---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** 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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
