual organs of perception so that one can conduct this kind
of research oneself. Although there is a School of Spiritual
Science in Dornach (of which I know very little) that works toward
this goal, the world has yet not heard of anyone capable of conducting
this research except the founder of Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner.
He did write several books with detailed instructions about how
to prepare onself for such research, but they are extremely exacting
to practice.
I can't see what he sees, so I'll just
have to take his word for it?
Only the part that makes sense to you because
it is confirmed by your other sources of knowledge and cognition.
Thus far from what you have said: zip.
It is however possible to test some results
of Steiner’s research without possessing the science of
seership. This testing consists of making certain observations
of natural phenomena that most people are unaccustomed to make
and pay special attention to details that are normally overlooked.
It's called science. And it doesn't confirm
what Steiner says (or what you say Steiner say).
How do you know?
We have no evidence of ethereal beings
in Sol. We have no evidence whatsoever of any form of spiritual
aspect of the Universe. We have no evidence for an infinite heirarchy
of beings upon which "lower" levels are dependant.
We have no evidence that physical laws change between biologically
active matter and biologically inactive matter.
The question of evidence hereby raised should
be taken up on a new thread called "Anthroposophy",
which will be posted during the course of the night.
this means that anyone who might like to follow
this thread should look up "Anthroposophy".
[snip]
If so, why not let them continue to use
the word "life" for that, and come up with another
one for your own concept? "Spirit" or "life-force"
or "God" or whatever. Maybe then there will be less
talking past each other...
Like I said, spiritual considerations are
highly relevant to the discussion about the origin of life.
I thought you said that it had no origin?
Origin of life is the topic of discussion.
Even if life as an energy or as a universal consciousness has
always existed, this does not mean that you and I, "life
as we know it" and all the animal and plant species don’t
have an origin. Every living being has an origin, but this does
not mean that there has been a time when no life existed.
Right. We were talking about the possible
origin of life-as-we-know-it from not-life-as-we-know-it, be
the latter non-life or some extended definition of life. You
use a definition for the term _life_ that is much different from
what anyone not an anthroposophist defines it.
I must emphasize that these definitions,
or attempts at definitions, are my own. They do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of other anthroposohists.
Okay, so that *really* limits the number
of people who can understand you to one. Yourself.
Only if everybody was equally reluctant
to try to grasp what the other party is saying.
I've gotten to the point that I can understand
what you are saying. You still can't read a post talking about
"life from non-life" without going into conniptions.
At least you don't respond as if you do. You have the unwillingness
to follow your own suggestions. You refuse to be specific in
terminology. You place the sole responsibility of compromise
on everyone else.
A conniption means a fit of hysteria or rage.
If I have expressed that state of mind, I would like to see a
quote - preferably with exclamation marks and expletives. The
problem of my imprecise terminology, however, may be solved by
using extensive quotes instead.
The purpose of defining terms is to serve
as a common ground for discussion. They have no other purpose.
I agree. But definitions may also evolve
during the course of a discussion.
Sure. If agreed by both parties and common
ground is maintained at any specific time. So? Evolution of the
definitions is not the issue. Not having any in common is.
True.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/06
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
The "vaguely mystical" notions
of which I have scratched the surface are not untestable, but
their scientific testing requires exceptionally hard work during
the course of many years.
The amount of work is not the issue. How
can it be tested?
The best reliable method consists of developing
spiritual organs of perception so that one can conduct this kind
of research oneself. Although there is a School of Spiritual
Science in Dornach (of which I know very little) that works toward
this goal, the world has yet not heard of anyone capable of conducting
this research except the founder of Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner.
He did write several books with detailed instructions about how
to prepare onself for such research, but they are extremely exacting
to practice.
I can't see what he sees, so I'll just
have to take his word for it?
Only the part that makes sense to you because
it is confirmed by your other sources of knowledge and cognition.
Thus far from what you have said: zip.
It is however possible to test some results
of Steiner’s research without possessing the science of
seership. This testing consists of making certain observations
of natural phenomena that most people are unaccustomed to make
and pay special attention to details that are normally overlooked.
It's called science. And it doesn't confirm
what Steiner says (or what you say Steiner say).
How do you know?
We have no evidence of ethereal beings
in Sol. We have no evidence whatsoever of any form of spiritual
aspect of the Universe. We have no evidence for an infinite heirarchy
of beings upon which "lower" levels are dependant.
We have no evidence that physical laws change between biologically
active matter and biologically inactive matter.
The question of evidence hereby raised
should be taken up on a new thread called "Anthroposophy",
which will be posted during the course of the night.
this means that anyone who might like to follow this thread should
look up
"Anthroposophy".
[snip]
If so, why not let them continue to use
the word "life" for that, and come up with another
one for your own concept? "Spirit" or "life-force"
or "God" or whatever. Maybe then there will be less
talking past each other...
Like I said, spiritual considerations are
highly relevant to the discussion about the origin of life.
I thought you said that it had no origin?
Origin of life is the topic of discussion.
Even if life as an energy or as a universal consciousness has
always existed, this does not mean that you and I, "life
as we know it" and all the animal and plant species don’t
have an origin. Every living being has an origin, but this does
not mean that there has been a time when no life existed.
Right. We were talking about the possible
origin of life-as-we-know-it from not-life-as-we-know-it, be
the latter non-life or some extended definition of life. You
use a definition for the term _life_ that is much different from
what anyone not an anthroposophist defines it.
I must emphasize that these definitions,
or attempts at definitions, are my own. They do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of other anthroposohists.
Okay, so that *really* limits the number
of people who can understand you to one. Yourself.
Only if everybody was equally reluctant
to try to grasp what the other party is saying.
I've gotten to the point that I can understand
what you are saying. You still can't read a post talking about
"life from non-life" without going into conniptions.
At least you don't respond as if you do. You have the unwillingness
to follow your own suggestions. You refuse to be specific in
terminology. You place the sole responsibility of compromise
on everyone else.
A conniption means a fit of hysteria or
rage. If I have expressed that state of mind, I would like to
see a quote - preferably with exclamation marks and expletives.
Sorry. More a feeling I got from when you
and a poor choice of words on my part.
As it is you have thus far refused to take
any responsibility for making common ground. You speak about
life only coming from life in absolute terms in response to people
saying that life probably (or logically) arose from non-life.
You only bothered to explain your non-standard usage of the word
_life_ after I coaxed it out of you. When you use terms in nonstandard
ways, it is your responsibility to make sure that you are understood,
especially when you see people are confused about what you mean.
All compromise and work for a common ground has been unilateral
on my part and a few others, not you.
The problem of my imprecise terminology,
however, may be solved by using extensive quotes instead.
Come again?
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dick
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/07
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dick wrote:
There are poets and artists who talk to
the elements every day, and you want them arrested by the drug
squad for not thinking the way you do.
Poets and artists who talk to elements?
Well, just because they talk to them does not mean said elements
are alive.
Not to you.
Not to science, not to the dictionaries, not
to the vast majority of mankind.
And I never said anything about having
them, or you arrested. I simply suggested one avenue to have
your mental problem taken care of.
You suggested drug treatment - a voluntary
one, I understand. The point you made was that those who regard
elements as something alive, are junkies.
Well, if the shoe fits, remember, I went to
your web site.
It is self-evident that you were not there,
so you have no empirical substance for your allegation.
It is self-evident that you do not have
a clue as to what you are claiming. No, I wasn't there. But we
do see evidence of what happened. Unlike your ideas which are
built on pure religious speculation
They are not my ideas alone.
I never said they were, but you are the one
using them.
I see. A dead god making life out of dead
matter.
I dead not say god was dead, I said he
was non life.
What is the difference?
The god of the bible is a spiritual being, and does not meet
the criteria for life.
So a spiritual being is something dead,
something non-life?
Non life, and dead are not the same thing,
dead implies it once lived. Non life implies it never lived.
Besides, god is of the spirtual realm, to live one must be organic.
The claim of a living god is not the same
as biological life. Besides,haven't you noticed, religion often
bears little resemblance to science, and should not be considered
the same.
Orthodox traditional religion, yes. Modern
spiritual science, however, has religious elements in it to which
a scientific approach is taken.
Why don't you try learning what science is.
If you base all of your ideas on the spiritual realm, it isn't
science. That is one area that science does not study.
Dick (Chris) Craven
Mark of the Beast Recipient June 1998.
Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
email: dickcr@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/07
Dick wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dick wrote:
There are poets and artists who talk to
the elements every day, and you want them arrested by the drug
squad for not thinking the way you do.
Poets and artists who talk to elements?
Well, just because they talk to them does not mean said elements
are alive.
Not to you.
Not to science,
to spiritual science
not to the dictionaries,
Dictionaries don not have an opinion about
this.
not to the vast majority of mankind.
Contrary to how things were in the past, which
may again change during the future course of evolution.
And I never said anything about having
them, or you arrested. I simply suggested one avenue to have
your mental problem taken care of.
You suggested drug treatment - a voluntary
one, I understand. The point you made was that those who regard
elements as something alive, are junkies.
Well, if the shoe fits, remember, I went
to your web site.
Did you read the play?
It is self-evident that you were not there,
so you have no empirical substance for your allegation.
It is self-evident that you do not have
a clue as to what you are claiming. No, I wasn't there. But we
do see evidence of what happened. Unlike your ideas which are
built on pure religious speculation
They are not my ideas alone.
I never said they were, but you are the
one using them.
I see. A dead god making life out of dead
matter.
I dead not say god was dead, I said he
was non life.
What is the difference?
The god of the bible is a spiritual being,
and does not meet the criteria for life.
So a spiritual being is something dead,
something non-life?
Non life, and dead are not the same thing,
dead implies it once lived. Non life implies it never lived.
Besides, god is of the spirtual realm, to live one must be organic.
I disagree on that last crucial point.
The claim of a living god is not the same
as biological life. Besides,haven't you noticed, religion often
bears little resemblance to science, and should not be considered
the same.
Orthodox traditional religion, yes. Modern
spiritual science, however, has religious elements in it to which
a scientific approach is taken.
Why don't you try learning what science
is. If you base all of your ideas on the spiritual realm, it
isn't science. That is one area that science does not study.
Spiritual science does.
Tarjei
P.S.
If anyone has a further interest in this thread, it may be followed
up in "Anthroposophy."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dick
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/07
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dick wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dick wrote:
There are poets and artists who talk to
the elements every day, and you want them arrested by the drug
squad for not thinking the way you do.
Poets and artists who talk to elements?
Well, just because they talk to them does not mean said elements
are alive.
Not to you.
Not to science,
to spiritual science
Is to, is not. Science is the study of the
NATURAL universe. The spiritual realm is not part of the natural
universe. Therefor study of the spiritual realm is not science.
By the very definition of science, spiritualism is not science.
That does not say that such a study is not valid, it just does
not fall under the area that science studies.
not to the dictionaries,
Dictionaries don not have an opinion about
this.
Dictionaries give the meanings to words. Something
you might be interested in.
not to the vast majority of mankind.
Contrary to how things were in the past,
which may again change during the future course of evolution.
Not too likely. Your religious ideas do not
dictate what is and is not science, nor do they dictate history.
And I never said anything about having
them, or you arrested. I simply suggested one avenue to have
your mental problem taken care of.
You suggested drug treatment - a voluntary
one, I understand. The point you made was that those who regard
elements as something alive, are junkies.
Well, if the shoe fits, remember, I went
to your web site.
Did you read the play?
No, I didn't have time.
I see no reason to read a play that was written to attempt to
argue a point when a simple letter would have more than sufficed.
Non life, and dead are not the same thing,
dead implies it once lived. Non life implies it never lived.
Besides, god is of the spirtual realm, to live one must be organic.
I disagree on that last crucial point.
Obviously, but that is a problem with you.
If you are going to communicate with people, you need to use
accepted lanquage. Otherwise you fail to make your point. Such
as now.
Why don't you try learning what science
is. If you base all of your ideas on the spiritual realm, it
isn't science. That is one area that science does not study.
Spiritual science does.
Then it isn't science. Did you read the above?
Did you understand it? I will repeat myself. Science is the study
of the natural universe. The spiritual realm is not natural.
Therefor, science does not study it.
Dick (Chris) Craven
Mark of the Beast Recipient June 1998.
Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
email: dickcr@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/07
Dick wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dick wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dick wrote:
There are poets and artists who talk to
the elements every day, and you want them arrested by the drug
squad for not thinking the way you do.
Poets and artists who talk to elements?
Well, just because they talk to them does not mean said elements
are alive.
Not to you.
Not to science,
to spiritual science
Is to, is not. Science is the study of
the NATURAL universe.
Material science, granted. Spiritual science
investigates the supernatural universe.
The spiritual realm is not part of the
natural universe.
If it wasn’t, biological life would noy
be possible, according to spiritual science.
Therefor study of the spiritual realm is
not science.
Not material-physical science, granted.
By the very definition of science, spiritualism
is not science.
There is a difference between spiritualism
and anthroposophically oriented spiritual science,
but that is beside the point. There are two categories of science:
The material-physical, and
the spiritual.
That does not say that such a study is
not valid, it just does not fall under the area that science
studies.
I have made it clear that the science of the
spirit does not belong to the category of material
science.
not to the dictionaries,
Dictionaries don not have an opinion about
this.
Dictionaries give the meanings to words.
Something you might be interested in.
I am. English is my second language, acquired
by almost memorizing them.
not to the vast majority of mankind.
Contrary to how things were in the past,
which may again change during the future course of evolution.
Not too likely. Your religious ideas do
not dictate what is and is not science, nor do they dictate history.
When I suggest that something MAY change in
the future, my ideas are not doing any dictating.
And I never said anything about having
them, or you arrested. I simply suggested one avenue to have
your mental problem taken care of.
You suggested drug treatment - a voluntary
one, I understand. The point you made was that those who regard
elements as something alive, are junkies.
Well, if the shoe fits, remember, I went
to your web site.
Did you read the play?
No, I didn't have time. I see no reason to read a play that was
written to attempt to argue a point when a simple letter would
have more than sufficed.
Interesting that you have an opinion about
something you didn’t read.
Non life, and dead are not the same thing,
dead implies it once lived. Non life implies it never lived.
Besides, god is of the spirtual realm, to live one must be organic.
I disagree on that last crucial point.
Obviously, but that is a problem with you.
If you are going to communicate with people, you need to use
accepted lanquage. Otherwise you fail to make your point. Such
as now.
The Oxford Companion to the English Language
begins with the following statement:
"In the closing years of the twentieth
century, the English language has become a global resource. As
such, it does not owe its existence or the protection of its
essence to any one nation or group. Inasmuch as a particular
language belongs to any individual or community. English is the
possession of every individual and every community that in any
way uses it, regardless of what any other individual or community
may think or feel about the matter."
Why don't you try learning what science
is. If you base all of your ideas on the spiritual realm, it
isn't science. That is one area that science does not study.
Spiritual science does.
Then it isn't science. Did you read the
above? Did you understand it?
Did you?
I will repeat myself.
I won’t.
Science is the study of the natural universe.
The spiritual realm is not natural. Therefor, science does not
study it.
I refer to the two categories of science I
pointed to above.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/07
Anyone wishing to follow up this thread should
move on to "Anthroposophy".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ian Musgrave
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/08
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
I know I said I wouldn't post any more, but
I just can't let this go.
On 5 Jul 1998 14:05:23 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
[snip pythagorus and other stuff]
Several people have mistaken Anthroposophy
for some kind of fundamentalist religion. It is not, it is a
philosophical movement that arose from the spiritualist ferment
of the mid to late 19th century. A related, but more "spiritualist"
system is Theosophy, founded by Madam Blatavsky in Britian. Rudolf
Steiner was effectively the founder of anthroposophy. Anthroposphy
didn't catch on much outside Europe, although schools founded
on Steiners teaching/child development philosophy are quite common
in the UK and Australia.
The words you suggest above would be more
confusing if they did not reflect exactly what is meant in spiritual
science. "Vital essence," for instance, is used by
New Age and normally refers to what theosophists and anthroposophists
call "ether". "Spirit" is not to be comfused
with ether, astrality, or soul. But all of this is life. A human
being consists of four members: 1) a physical body, which he
has in common with all mineral bodies, 2) an etheric body (also
called vital body), which he has in common with the plants and
which in humans is the bearer of thoughts and memories, 3) an
astral body, or soul, which is connected the central nervous
system and which man shares with warmblooded vertebrates, and
4) the "I", which makes self-dependent thinking possible.
There are potentially three additional higher members in man
which will evolve in the future.
Ether is, amongst other things, thought to
be the principle that causes plants to transport nutrients up
against gravity. Unfortunately, transpiration and osmotic pressure
do this job, leaving ether without a job (See any Uni-level plant
physiology text). Similarly, memories are bourne by neuronal
structures, and ether has no role here either (See for example
Kandel, Schwartz and Jessel, Principles of Neural Science, 3rd
edition, Elsevier). As to why plants need a memory bearing ether,
when they don't have memories as such, is an unresolved question
in my limited investigations.
As for the rest: Mr. Steiner, meet William
of Occam, Father Occam wants to show you this razor he's developed.
which may perhaps only be modified by an
expanded vocabulary. The Lapps in the north of Scandinavia have
40 or 50 words for "snow". Why do we only have one
for "life"?
This is a scientific urban myth (and it's
actually the Innuit who were studied, not the Lapps). The number
of words for snow are much smaller (on the order of 12 or so)
and they correspond to things we use compounds for (like fresh
snow, old snow, wet snow, dry snow, compacted snow etc). There
are no radically different concepts involved (See Steve Pinkers
"The Language Instinct" for more details).
And Tarjei writes
They are only a point of departure, a reference
point. And they have proceeded [? from] Goethe’s scientific
writings.
[snip]
It is not widely known that Goethe, as well
as being a bloody good playwright, was also a Natural Philosopher
and made many important contributions to the developing sciences,
unfortunately for anthroposophy, many of his ideas were incorrect.
(These writings are best known for Goethe’s
theory of color, which challenges the prism-theory of Newton.)
How do they match up to modern theories?
Other theories of color are Newtonian,
i.e. they proceed from Newton’s theory.
Well, modern theories don't proceed from Newton,
but from the quantized nature of light. Goethe's theories on
color were flat out wrong.
Cheers! Ian
--------------------------------
Peta, Ian and Jack Francis
reynella at werple dot mira dot net dot au
HTTP:// werple dot mira dot net dot au / ~reynella
HTTP://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/whale.htm (Dawkins style
weasle progs)
HTTP://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/space.htm
Southern Sky Watch (thats me)
Terry Pratchet fans, tree planters and sometime scientists (De
Chelonian Mobile!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/08
Ian Musgrave wrote:
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
I know I said I wouldn't post any more, but I just can't let
this go.
On 5 Jul 1998 14:05:23 -0400, Tarjei Straume wrote:
[snip pythagorus and other stuff]
Several people have mistaken Anthroposophy for some kind of fundamentalist
religion. It is not, it is a philosophical movement that arose
from the spiritualist ferment of the mid to late 19th century.
A related, but more "spiritualist" system is Theosophy,
founded by Madam Blatavsky in Britian. Rudolf Steiner was effectively
the founder of anthroposophy. Anthroposphy didn't catch on much
outside Europe, although schools founded on Steiners teaching/child
development philosophy are quite common in the UK and Australia.
These schools, called Waldorf- or Steiner-schools,
are also established throughout Scandinavia, Germany, Austria
and the rest of Europe, in Africa and in the United States. While
it is true from one aspect that Anthroposophy arose out of the
Theosophical Movement in 1913 after a split, there are vital
differences between the methods of Helena Blavatsky and those
of Rudolf Steiner. Blavatsky’s theosophical teaching proceeded
from her atavistic clairvoyance, i.e. she was not conscious during
her perceptions, but possessed a remarkable ability to recall
them afterwards. For this reason, Blavatsky’s Theosophical
Movement attracted many people from the Spiritualist Movement.
Rudolf Steiner insisted upon applying a strict
scientific method to the acquisition and analysis of spiritual
knowledge, based upon a disciplined epistemology. His epistemological
approach is described in detail in those "basic books"
which were
published prior to the turn of the century, and which do not
mention anything about the supernatural. The first of these,
"Grundlinien einer Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung",
published in 1886 and usually translated as "A Theory of
Knowledge Implicit in Goethe’s World Conception," explains,
among other things, why one ought to take separate approaches
to the investigations of organic and inorganic nature, and defines
the difference between the two. His doctoral thesis was later
published in 1893 with the title, "Wahrheit und Wissenschaft,
Vorspiel einer ‘Philosophie der Freihet’." - "Truth
and Knowledge [or "Truth and Science" - ], introduction
to ‘Philosophy of Freedom’." This latter book,
"Philosophy of Freedom", which initially at Steiner’s
request was translated into English with the title "Philosophy
of Spiritual Activity", is to be considered Rudolf Steiner’s
major philosophical work. In the early 1920’s, after about
fifty written books and and six
thousand lectures, Steiner was asked which of his works was his
most important, he answered without hesitation: "‘Philosophy
of Freedom’ will survive all my other works."
The other leading theosophists could not understand
Steiner’s demand for empirical discipline, nor his scientific
approach. The disagreement grew, and eventually the theosophists
resorted to fraud in order to discredit him and make a sensation
for
themselves. This is why Steiner left the Theosophical Society
and founded the Anthropospophical Society.
The words you suggest above would be more
confusing if they did not reflect exactly what is meant in spiritual
science. "Vital essence," for instance, is used by
New Age and normally refers to what theosophists and anthroposophists
call "ether". "Spirit" is not to be comfused
with ether, astrality, or soul. But all of this is life. A human
being consists of four members: 1) a physical body, which he
has in common with all mineral bodies, 2) an etheric body (also
called vital body), which he has in common with the plants and
which in humans is the bearer of thoughts and memories, 3) an
astral body, or soul, which is connected the central nervous
system and which man shares with warmblooded vertebrates, and
4) the "I", which makes self-dependent thinking possible.
There are potentially three additional higher members in man
which will evolve in the future.
Ether is, amongst other things, thought
to be the principle that causes plants to transport nutrients
up against gravity. Unfortunately, transpiration and osmotic
pressure do this job, leaving ether without a job (See any Uni-level
plant physiology text). Similarly, memories are bourne by neuronal
structures, and ether has no role here either (See for example
Kandel, Schwartz and Jessel, Principles of Neural Science, 3rd
edition, Elsevier). As to why plants need a memory bearing ether,
when they don't have memories as such, is an unresolved question
in my limited investigations.
Spiritual science does not say that the etheric
body is the bearer of memories in plants. Besides, transpiration
and osmotic pressure does not exclude the etheric body. On the
contrary, these phenomena appear to be the external signs of
its
activity.
As for the rest: Mr. Steiner, meet William
of Occam, Father Occam wants to show you this razor he's developed.
which may perhaps only be modified by an
expanded vocabulary. The Lapps in the north of Scandinavia have
40 or 50 words for "snow". Why do we only have one
for "life"?
This is a scientific urban myth (and it's
actually the Innuit who were studied, not the Lapps). The number
of words for snow are much smaller (on the order of 12 or so)
and they correspond to things we use compounds for (like fresh
snow, old snow, wet snow, dry snow, compacted snow etc). There
are no radically different concepts involved (See Steve Pinkers
"The Language Instinct" for more details).
It was something I picked up in Newsweek.
And Tarjei writes
They are only a point of departure, a reference
point. And they have proceeded [? from]Goethe’s scientific
writings.
[snip]
It is not widely known that Goethe, as well as being a bloody
good playwright, was also a Natural Philosopher and made many
important contributions to the developing sciences, unfortunately
for anthroposophy, many of his ideas were incorrect.
Among the studies conducted by Goethe were
the study of plants and other biological fields. At one point
he thought he had disxcovered Darwin’s "missing link".
How many of his ideas were incorrect is difficult
to determine in the light of a pure materialistic-scientific
bias, because it was Goethe’s METHOD that became of importance
to anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.
(These writings are best known for Goethe’s
theory of color, which challenges the prism-theory of Newton.)
How do they match up to modern theories?
Other theories of color are Newtonian,
i.e. they proceed from Newton’s theory.
Well, modern theories don't proceed from
Newton, but from the quantized nature of light. Goethe's theories
on color were flat out wrong.
This theory of color is still being used in
Waldorf schools throughout the world, and those who use it in
education, in art, and in scientific research do not share the
opinion that it is wrong.
Cheers! Ian
Cherio! Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ian Musgrave
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/09
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 6 Jul 1998 18:35:36 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
[snip intro]
I know. Feeling, good, bad, indifferent
is irrelevant to whatever truth exists. It is simply that human
beings have a tendency to choose the feel-good "truths"
in the absence of or in contradiction to the evidence. I was
trying to head that off. Now answer the question.
If I have evidence which is contradictory
to the materialistic-scientific superstition? Yes I do, but that
does not mean that the evidence at hand would be acceptable to
you. Here is a concrete example:
Let us say that I’m a subscriber to the materialistic world
view. Then I notice something. Every spring I see the flowers
growing in the gardens. This makes an impression on me which
I can recall any time, in any season of the year. what I notice
is that what I call real, i.e. the flowers external to me, they
come and go, but my inner picture of them is something that lasts.
This makes me reconsider my world view and read philosophy, science
and religion. And I come to the conclusion that because my inner
picture of the flowers is something that lasts, it must be real,
while the external phenomenon appears and disappears, so it must
be illusory in character. To me, this is evidence that contradicts
the materialistic superstition.
<SFX: stunned silence>
What philosophers do you read????
So what happens when you forget something?
What happens when remember your keys are in your pocket, but
you see them on the kitchen table? Are the keys you remember
more real than the ones you see? Can you open a door with them?
Are daffodil bulbs more real than daffodil flowers?
Are rocks more real than flowers?
Is the sun an illusion as it appears and disappears?
Is the Sun an illusion at the North Pole in Summer?
Cheers! Ian
---------------------------------------------
Ian Musgrave Ph.D, Prince Henry's Institute of Medical Research
PO Box 5152, Clayton 3168, Australia.
Phone +61 3 550 4286 FAX +61 3 550 6125
Lab: Ian.Musgrave@med.monash.edu.au <http://www.mmcc.monash.edu.au/~ian-mu/nchem.htm>
Private: Reynella@werple.mira.net.au <http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/>
Imidazoline Receptor Resource Page: <http://www.mmcc.monash.edu.au/phimr/ireceptor/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/09
Ian Musgrave wrote:
G'Day All
On 6 Jul 1998 18:35:36 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
[snip intro]
I know. Feeling, good, bad, indifferent
is irrelevant to whatever truth exists. It is simply that human
beings have a tendency to choose the feel-good "truths"
in the absence of or in contradiction to the evidence. I was
trying to head that off. Now answer the question.
If I have evidence which is contradictory
to the materialistic-scientific superstition? Yes I do, but that
does not mean that the evidence at hand would be acceptable to
you. Here is a concrete example:
Let us say that I’m a subscriber to the materialistic world
view. Then I notice something. Every spring I see the flowers
growing in the gardens. This makes an impression on me which
I can recall any time, in any season of the year. what I notice
is that what I call real, i.e. the flowers external to me, they
come and go, but my inner picture of them is something that lasts.
This makes me reconsider my world view and read philosophy, science
and religion. And I come to the conclusion that because my inner
picture of the flowers is something that lasts, it must be real,
while the external phenomenon appears and disappears, so it must
be illusory in character. To me, this is evidence that contradicts
the materialistic superstition.
<SFX: stunned silence>
What philosophers do you read????
So what happens when you forget something?
What happens when remember your keys are in your pocket, but
you see them on the kitchen table? Are the keys you remember
more real than the ones you see? Can you open a door with them?
Are daffodil bulbs more real than daffodil flowers?
Are rocks more real than flowers?
Is the sun an illusion as it appears and disappears?
Is the Sun an illusion at the North Pole in Summer?
Cheers! Ian
The reality which I experience as proven to
myself in this way is not applicable to orientation in the external
physical world. What it verifies is that the external, physical
world is maya, illusion, while the real world is within, in the
soul-spiritual world - disproving the PHILOSOPHY of materialism,
NOT materialistic science. It is necessary to distiguish between
the two (the soul-spiritual and the physical realities) - otherwise,
if you confuse them, you might try to unlock a door with imaginary
keys. That’s when you need therapy.
Cheerio!
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroup
Threads
