|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2006 : 13:30:08 [Permalink]
|
BPS said:
quote:
In a mild defense of Bill, something Im loathed to do, abiogenesis could only have arisen by random chance (If it wasnt designed ), though not like Bill thinks.
Not so. Not even remotely so.
Abiogenesis is a consequence of the physical laws by which our universe operates. It is not the result of "random chance".
The hypothesis is that if you can recreate the exact conditions under which abiogenesis occured on earth, you would achieve abiogenesis again. If that is not the case, then we are in serious trouble.
The low probability is that it occured at the exact time and place it did. Just like your coin flip sequence.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 14:03:39 [Permalink]
|
Is chance not ruled by the laws of the universe? Im confused. I think you are over-interpreting the term random chance.
Not random chance, god put the particles where they needed to be.
Random chance, the particles just happened to be introduced in the right place at the right time in the right way. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 14:19:26 [Permalink]
|
| Nothing is or will ever be chance in any real sense. Chance is a word to describe what we would expect over time. However, if you flip a coin in exactly the same conditions twice they will both be the same flip seperated only by time. Therefore, we would get the same result. Therefore, even a coin flip is not random if we know all of the variables. We can't for example program a computer to generate a truly random number because it has to be built on rules that, by definition, remove the randomness. Of course, we may consider the result a randomly generated number for our purposes and perception. This is an argument over semantics. If we go back far enough and know enough, then the rules of the universe will explain that - what is here now and how it is - is really the only possibility given those rules. But in human terms this is not all that informing. (even in multi universe theory and the like, one would have to have a set of "meta" rules that generate the universal rules of each universe and so forth.) |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 15:40:09 [Permalink]
|
BPS said:
quote:
Is chance not ruled by the laws of the universe? Im confused. I think you are over-interpreting the term random chance.
The common definition of random, as with the way many people use the word theory, is not suitable to the discussion of abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis is the result of "random chance" only in the same sense that coin toss results are the result of random chance. If you could precicely replicate the exact conditions (in the case of coins you'd only have to come close) of a coin toss, i.e. gravity, force of the toss, height of the release, the vector of the toss, etc, you could flip a coin and get 1000 heads in a row. And there are probably a large number of those starting conditions which would give you a heads result as well.
The same can be said for abiogenesis. Replicate the conditions needed for it to occur, and there is nothing random about it... it will happen. There also may be more than one specific set of conditions that lead to the same result. Again, if this isn't true, then we have some very serious problems of our understanding of the universe.
So don't grant Bill and the creationist crowd the use of that term. They don't mean the same thing by it that a scientists or statistician means.
When Bill uses it he means that there is no physical laws being followed, that it "just happens". It is a mistake to grant him that definition of the term.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 20:02:18 [Permalink]
|
I agree with Dude on this. I thought my previous post on this explained it, but as usual, I tend to over-complicate things.
Cudos to Dude for being more succinct than me. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 20:28:29 [Permalink]
|
"Random" in a scientific sense just means "unpredictable," but it doesn't mean "anything goes." The radioactive decay of any one particular carbon-14 atom is random - there is no means by which we could predict when it will occur - but still we know that if we leave it alone for about 5,730 years, there's nearly a 50-50 chance that it will have decayed.
Similarly, but more appropriately to the discussion, if we fill a box with oxygen and hydrogen gas, and run a spark through it, then which particular hydrogen and oxygen atoms will join together to become water will be - for all practical purposes - random, but afterwards, every single water molecule in the box will have its two hydrogen atoms separated by 104.45°, without fail.
Likewise, when carbon atoms link up with oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and numerous other elements, the resultant organic molecules will have particular shapes, which lend themselves to particular chemical behaviours in a decidedly non-random fashion. If all of chemistry were "random" (in the sense Bill means it), we wouldn't be having this discussion. Life wouldn't exist. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 21:15:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Do you realise that the "material" from which matter formed is irrelevant to the spontaneous abiogenesis discussion,
Yes, in fact that is what I have been saying all along. That it surprises me how many skeptics will except that "it was just there."
What I'm trying to say is that the abiogenesis and first cause/cosmology issues are completely separate. I'll discuss this again below in response to your other points.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
as long as the matter did form?
But again, my skepticism won't let me get past where the matter came from in the first place? It was just there, does not help.
If we accept that somehow, the earth was formed from matter, can we not discuss abiogenesis, which is proposed to have occurred after the earth's formation, without addressing the origin of matter itself?
When getting my car serviced, should I make sure that the mechanic can conclusively describe the ultimate source of the matter in the oil he proposes to put into my car's engine before handing over the keys? Of course not. If the big bang theory turns out to be wrong, I'm pretty confident that our knowledge of fluid dynamics will still be appropriate. It should be possible to discuss abiogenesis without having to settle on how the matter came to be in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Otherwise you have to be "sceptical" of every scientific theory until we have complete knowledge of the origin of matter. Is this your stance?
No. My stance is that I have no clue how all you skeptics can conclude, for all intense purposes, that there is no God when you don't have a clue as to where even matter originated.
First of all, I didn't think we were having the god/no god discussion (I'm happy to do so, but why make this thread messier than it already is). Secondly, why is how the matter originated important to the discussion of abiogenesis on the earth?
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Bolding Mine. That's pretty much backwards to the way science observes things to happen. Incredibly complex behaviour results from interactions with fairly simple rules. We know quite a bit about fluid dynamics, temperature, pressure and that sort of thing, but accurately predicting the weather a month in advance is still beyond us. We certainly don't know all the rules yet, but scientists love looking for them.
Yet man, in all his glory, has yet to be able to construct life from nothing. Heck, we can't even produce the raw materials to create life from nothing. Heck, we can't even figure out where the raw materials came from that did produce life, let alone we produce them from nothing. Yet in all our glory, we think we can criticize the one who did create life from nothing. (sigh)
How can someone criticise something they don't believe in? I'm certainly not criticising any particular god(s). Why are you, Bill, criticising a theory (abiogenesis) that neither requires nor forbids the existence of any particular god(s)?
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
This sort of thinking would also tend to suggest that something more complex than god created god, don't you think?
Nope. As the creator of all that exists, nothing created, or nothing that exists, would be more complex.
That's pure assertion, and illogical to boot. According to your system, increasingly complex entities are required to explain less complex ones. Why did you arbitrarily stop with this "god" idea? Why not with some less complex entities further down the chain? Why not keep going eternally with a hierarchy of gods of increasing complexity?
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
If you're happy with the eternal god idea, then why not eternal matter,
Why are you not happy with eternal matter?
It doesn't seem to be the correct explaination, in terms of explaining the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). You might want to do a little reading on the Steady State Theory.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOASCosmology is a complex field, and a relatively new scientific discipline. The fact that we don't have all the answers in one field shouldn't preclude us from forming useful theories in others.
That is what I find fascinating. With what little knowledge we have how all you skeptics have come to such black and white definitive conclusion.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2006 : 09:46:31 [Permalink]
|
JohnOAS said:
quote:
How can someone criticise something they don't believe in? I'm certainly not criticising any particular god(s). Why are you, Bill, criticising a theory (abiogenesis) that neither requires nor forbids the existence of any particular god(s)?
Because it is an alternative explanation to his little fairy tale. He recognizes that, like evolution does now, abiogenesis hypotheses will eventually gather enough evidence to be convincing and predictive.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2006 : 10:36:48 [Permalink]
|
| I hereby invoke Heisenburg! Take that! JK. Its just a semantics thing, I completly agree with Dude for the most part. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2006 : 17:01:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I hereby invoke Heisenburg!
Another frequently misunderstood concept 
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2006 : 21:34:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
I hereby invoke Heisenburg!
Another frequently misunderstood concept
Of course this one, when misunderstood, allows for all possibilities to be true! |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 08:05:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote:
What I'm trying to say is that the abiogenesis and first cause/cosmology issues are completely separate. I'll discuss this again below in response to your other points.
Maybe in a text book they are separated. But in forming a complete worldview the two are intertwined like cords of a rope.
quote:
If we accept that somehow, the earth was formed from matter, can we not discuss abiogenesis, which is proposed to have occurred after the earth's formation, without addressing the origin of matter itself?
If you are writing a text book strictly on abiogenesis, then I suppose you can. However, if this is a discussion on worldviews then how can you fully, or even half-heartedly, explain step 3 without even understanding step one or two?
quote:
When getting my car serviced, should I make sure that the mechanic can conclusively describe the ultimate source of the matter in the oil he proposes to put into my car's engine before handing over the keys? Of course not.
Of course if the discussion is on the operations and history of the internal combustion engine then the breakdown of the properties in motor oil, where it come from and how this all comes into play in the operations of the combustion engine would be an essential topic, would it not?
quote:
If the big bang theory turns out to be wrong, I'm pretty confident that our knowledge of fluid dynamics will still be appropriate.
If your writing a manual for a hydraulic press and how to maintain it then who cares where hydraulic fluid comes from. But, if your topic is the history of hydraulic technology, then the origin and breakdown of hydraulic fluid is very relevant to the task at hand.
quote:
It should be possible to discuss abiogenesis without having to settle on how the matter came to be in the first place.
If you are writing a text book strictly on abiogenesis, then I suppose you can. However, if this is a discussion on worldviews then how can you fully, or even half-heartedly, explain step 3 without even understanding step one or two?
quote:
First of all, I didn't think we were having the god/no god discussion (I'm happy to do so, but why make this thread messier than it already is). Secondly, why is how the matter originated important to the discussion of abiogenesis on the earth?
If you are writing a text book strictly on abiogenesis, then I suppose you can. However, if this is a discussion on worldviews then how can you fully, or even half-heartedly, explain step 3 without even understanding step one or two?
Which is my point on how the two are intertwined. If your convinced the ultimate origin of the universe is strictly from material origins then you would, most logically, come to the conclusion that material objects would be the cause of abiogenesis as well. If your convinced that deity of some kind is the creator of the universe then, most logically, you would conclude that deity would be the source of abiogenesis as well.
quote:
How can someone criticise something they don't believe in? I'm certainly not criticising any particular god(s). Why are you, Bill, criticising a theory (abiogenesis) that neither requires nor forbids the existence of any particular god(s)?
I am skeptical of a material abiogenesis. I am also very skeptical of all the global warming concerns. Probably to the point where I would say, I don't buy it. Even though I don't buy it I can still criticize those who do. Many of the global warming scientists predicted a hurricane season even worst then the last. In reality we had the quietist season in over a decade.
quote:
That's pure assertion, and illogical to boot. According to your system, increasingly complex entities are required to explain less complex ones. Why did you arbitrarily stop with this "god" idea? Why not with some less complex entities further down the chain? Why not keep going eternally with a hierarchy of gods of increasing complexity?
I haven't seen anything to cause me to believe that an infinite line of gods exists.
quote:
We have a lot of knowledge, Bill. We'd like more though, and all the evidence would suggest that scientific inquiry is the most effective means of getting it.
I would agree. I would also state that it is rather obvious that all interpret the evidence in vastly different ways.
quote:
I think you'll find very few (I suspect none) of "all you skeptics" will say with 100% certainty that they know how the universe was created,
Yet I would say that many are rather confident that they know for certain that is was a strictly material first cause, or eternal existence of material of some kind, which is the ultimate source of it all.
quote:
or how abiogenesis occurred.
Which is my point on how the two are intertwined. If your convinced the ultimate origin of the universe is strictly from material origins then you would, most logically, come to the conclusion that material objects would be the cause of abiogenesis as well. If your convinced that deity of some kind is the creator of the universe then, most logically, you would conclude that deity would be the source of abiogenesis as well.
quote:
Most of us settle for the explanation with the best evidence, until new evidence and better explanations come along.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 09:48:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill scott:
I am skeptical of a material abiogenesis. I am also very skeptical of all the global warming concerns. Probably to the point where I would say, I don't buy it. Even though I don't buy it I can still criticize those who do. Many of the global warming scientists predicted a hurricane season even worst then the last. In reality we had the quietist season in over a decade.
Before I reply to this, it is clear that Bill's strawman of choice is first cause. He will dismiss all knowledge that does not include what we don't know yet, or may never know. And since there is a boundary that we can't see beyond, in his eyes, he wins. Again, he is perfectly comfortable with inserting God where certain knowledge is beyond what we can see. That is his happy place.
As for global warming, he takes one tiny bit as evidence that it isn't happening (which isn't evidence that it isn't happening) and shows a complete ignorance on the subject. Does he know that the permafrost is melting? That the Greenland ice sheets are melting? Does he know that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of observable evidences for global warming? He takes his marching orders from those who would be financially hurt if they actually acknowledged global warming. The right tells him he should be skeptical, so he is skeptical. Good enough for this great thinker… He is a lemming.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 09:49:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
One of the most convincing pieces of evidence for me for a non-material abiogenesis and the creation of the universe is the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Jesus may or may not have existed, but there is NO evidence he was brought back from the dead. You have a BELIEF that this happened. This is not evidence.
quote:
Just days after the Roman crucifixion the apostles, who had just denied him, were now ready to give up their life
What evidence, besides what was written in the Gospels (some decades after the supposed events took place), can you give for this statement?
As to the rest of your statement, the same can be said about other religions. Are those religions lies or truth? People have died and are dying right now for their beliefs, no matter what god it is.
You base your belief that people do not die for what they know is a lie. I would tend to agree with this statement. However, that does not validate christianity any more than it validates every other belief/faith system that has ever existed.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2006 : 11:24:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Jesus may or may not have existed,
Well then that would go for most of the historical figures throughout history then.
quote:
but there is NO evidence he was brought back from the dead.
Then how do you explain the thousands who were tortured and put to death by the Romans for refusing to reject the risen King? Many of whom had witnessed the crucifixion. Thousands of people, who were ready to die rather then renounce the King. What could cause Jews and Gentiles to stand up to the Caesar and face the lion's den rather then renouncing Christ, after watching him die, other then the resurrection of Christ?
quote:
You have a BELIEF that this happened. This is not evidence.
I have a belief that is BASED on evidence. I have hundreds, if not thousands, who witnessed Jesus Christ's death, and then they would die themselves before they would renounce that he had risen indeed. That is powerful evidence!
quote:
As to the rest of your statement, the same can be said about other religions. Are those religions lies or truth? People have died and are dying right now for their beliefs, no matter what god it is.
You base your belief that people do not die for what they know is a lie. I would tend to agree with this statement. However, that does not validate christianity any more than it validates every other belief/faith system that has ever existed.
Let me go through this again. A man would die for what he believes to be the truth. No man would die for what he knew to be a lie. A Muslim can die for what he believes to be true and, I agree with you, this does not prove his faith/belief system. Here is my point, many witnessed Christ die on the Roman cross. They saw his lifeless and mortally wounded body brought down from the cross. This news spread quickly to all of Christ's followers. But yet days and weeks after Christ was crucified thousands were willing to face the Roman executioners rather then deny that Christ had arose. I purpose that nothing, short of the actual resurrection of Christ, could have convinced these masses to lay down their life for Christ. Why would they be willing to die if they saw Christ die and that he was still in the grave? They wouldn't because no man will die for what he knows to be a lie.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
