A new theory could answer the question of how life began – and throw out the need for
God.
A writer on the website of Richard Dawkins’ foundation says that the theory has put God
“on the ropes” and has “terrified” Christians.
It proposes that life did not emerge by accident or luck from a primordial soup and a bolt
of lightning. Instead, life itself came about by necessity – it follows from the laws of
nature and is as inevitable as rocks rolling downhill.
The problem for scientists attempting to understand how life began is understanding
how living beings – which tend to be far better at taking energy from the environment
and dissipating it as heat – could come about from non-living ones.
But a new theory, proposed by a researcher at MIT and first reported in Quanta
Magazine, proposes that when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of
energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy. The emergence of life might
not be the luck of atoms arranging themselves in the right way, it says, but an inevitable
event if the conditions are correct.
“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it
should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said
Paul Rosenberg, writing this week on Richard Dawkins’ site, said that the theory could
make things “a whole lot worse for creationists”.
As Rosenberg notes, the idea that life could have evolved from non-living things is one
that has been held for some time, and was described by the pre-Socratic philosophers.
But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since
Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the
test. source http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-theory-of-life-could-prove-how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Good to know, the theory is another prove that God is the ultimate science hangover.

I'm just laughing at u and them,


all this babling to what end, for ur info. The word GOd is not a name okay,

Yes
The simple way to put this is that particles of matter are already and innately pregnant with the possiblities of life,. .. And just waits for the very rare environment threshold with which and upon which to manifest life.

Lol...funny OP. Are trying to use science and reasoning to disprove God to people who do not follow science and reasoning? If anything, evolution and the big bang were enough to disprove the God delusion but we all know what happened. It's quite unfortunate but I don't think we'll be able to 'disprove God', especially not with science. Believers will almost always cling to fairy tales.

Dead on arrival

DProDG:
Lol...funny OP. Are trying to use science and reasoning to disprove God to people who do not follow science and reasoning? If anything, evolution and the big bang were enough to disprove the God delusion but we all know what happened. It's quite unfortunate but I don't think we'll be able to 'disprove God', especially not with science. Believers will almost always cling to fairy tales.

If your reasoning and science fail to disprove God to people holding to fairytale, your reasoning and science is a fairytale science fiction to them too. Find something better to do with your science if Godhunting and skydaddy mockery is frustrating. You can prove your creation story beyond reasonable doubt by creating life on any vacant planet around. Get it?

absoluteSuccess:
If your reasoning and science fail to disprove God to people holding to fairytale, your reasoning and science is a fairytale science fiction to them too. Find something better to do with your science if Godhunting and skydaddy mockery is frustrating. You can prove your creation story beyond reasonable doubt by creating life on any vacant planet around. Get it?

Not accepting/understanding something doesn't make it wrong. Science can never be a fairy tale. It's objective, testable and has 99.9% predictability. Because some discoveries happen to contradict superstitious beliefs doesn't mean scientists are 'godhunting'. Some people are actually interested in knowing about the actual origins of life on earth.
If by 'creation story' you meant abiogenesis, them shame.

DProDG:

Not accepting/understanding something doesn't make it wrong. Science can never be a fairy tale. It's objective, testable and has 99.9% predictability. Because some discoveries happen to contradict superstitious beliefs doesn't mean scientists are 'godhunting'. Some people are actually interested in knowing about the actual origins of life on earth.
If by 'creation story' you meant abiogenesis, them shame.

You've helped me make my point. I dont force my will on you, having scientific inclination should not always be to prove God right or wrong. Give value to the world with your knowledge, not controversies. If your science is witchhunting others for reverencing a creator they believe to have meaningful existence, shame to sadist scientists striving to make bankrupt the spiritual expectations of others. Let science be science, stop hunting for God.

absoluteSuccess:
You've helped me make my point. I dont force my will on you, having scientific inclination should not always be to prove God right or wrong. Give value to the world with your knowledge, not controversies. If your science is witchhunting others for reverencing a creator they believe to have meaningful existence, shame to sadist scientists striving to make bankrupt the spiritual expectations of others. Let science be science, stop hunting for God.

What about this has to do with forcing beliefs on anyone? As I said, no one is hunting for god. The OP refers to a new discovery that potentially takes the god of the gaps argument out of the question of the origin of life, the same way the Big Bang took the creation story out of the origin of the universe. It's nothing political and is actually the other way around. People are still inclined to their various beliefs but they shouldn't bring it into science like creationism has done.

DProDG:

What about this has to do with forcing beliefs on anyone? As I said, no one is hunting for god. The OP refers to a new discovery that potentially takes the god of the gaps argument out of the question of the origin of life, the same way the Big Bang took the creation story out of the origin of the universe. It's nothing political and is actually the other way around. People are still inclined to their various beliefs but they shouldn't bring it into science like creationism has done.

So, science is a 'no go area' for people with various beliefs? OK o science is an exclusive reserve for 'superhumans', out of the realm of grasp to whoever proclaim creationism: 'superiority complex' indoctrination at work.

absoluteSuccess:
So, science is a 'no go area' for people with various beliefs? OK o science is an exclusive reserve for 'superhumans', out of the realm of grasp to whoever proclaim creationism: 'superiority complex' indoctrination at work.

Dude, you quoted my post and yet made up something totally different. I only said people shouldn't bring their beliefs and feelings into science 'cause that's not how it works. A lot of theists practice science but the only way they can excell in it is by following the scientific method which has nothing to do with faith. Faith is subjective and should be private. How hard is that for you to grasp?

DProDG:


Dude, you quoted my post and yet made up something totally different. I only said people shouldn't bring their beliefs and feelings into science 'cause that's not how it works. A lot of theists practice science but the only way they can excell in it is by following the scientific method which has nothing to do with faith. Faith is subjective and should be private. How hard is that for you to grasp?

Thats wholesome. Science is neutral study of nature, it is not religion or atheist creed.

absoluteSuccess:
Thats wholesome. Science is neutral study of nature, it is not religion or atheist creed.

So I'll take it that we're on the same page now.

It's a hypothesis yet to be tested not a theory. There's no agreement yet on how life began.

DProDG:


So I'll take it that we're on the same page now.

Very well, I misunderstood you earlier on, thanks for your maturity and patience. Spirituality is a personal understanding or appreciation of the mystery of human existence in relationship with the entity responsible for this intelligent and undeniable sensibility of existence, science is deep and empirical knowledge needed to resolve valuable mystery and exploit nature for man's common good.

crowther15:
A new theory could answer the question of how life began – and throw out the need for
God.
A writer on the website of Richard Dawkins’ foundation says that the theory has put God
“on the ropes” and has “terrified” Christians.
It proposes that life did not emerge by accident or luck from a primordial soup and a bolt
of lightning. Instead, life itself came about by necessity – it follows from the laws of
nature and is as inevitable as rocks rolling downhill.
The problem for scientists attempting to understand how life began is understanding
how living beings – which tend to be far better at taking energy from the environment
and dissipating it as heat – could come about from non-living ones.
But a new theory, proposed by a researcher at MIT and first reported in Quanta
Magazine, proposes that when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of
energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy. The emergence of life might
not be the luck of atoms arranging themselves in the right way, it says, but an inevitable
event if the conditions are correct.
“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it
should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said
Paul Rosenberg, writing this week on Richard Dawkins’ site, said that the theory could
make things “a whole lot worse for creationists”.
As Rosenberg notes, the idea that life could have evolved from non-living things is one
that has been held for some time, and was described by the pre-Socratic philosophers.
But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since
Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the
test. source http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-theory-of-life-could-prove-how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Kia! o boy i can't help it but just laugh at u
all what u wrote is within the realm of effect and not cause,
all u have done, is replace the word 'God' with the word 'natural law'

crowther15:
A new theory could answer the question of how life began – and throw out the need for
God.
A writer on the website of Richard Dawkins’ foundation says that the theory has put God
“on the ropes” and has “terrified” Christians.
It proposes that life did not emerge by accident or luck from a primordial soup and a bolt
of lightning. Instead, life itself came about by necessity – it follows from the laws of
nature and is as inevitable as rocks rolling downhill.
The problem for scientists attempting to understand how life began is understanding
how living beings – which tend to be far better at taking energy from the environment
and dissipating it as heat – could come about from non-living ones.
But a new theory, proposed by a researcher at MIT and first reported in Quanta
Magazine, proposes that when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of
energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy. The emergence of life might
not be the luck of atoms arranging themselves in the right way, it says, but an inevitable
event if the conditions are correct.
“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it
should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said
Paul Rosenberg, writing this week on Richard Dawkins’ site, said that the theory could
make things “a whole lot worse for creationists”.
As Rosenberg notes, the idea that life could have evolved from non-living things is one
that has been held for some time, and was described by the pre-Socratic philosophers.
But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since
Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the
test. source http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-theory-of-life-could-prove-how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Kia! o boy i can't help it but just laugh at u
all what u wrote is within the realm of effect and not cause,
all u have done, is replace the word 'God' with the word ' laws of nature'

plaetton:
Yes
The simple way to put this is that particles of matter are already and innately pregnant with the possiblities of life,. .. And just waits for the very rare environment threshold with which and upon which to manifest life.

particles of matter are effects caused by something, tell us what causes particles of matter to manifest?

Jameselias:
particles of matter are effects caused by something, tell us what causes particles of matter to manifest?

Particles of matter are simply energy in condensed form.
All is energy.

I hope you don't come back and ask me what gives energy to energy.

plaetton:

Particles of matter are simply energy in condensed form.
All is energy.

WHAT CONDENCED THE ENERGY?

I hope you don't come back and ask me what gives energy to energy.

what u call Particles of matter are simply certain vibrational frequency and not just mere (condensed energy form) as u said.
All is energy. Yes, but let me help u out, all is vibration not energy,
consider the fact that matter is made of atoms, and atoms on thier own are made up of smaller particles called electron and neutron which on thier own are pure vibrational wave,
in other words what u call neutron and electron which are regarged as foundation for atom are basicaly ripples of wave created by vibrations on the cosmic energy,
since to every action their must be a cause, all what we observe is noting but effect caused by something, there fore let us leave the realm of effect and try to enter the realm of cause,
since we want to find GOD( the cause, the source) the question would be what do u think is responsible for the vibration found in cosmos? which is helping arrange atoms as we see or perseve them,
remenber energy don't arrange it's self into an atom hell no,
rather atoms are actually ripples and partterns of vibration as they occur in cosmic energy,
now consider, that HUMAN thought are vibrational wave , and imagination are also vibrational wave ,
now it might also be that this cosmic vibration is a thought and imaginative wave vibration from the mind of who? What? I don't know, u, give it a name,
u have heard such statement like creation is an imagination in the mind of GOD ( cosmic mind),

This is probably the worst physics lesson ever

Jameselias:
what u call Particles of matter are simply certain vibrational frequency and not just mere (condensed energy form) as u said.

Did your really refer to protons, neutrons and electrons as vibrations?

All is energy. Yes, but let me help u out, all is vibration not energy,
consider the fact that matter is made of atoms, and atoms on thier own are made up of smaller particles called electron and neutron which on thier own are pure vibrational wave,

Wow, you did it again!

in other words what u call neutron and electron which are regarged as foundation for atom are basicaly ripples of wave created by vibrations on the cosmic energy,

What are you talking about? No, just no. Vibrations on cosmic energy? How?

since to every action their must be a cause, all what we observe is noting but effect caused by something, there fore let us leave the realm of effect and try to enter the realm of cause,
since we want to find GOD( the cause, the source) the question would be what do u think is responsible for the vibration found in cosmos? which is helping arrange atoms as we see or perseve them,
remenber energy don't arrange it's self into an atom hell no,
rather atoms are actually ripples and partterns of vibration as they occur in cosmic energy,

I just have to say I've never heard that definition before and it's a bit hard to understand.

now consider, that HUMAN thought are vibrational wave , and imagination are also vibrational wave ,
now it might also be that this cosmic vibration is a thought and imaginative wave vibration from the mind of who? What? I don't know, u, give it a name,
u have heard such statement like creation is an imagination in the mind of GOD ( cosmic mind),

Your premise is wrong. I fail to see how thoughts fall under "vibrational waves". In fact, I don't even know what VW means.

DProDG:
This is probably the worst physics lesson ever



Did your really refer to protons, neutrons and electrons as vibrations?



Wow, you did it again!


What are you talking about? No, just no. Vibrations on cosmic energy? How?



I just have to say I've never heard that definition before and it's a bit hard to understand.



Your premise is wrong. I fail to see how thoughts fall under "vibrational waves". In fact, I don't even know what VW means.

go study all u can on quantum physic , esp: as it relate to electron and neutron, then come back and ask ur question,
did i hear u say that u don't know that thought are waves ?
That up there is not a definetion of atom no it's not, but what atom actually is at the most subtle level, further more research, more about vibration and, as it relates to wave

Jameselias:
what u call Particles of matter are simply certain vibrational frequency and not just mere (condensed energy form) as u said.
All is energy. Yes, but let me help u out, all is vibration not energy,
consider the fact that matter is made of atoms, and atoms on thier own are made up of smaller particles called electron and neutron which on thier own are pure vibrational wave,

I know a decent amount of QP already. Please explain what you mean by vibrational frequency & wave and cosmic vibration. Also, I don't fully understand your use of the term cosmic energy. Merci