A lot of work is currently being done to answer this question but at present, there seem to be no answers just yet. Some people say there was some sort of natural energy conversion that began the current state of this universe only problem is that they are in the dark as to what kick started the energy conversion as no evidence survives from that time and Science needs evidence to work off of.

To put it in simple terms, whatever process is explained regarding how life evolved we still need to date it back to where it all started and if we all agree that it started at point A, somebody would ask me, 'How did A come on the scene?'

What do you say?

greatdude:
A lot of work is currently being done to answer this question but at present, there seem to be no answers just yet. Some people say there was some sort of natural energy conversion that began the current state of this universe only problem is that they are in the dark as to what kick started the energy conversion as no evidence survives from that time and Science needs evidence to work off of.

To put it in simple terms, whatever process is explained regarding how life evolved we still need to date it back to where it all started and if we all agree that it started at point A, somebody would ask me, 'How did A come on the scene?'

What do you say?

I say science might not know the origin of life yet but I do know science has provided answers to great many puzzles of the universe as opposed to the blind faith with which religion uses to force mankind to accept the erroneous bible creation story.

Good post. However this puzzle seems unique by its very nature as it has to deal with pre-history. Very interesting question, this. For now it's fingers crossed. Also I didn't mention faith in my original post. Let's stick to the subject.

I know how life started on Earth and how earth came to be. Is that what you want to know ?

I don't think science would ever find the origins of the universe, we don't even know 100% about earth, talking less of the universe to begin finding it's origin

oglalasioux:

I say science might not know the origin of life yet but I do know science has provided answers to great many puzzles of the universe as opposed to the blind faith with which religion uses to force mankind to accept the erroneous bible creation story.

funny dude,you mentioned blind faith about religion and then mentioned bible, do all religions use the bible?

Ok

zzzzy:
I don't think science would ever find the origins of the universe, we don't even know 100% about earth, talking less of the universe to begin finding it's origin
funny dude,you mentioned blind faith about religion and then mentioned bible, do all religions use the bible?

The much we know about the universe started from Copernicus about 600 years ago. Prior to that mankind was practically in the dark. I tell you; with the advance in science and technology mankind will find mind boggling facts about our universe in just another 100 years. To quote Michio Kaku, an American theoretical physicist, by the year 2100 we'll have the power of the gods.

Yes I used the bible in the context because the OP based his question on the christian religion.

oglalasioux:


The much we know about the universe started from Copernicus about 600 years ago. Prior to that mankind was practically in the dark. I tell you; with the advance in science and technology mankind will find mind boggling facts about our universe in just another 100 years. To quote Michio Kaku, an American theoretical physicist, by the year 2100 we'll have the power of the gods.

Yes I used the bible in the context because the OP based his question on the christian religion.

wondering how you came to the conclusion that the OP based his question on Christian religion. Lets say you presumed that part.

oglalasioux:


The much we know about the universe started from Copernicus about 600 years ago. Prior to that mankind was practically in the dark. I tell you; with the advance in science and technology mankind will find mind boggling facts about our universe in just another 100 years. To quote Michio Kaku, an American theoretical physicist, by the year 2100 we'll have the power of the gods.

Yes I used the bible in the context because the OP based his question on the christian religion.

it would mean those that claim that science will never find out how the universe started, regardless of their views in support of or against theism, cannot be dismissed just yet as there are no clear cut scientific answers at the moment.....fingers crossed till year 2100 then

greatdude:
it would mean those that claim that science will never find out how the universe started, regardless of their views in support of or against theism, cannot be dismissed just yet as there are no clear cut scientific answers at the moment.....fingers crossed till year 2100 then

My point remains that science has provided much and will continue to gradually lay bare the secrets of the universe. Charles Darwin couldn't prove evolution by natural selection but 200 years later, science has the evidence. It'll be said today that science can never find how the universe started but the theory of the big bang has concrete evidences which the cosmic microwave background is the most physical. With time science will learn more and maybe in a thousand years from now people of that time will open our history and marvel at how primitive we are and yet survived just as we look back two thousand years and wonder what it was like to travel through Sahara desert from west Africa to the middle east which took people years compared to today that it takes just a few hours.

Unlike religion, science is very dynamic and thrives on proving other theories wrong. Science grows when there's a means of falsifying other theories. You don't try that in religion. You accept everything even when the lies are starring at you.

oglalasioux:


My point remains that science has provided much and will continue to gradually lay bare the secrets of the universe. Charles Darwin couldn't prove evolution by natural selection but 200 years later, science has the evidence. It'll be said today that science can never find how the universe started but the theory of the big bang has concrete evidences which the cosmic microwave background is the most physical. With time science will learn more and maybe in a thousand years from now people of that time will open our history and marvel at how primitive we are and yet survived just as we look back two thousand years and wonder what it was like to travel through Sahara desert from west Africa to the middle east which took people years compared to today that it takes just a few hours.

Unlike religion, science is very dynamic and thrives on proving other theories wrong. Science grows when there's a means of falsifying other theories. You don't try that in religion. You accept everything even when the lies are starring at you.

you see friend, one would argue that this puzzle seems unique and is of a different nature. Anyone who doubts the awesomeness of scientific discoveries and the role of science in finding out about our great universe hasn't got a clue. I opened this thread because of an argument among my co-workers and even the guy that champions the idea that science cannot find out how life started is not a religious guy so this is clearly not about religion.
The difficulty basically stems from the possibility of making observations of how life started but recently scientists are trying to
demonstrate in principle how it could occur. Researchers are trying to show undeniably that chemistry can naturally become biochemistry and once they do this they believe they would have made progress in answering this question. Problem is when they do, someone will still ask, 'how did chemistry come about?' So it begs the question, yes researchers are seeking answers but are they seeking answers to THIS question? The jury is still out as to whether science will answer the question or not eventually but I think the subject question is a valid one to ask.

greatdude:
you see friend, one would argue that this puzzle seems unique and is of a different nature. Anyone who doubts the awesomeness of scientific discoveries and the role of science in finding out about our great universe hasn't got a clue. I opened this thread because of an argument among my co-workers and even the guy that champions the idea that science cannot find out how life started is not a religious guy so this is clearly not about religion.
The difficulty basically stems from the possibility of making observations of how life started but recently scientists are trying to
demonstrate in principle how it could occur. Researchers are trying to show undeniably that chemistry can naturally become biochemistry and once they do this they believe they would have made progress in answering this question. Problem is when they do, someone will still ask, 'how did chemistry come about?' So it begs the question, yes researchers are seeking answers but are they seeking answers to THIS question? The jury is still out as to whether science will answer the question or not eventually but I think the subject
question is a valid one to ask.

Thanks for the clarification.

But my point is;

Because of the achievements of science in the past 400 years, it won't take more than another 100 years for science to answer your question. It's true that when one question is answered another one pops up. But I'll call that continuing genesis; something to give ever coming generations something to do.

Why not narrow your question to our present lifetime? It'll be easier to give you an answer.

oglalasioux:


Thanks for the clarification.

But my point is;

Because of the achievements of science in the past 400 years, it won't take more than another 100 years for science to answer your question. It's true that when one question is answered another one pops up. But I'll call that continuing genesis; something to give ever coming generations something to do.

Why not narrow your question to our present lifetime? It'll be easier to give you an answer.

I hope so but I don't think it works that way. That scientific findings have grown tremendously over the past few centuries is no guaranty that it will find answers to a certain scientific question in the coming century. Researchers are working to find answers no doubt but as we speak there are no indications yet that they will resolve this puzzle.

greatdude:
I hope so but I don't think it works that way. That scientific findings have grown tremendously over the past few centuries is no guaranty that it will find answers to a certain scientific question in the coming century. Researchers are working to find answers no doubt but as we speak there are no indications yet that they will resolve this puzzle.

Science is great. It has helped us and will contunue to help us. Science is man made, i dont think it has the credentials to probe the supernatural.

If science should really find out how life started, most scientists wouldn't believe it. They will go through any procedures to disprove it which will bring about arguments.

What am I even saying science doesn't even know the origin of Science itself.

I think the major challenge scientists will encounter in trying to figure this out is dating events back to its origin. When they do, for example if they find out that the starting point was point zero, the natural question would be, how did point zero come about? It's a funny subject

The hypothesis of abiogenesis is rife with many failures and poor reasoning. A common example is how OOl scientists typically presume experiments in artificial environments and human intervention act as 'plausible scenarios' for life origins. As it is, there is a better explanation of how life came to be, intelligence t design. The only reason why it is not accepted in mainstream science is because of its divine implications.

UyiIredia:
The hypothesis of abiogenesis is rife with many failures and poor reasoning. A common example is how OOl scientists typically presume experiments in artificial environments and human intervention act as 'plausible scenarios' for life origins. As it is, there is a better explanation of how life came to be, intelligence t design. The only reason why it is not accepted in mainstream science is because of its divine implications.

well said dude! People first belive before they reason not the other way round. It's basic human behaviour. People belive something first then try to rationalize it not the other way round (i.e. Rationalize then believe)

chrmn1:
well said dude! People first belive before they reason not the other way round. It's basic human behaviour. People belive something first then try to rationalize it not the other way round (i.e. Rationalize then believe)

please let's stick to the subject of discourse, namely, 'will science ever find the answer to the puzzle, how did the universe begin?'. Thank you for your input though

The important is to not stop questioning, many theists say God did it, this answers absolutely nothing about our origins rather if anything it puts a big question mark. If it we never find out about the origin, it is a worthy goal to keep searching, science is cumulative each generation builds upon the advancement of the others.

Religion has no answers to give us, i see people here saying it is Intelligent design, this contributes nothing to our quest for the origins of the life.

SirShifty:
The important is to not stop questioning, many theists say God did it, this answers absolutely nothing about our origins rather if anything it puts a big question mark. If it we never find out about the origin, it is a worthy goal to keep searching, science is cumulative each generation builds upon the advancement of the others.

Religion has no answers to give us, i see people here saying it is Intelligent design, this contributes nothing to our quest for the origins of the life.

thanks for your input. I'll be glad though if we stick to the subject, 'will science ever find out how life started?'