Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 Free For All - Science & Religion
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 11

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  03:23:54  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/science/21belief.html?pagewanted=1&8dpc

quote:
Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  07:12:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo




http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/science/21belief.html?pagewanted=1&8dpc

quote:
Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.





I am familiar with Dawkins but for someone who has never read any of his books could anyone offer up some information on his beliefs/thoughts/ideas on abiogenesis theory? Thanks.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  07:44:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott

I am familiar with Dawkins but for someone who has never read any of his books could anyone offer up some information on his beliefs/thoughts/ideas on abiogenesis theory? Thanks.
I would guess that it would be : Replication predates life.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  08:01:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Starman

[quote]

[quote]I would guess that it would be : Replication predates life.



Replication of what?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  08:39:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:
Originally posted by Starman

[quote]

[quote]I would guess that it would be : Replication predates life.



Replication of what?



I would assume that Dawkins argues that no, or not enough, evidence has been presented for the existence of God, therefore Dawkins concludes that there is no God. Am I close?

I am interested in what Dawkins has to say on abiogenesis and cosmology in relation to origins of all that exists

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  08:45:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
I would guess that it would be : Replication predates life.

Replication of what?
Replication of what would later become genes and genome.

The only book by Dawkins that I have read is The selfish gene (I have the 1990 edition), but Dawkins idea is that natural selection works on the gene level and if i recall correctly, that this probably was present before there was entities that we would classify as alive or as part of a genome.
Later descendant(modified copies) of these earliest non living entities or molecules acquired the traits (one by one) that we associate with life.

Viruses are replicators that lack some of the criteria for being alive.
Edited by - Starman on 11/21/2006 08:58:43
Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  08:54:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott

I would assume that Dawkins argues that no, or not enough, evidence has been presented for the existence of God, therefore Dawkins concludes that there is no God. Am I close?
Yes, you are close.

Dawkins thinks that as there is no evidence of God, there is no reason to believe in God and it is even unreasonable to do so.

The "there is no God"-part is impossible to prove so Dawkins avoids this claim.
Edited by - Starman on 11/21/2006 08:54:37
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  10:50:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
I'm very impressed with this wonderful conference. The strong debates are a good thing. Rational and scientific people are considering a new role which places them in the public, fighting millennia of religious tradition. Why, how, and even if this should be done is a vital issue. And there's nothing as much fun as seeing rational people getting steamed over an issue. Reminds us we're all still animals.

I thought the following statement was a vivid illustration of how religion halts inquiry. (The background is that Newton's Principia Mathematica failed to figure out why the orbiting planets didn't fall into the sun. Newton supposed "God did it," and stopped worrying about the problem. But Laplace went ahead and solved the problem, extending Newton's ideas.)
quote:
“What concerns me now is that even if you're as brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God and then your discovery stops — it just stops,” Dr. Tyson said. “You're no good anymore for advancing that frontier, waiting for somebody else to come behind you who doesn't have God on the brain and who says: ‘That's a really cool problem. I want to solve it.' ”
And there's this last part, which may sum up the conference's two poles:
quote:
Before he left to fly back home to Austin, Dr. Weinberg seemed to soften for a moment, describing religion a bit fondly as a crazy old aunt.

“She tells lies, and she stirs up all sorts of mischief and she's getting on, and she may not have that much life left in her, but she was beautiful once,” he lamented. “When she's gone, we may miss her.”

Dr. Dawkins wasn't buying it. “I won't miss her at all,” he said. “Not a scrap. Not a smidgen.”

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  12:40:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Starman

quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
I would guess that it would be : Replication predates life.

Replication of what?
Replication of what would later become genes and genome.

The only book by Dawkins that I have read is The selfish gene (I have the 1990 edition), but Dawkins idea is that natural selection works on the gene level and if i recall correctly,



Where does Dawkins belive these genes came from? What would he say on the origin of the first gene?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  13:04:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message
quote:
[i]Originally posted by HalfMooner

Dr. Dawkins wasn't buying it. “I won't miss her at all,” he said. “Not a scrap. Not a smidgen.”





quote:
And there's nothing as much fun as seeing rational people getting steamed over an issue. Reminds us we're all still animals.


What reminds us, that some find it fun seeing rational people get steamed? What other animals do this?


quote:
Newton supposed "God did it," and stopped worrying about the problem. But Laplace went ahead and solved the problem, extending Newton's ideas.)


And so this steamed Newton, an otherwise rational animal?





quote:
Dr. Dawkins wasn't buying it. “I won't miss her at all,” he said. “Not a scrap. Not a smidgen.”


Not a smidgen? Does Dr. Dawkins have to talk in this Harvard elitist mumbo jumbo?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  13:16:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott

Where does Dawkins belive these genes came from? What would he say on the origin of the first gene?
[picking up the book]
quote:
"The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, chapter 3 "Imortal coils" p 21

For simplicity I have given the impression that modern genes made of DNA, are much the same as the first replicators in the primeval soup. It does not matter for the argument, but this might not really be true. The original replicators may have been a related kind of molecule to DNA, or they may have been totally different. In the later case we might say that their survivial machines must have been seized at a later stage by DNA. If so , the original replicators were utterly destroyed, for no trace remains in modern survivial machines. Along these lines, A. G. Cairns-Smith has made the intriguing suggestion that our ancestors, the first replicators, may have been not organic molecules at all, but inorganic crystals- minerals, little bits of clay.
Buy it! Or at least read it! Its a great book and Dawkins is a good writer.


"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  13:38:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Starman

quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott

Where does Dawkins belive these genes came from? What would he say on the origin of the first gene?
[picking up the book]
quote:
"The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, chapter 3 "Imortal coils" p 21

For simplicity I have given the impression that modern genes made of DNA, are much the same as the first replicators in the primeval soup. It does not matter for the argument, but this might not really be true. The original replicators may have been a related kind of molecule to DNA, or they may have been totally different. In the later case we might say that their survivial machines must have been seized at a later stage by DNA. If so , the original replicators were utterly destroyed, for no trace remains in modern survivial machines. Along these lines, A. G. Cairns-Smith has made the intriguing suggestion that our ancestors, the first replicators, may have been not organic molecules at all, but inorganic crystals- minerals, little bits of clay.
Buy it! Or at least read it! Its a great book and Dawkins is a good writer.






Thank you for your time and links. This just brings more questions to my mind.


quote:
For simplicity I have given the impression that modern genes made of DNA, are much the same as the first replicators in the primeval soup.


1. Where did the primeval soup come from?


quote:
The original replicators may have been a related kind of molecule to DNA,


2. Where did these first molecules come from?


quote:
Along these lines, A. G. Cairns-Smith has made the intriguing suggestion that our ancestors, the first replicators, may have been not organic molecules at all, but inorganic crystals- minerals, little bits of clay.


3. Where did the inorganic crystals-minerals and little bits of clay come from?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  13:42:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:
Originally posted by Starman

quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
I would guess that it would be : Replication predates life.

Replication of what?
Replication of what would later become genes and genome.

The only book by Dawkins that I have read is The selfish gene (I have the 1990 edition), but Dawkins idea is that natural selection works on the gene level and if i recall correctly,



Where does Dawkins belive these genes came from? What would he say on the origin of the first gene?



From The God Delusion...

"The origin of life is a flourishing, if speculative, subject for research. The expertise required for it is chemistry and it is not mine. ...it is still possible to maintain that the probability of its happening [by chance] is, and always was, exceedingly low--although it did happen once!"

He goes on to say that even if spontaneously forming life is extremely improbable, it is vastly more probable than the god hypothesis.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  13:53:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott

1. Where did the primeval soup come from?

2. Where did these first molecules come from?

3. Where did the inorganic crystals-minerals and little bits of clay come from?
Those are good questions and question like that are what real scientists work with.
With these questions we have left evolutionary biology and moved on into fields like chemistry and geology, which I don't really think that Dawkins is into (but other scientists are).
You can also note that we are going towards less and less complex structures as we move backwards in time.
Introducing a super-complex designer entity at the beginning is not logical.

"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  13:59:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:
Originally posted by Starman

quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
I would guess that it would be : Replication predates life.

Replication of what?
Replication of what would later become genes and genome.

The only book by Dawkins that I have read is The selfish gene (I have the 1990 edition), but Dawkins idea is that natural selection works on the gene level and if i recall correctly,



Where does Dawkins belive these genes came from? What would he say on the origin of the first gene?



From The God Delusion...

"The origin of life is a flourishing, if speculative, subject for research. The expertise required for it is chemistry and it is not mine. ...it is still possible to maintain that the probability of its happening [by chance] is, and always was, exceedingly low--although it did happen once!"

He goes on to say that even if spontaneously forming life is extremely improbable, it is vastly more probable than the god hypothesis.




quote:
From The God Delusion...

"The origin of life is a flourishing, if speculative, subject for research. The expertise required for it is chemistry and it is not mine. ...it is still possible to maintain that the probability of its happening [by chance] is, and always was, exceedingly low--although it did happen once!"


So Dawkins has strong and convincing evidence that life started by chance? Does he share at all on how he knows life started by chance? I know he likes to refer to some inorganic molecules in some primordial soup, but does he say where these molecules and soup may have originated from?



quote:
He goes on to say that even if spontaneously forming life is extremely improbable,


As any rationally thinking animal would assume so...




quote:
it is vastly more probable than the god hypothesis.


So what odds does the Harvard Doctor put on abiogenesis vs. the god hypothesis and how did he come to this conclusion?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2006 :  14:19:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Starman

quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott

1. Where did the primeval soup come from?

2. Where did these first molecules come from?

3. Where did the inorganic crystals-minerals and little bits of clay come from?
Those are good questions and question like that are what real scientists work with.
With these questions we have left evolutionary biology and moved on into fields like chemistry and geology, which I don't really think that Dawkins is into (but other scientists are).
You can also note that we are going towards less and less complex structures as we move backwards in time.
Introducing a super-complex designer entity at the beginning is not logical.




quote:
1. Where did the primeval soup come from?

2. Where did these first molecules come from?

3. Where did the inorganic crystals-minerals and little bits of clay come from?

Those are good questions and question like that are what real scientists work with.


Right, as opposed to fake scientists.


quote:
With these questions we have left evolutionary biology and moved on into fields like chemistry and geology, which I don't really think that Dawkins is into (but other scientists are).


But yet Dawkins feels he knows enough about them to conclude that, statistically speaking at least, there is no god? He has yet to even explain the existence of the primordial soup, where life may have arose, for Pete's sake.



quote:
You can also note that we are going towards less and less complex structures as we move backwards in time.
Introducing a super-complex designer entity at the beginning is not logical.


And excepting a just-so story from a Harvard professor, who lacks knowledge of chemistry, geology and cosmology, who makes definitive claims of knowing that life arose by chance, is somehow not ill-logical?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 11 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.23 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000