Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
Blasio Fernandes wrote: > As long as science is unable to provide explanation to all the > questions that are asked today and the questions that will be > asked in the future on life and its existence, there will always > be room for the existence of God. > The day science unravels the puzzle of life, we can happily > deny the existence of God !! > > Can anyone tell me, Who determines the time of a Childs birth? > Does God determine? Does science have a definitely answer to > this ? Or we haven't got an answer to this yet ? Blasio, I read the following from the Globe and Mail, Toronto. Published on Tuesday, Sep. 21, 2010. Mervyn1292Lobo Unanswerable questions The website Ask Jeeves, The Daily Telegraph reports, has compiled what it calls the top 10 “unanswerables” – the questions where there is no simple answer – based on more than a billion questions it has been asked in the past decade: 1. What is the meaning of life? 2. Is there a god? 3. Do blondes have more fun? 4. What is the best way to lose weight? 5. Is there anybody out there? 6. Who is the most famous person in the world? 7. What is love? 8. What is the secret to happiness? 9. Did Tony Soprano die? 10. How long will I live?
[Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- Folks, As long as science is unable to provide explanation to all the questions that are asked today and the questions that will be asked in the future on life and its existence, there will always be room for the existence of God. The day science unravels the puzzle of life, we can happily deny the existence of God !! Can anyone tell me, Who determines the time of a Childs birth ? Does God determine? Does science have a definitely answer to this ? Or we haven't got an answer to this yet ? Brgds, Blasio
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- --- On Mon, 9/20/10, rajendra kakodkar wrote: > > Excellent post by Santosh. Tautology by educated conservatives is well > >known. > I thank Rajendra for his kindness. I am very pleased that Goanet has another member who understands and appreciates an honest scientific explanation. There are not many people of this type on Goanet. My experience has been that even those who have supposedly received a professional scientific education, especially in the medical field, do not understand what science is all about. They choose supernatural and superstitious explanations to scientific ones, and consider scientific arguments even in a secular public forum such as Goanet to be an affront to their religion. We ought to do everything to prevent the younger generation from succumbing to these tendencies. Cheers, Santosh P.S. There is nothing wrong in being conservative, liberal, religious, fundamentalist, agnostic or atheist, as long as you are non-violent, non-abusive and intellectually honest.
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- I feel duty bound to tell those who want to learn how science has already explained life as a natural phenomenon, and answer genuine scientific questions. I have nothing to say about an individual's personal faith-based beliefs, and the contorted arguments he/she engages in to protect the sanctity of those beliefs at any cost. Examples of such individualistic personal beliefs and the tautological arguments offered to protect them are: "Because ‘Life’ is something beyond human comprehension, at least so far. Which deduces that : Science cannot explain ‘Life’." .Dr. dos Reis Falcão Earlier this same author claimed that he could comprehend what life does. Please see these quotes: 2. " It is ‘Life’ that initiates all these physical and chemical processes and not vice-versa." .Dr. dos Reis Falcão 3. It is ‘Life’ that creates these chemicals within the cells and body of the living substance. .Dr. dos Reis Falcão He also claimed that life was abstract, whatever the heck that means. Please note that these beliefs are entirely personal and idiosyncratic, not supported by any external rationale, evidence or research by genuinely knowledgeable people in the field. Anybody can concoct their own meaning of the word life, and claim that it is beyond human comprehension. They can claim that life is a misty magical demon from the mysterious land of Oz that science will never explain. Indeed, if you believe that life is a supernatural phenomenon, then science will never care to provide you with an explanation. Why would you even bother to look towards science for answers? This contention should become clear further from the following statements of faith-based personal parochial beliefs: QUOTE As we have seen, the scientific evidence confirms that “in the beginning, God created [...] .” Life cannot come from nonlife; only God can create life. True science and the Bible will always agree. Whether in biology, astronomy, geology, or any other field of study, we can trust God’s Word to be accurate when it speaks about these topics. Let us stand up for the truth of Genesis and take back our culture. UNQUOTE .Fr. Ivo QUOTE A scientist believes in phenomenon and adamantly refuses to believe until ‘The first cause’ or ‘God’ is proven as a fact. UNQUOTE .Charudatta Prabhudesai It is clear to me that the authors quoted above do not really want science to explain life, and would never trust science, even if I rubbed all the hard scientific evidence in their faces, including creating the first artificial living organism in the laboratory. So why bother? But to others who might care to listen, let me point out that the three rhetorical questions asked in a dismissive manner in the post appended below, have already been answered. Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão simply does not have that knowledge, apparently, and quite understandably, because he has not read the relevant scientific literature. The questions are embedded in the following quote: QUOTE What makes the living cells produce chemicals, what makes and regulates physical structures, what makes genes to design cells in certain format. That is what is the noun “LIFE” which no human or computer has explained. UNQUOTE .Dr. dos Reis Falcão The answer to the first question is that living cells contain within them a bootstrapped self-assembled molecular machinery performing in a step by step manner complex chemical reactions to synthesize all the chemicals needed to keep the cell functioning normally. The answer to the second question is obvious. It is the complex macromolecular chemicals synthesized in the above manner that make and regulate physical structures by various processes involving self-assembly and self-organization. This has been demonstrated in many different kinds of test tube and culture dish experiments. The answer to the third question is that genes carry molecular templates based on a triplet code, for generating a huge diversity of protein molecules, which can serve as structural as well as functional components in various specific types of self-assembly processes that create the overall structure of each cell. The repertoire of genes that are turned on or off in each cell is triggered by various chemicals, both inside and outside the cell. Cheers, Santosh --- On Sun, 9
[Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- Science Cannot Explain Life Excellent post by Santosh. Tautology by educated conservatives is well known. 911 was a result of fundamentalism by educated experts. Science is galloping. Even if not crystal clear today, the concepts of life would unfold some day. Better say: People trying to explain life do not know enough science to explain Life. Rajendra Santosh had posted: --- On Sun, 9/19/10, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão wrote: Has science anywhere explained that if you put all these chemical and physical components together, it could produce ‘Life’? Or for that matter, produce a living substance? Yes. Science has done precisely that over the last 70 years or so. Indeed, Craig Venter and his colleagues have already taken the first steps towards creating the first synthetic life form. Please see the following news reports: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/researchers-create-first-synthetic-life/621927/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form The original paper has been published at the following link in the prestigious journal "Science":http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1190719 The main problem with the post appended below is a lack of clear thinking about what is being explained, and by what. Indeed, almost every single statement in that post is either a meaningless tautology or an antiquated pre-scientific presumption that has no explanatory value at all, and that has been thoroughly refuted by scientific evidence. Here are the examples: 1. "It has explained ‘Living Substance’. None of these points explain what ‘Life’ is!".Dr. dos Reis Falcão The distinction being drawn here is utterly meaningless. If science has explained what makes a substance a "living" substance, it has by definition explained what "life" is. If one understands the meaning of an adjective i.e. "living", it follows logically that one also understands the meaning of the noun from which it is derived. 2. " It is ‘Life’ that initiates all these physical and chemical processes and not vice-versa." .Dr. dos Reis Falcão 3. It is ‘Life’ that creates these chemicals within the cells and body of the living substance. .Dr. dos Reis FalcãoScience has explained exactly why these statements are wrong, in addition to being meaningless tautologies. The word "life" has no explanatory value. It was a noun that was coined in the pre-scientific age to refer to observations of growth, reproduction, inheritance and self-initiated movement in natural objects. Science has comprehensively and convincingly explained the physical and chemical processes that mediate these observed phenomena. How the physical and chemical processes are initiated, and how the chemicals are created within cells are completely explained by basic physics and chemistry. There is no special spooky explanatory power in the word "life" beyond being a label to collectively refer to these phenonomena. The above quotes are therefore a vestige from a pre-scientific age that believed in a mysterious "vital" or "life" force. Scientific evidence has completely refuted this vitalist notion.4. "‘Life’ is something abstract and an abstract thing cannot be explained by science as to prove scientifically you need concrete proof and not deductive proof."..Dr. dos Reis Falcão The lack of clear and consistent rational thinking is obvious in the above non sequitur because it immediately follows the contradictory earlier statements 2 and 3 above. If "life" is something abstract then how does this abstract thing "initiate" all these concrete "physical and chemical processes and not vice-versa", as claimed in statement 2? If "life" is something abstract then how does it "create" concrete "chemicals within the cells and body of the living substance", as claimed in statement 3?
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
---
http://www.GOANET.org
---
Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa)
Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft)
Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION,
state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments
For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome
---
From: "Charudatt Prabhudesai"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
Perhaps this seemingly inconclusive topic may prolong inconclusively as
long as the obscure gray line demarcating noumenon and phenomenon is
not explained in black and white.
*Science has not yet given a definite answer about the origins of life. It
cannot give an answer on the meaning of human existence.
The arrogance of the scientist often prevents him from seeing that he is
as much a believer as a mystic is. A scientist believes in phenomenon
and adamantly refuses to believe until ‘The first cause’ or ‘God’ is
proven as a fact. He is willing ( or is he?) to believe in Him only if
he sees God as a gray bearded fellow and shakes His hand! A mystic finds
it meaningful to approach the subject differently by saying “Thou indeed
art, O Lord, reveal Thy glorious form unto me.”
The two approaches are obviously opposed; that there is a conflict is
but understandable.
**There should not be any conflict, since Science deals with the phenomenal
world. Only Faith can tell us something definite on soul, afterlife, God,
Resurrection.
The conflict, however, is neither in the scientist's mind (since he is
convinced of god's non-existence), nor is it in the mind of the mystic
who has 'found' God by virtue of his mystical experience. Yet a mystic
claims to have arrived at a definite conclusion to his inquiry. The
scientist, with his typical nonchalance “does not care” ( as quoted by
Dr. Helekar) to explain “the meaning” of life. He allows, rather
imperatively, 'subjective' belief to whoever that seeks some desperate
formula to allay his troubled mind regarding 'meaning of life'.
**Scientist cannot answer this question ("does not care").
<**Scientists who believe only in Science become agnostics, they do not know
about it...
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- That is why science still cannot revive an organism that no longer has life ... or else life would have been eternal :-) - Original Message > From: Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão > To: goa...@goanet.org; i...@goanet.org > Sent: Sun, 19 September, 2010 10:57:22 PM > Subject: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life > > SANTOSH > HELEKAR wrote: <<< Life as a natural phenomenon is explained by a > science called Biology. ... > > RESPONSE : All the above points only distinguish living from > non-living matter, or how a living cell is sustained. It has explained what a > living matter is. It has explained ‘Living Substance’. None of these points > explain what ‘Life’ is!
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
---
http://www.GOANET.org
---
Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa)
Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft)
Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION,
state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments
For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome
---
For a lay person if science cannot explain life, fine.
But someone please tell me what is a 'test-tube' baby or a 'clone'
I have not been following this thread in its entirety, but if the above is
not science, then I shall have to go back to the dictionary to find out what
'science' means.
:-)
Cheers
floriano
PS: I must confess that I am not aware if the above subject has been touched
upon on this thread. If so, I may be excused.
- Original Message -
From: "Santosh Helekar"
To: " estb. 1994!Goa's premiere mailing list"
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
I am involved in this discussion because I want to promote genuine and
accurate understanding of science among the general public. I also want to
promote clear thinking on all issues. The most direct way of doing this is
to point out all the misconceptions and erroneous statements of fact, to
separate sense from nonsense, and to provide appropriate corrections and
reliable sources of knowledge. In my last two posts in this thread I have
told you how science explains life, human life and human existence as
natural phenomena. In this post I will point out the main problem with the
post appended below.
But before that let me answer the two questions asked:
[Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- SANTOSH HELEKAR wrote: <<< If "life" is something abstract then how does this abstract thing "initiate" all these concrete "physical and chemical processes and not vice-versa", as claimed in statement 2? If "life" is something abstract then how does it "create" concrete "chemicals within the cells and body of the living substance", as claimed in statement 3? RESPONSE : This is the exact ignorance that I wanted to elicit. Because ‘Life’ is something beyond human comprehension, at least so far. Which deduces that : Science cannot explain ‘Life’. SANTOSH HELEKAR wrote: <<< The distinction being drawn here is utterly meaningless. If science has explained what makes a substance a "living" substance, it has by definition explained what "life" is. If one understands the meaning of an adjective i.e. "living", it follows logically that one also understands the meaning of the noun from which it is derived……… The word "life" has no explanatory value. It was a noun that was coined in the pre-scientific age to refer to…..>>> RESPONSE : So, in other words ‘Life’ is from pre-scientific age which you at present age still affirm that “Science has already explained life as a natural phenomenon.” I do not think this thread anyone said that scientist cannot explain what ‘living substance’ is; but what ‘Life’ is. What makes the living cells produce chemicals, what makes and regulates physical structures, what makes genes to design cells in certain format. That is what is the noun “LIFE” which no human or computer has explained. I rest my case. Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
---
http://www.GOANET.org
---
Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa)
Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft)
Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION,
state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments
For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome
---
Perhaps this seemingly inconclusive topic may prolong inconclusively as
long as the obscure gray line demarcating noumenon and phenomenon is
not explained in black and white.
The arrogance of the scientist often prevents him from seeing that he is
as much a believer as a mystic is. A scientist believes in phenomenon
and adamantly refuses to believe until ‘The first cause’ or ‘God’ is
proven as a fact. He is willing ( or is he?) to believe in Him only if
he sees God as a gray bearded fellow and shakes His hand! A mystic finds
it meaningful to approach the subject differently by saying “Thou indeed
art, O Lord, reveal Thy glorious form unto me.”
The two approaches are obviously opposed; that there is a conflict is
but understandable.
The conflict, however, is neither in the scientist's mind (since he is
convinced of god's non-existence), nor is it in the mind of the mystic
who has 'found' God by virtue of his mystical experience. Yet a mystic
claims to have arrived at a definite conclusion to his inquiry. The
scientist, with his typical nonchalance “does not care” ( as quoted by
Dr. Helekar) to explain “the meaning” of life. He allows, rather
imperatively, 'subjective' belief to whoever that seeks some desperate
formula to allay his troubled mind regarding 'meaning of life'.
The question troubles seekers of 'meaning' beyond the mere explanation
of phenomenon. It is indeed a question which falls in the supra-physical
realm. Adherents of science, since it “does not care” to explain
supra-physical matter should not bother to enter in the discussion
regarding the topic that's beyond their purview. Instead, the scientist
or the disciple of science proffers to proclaim his
prejudice. “Hail”, he says, “God does not exist, for I do not care
whether He exists or not!”
Charudatta Prabhudesai
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
---
http://www.GOANET.org
---
Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa)
Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft)
Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION,
state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments
For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome
---
Maybe Science can explain life - maybe it cannot.- but I wonder
whether anyone can explain - GOAN LIFE - that is - scientifically
speaking - if such a thing exists.
Cheers
Augusto
--
Augusto Pinto
40, Novo Portugal,
Moira, Bardez,
Goa, India
E pinto...@gmail.com or ypinto...@yahoo.co.in
P 0832-2470336
M 9881126350
Santosh Helekar
Sun Sep 19 06:51:47 PDT 2010
--- On Sat, 9/18/10, Ivo wrote:
>
>"Science cannot explain human life or existence". Science cannot alone
>explain the mystery of human existence.
>
The above statement is factually wrong. How human life originated and
how humans came into existence having evolved from primate ancestors is
explained in great detail by the modern scientific theory of evolution.
Cheers,
Santosh
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- I am involved in this discussion because I want to promote genuine and accurate understanding of science among the general public. I also want to promote clear thinking on all issues. The most direct way of doing this is to point out all the misconceptions and erroneous statements of fact, to separate sense from nonsense, and to provide appropriate corrections and reliable sources of knowledge. In my last two posts in this thread I have told you how science explains life, human life and human existence as natural phenomena. In this post I will point out the main problem with the post appended below. But before that let me answer the two questions asked: --- On Sun, 9/19/10, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão wrote: > >Has science anywhere explained that if you put all these chemical and >>physical components together, it could produce ‘Life’? Or for that >matter, >produce a living substance? > Yes. Science has done exactly and precisely that over the last 70 years or so. Indeed, Craig Venter and his colleagues have already taken the first steps towards creating the first synthetic life form. Please see the following news reports: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/researchers-create-first-synthetic-life/621927/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form The original paper has been published at the following link in the prestigious journal "Science": http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1190719 The main problem with the post appended below is a lack of clear thinking about what is being explained, and by what. Indeed, almost every single statement in that post is either a meaningless tautology or an antiquated pre-scientific presumption that has no explanatory value at all, and that has been thoroughly refuted by scientific evidence. Here are the examples: 1. "It has explained ‘Living Substance’. None of these points explain what ‘Life’ is!" .Dr. dos Reis Falcão The distinction being drawn here is utterly meaningless. If science has explained what makes a substance a "living" substance, it has by definition explained what "life" is. If one understands the meaning of an adjective i.e. "living", it follows logically that one also understands the meaning of the noun from which it is derived. 2. " It is ‘Life’ that initiates all these physical and chemical processes and not vice-versa." .Dr. dos Reis Falcão 3. It is ‘Life’ that creates these chemicals within the cells and body of the living substance. .Dr. dos Reis Falcão Science has explained exactly why these statements are wrong, in addition to being meaningless tautologies. The word "life" has no explanatory value. It was a noun that was coined in the pre-scientific age to refer to observations of growth, reproduction, inheritance and self-initiated movement in natural objects. Science has comprehensively and convincingly explained the physical and chemical processes that mediate these observed phenomena. How the physical and chemical processes are initiated, and how the chemicals are created within cells are completely explained by basic physics and chemistry. There is no special spooky explanatory power in the word "life" beyond being a label to collectively refer to these phenonomena. The above quotes are therefore a vestige from a pre-scientific age that believed in a mysterious "vital" or "life" force. Scientific evidence has completely refuted this vitalist notion. 4. "‘Life’ is something abstract and an abstract thing cannot be explained by science as to prove scientifically you need concrete proof and not deductive proof." ..Dr. dos Reis Falcão The lack of clear and consistent rational thinking is obvious in the above non sequitur because it immediately follows the contradictory earlier statements 2 and 3 above. If "life" is something abstract then how does this abstract thing "initiate" all these concrete "physical and chemical processes and not vice-versa", as claimed in statement 2? If "life" is something abstract then how does it "create" concrete "chemicals within the cells and body of the living substance", as claimed in statement 3? Cheers, Santosh --- On Sun, 9/19/10, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão wrote: > > RESPONSE : All the above points only distinguish living > from > non-li
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão wrote: > It is ‘Life’ that initiates all these physical and chemical > processes and not vice-versa. It is ‘Life’ that creates these > chemicals within the cells and body of the living substance. > ‘Life’ is something abstract and an abstract thing cannot be > explained by science as to prove scientifically you need > concrete proof and not deductive proof. > > Has science anywhere explained that if you put all these > chemical and physical components together, it could produce > ‘Life’? Or for that matter, produce a living substance? > Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão, There are a whole bunch of scientists dedicated to finding the answers to your questions above and there is a lot of money to be made. The following from Wilipedia may be informative. "Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis > If science could explain what ‘Life’ is; if science had the > knowledge of what ‘Life’ is; it would have definitely been able to give > ‘Life’ to non-living substances. A quick google of the above subject matter may surprise you. DNA is being created as we speak. Here is a little commercial info. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-21/life-form-created-with-man-made-dna-offers-benefits-dangers.html Mervyn1275Lobo
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- 2010/9/19 Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão > > > > > > > RESPONSE : All the above points only distinguish living from > non-living matter, or how a living cell is sustained. It has explained what > a > living matter is. It has explained ‘Living Substance’. None of these points > explain what ‘Life’ is!.. > . > Has science anywhere explained that if you put all these > chemical and physical components together, it could produce ‘Life’? Or for > that > matter, produce a living substance? > > If science could explain what ‘Life’ is; if science had the > knowledge of what ‘Life’ is; it would have definitely been able to give > ‘Life’ > to non-living substances. > > > > > > > > Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão. > RESPONSE: I may be wrong please correct me; life has been produced in the laboratory - something to do with amino acids...which first produced life. Now a matter of faith is a different kettle of fish, yes no? -- DEV BOREM KORUM Gabe Menezes.
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- A great example of of two individuals involved in a dialog who "do not speak the same language." There are some things, that are important, that "science does not pretend or care to explain." Well that is why we have philosophy, theology (study about god), etc. Perhaps tomorrow when science has some demonstrable and reproducible facts or data on the subject, we may have a different perspective from philosophy. For now we need to "understand the model" which other disciplines are trying to understand and explain. If science does not / cannot do that, then we should not stand in the way of others from doing so. What the heck, so often in medicine we develop treatments based on a clinician's or researcher's "theoretical model" of what is happening and how (drugs) to modulate that "theoretical model." Twenty years later we find that model of the disease process and the treatment were totally flawed. The same occurs in many other fields of science. Regards, GL --- Ivo wrote: From: "Santosh Helekar" <
[Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- SANTOSH HELEKAR wrote: <<< Life as a natural phenomenon is explained by a science called Biology. Over the last 70 years or so all of the following questions regarding the natural processes that constitute life, and that distinguish living organisms from non-living matter have been substantially answered: 1. What is the chemical composition of a living cell? 2. How do these chemicals interact within the living cell to keep it alive? 3. What physical and chemical processes underlie the functioning of a living organism? 4. How are the chemicals responsible for all the natural processes that sustain living cells within living organisms synthesized, broken down and replenished? 5. How is energy harnessed, stored and utilized for sustaining living processes? 6. What chemical mechanisms determine the structure and function of living cells and organisms, and how? 7. What are the molecular chemical bases of growth, reproduction and heredity? 8. What chemical and physical mechanisms account for the emergence of complexity and diversity of living organisms? 9. What is the molecular chemical and physical basis of movement? 10. What are the chemical and physical bases of sensory, perceptual and mental phenomena? RESPONSE : All the above points only distinguish living from non-living matter, or how a living cell is sustained. It has explained what a living matter is. It has explained ‘Living Substance’. None of these points explain what ‘Life’ is! It is ‘Life’ that initiates all these physical and chemical processes and not vice-versa. It is ‘Life’ that creates these chemicals within the cells and body of the living substance. ‘Life’ is something abstract and an abstract thing cannot be explained by science as to prove scientifically you need concrete proof and not deductive proof. Has science anywhere explained that if you put all these chemical and physical components together, it could produce ‘Life’? Or for that matter, produce a living substance? If science could explain what ‘Life’ is; if science had the knowledge of what ‘Life’ is; it would have definitely been able to give ‘Life’ to non-living substances. Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- --- On Sat, 9/18/10, Ivo wrote: > >"Science cannot explain human life or existence". Science cannot alone >>explain the mystery of human existence. > The above statement is factually wrong. How human life originated and how humans came into existence having evolved from primate ancestors is explained in great detail by the modern scientific theory of evolution. Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- --- On Sat, 9/18/10, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão > > May I know under which branch of Science is ‘Life’ > explained and where? I would very much love to have this > knowledge. > Life as a natural phenomenon is explained by a science called Biology. Over the last 70 years or so all of the following questions regarding the natural processes that constitute life, and that distinguish living organisms from non-living matter have been substantially answered: 1. What is the chemical composition of a living cell? 2. How do these chemicals interact within the living cell to keep it alive? 3. What physical and chemical processes underlie the functioning of a living organism? 4. How are the chemicals responsible for all the natural processes that sustain living cells within living organisms synthesized, broken down and replenished? 5. How is energy harnessed, stored and utilized for sustaining living processes? 6. What chemical mechanisms determine the structure and function of living cells and organisms, and how? 7. What are the molecular chemical bases of growth, reproduction and heredity? 8. What chemical and physical mechanisms account for the emergence of complexity and diversity of living organisms? 9. What is the molecular chemical and physical basis of movement? 10. What are the chemical and physical bases of sensory, perceptual and mental phenomena? Please let me know if you need further information on the advances that Biology, the science of life, has made in explaining life as a natural phenomenon in the 20th and 21st centuries. I can recommend some very good books and review articles on this subject. Cheers, Santosh --- On Sat, 9/18/10, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão > > A QUESTION AS I DO NOT UNDERSTAND: Science deals with > Physics, Maths, Cemistry > & Biology. Life cannot be explained in any way by any > one of these. > > Natural phenomenon like lightning, rain, earthquakes, > etc. are explained through Physics. Hallucinations & > delusions, growth, > cancer, etc., are explained through Chemistry. Infections > and some cancers are > explained through Biology. > > > > > May I know under which branch of Science is ‘Life’ > explained and where? I would very much love to have this > knowledge. > > > > > Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão. > > > > > >
Re: [Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
---
http://www.GOANET.org
---
Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa)
Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft)
Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION,
state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments
For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome
---
From: "Santosh Helekar"
The subject line of this thread is factually wrong. Science has already
explained life as a natural phenomenon.
**Nothing is wrong. You are wrong in your interpretation. I am referring to
the words of the Holy Father Benedict XVI who refers to the mystery of human
existence ("life" here is human existence): "Science cannot explain human
life or existence". Science cannot alone explain the mystery of human
existence.
[Goanet] Science Cannot Explain Life
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Goanet joins Noel Rebello to raise money for Daddy's Home (Margao, Goa) Sponsor Noel as he climbs Mt. Kilimanjaro (5,882m or 19,298 ft) Make a donation at www.Goanet.org, click on MAKE A DONATION, state "Daddy's Home" in the Donation comments For more information see: http://bit.ly/SupportDaddysHome --- SANTOSH HELEKAR WRITES: <> A QUESTION AS I DO NOT UNDERSTAND: Science deals with Physics, Maths, Cemistry & Biology. Life cannot be explained in any way by any one of these. Natural phenomenon like lightning, rain, earthquakes, etc. are explained through Physics. Hallucinations & delusions, growth, cancer, etc., are explained through Chemistry. Infections and some cancers are explained through Biology. May I know under which branch of Science is ‘Life’ explained and where? I would very much love to have this knowledge. Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
