| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"BlackSphinx" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2006 11:30:53 AM |
| Object: |
physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the
alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds
against a spontaneous origin for life, said: "The only acceptable
explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists,
as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not
like if the experimental evidence supports it." He further observed
that after Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, "evolution became in
a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it
and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
A sad but true commentary.
.
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
17 Jan 2006 11:57:44 AM |
|
|
BlackSphinx wrote:
Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the
alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds
against a spontaneous origin for life, said: "The only acceptable
explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists,
as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not
like if the experimental evidence supports it."
Give us a citation for this quote and any experimental scientific
evidence you can supply that supports this supposed "creation"?
He further observed
that after Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, "evolution became in
a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it
and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
A sad but true commentary.
What's sad is claiming that almost all scientists lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?QXLlY2jxb23ibmni?=" |
|
| Title: Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
17 Jan 2006 01:13:53 PM |
|
|
"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:seazf.1005$wk5.735@news02.roc.ny...
BlackSphinx (JABRIOL) wrote:
Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the
alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds
against a spontaneous origin for life, said: "The only acceptable
explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists,
as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not
like if the experimental evidence supports it."
Give us a citation for this quote and any experimental scientific evidence
you can supply that supports this supposed "creation"?
It came from either a Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witness) magazine or one
of those Creationist sites. It seems I've seen this before.
He further observed
that after Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, "evolution became in
a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it
and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
A sad but true commentary.
What's sad is claiming that almost all scientists lie.
The will accuse everyone and anyone of LYING if the person disagree with
their religious beliefs.
Arach....
Their face turns purple when they hear of the
"atrocities" attributed to Allah, but they don't even
flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all
the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" --
including women, children, and trees!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<~~{@
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
17 Jan 2006 12:54:00 PM |
|
|
BlackSphinx wrote:
Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the
alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds
against a spontaneous origin for life, said: "The only acceptable
explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists,
as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not
like if the experimental evidence supports it." He further observed
that after Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, "evolution became in
a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it
and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
A sad but true commentary.
So what if someone I've never heard of before today said this. (He
said it, by the way, in 1980.) For that matter, so what if someone I
have heard of were to say the exact same thing. I am free to disagree
with this reasoning, and in fact I do. Anyone who understands the
concept of abiogenesis suffers no misconception as to so-called
"improbable" incidence of complex organisms. All that's prohibitively
improbable is to go straight from pond scum to monocellular life in one
step. There is no such claim by those who understand evolution.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
17 Jan 2006 01:14:40 PM |
|
|
On 17 Jan 2006 10:54:00 -0800, "Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com>
wrote:
So what if someone I've never heard of before today said this. (He
said it, by the way, in 1980.) For that matter, so what if someone I
have heard of were to say the exact same thing. I am free to disagree
with this reasoning, and in fact I do. Anyone who understands the
concept of abiogenesis suffers no misconception as to so-called
"improbable" incidence of complex organisms. All that's prohibitively
improbable is to go straight from pond scum to monocellular life in one
step. There is no such claim by those who understand evolution.
As creationists that's how they think. They project their belief that
it appeared fully formed onto science and are unable to understand why
it's wrong, no matter how much you keep repeating it.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
17 Jan 2006 02:08:54 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
As creationists that's how they think. They project their belief that
it appeared fully formed onto science and are unable to understand why
it's wrong, no matter how much you keep repeating it.
Yes. Indeed.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
17 Jan 2006 03:34:02 PM |
|
|
BlackSphinx wrote:
Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the
alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds
against a spontaneous origin for life, said: "The only acceptable
explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists,
as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not
like if the experimental evidence supports it." He further observed
that after Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, "evolution became in
a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it
and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
A sad but true commentary.
BlackSphinx is a liar by quoting out of context.
"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms,
natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think,
however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only
acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that
we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson,
F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist
looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)
Note the conditional statement that BlackSphinx selectively left out.
Lipson later clarifies his position.
"Several people have given clear indications that they do not
understand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species
have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record."
- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics
Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.
Note that Lipson believes evolution to be an obvious conclusion given
the fossil record.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?QXLlY2jxb23ibmni?=" |
|
| Title: Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
17 Jan 2006 04:57:15 PM |
|
|
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137533642.273126.230480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
BlackSphinx (Jabriol from ARJ-W) wrote: /SNIP
..
BlackSphinx (Jabriol) is a liar by quoting out of context.
============================
What can we expect from a creationist Jehovah's Witness?
--
Arach...
http://silentlambs.org
www.freeminds.org
http://dbhome.dk/carlo/ secret Elder's Manual
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-book.html
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not
based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
~ Carl Sagan ~
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
17 Jan 2006 04:59:05 PM |
|
|
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
BlackSphinx wrote:
Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the
alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds
against a spontaneous origin for life, said: "The only acceptable
explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists,
as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not
like if the experimental evidence supports it." He further observed
that after Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, "evolution became in
a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it
and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
A sad but true commentary.
BlackSphinx is a liar by quoting out of context.
"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms,
natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think,
however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only
acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that
we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson,
F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist
looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)
Note the conditional statement that BlackSphinx selectively left out.
Lipson later clarifies his position.
"Several people have given clear indications that they do not
understand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species
have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record."
- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics
Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.
Note that Lipson believes evolution to be an obvious conclusion given
the fossil record.
Thanks for this clarification. I was about to head for my library to
check this citation out. I always find it fascinating what is left out
of these so-called "quotations".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Javriol" |
|
| Title: Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
17 Jan 2006 05:58:55 PM |
|
|
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
the conditional statement that BlackSphinx selectively left out.
Lipson later clarifies his position.
"Several people have given clear indications that they do not
understand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species
have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record."
- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics
Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.
Note that Lipson believes evolution to be an obvious conclusion given
the fossil record.
Misdirection noted. The original thread I believe has to do with
abiogenesis, not evolution. Which many on these groups make such an
effort to seperate and denote that one has nothing to do with the
other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
17 Jan 2006 08:07:22 PM |
|
|
Javriol wrote:
The original thread I believe has to do with
abiogenesis, not evolution. Which many on these groups make such an
effort to seperate and denote that one has nothing to do with the
other.
It's not that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. It's
that evolution of things which are obviously biological is rather well
documented and the machinery of it is known. Abiogenesis, on the other
hand, is perfectly plausible in context of the broad principles on
which evolution is based, but the details of which are entirely
speculative.
Indeed the evolution of species of organisms is an extension of the
progress of any dynamic system which is endowed with both raw materials
& plentiful energy. Lots of variant configurations of the raw materials
get tried. The ones which are conducive to their own perpetuation will
persist while other less robust configurations decay and their
constituents return to the inventory of raw materials. If a
configuration happens to be oriented to manufacture copies of itself,
then it's reasonable to expect it to tend to do so. The ones which
don't make copies become extinct. The configurations which tend to make
copies are selected to do so. They are selected.
And this mode of selection exists at levels even deeper than just
chemicals in a primordial pond. It plays an important role in quantum
mechanics. A particle may have an enormous variety of choices of paths
it can take between points A & B. All those paths are ranked by their
respective probabilities, and those probabilities are determined by
which paths are leftover after all the rest cancel each other out by
interference of their respective phases. Selection is a very pervasive
law of Nature.
-Mark Martin
Even
.
|
|
|
| User: "Javriol" |
|
| Title: Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
17 Jan 2006 09:53:24 PM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
Javriol wrote:
The original thread I believe has to do with
abiogenesis, not evolution. Which many on these groups make such an
effort to seperate and denote that one has nothing to do with the
other.
It's not that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. It's
that evolution of things which are obviously biological is rather well
documented and the machinery of it is known.
That is a very broad assumption, evolution as the origin of man, can
not be observer, can not be duplicated in a lab, can not be falsified,
It will faill the scientific method every time.
Abiogenesis, on the other
hand, is perfectly plausible in context of the broad principles on
which evolution is based, but the details of which are entirely
speculative.
Being terraformed by the ancients of Atlantis could be just as
plausible.
Indeed the evolution of species of organisms is an extension of the
progress of any dynamic system which is endowed with both raw materials
& plentiful energy. Lots of variant configurations of the raw materials
get tried. The ones which are conducive to their own perpetuation will
persist while other less robust configurations decay and their
constituents return to the inventory of raw materials. If a
configuration happens to be oriented to manufacture copies of itself,
then it's reasonable to expect it to tend to do so. The ones which
don't make copies become extinct. The configurations which tend to make
copies are selected to do so. They are selected.
who does the selection? And what are the criteria fo such selection to
be made?
You are talking about survival of the fittest
And this mode of selection exists at levels even deeper than just
chemicals in a primordial pond. It plays an important role in quantum
mechanics. A particle may have an enormous variety of choices of paths
it can take between points A & B. All those paths are ranked by their
respective probabilities, and those probabilities are determined by
which paths are leftover after all the rest cancel each other out by
interference of their respective phases. Selection is a very pervasive
law of Nature.
speculation... good but still speculation
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
17 Jan 2006 10:47:01 PM |
|
|
Javriol wrote:
That is a very broad assumption, evolution as the origin of man, can
not be observer, can not be duplicated in a lab, can not be falsified,
It will faill the scientific method every time.
One doesn't have to replicate the specific historic lineage of a
modern species to show that speciation occurs. Evolution in general is
*change*. If the state of a system is different between times t & t',
then it has evolved between the two times. If the genome of a parent
differs from that of its offspring, then there has been an increment of
speciation in that lineage. Genomes are, in fact, incrementally
different between parents & their offspring. Genomic differentiation
does occur. All that really matters in bio-evolution is that genomic
changes occur. They do. Anyone who breeds showdogs or gourmet roses can
vouch for this.
Abiogenesis, on the other
hand, is perfectly plausible in context of the broad principles on
which evolution is based, but the details of which are entirely
speculative.
Being terraformed by the ancients of Atlantis could be just as
plausible.
Not really. Just because you can make such a proposition isn't the
same as showing that this proposition is more robust than any other.
There's no experiment to subject the "Atlantians Did It" proposition to
the risk of falsication (to categorically exclude it), just as there's
none to do the same for the "God Did It" proposition.
On the other hand, the "Selection By System Conditions" can be
subjected to risk of falsification. But it doesn't get shown to be
clearly false. Genomic differentiation is known to happen.
Indeed the evolution of species of organisms is an extension of the
progress of any dynamic system which is endowed with both raw materials
& plentiful energy. Lots of variant configurations of the raw materials
get tried. The ones which are conducive to their own perpetuation will
persist while other less robust configurations decay and their
constituents return to the inventory of raw materials. If a
configuration happens to be oriented to manufacture copies of itself,
then it's reasonable to expect it to tend to do so. The ones which
don't make copies become extinct. The configurations which tend to make
copies are selected to do so. They are selected.
who does the selection? And what are the criteria fo such selection to
be made?
You are talking about survival of the fittest
Selection doesn't necessarily need to be made by a "who". It can be
done effectively (and mindlessly) by the whole sum of the circumstances
in the system. What are the criteria for selection? I already explained
that. The criteria are whatever doesn't get you killed before you make
offspring.
And this mode of selection exists at levels even deeper than just
chemicals in a primordial pond. It plays an important role in quantum
mechanics. A particle may have an enormous variety of choices of paths
it can take between points A & B. All those paths are ranked by their
respective probabilities, and those probabilities are determined by
which paths are leftover after all the rest cancel each other out by
interference of their respective phases. Selection is a very pervasive
law of Nature.
speculation... good but still speculation
Not speculation at all. As far as physics is concerned these are
experimental truths.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: physicist H. S. Lipson speaks against abiogenesis |
17 Jan 2006 08:47:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:30:53 -0500, BlackSphinx wrote:
Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the
alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds
against a spontaneous origin for life, said: "The only acceptable
explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as
indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if
the experimental evidence supports it."
OK, present some evidence, and we will be happy to examine it.
(Long pause)
What's that? No evidence of a 'Creator'? Just the same old, "I can't
believe it just happened, so there MUST be a Creator"?
Dr. Lipson open-mindedness is laudable, but a theory with no evidence is
idle speculation.
He further observed that after
Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, "evolution became in a sense a
scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are
prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." A sad but true
commentary.
OK, go ahead and falsify it. We'll wait.
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
