Proof of intelligent design? [Archive] - Armageddon Online Forums

Nu Kua

Mar 8th, 2008, 11:50 AM

Maybe some of what you percieve to be design is only apparent design? :0.02:

See this can make sense because for anything to work properly, it has to fit together properly. What doesn't work together or is unable to blend with anything else disappears, doesn't it? (in the natural world)
Even in the material world it becomes useless.
Isn't every known chemical or element somehow connected or works with another?
Perhaps what appears as design is simply the successful combination of elements and things- they look designed but in reality they designed themselves by being able to interlock- what one had the other needed, and what is living is drawn automatically to what it lacks in order to live.
Have you ever seen the water crystals that change shape based on the type of words that are spoken over them? Really. When words of truth or beauty or spoken, or of love, they form perfect geometric shapes. When "bad" discordant words are spoken, or if the water is polluted, they form chaotic shapes with no balance.
Esoterically speaking, this (to me) represents that in order for life to develop, there has to be something cohesive to bind various elements together. That is why we always search for water on planets to see if there maybe a chance of life. Words are vibrations and so is the intent behind them- words of love and unity bring diversive elements together- and new life can result. Words of hatred separate and there is no beauty in that, or life.
So what appears to us to be "intelligently designed" is simply what happens when disparate elements are brought together and combine successfully.

There is beauty in form.

See this reminds me of another thing you said somewhere in this forum, about God and the laws of the universe- it got me thinking that maybe what we call God ARE the laws of life, that make it so. Without those laws, even though they create life naturally, life cannot happen- but the laws themselves are not created things by a master mind, but rather are simply what is.

If this is true, it would solve the big question "But, where did GOD come from?"

Nasik

Mar 8th, 2008, 12:16 PM

Humanity on earth was engineered by more advanced humans who evolved hundreds of thousands of years before we even began losing our hair.
They came to earth and indeed did genetically alter the earliest developing humans by the same techniques of genetic engineering we are on the dawn of learning ourselves, today.
The stories of these events have been passed down over the years and eventually people began referring to these men and women as gods.

I have a question. If this thread is about intelligent design and you believe that an advanced human race came here and created us, my question is this, keeping with the main idea, who created this advanced human race ? Were they intelligently designed or did they evolve from the primordial soup elsewhere in the cosmos?

Nu Kua

Mar 8th, 2008, 12:31 PM

I imagine they evolved the same way we began evolving, but much sooner.
I think eventually we would have evolved to their level of technology and whatnot. We are just beginning to learn the deepest mysteries of genetic science, and are also really just beginning to learn about other planetary systems.
Of course if left to develop on our own would we be where we are today, now? Maybe, maybe not. I think not if just looking at it from a purely developing human point of view, but then, maybe so, when you consider how much of society is built on dumbing us down. (especially religion)
Eventually, if we don't blow ourselves up first, we could be in the position one day to attempt to seed life on another planet, for one reason or the other.
To think about that, and then to think about how the people we created will tell the story of their creation through eons of time, and how that story could be altered from the sheer time span of the telling alone, not to even mention mistranslations when attempting to put it into writing the first time, and then eventually more re-edits and misinterpretations, I can see how the story of a God came to be.

Some reasons are laid out better in this thread (http://forums.armageddononline.org/we_becoming_our-t13619.html).

Nasik

Mar 8th, 2008, 12:48 PM

I imagine they evolved the same way we began evolving, but much sooner

Just to clarify - when you say this do you mean evolution from a single cell put there by a divine power, or evolved from a single cell that emerged by a random, abeit happy, confluence of events without any divine intervention. :)

Nu Kua

Mar 8th, 2008, 1:09 PM

Just to clarify - when you say this do you mean evolution from a single cell put there by a divine power, or evolved from a single cell that emerged by a random, abeit happy, confluence of events without any divine intervention. :)

:-)
I'm definitely leaning towards a single cell that emerged by a random, albeit happy, confluence of events without any divine intervention.

JenaS62

Mar 8th, 2008, 5:28 PM

:-)
I'm definitely leaning towards a single cell that emerged by a random, albeit happy, confluence of events without any divine intervention.

And I concur with that leaning. I'm right there with ya sister! :-)

Nasik

Mar 10th, 2008, 11:26 PM

As far as I’m concerned the seeds from plants that cling to animal’s fur and people’s clothing are proof of intelligent design. These plants don’t have brains, they can not reason. They don’t have eyes to see. Long ago when these plants were evolving, if plants were subject to evolution, they couldn’t feel or see the furry or hairy animals that brushed past their leaves. They couldn’t perceive the existents of these animals in any way. If not designed by some type of intelligence, how then could a plant develop seeds that perform in such a manner? In a way the same could be said about plants that have seeds that are blown on the wind, such as dandelions.

To discuss life and its origins, it is helpful to first define life. What is it? It is a deceptively simple question. We could say it is something that takes in energy and reproduces? No, because the great spots on Jupiter do that and we certainly wouldn't deem them alive. Is it the ability to think - no that doesn't work.

I think life is the only thing that creates matter from energy and that matter is unique in that it strives. The spots of jupiter don't make an effort to continue their existence - but life does. It is a remarkable thing, life.

No scientist has been able to recreate life from a test tube of simple chemicals. Every cell on this planet comes with a sophisticated set of machinery - and how that came to be continues to be elusive. I can't argue math, and the mathematical terms I have read for life to emerge spontaneously from a soup is akin to a tornado blowing through a junk yard and creating a fully functional and operational VW Rabbit. In other words, mathematically speaking, that cell shouldn't be here and we shouldn't be here, but we are.

I don't think life occurred sporadically - without purpose. If that was the case, then our whole existence comes down to thinking bits of matter whose primary objective is to survive in order to create more thinking bits of matter and so on. What an empty existence.

In the end we are all made of the same basic elements as stars, configured in such a way as to be self-aware, feeling and thinking beings. To me that is damn miraculous.

Maybe we can't find God in a test-tube - and maybe that's a good thing. I believe in the mystery of life - in its extraordinary qualities and that it is nothing short of a miracle.

We came from God - but what God is; I don't know. But I do know that we'll all find out sooner or later.

weederbro

Mar 10th, 2008, 11:55 PM

So elegantly put AGAIN Freaked out!
All I can say is Amen......

DontBeAfraid

Mar 11th, 2008, 9:08 AM

I can't argue math, and the mathematical terms I have read for life to emerge spontaneously from a soup is akin to a tornado blowing through a junk yard and creating a fully functional and operational VW Rabbit. In other words, mathematically speaking, that cell shouldn't be here and we shouldn't be here, but we are.

I can't argue mathThats right, You cant argue the math.

and the mathematical terms I have read for life to emerge spontaneously from a soup is akin to a tornado blowing through a junk yard and creating a fully functional and operational VW Rabbit.This analogy is a very very poor one. Chemical reactions are not random at all. They are very quantifiable. You can pick up any rock and make the same statement you just did. For all the atoms in the rock to line up as they did is incredibly unlikely...

If that was the case, then our whole existence comes down to thinking bits of matter whose primary objective is to survive in order to create more thinking bits of matter and so on. What an empty existence.So you reject the idea that we might not have a purpose because it doesnt make you feel good?

To me that is damn miraculous. The laws of physics acting on matter is a miracle?

We came from GodMighty statement.

But I do know that we'll all find out sooner or later.How do you know this?

Nu Kua

Mar 11th, 2008, 12:44 PM

I don't think life occurred sporadically - without purpose. If that was the case, then our whole existence comes down to thinking bits of matter whose primary objective is to survive in order to create more thinking bits of matter and so on. What an empty existence.

In the end we are all made of the same basic elements as stars, configured in such a way as to be self-aware, feeling and thinking beings. To me that is damn miraculous.

Maybe we can't find God in a test-tube - and maybe that's a good thing. I believe in the mystery of life - in its extraordinary qualities and that it is nothing short of a miracle.

We came from God - but what God is; I don't know. But I do know that we'll all find out sooner or later.

This touches lightly upon something that I've been trying not to ponder just yet, in all of this figuring and trying to make sense of things. One thing at a time for my head or it might explode...
Suppose we did evolve from a single cell so far back in time that we can say, from our frame of reference, that life in the universe is eternal, right? And from that single source maybe some people did evolve so long ago that we did come to see them as gods, and perhaps they did indeed go about the universe seeding life here and there, and in this way God is real.
Perhaps they have developed into thoughts and consciousness and feeling that no longer even needs a body...
but I digress.

At what point did love actually come into the picture?
Is human love something that evolved from what once was simply an instinct to ensure survival of the species?
Or, is human love something that evolved along with our consciousness?
Did it develop from a sense of wanting to protect something that was created, or that came from itself?

And where did reason come from? You know, those thought processes that do set us apart from your Joe Average Animal, what is it about humans that have developed this and not the animals as far as we can tell?

What of soul connections, what of the very really occurrences of minds connecting across physical distances, such as, you think of a friend you've not seen in a while, the phone rings, and there is your friend on the line?

Or you've been mulling a subject over in your mind and out of the blue somebody makes a post that speaks almost exactly what you've been thinking?

Astral travel? Reincarnation? The Spirit world? All of these I have memory of and experience with- but what is it, really, and how did those sorts of things come to be, during the course of our evolution? Are these two simply various levels of the same consciousness?
And, where did consciousness come from, awareness?

Nasik

Mar 11th, 2008, 9:23 PM

This analogy is a very very poor one.

It's not my analogy friend, it is Dr. Kaufmann's from his book At Home In The Universe where he attempts to describe how this incredible process may have happened. He posits that order may come from disorder. His book is entirely secular.

You can pick up any rock and make the same statement you just did. For all the atoms in the rock to line up as they did is incredibly unlikely...

This is an example of a poor analogy. Rocks are ubiquitous, even in our neighborhood of the cosmos. Atoms combining to form various forms of non-living matter is one thing; life is entirely another.

That first living cell, like all cells, was equipped with the machinery necessary to reproduce, take in energy, expel waste and so on. How that was achieved by a chemical reaction has evaded science to date; In fact, they cannot explain even the emergence of the semi-permeable membrane, let alone the other components. If you have found information that explains this process, I would be interested to read it.

So you reject the idea that we might not have a purpose because it doesnt make you feel good?

I believe in purpose. As did Aristotle and other great thinkers - I don't place myself in that category, I simply say it to affirm my position that it is perfectly natural and appropriate for philosophy to enter into this sort of argument.

How do you know this?

Because we're all moribund.

At what point did love actually come into the picture?
Is human love something that evolved from what once was simply an instinct to ensure survival of the species?
Or, is human love something that evolved along with our consciousness?
Did it develop from a sense of wanting to protect something that was created, or that came from itself?

And where did reason come from? You know, those thought processes that do set us apart from your Joe Average Animal, what is it about humans that have developed this and not the animals as far as we can tell?

Astral travel? Reincarnation? The Spirit world? All of these I have memory of and experience with- but what is it, really, and how did those sorts of things come to be, during the course of our evolution? Are these two simply various levels of the same consciousness?

Good questions - the same ones philosophers have pondered for ages. I have really no answers of course. But I share your curiousity: What are "thoughts" - are they just electrical signals? Are emotions really just chemical or hormonal changes that occur in ways to ensure our survival. Instinctively, I don't think that is whole picture.

What of soul connections, what of the very really occurrences of minds connecting across physical distances, such as, you think of a friend you've not seen in a while, the phone rings, and there is your friend on the line?

Or you've been mulling a subject over in your mind and out of the blue somebody makes a post that speaks almost exactly what you've been thinking?

I've read that thought patterns can affect matter, the sheer act of observation creates reactions at the quantum level.

Carl Jung has written about the collective consciousness and Wittgenstein - you may want to check their work, if you haven't already. Interesting stuff that's on point of what you're saying.

Cartesiantheater

Mar 11th, 2008, 9:54 PM

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#simplest

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4010 (see #2)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 is still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely; it's hard to cope with this number. Even with the argument above (you could get it on your very first trial) most people would say "surely it would still take more time than the Earth existed to make this replicator by random methods". Not really; in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates

scientists can already creat organic compounds and bilogical matter. It's only a matter of time before an actual cell is created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/30/MNGGS7VRH11.DTL

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm

Nasik

Mar 11th, 2008, 11:05 PM

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#simplest

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4010 (see #2)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

scientists can already creat organic compounds and bilogical matter. It's only a matter of time before an actual cell is created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/30/MNGGS7VRH11.DTL

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm

Jeez, you’re making me read a lot after a full day’s work.

The first article contemplates mathematical probabilities and frankly, I did find not find it persuasive one way or the other. There are several other assumptions that need to be taken into account when discussing the emergence of a living cell (see comments of Bedau below).

I was unable to find the Skeptoid article meaningful in the context of this debate, which seemed to focus on those that debunk evolution. I don’t believe I’ve claimed that. I would like know how they take Kaufmann out of context; he's a mathematician and the whole point of his “secular” work was to explain how life emerged naturally. While it was an interesting read, I found his assumptions so outrageous that it was self-defeating. (eg. let’s assume this bundle was wrapped in a protein shell that was surrounded by a semi-permeable membrane)

Moving on, the Miller Usrey experiment tells us the lab can create organic compounds but the distance between nucleotides and a living working cell is quite a stretch (refer to Bedau below).

You posted an article that discusses prions and how these tiny bits of protein have been synthetically created and that once injected into an organism, they reproduce. I thought I’d ask a scientist (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00110.htm)about it – or more accurately, someone else did:

Scientists still argue over whether viruses [are] organisms. I wouldn't count prions as organisms, but I would say they are the smallest [infectious agents]…
If you would take reproduction as the main criteria for being a living organism, then prions fit that criteria: they reproduce themselves by forcing pre-existing proteins to become like them. Prions are mammalian proteins that are folded in a particular way: In this structural shape they are (1) extremely stable, (2) disabled in their normal action in cellular life and (3) can force normally folded proteins of their kind to fold into this prion type. However, reproduction in this way is different from classical biological reproduction in that it can only produce 'offspring' from already existing akind. And there is no nucleic acid involved in their life cycle. That is the major distinction with viruses. [emphasis mine]

Reproduction alone does not confer upon it the definition of "life." He expands on this form of reproduction exhibited by prions and which serves my original point.

You supplied an interesting article where some scientists believe they can artificially create life. In this article, Bedau admits:

… there are three major hurdles to creating [s]ynthetic life:

·A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply.
·A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes.
·A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy.

They seem to believe this won’t pose any big problems. Let’s just say, I’m waiting to see if this happens. I doubt they will have any success absent extensive engineering. This speaks of possibilities – of scientific hope. We’ll check in with them in 2010 or so, see how they made out.

Dr. Venter rather grandly calls it artificial life which is a bit of misnomer in the context of this debate because he is replacing small sections of extant DNA with synthetic chromosomes, that he has mapped out from extant organisms. Also, critically, it requires injection into an extant cell in order to reproduce.

DontBeAfraid

Mar 11th, 2008, 11:14 PM

This is an example of a poor analogy. Rocks are ubiquitous, even in our neighborhood of the cosmos. Atoms combining to form various forms of non-living matter is one thing; life is entirely another.Both governed ENTIRELY by chemical reactions! The difference is that with "life", its much less random!

And life started out as simple replicators... well, just go through CT's links... please, before you post any more stuff that gets filtered straight into the "uneducated ridiculous nonsense" folder in my brain.

Another tiny thing for you to think about: The chance of any single atom from any part of you actually ending up AS a part of you at any time is many orders of magnitude smaller than a hurricane blowing a plane together by passing through a plane junkyard.... That is just to help you understand your argument a little better.

DontBeAfraid

Mar 11th, 2008, 11:22 PM

Reproduction alone does not confer upon it the definition of "life."No, but its one of the small steps, it reduces your original "life is too complex to just come together one day" by half. Now we have self replicating building blocks, what other aspects must we add before YOU call it life?

·A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply.
·A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes.
·A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy.
You get some very cool chemical behaviors from reversable reactions that are near equilibrium.

We’ll check in with them in 2010 or so, see how they made out.How big and how old is the universe?..... Seriously... its like people just have no clue the nubers we are dealing with here.

Also, critically, it requires injection into an extant cell in order to reproduce.He is taking otherwise dead matter and animating it, and in such a way that it stays reanimated.... So maybe not life but certainly Undeadth.

Nasik

Mar 11th, 2008, 11:39 PM

No, but its one of the small steps, it reduces your original "life is too complex to just come together one day" by half. Now we have self replicating building blocks, what other aspects must we add before YOU call it life?

I respectfully disagree. I do not believe this reduces the odds by 50%. I've already commented on my personal definition of life earlier. In my example, I give an open thermal dynamic system that takes in energy and reproduces; the great spots on Jupiter exhibit these properties and I think we can agree, that they are not "life."

You get some very cool chemical behaviors from reversable reactions that are near equilibrium.

I'm sure you do, however, that doesn't explain the first cell.

How big and how old is the universe?..... Seriously... its like people just have no clue the nubers we are dealing with here.

This argument can cut both ways; for I too can utilize math to support my theory that life is entirely improbable, despite the vastness of the universe. Your argument relies on the presupposition that life is a naturally occurring event given the right materials and conditions. The main point I'm attempting to establish is that this presupposition is not true.

He is taking otherwise dead matter and animating it, and in such a way that it stays reanimated.... So maybe not life but certainly Undeadth.

Yes. I'd also like to add, that what came first the RNA strand or the cell? Viruses - little bits of RNA or DNA, can only reproduce within a living cell, therefore, logically, the cell came first and the virus came later. Back to my original point.

weederbro

Mar 12th, 2008, 12:02 AM

Is there a reason why Freaked out's post #27 is extremely hard to read?
It wouldn't be the first time a post by her has a look of being 'faded out'.

There's a lot of energy going into defending that L I F E can happen thru mere providential events. The physical aspects are one thing, but what of 'feelings' and emotions and creativity and especially, self awareness?
Not only that, but the millions of different levels of being up from mineral to human working together? Pretty good luck I'd say. Especially when you discover that when it is interfered with , a DE volution starts to slowly happen.
When scientists are manipulating chemicals and cells, that's not really LIFE their looking at-is it?

DontBeAfraid

Mar 12th, 2008, 12:52 AM

In my example, I give an open thermal dynamic system that takes in energy and reproduces; the great spots on Jupiter exhibit these properties and I think we can agree, that they are not "life."It seems you are simply picking an arbitrary step in the staircase of increasingly complex replication methods and calling it life. But this is a step you are misjudging.

I'm sure you do, however, that doesn't explain the first cell.This was supposed to help you understand that these chemicals and "substances" are and were moving about in really rather complex behavior patterns long before they became complex enough to be part of your arbitrary definition of life. Study up a bit on the behavior of carbon before you decide that these simpler behaviors could never build up to life.

A little perspective: The PS3 and ALL computers really are controlled entirely by THREE options and combinations of the three. AND, OR, NOT. Those three options are all it takes to create Crysis.

for I too can utilize math to support my theory that life is entirely improbable, despite the vastness of the universe.This statement shows only that you are not aware of the magnitude we are talking about here. And its not all the surprising a thing, The numbers are really way to big to mean anything to anyone that doesnt sit and reflect upon them for a long while.

Your argument relies on the presupposition that life is a naturally occurring event given the right materials and conditions. The main point I'm attempting to establish is that this presupposition is not true.So you must invoke that which is not natural... that which is Supernatural, to make your argument. You must do so in spite of the size and age of the universe. You must do so in spite of the natural behavior of that which resides in the universe. You must do so in spite of the fact that there is NOTHING which supports your cry for a super natural cause. The entirety of your argument is that the chemical reactions that cause a thing to become complex and replicate are simply too few and far between to ever happen. This is where you lose all ground. As I said, the rock, formed from chemical/nuclear reactions is just as unlikely to come into existance as any other
object of equal matter. Just so you know, water is not a rare thing in the universe. It is the byproduct of many a chemical reaction.

Yes. I'd also like to add, that what came first the RNA strand or the cell? Viruses - little bits of RNA or DNA, can only reproduce within a living cell, therefore, logically, the cell came first and the virus came later. Back to my original point.You mean the virii that we know and love today can only do so in a prefabbed cell.
Consider: What is the smallest part of a plant that you would count as being "alive" should it find itself separated?

DontBeAfraid

Mar 12th, 2008, 12:56 AM

Pretty good luck I'd say. Especially when you discover that when it is interfered with , a DE volution starts to slowly happen. Devolution is not a word. Dont use it again unless you want some tactless education. And luck has nothing to do with why water turns into vapor when enough energy is introduced to the system(chemical reaction).

When scientists are manipulating chemicals and cells, that's not really LIFE their looking at-is it?That depends on where yo uwant to arbitrarily draw the line.

jeffweeder

Mar 12th, 2008, 1:09 AM

You supplied an interesting article where some scientists believe they can artificially create life. In this article, Bedau admits:

Quote:
… there are three major hurdles to creating [s]ynthetic life:

·A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply.
·A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes.
·A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy.

They seem to believe this won’t pose any big problems.

No big problems hahaha.........Once we get answers to the smaller questions weve been looking for, then maybe we might dare to try. If we can work out and treat any ill, then just maybe we might begin to manifest some truth about our knowledge of the cell.
Why then create life anyway when Gods already done it.....if you know how to heal it, shouldnt this be enough?

DontBeAfraid

Mar 12th, 2008, 1:19 AM

Why then create life anyway when Gods already done it....clown.

.if you know how to heal it, shouldnt this be enough?Whats wrong with learning?

jeffweeder

Mar 12th, 2008, 1:51 AM

clown.

I mean its like trying to make the perfect meal...lets take oats....only once have i cooked a porridge that tasted so damn good , i knew id got it right. But the problem came when i tried to remember how i did.
I wasnt trying to make a good porridge, in fact i was in a strange place and my enviroment wasnt the norm, others were there to eat, and i had all these distractions....I fluked it ok, i admit it, but let me tell you that i rack my brains trying to replecate it. i had tried and failed, but always managed to get it more or less decent over a period of time, but not the same.

My weederbro was there, and he tasted it and said "whats this"?
I looked at him in a rather surprising fashion, and said porridge. (I hadnt yet tasted it)

He said then why is it so damn delicious.............The rest is history as we both ate it all and no-one else got any.

Ive forgotton what my point was, but theres nothing wrong with learning.

weederbro

Mar 12th, 2008, 3:11 AM

Devolution is not a word. Dont use it again unless you want some tactless education. And luck has nothing to do with why water turns into vapor when enough energy is introduced to the system(chemical reaction).

That depends on where yo uwant to arbitrarily draw the line.

DBA
I'm genuinely asking you (not arguing, I'm wanting to learn) what you think of the chances of a cell building up a physicality, so to speak, and ending up as it were , a self aware, imaginative being. And this being finds itself in an environment that is 'just so' after all the other life forms had also gone through 'providential' occurances?
Can you answer in unscientific language? I hope you understand what I am asking!

eldingo12

Mar 12th, 2008, 7:33 AM

This argument can cut both ways; for I too can utilize math to support my theory that life is entirely improbable, despite the vastness of the universe. Your argument relies on the presupposition that life is a naturally occurring event given the right materials and conditions. The main point I'm attempting to establish is that this presupposition is not true.

I'm confused... When exactly did "improbable" and "impossible" become one and the same?

DontBeAfraid

Mar 12th, 2008, 12:21 PM

Can you answer in unscientific language? I hope you understand what I am asking!The chances are low. But the universe is so big that even low chances are practically certain to happen somewhere at sometime.

Cartesiantheater

Mar 12th, 2008, 7:07 PM

[COLOR=white]The first article contemplates mathematical probabilities and frankly, I did find not find it persuasive one way or the other.

I suggest you read it again, as it specifically addresses the fallacy of many of the assumptions made by those who claim certain events are too improbable to happen.

Many of these claims are about the odds of a specific thing evolving (which seems to me to be a dirty deceptive trick). But let me ask you this: assuming evolution is true, if we wound back the clock and started it again, do you think for even one minute that the exact same creatures would evolve again? Of course not.

These people make so many errors of logic that their "odds" are certainly suspect. For example:

As an example of simply using faulty logic, Coppedge says that "the average number of amino acids in proteins of the smallest known living thing is 400, at the very least" (p. 57). This commits two mistakes: first, when discussing the first possible life, we should only be concerned with the minimum, the smallest possible protein that can exist in a replicating system, not the average; second, the "smallest known living thing" is already billions of years more advanced than the first life, which is almost certainly extinct. Coppedge claims that "there is no real reason at present to believe that any living thing has ever existed that is simpler than the...smallest living entity known" (p. 112). But this is the exact opposite of the truth. There are many reasons to think otherwise. It has been estimated that over 99% of every known species that ever lived has gone extinct, and the simplest of organisms would surely have been devoured or starved out by their more advanced descendants long ago. Scientists have catalogued numerous other good reasons to think that DNA is a late development, and that all surviving phylogeny is descended from a common ancestor, which we clearly have not yet found among the living. Thus, we cannot use present life as a basis for calculating the odds of the random formation of the first life, and this is even more so when it comes to bacterium, which we already know is highly evolved, cf. "Evolution of Bacterial Genomes" by Trevors, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek International Journal of General and Molecular Microbiology 71:3, pp. 265-270 (March, 1997).

After billions of years of evolution, it is completly idiotic to assume that the first living organism was anywhere NEAR as complex as today's organisms.

In fact, it is probably stupid, IMHO, to postulate that the first "life" would even be defined as "life" by today's standards. Just like we have several species that are "in betweens" of multi-cell and single cell life*, the first "life" was probably somewhere in between what we would call "alive" and "not alive." This would greatly reduce "the odds."

* Dictyostelium: a single celled creature that, when food is short, combines with other members of the species to form a multicellular "thing" complete with "tissue specialization," etc.
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcamoeba.asp

Dictyostelium usually exists as a single cell organism that inhabits forest soil, consuming bacteria and yeast. When starved, however, the single cells come together, differentiate into tissues and become a true multicellular organism with a fruiting body composed of a stalk with spores poised on top. This increases its utility in a variety of studies.

weederbro

Mar 12th, 2008, 8:02 PM

Thanks DBA,
Given low or high probability, that everything gets to 'find it's way' in a fashion that conglomerates with other constructs to form what we see with all it's inter-actions is truly mind-boggling. I mean, DNA, chromosomes, cells....sheesh, I wonder what 'animates' these cellular progressions and whatnot; electrical charges? and if so what of the 'intelligence' they have? I refer to how a cell 'knows' what it is it is going to be a part of.

Not even having a dictionary in my hand this time helped me ask you what I want you to reveal! But we can't all be brainiacs!!!haha

DontBeAfraid

Mar 12th, 2008, 9:16 PM

I wonder what 'animates' these cellular progressions and whatnot;Its the same thing that "animates" water... into water vapor.... CHEMICAL REACTIONS! many of which do involve electricity.

and if so what of the 'intelligence' they have?Idiot tangent.

I refer to how a cell 'knows' what it is it is going to be a part of.No cell KNOWS anything, in the sense that you are using the word. The materials simply react in very specific very determined ways to their environments. Rocks fall, NOT BECAUSE THEY "KNOW" THEY SHOULD, but because that is what THEY DO.

Nasik

Mar 12th, 2008, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by DontBeAfraid: It seems you are simply picking an arbitrary step in the staircase of increasingly complex replication methods and calling it life. But this is a step you are misjudging.

Please, feel free to offer your own definition.

So you must invoke that which is not natural... that which is Supernatural, to make your argument.

No, I invoke the Supernatural because of your argument.

object of equal matter. Just so you know, water is not a rare thing in the universe...
Consider: What is the smallest part of a plant that you would count as being "alive" should it find itself separated?

The existence of water does not militate against my original opinion and in passing, I am not convinced it is as common as we once believed. In fact, excluding Earth, has any been found in our own solar system?
Unless I am misunderstanding you, I believe the "smallest part" would be a cell - the focus of my point.

I'm confused... When exactly did "improbable" and "impossible" become one and the same?

I think, in fairness, Probabilities can imply impossibility. For example, if 1x10~600 are the odds you would be living on the moon next year, I'd feel relatively comfortable in describing that scenario as "virturally" impossible.

Originally posted by Cartesiantheater: I suggest you read it again, as it specifically addresses the fallacy of many of the assumptions made by those who claim certain events are too improbable to happen

Very well, let’s examine Richard Carrier’s work a bit more forensically. Here is an excerpt where Carrier offers two arguments to support his claim that Salisbury’s calculations need revision:

That last point is particularly important, since all that is needed to get life going is anything that replicates, and four-bit coded DNA is not the only feasible molecule that might do that--a much simpler RNA code could have been the starting pointIt is important to note that Mr. Carrier is not a scientist, biologist, chemist or mathematician. His field of study is history and philosophy and in his spare time, it seems, he likes to write articles promoting atheism. I am not suggesting Mr. Carrier is not intelligent or that his work lacks merit, rather, that he strays outside his area of expertise which is paramount given his article primarily vets the work of scientists.

The relevance of Carrier's curriculum vitae becomes more important when we examine his attempts to refute or qualify various calculations by making statements like, “since all that is needed to get life going is anything that replicates.” This is untrue, and I refer you to the discussion on prions. He goes on to say, “a much simpler RNA code could have been the starting point” This is interesting; RNA is unable to reproduce without hijacking the reproductive machinery of a living cell.

My point is that he makes “claims” in order to decrease or increase the numbers, depending on how you approach it, which would be fine, if these claims were tenable – but they’re not. I have merely given two examples. This is part of the reason why I am not persuaded by Carrier’s opinion.

Basically, our arguments are very similar, you argue that the numbers indicate life is the product of a certain confluence of events; I argue that the numbers indicate life is not the product of a confluence of events. You argue that certain advancements have been made and that it is only a matter of time before life is synthetically generated; my argument is it cannot be done. At this juncture, as it has not been done yet - with all due respect, are we not at an impasse?

DontBeAfraid

Mar 13th, 2008, 5:08 AM

I think, in fairness, Probabilities can imply impossibility. For example, if 1x10~600 are the odds you would be living on the moon next year, I'd feel relatively comfortable in describing that scenario as "virturally" impossible.Again, HOW BIG IS THE UNIVERSE?

No, I invoke the Supernatural because of your argument.My argument that we have only ever observed natural quantifiable events, and all evidence for everything we have today leads back to natural, quantifiable events? The argument that chemical reactions can get complex enough for most to define them as life???? That argument?

You invoke the supernatural because this stuff is too hard for you to understand.

excluding Earth, has any been found in our own solar system? Lots and lots of ice has been found. Now consider, it only takes adding energy to ice to turn it into water.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, I believe the "smallest part" would be a cell - the focus of my point.Now there are some very important differences between plant cells and animal cells. Can you tell me those differences and then can you tell me if there are perhaps any individual cell "parts" that you might define as "alive"?

“since all that is needed to get life going is anything that replicates.” This is untrueNo, this is true. The single thing common to ALL life is its ability to replicate/procreate.

This is interesting; RNA is unable to reproduce without hijacking the reproductive machinery of a living cell.So you are telling me, that in order for RNA to reproduce it has to consume a very specific diet... this IS interesting. Things need material to procreate... strange world indeed.

I argue that the numbers indicate life is not the product of a confluence of events.This is only because you are uneducated in how the numbers and the events work.

You argue that certain advancements have been made and that it is only a matter of time before life is synthetically generated; my argument is it cannot be done.lol... We are here... it has already been done, just not by intent.

At this juncture, as it has not been done yet - with all due respect, are we not at an impasse?No. But you are in the way of progress.

eldingo12

Mar 13th, 2008, 7:27 AM

I think, in fairness, Probabilities can imply impossibility. For example, if 1x10~600 are the odds you would be living on the moon next year, I'd feel relatively comfortable in describing that scenario as "virturally" impossible.

I respectfully disagree. Either something is possible, or it is not. There is no inbetween. Just becuase something is not liklely to happen does not mean that it will not happen.

I think that I may be able to make DBA's point a bit for him here. You see if your odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 500 million and you are the only person playing the chances of "someone" winning the lottery seem like a long shot. Now, if 1 bilion people play the same lottery, suddenly 1 in 500 million is not such a long shot, someone will win.

Nasik

Mar 13th, 2008, 2:36 PM

I respectfully disagree. Either something is possible, or it is not. There is no inbetween. Just becuase something is not liklely to happen does not mean that it will not happen.

I think that I may be able to make DBA's point a bit for him here. You see if your odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 500 million and you are the only person playing the chances of "someone" winning the lottery seem like a long shot. Now, if 1 bilion people play the same lottery, suddenly 1 in 500 million is not such a long shot, someone will win.

I understand the numbers; your example is 1 in 500 million, we're talking about 1 in 1 (and add a few hundred zeros according to some calculations). As I said then, I will use the term "virtually impossible" but I don't want to argue semantics.

Nasik

Mar 13th, 2008, 3:19 PM

My argument that we have only ever observed natural quantifiable events, and all evidence for everything we have today leads back to natural, quantifiable events? The argument that chemical reactions can get complex enough for most to define them as life???? That argument?

Earlier you said water turned to vapor because of chemical reactions - I believe you're referring to kinetic energy, not chemical reactions. In any event, I'm not interested nor qualified to provide a science lesson but suffice to say, I don't agree. I have already provided my reasons why.

Lots and lots of ice has been found. Now consider, it only takes adding energy to ice to turn it into water.

I'm not disputing its existence obviously, I simply don't agree with your assertion of how common it is.

Now there are some very important differences between plant cells and animal cells. Can you tell me those differences and then can you tell me if there are perhaps any individual cell "parts" that you might define as "alive"?

Look, I have a basic grasp of biology - the differences between plant and animal cells do not impact my original opinion. Please just give me your definition of life.

No, this is true. The single thing common to ALL life is its ability to replicate/procreate.

There is a difference in arguments here: I claimed that replication alone does not confer upon it "life." You're now saying that replication is a common to all life, well of course it is. I haven't expressed any disagreement with that, have I. Please refer to the discussion on prions.

So you are telling me, that in order for RNA to reproduce it has to consume a very specific diet... this IS interesting. Things need material to procreate... strange world indeed.

Consume? I don't know if that's the term that biologists use for it. However, if you are skeptical of what I said please feel free to research cellular structure and viruses.

Yes it is a strange world. I think I said at the beginning that life was the only thing that we can observe which creates matter from energy. This is my personal belief - and therefore, I am aware, it might get crushed. But, what else does that? Everything else I can think of is converting matter from one form to another form by using energy or converting matter into energy - what else actually creates matter from energy - that we can observe?

DontBeAfraid

Mar 13th, 2008, 7:17 PM

Earlier you said water turned to vapor because of chemical reactions - I believe you're referring to kinetic energy, not chemical reactions.That IS a chemical reaction.

In any event, I'm not interested nor qualified to provide a science lesson but suffice to say, I don't agree.You are wrong.

I'm not disputing its existence obviously, I simply don't agree with your assertion of how common it is. My assertion is based on how comonly accids and bases form water and salts. Your disagreement is WRONG.

Look, I have a basic grasp of biology -Yet you dont think it fool hearty to argue it.

the differences between plant and animal cells do not impact my original opinion. Please just give me your definition of life.The differences are big enough thta this will impact your definition. Please just google the differences.

I claimed that replication alone does not confer upon it "life."It is the only thing common to ALL life and its found in "nonliving" material. Surely you see how this is a big step between dead and alive?

Consume? I don't know if that's the term that biologists use for itIt takes the material and makes more of itself with it. It CONSUMES the material. Im using it to try and help you see that the gap is not big.

However, if you are skeptical of what I said please feel free to research cellular structure and viruses. Unlike you, I didnt come to this thing uneducated.

But, what else does that? Everything else I can think of is converting matter from one form to another form by using energy or converting matter into energyLife doesnt REALLY do this though, it just uses matter to STORE energy. All the true conversions that life performs really do go the other way. For a very simple example of how matter can store energy via chemical reactions alone look to what happens when you add energy to ice.

weederbro

Mar 13th, 2008, 9:13 PM

DBA, I still have my dictionary in my hand!

...'you dont think it fool hearty to argue it'...........

the word is foolhardy....

Just shows you that I'm still reading and trying to understand man.......LOL

Nasik

Mar 13th, 2008, 10:32 PM

DBA: [Water turning into vapor]
That IS a chemical reaction. You are wrong.

You're telling me that H20's transition from a liquid to a gas is a chemical reaction? I thought chemical reactions involved the combining or breaking of chemical bonds, usually (not always) involving a catalyst of some sort, resulting in variant molecular structures.

By your assertion, H20 becomes something other than H20 when it changes from liquid to vapor. I disagree, this particular example involves the expansion of the molecules - their motion (or the matter's density). If you have proof this is a chemical reaction, you're welcome to provide it.

Yet you dont think it fool hearty to argue it.
The differences are big enough thta this will impact your definition. Please just google the differences.

The machinery germane to this discussion is: (a) a semi-permeable wall; (b)method of cell reproduction; and, (c) method of transporting nutrients and expelling waste. Both plant and animal cells exhibit these characteristics. I realize there are differences but they do not bear on my original opinion.

[Reproduction] is the only thing common to ALL life and its found in "nonliving" material. Surely you see how this is a big step between dead and alive?

Not necessarily. Living matter and non-living matter have many similar traits simply because both are composed of matter. Bits of folded protein changing neighboring proteins to fold like it, cannot be defined as cellular reproduction and I don't agree that it implicates the eventuallity of it as you suggest.

It takes the material and makes more of itself with it. It CONSUMES the material. Im using it to try and help you see that the gap is not big.

Here you had responded to my comment on Carrier's claims in order to revise the calculations on the probabilities of life occuring sponteously. You're response to my comment was, "So you are telling me, that in order for RNA to reproduce it has to consume a very specific diet... this IS interesting. Things need material to procreate... strange world indeed". I assumed you were expressing some skepticism. Now you're saying something else. My only point was, that requirement of cell for RNA reproduction supports my contention because it required an extant cell to begin with.

Life doesnt REALLY do this though, it just uses matter to STORE energy. All the true conversions that life performs really do go the other way. For a very simple example of how matter can store energy via chemical reactions alone look to what happens when you add energy to ice.

How does a single cell mulitply to become an animal or a tree. The cell has taken nutrients, converted it to energy and then converted that energy into matter, where formally it did not exist, via cellular reproduction. What else does that? Chemical reactions don't do that.

If I introduce "energy" to ice I would expect the ice to melt to liquid and if I continued to apply energy I expect the liquid to heat until it reached a boiling point and began turning into vapor. This process involves movement and expansion of the molecules not a reshaping of their structure. If I wrong, I welcome you to provide an example and proof.

DontBeAfraid

Mar 13th, 2008, 10:33 PM

the word is foolhardy....Thank you. I have started using firefox and it choose the auto fix that I posted.

DontBeAfraid

Mar 13th, 2008, 10:52 PM

You're telling me that H20's transition from a liquid to a gas is a chemical reaction? I thought chemical reactions involved the combining or breaking of chemical bonds usually (not always) involving a catalyst of some sort which resulting in variant molecular structures.

By your assertion, H20 becomes something other than H20 when it changes from liquid to vapor. I disagree, this particular example involves the expansion of the molecules - their motion (or the matter's density). If you have proof this is a chemical reaction, you're welcome to provide it.Chemical reactions are reactions that dont change the individual elements involved, it just reorganizes them. In this case, H2O(liquid) + heat <-> H2O(gas). To clarify, chemical reactions are those that begin and end with the same type and number of elements. The elements of water are H and O. Nuclear reactions are those that change one element into another. This is not really a matter for debate. This is by definition. It is not MY assertion.

I realize there are differences but they do not bear on my original opinion.Im not convinced you are quite aware of the differences yet.

Bits of folded protein changing neighboring proteins to fold like it, cannot be defined as cellular reproduction and I don't agree that it implicates the eventuallity of it as you suggest.Would you call it replication? lol.... This is about to get fun for me.

I assumed you were expressing some skepticism. Now you're saying something else. My only point was, that requirement of cell for RNA reproduction supports my contention because it required an extant cell to begin with.I meant to express SARCASM. I forgot the tags. The hairs you want to split with me are soon going to place you in the position of accepting my viewpoint or closing your eyes and ears and walking away. The best way for you to not look foolish by the end of this is to take my advice and look up the things I suggest.

How does a single cell mulitply to become an animal or a tree.By using the energy to shape molecules out of elements it consumes from other molecules. Or, more simply, chemical reactions.

Matter is being created where there was noneNo, it hasn't. Molecules have simply been reshaped out of other molecules.

It has taken nutrients, converted to energy and converted that energy into matter where formally it did exist via cellular reproduction.lol.... I will give you this opportunity to correct yourself.

If I introduce "energy" to ice I would expect the ice to melt to liquid and if I continued to apply energy I expect the liquid to heat until it reached a boiling point and began turning into vapor. This process involves movement and expansion of the molecules not a reshaping of their structure. If I wrong, I welcome you to provide an example and proof.Proof of the definition of a chemical reaction? The state(solid liquid gas) of matter is indeed included in chemical reactions. Are you asking me to teach you about it or are you asking me to find some educational institution near you that you could enroll in to learn about it?

here you go, hopefully this helps you understand the definitions:
http://www.emsb.qc.ca/laurenhill/science/exo.html

Nasik

Mar 14th, 2008, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by DBA: Chemical reactions are reactions that dont change the individual elements involved, it just reorganizes them. In this case, H2O(liquid) + heat <-> H2O(gas). To clarify, chemical reactions are those that begin and end with the same type and number of elements. The elements of water are H and O. Nuclear reactions are those that change one element into another. This is not really a matter for debate. This is by definition. It is not MY assertion.

Yes, it is "your" assertion. What you've written is not a chemical reaction. You're describing either an Endothermic or Exothermic reaction which is defined as:

A chemical or physical change that releases heat is called exothermic. A chemical or physical change that absorbs heat is termed endothermic. [emphasis mine]

This means a reaction can be endothermic or exothermic without a chemical reaction. You say H20(liquid) + energy = H20(gas) - there is a NO chemical reaction in this forumla. A chemical reaction is defined as:

Any type of chemical process in which substances are changed into different substances, as differentiated from other kinds of changes—those of position or of form—undergone by matter. Chemical reactions are manifested by the disappearance of properties characteristic of the starting materials and the appearance of new properties that distinguish the products [emphasis mine]

So 2H2 + 02 ---> 2H20 - represents a chemical reaction but your example (H20 -> H20) does not for there has been no change in the assembly of the substances just the position and form.

Im not convinced you are quite aware of the differences yet.
Would you call it replication? lol.... This is about to get fun for me.

No, this is more fun for me.

By using the energy to shape molecules out of elements it consumes from other molecules. Or, more simply, chemical reactions.

You're omitting the critical point - regardless of how the cell gets its energy (we can all create energy from matter) it is the next step that is important, that it is able to take that energy and convert it into matter. I would like you to provide an example where this occurs outside of cellular reproduction. Am I going too fast for you?

Proof of the definition of a chemical reaction? The state(solid liquid gas) of matter is indeed included in chemical reactions. Are you asking me to teach you about it or are you asking me to find some educational institution near you that you could enroll in to learn about it?

here you go, hopefully this helps you understand the definitions:
http://www.emsb.qc.ca/laurenhill/science/exo.html

Yes, thank you for the link. I suggest you read it again and get back to me.

lycanox

Mar 14th, 2008, 1:30 PM

You're omitting the critical point - regardless of how the cell gets its energy (we can all create energy from matter) it is the next step that is important, that it is able to take that energy and convert it into matter. I would like you to provide an example where this occurs outside of cellular reproduction. Am I going too fast for you?
How about the first seconds after the big bang. Supernovas and stars?

As far as I know, cells don't create matter from energy.
Every single atom in the body has to be eaten, inhaled or drunk one day.
And they need energy from food or sunlight to run the chemical reactions needed to form those atoms into the desired molecules.

DontBeAfraid

Mar 14th, 2008, 1:58 PM

Indeed, I concede the point that changing states only counts as a physical change instead of a chemical one. While all the same rules for chemical reactions apply to state changes, they are not technically chemical reactions. I should have picked a better example of how energy is only ever traded during the reactions and not converted into matter..

You're omitting the critical point - regardless of how the cell gets its energy (we can all create energy from matter) it is the next step that is important, that it is able to take that energy and convert it into matter.This however, is still wrong, no matter what example I use. Life does not turn energy into matter, it simply uses or releases energy in the reformation of matter. Absolutely ZERO new atoms are formed in chemical reactions. So once again, the only thing that distinguishes living matter from none living matter is that it replicates itself.

I would like you to provide an example where this occurs outside of cellular reproduction. Am I going too fast for you?It doesnt happen in living matter. All reactions that take place within living matter begin and end with the same net mass whether energy is consumed or released. The only thing I can think of that actually turns energy into matter would be what happens inside a super collider and even then the new matter exists only very briefly.

Nasik

Mar 16th, 2008, 10:20 AM

DontBeAfraidLife does not turn energy into matter, it simply uses or releases energy in the reformation of matter. Absolutely ZERO new atoms are formed in chemical reactions. So once again, the only thing that distinguishes living matter from none living matter is that it replicates itself...

It doesnt happen in living matter. All reactions that take place within living matter begin and end with the same net mass whether energy is consumed or released. The only thing I can think of that actually turns energy into matter would be what happens inside a super collider and even then the new matter exists only very briefly.

I don't dispute that chemical reactions occur within the cell - that the cell "consumes" chemicals and reorganize atoms. My problem is that during mitosis or meiosis there is an increase in mass. I am not violating the conservation of energy principal either - I'm saying that these cells are not simply organizing chemicals - they are increasing in mass. Einstein says mass and energy are interchangable. I think this is what life is doing. Hey, I could be wrong, but if chemical reactions do not result in an increase in the atoms involved, why do we obviously see the changes in mass. This would be particularly evident in plants - if I grow a plant strictly in a water base, I can measure the amount of water applied to the plant, I can measure how much water is in the plant and see a net increase in its mass. An increase that exceeds the mass of the nutrients provided to it. So, where does this additional mass come from - it comes from sunlight - energy.

How about the first seconds after the big bang. Supernovas and stars?

As far as I know, cells don't create matter from energy.
Every single atom in the body has to be eaten, inhaled or drunk one day.
And they need energy from food or sunlight to run the chemical reactions needed to form those atoms into the desired molecules.

Good point. I believe some intelligent or surrendipitious energy was the bing bang - God.

lycanox

Mar 16th, 2008, 10:40 AM

I don't dispute that chemical reactions occur within the cell - that the cell "consumes" chemicals and reorganize atoms. My problem is that during mitosis or meiosis there is an increase in mass. I am not violating the conservation of energy principal either - I'm saying that these cells are not simply organizing chemicals - they are increasing in mass. Einstein says mass and energy are interchangable. I think this is what life is doing. Hey, I could be wrong, but if chemical reactions do not result in an increase in the atoms involved, why do we obviously see the changes in mass. This would be particularly evident in plants - if I grow a plant strictly in a water base, I can measure the amount of water applied to the plant, I can measure how much water is in the plant and see a net increase in its mass. An increase that exceeds the mass of the nutrients provided to it. So, where does this additional mass come from - it comes from sunlight - energy.

Or it picked up some molecules, namely carbon dioxide, from the air.
Or some dust fell into the tank that could explain the extra mass.

There are however no cells that can live on just water alone.
Pure hydrogen is even a nearly sterile environment.

Good point. I believe some intelligent or surrendipitious energy was the bing bang - God.
You can call everything the doing of god, until it just becomes another name for coincidence, chance and luck.

But how does god work, and where did he came from?
If it turned out that it really was some kind of god behind it. I am afraid science has no other choice than to catch and dissect him.

Nasik

Mar 16th, 2008, 11:11 AM

Or it picked up some molecules, namely carbon dioxide, from the air.
Or some dust fell into the tank that could explain the extra mass.

There are however no cells that can live on just water alone.
Pure hydrogen is even a nearly sterile environment.

You can call everything the doing of god, until it just becomes another name for coincidence, chance and luck.

But how does god work, and where did he came from?
If it turned out that it really was some kind of god behind it. I am afraid science has no other choice than to catch and dissect him.

The mass increase is far more significant than dust being in the air and C02 - plants can be grown hyroponically in a nutrient solution one can measure.

I have no idea how God works. You're right - scientists haven't captured God in a test-tube. Does this create a problem? According to Einstein, it should not. This is an excerpt from Albert Einstein's book "Out of My Later Years" pp.24/25:

Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible. To put it boldy, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstuction of existence by the process of conceptualiztion.
...
[A] religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the siginficance and loftiness of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them seems impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside it its domain and value judgements of all kinds remain neccessary. [emphasis author's]

lycanox

Mar 16th, 2008, 11:51 AM

The mass increase is far more significant than dust being in the air and C02 - plants can be grown hyroponically in a nutrient solution one can measure.
And when the nutrients run out, our poor little plant just witters away and turns into food for the next generation.

I have no idea how God works. You're right - scientists haven't captured God in a test-tube. Does this create a problem? According to Einstein, it should not. This is an excerpt from Albert Einstein's book "Out of My Later Years" pp.24/25:

Yes, but there is a real difference between the scientific god and the religious god.

Is god just a being that just pressed enter on a programmed genesis device and doesn't intervene on what happens after the birth of the universe?

Or does god have a active role in our universe itself? Which he created just to have some kind of giant theatre for life to show the little play on he has written in the bible.

Is life just a byproduct of gods creation, or the goal of its creation?
Do we have some kind of blueprint we must follow to create the next stage of god creation?
Or are we just a interesting byproduct in gods test tube with no role at all.

It are questions like these that sets the scientific god apart from the religious god.

Cartesiantheater

Mar 16th, 2008, 11:53 AM

I haven't had time to really make a good response to your other points, but I will when I'm done with college transfer app stuff. However, I thought I'd add my two sense here since it didn't require any time spent researching.

My problem is that during mitosis or meiosis there is an increase in mass. I am not violating the conservation of energy principal either - I'm saying that these cells are not simply organizing chemicals - they are increasing in mass. Einstein says mass and energy are interchangable. I think this is what life is doing. Hey, I could be wrong, but if chemical reactions do not result in an increase in the atoms involved, why do we obviously see the changes in mass.

In a cell you are NOT getting any relativistic conversion of energy to mass or mass to energy. The energies required and released for these sort of things are huge ("nuclear reaction" scale huge) and would destroy the cell.

What you are getting during these biological reactions that have an increase in mass is a failure to account for all the mass (compounds) involved in the reaction.

Just like when you digest food and gain mass. If you don't consider the food you intake as part of the mix (and all the other variables like breathing as you eat), things will look fishy.

This would be particularly evident in plants - if I grow a plant strictly in a water base, I can measure the amount of water applied to the plant, I can measure how much water is in the plant and see a net increase in its mass. An increase that exceeds the mass of the nutrients provided to it. So, where does this additional mass come from - it comes from sunlight - energy.

The light doesn't turn into mass. The light is the catylist that allows the chemical reaction of

6CO2 (g) + 6H2O (l ) ==> C6H12O6 (aq) + 6O2 (g)

to occur.

The energy goes into rearanging chemical bonds and any enthalpy etc changes. It doesn't turn into mass.

In this case, the apparently extra mass comes from a failure to consider the airborne CO2 in the reaction as it combines with water and changes into aqueous glucose (and a failure to consider any other non-accounted for mass, like lycanox pointed out).

EDIT- these sort of "changing energy to mass and vice versa" reactions involve several million more times energy than simple chemical reactions. To do this in experiments requires RIDICULOURS amounts of energy in particle colliders, etc. I mean, in one sense we're talking about nuclear fussion going on inside a cell. A HUGE energy barrier must be overcome for that to happen. Doesn't seem very plausible. Further, you shouldn't get the compounds we get. When energy combines with other matter to change it into something more massive, you get an actual CHANGE in the element itself (perhaps into an entirely different one, like Lead to Uranium, or in say, a normal Hydrogen nuclei turning into a Deuterium nuclei). But in the photosynthesis reaction, you have the exact same elements on both sides of the chemical equation. You only have chemical changes, not nuclear ones. If light energy is turning into mass, you would expect some isotopes in the elements involved in the compounds.

EDIT-2

Looking at Einstein's famous equation will really highlight the point I'm making.

E = mc^2.

If it was just E = m, then it would be plausible, but it isn't. It is Energy equals mass times the square of the velocity of light. We all know how fast light travels. It's a big number. In order to create a noticible amount of mass out of energy, the amount of mass created requires HUGE amounts of energy, because, if you have x amount of energy, you will only create x/(c^2) amount of mass in comparison. In other words, the amount of mass you can get out of energy is c^2 times "smaller" than the amount of energy you put into it (obviously that's not technically correct because the units matter, but you get the point).

Which translates to this: It takes a huge amount of energy in order to add only a very small amount of mass. That is why the only way we've been able to produce matter from energy is in particle accelerators, and even then the amount of mass is much smaller than any of the compounds involved in photosynthesis, while the energy amount required to produce that little tiny mass is enough to destroy the entire garden, let alone the little cell inwhich this change supposedly takes place.

EDIT 3- If anyone is interested (or terribly, unredeemably bored), I attempted to quantify some of this in the thread below. It is general chemistry heavy and basic physics heavy, but I think it is decently readible.

http://forums.armageddononline.org/random_energy_calculations-t14397.html?p=202293#post202293

Nu Kua

Mar 16th, 2008, 12:01 PM

A new life isn't created until certain elements, that might not be life by themselves because they are incomplete, come together and merge, connect, intermingle, whatever- to that which contributes something else
- thus completing each other and then a new life emerges from that successful combining and inter-locking.

In that way, isn't life born from nothingness?

Nasik

Mar 21st, 2008, 2:21 PM

Yes, but there is a real difference between the scientific god and the religious god.

Is god just a being that just pressed enter on a programmed genesis device and doesn't intervene on what happens after the birth of the universe?

Or does god have a active role in our universe itself? Which he created just to have some kind of giant theatre for life to show the little play on he has written in the bible.

Is life just a byproduct of gods creation, or the goal of its creation?
Do we have some kind of blueprint we must follow to create the next stage of god creation?
Or are we just a interesting byproduct in gods test tube with no role at all.

It are questions like these that sets the scientific god apart from the religious god.

You raise interesting points; I think that the scientific God is a bit of an oxymoron, for it is not a concept that can be proven scientifically; the main thrust of my argument rests upon implication, not proof per se, in the strictest sense.

There is an underlying theme that is raised in threads such as this. The theme of science versus religion. What can be proved and not proved determines what is truth and what is not truth. If you have any, (or any of the people that post here) respect for Einstein, who arguably was much smarter than any of us posting here. He believed science has no place in making judgment calls on religion, worse that it was "crass" to attempt to do so. He says the weakness of the "extreme rationionlist" was the attempt to judge religion through the "solid scientific method." He says, "...the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge [religion] belongs to the highest of which man is capable" A little further, he goes on later to say, "The knowledge of truth is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration towards that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence." [1]

As far as my pet theory of energy into mass - well, I will have to do more homework because, I am basing this entirely on the fact that I came from a single cell and obviously, my mass has increased since that time. Its becoming apparent that my pet definition of "life" could be flawed, but regardless, it is not fatal to my overall position on this topic.

__________
[1] A.Einsten, Out of My Later Years, c.8 p.21/22 (Science and Religion)

eldingo12

Mar 21st, 2008, 7:35 PM

You raise interesting points; I think that the scientific God is a bit of an oxymoron, for it is not a concept that can be proven scientifically; the main thrust of my argument rests upon implication, not proof per se, in the strictest sense.

Um.... Can science prove that a whale is a fly? No? I wonder why... I'm willing to bet that it is the same reason it can't prove that "god" exists.

Just saying...

cmar1965

Mar 21st, 2008, 8:17 PM

I an not an evolutionist, and quite obviously not an ID type either, however there IS evidence of evolution. Anyone who has children, just look at them and listen to them. The simple fact that the ideals or ideas I have are in many ways a total contrast to that of my own children, shows this change...the evolving. In turn too, from listening TO that perspective and taking much of it onboard, I in turn, continue to EVOLVE myself!

I EVOLVE as a human being any time "just stuff" happens! Does ID philosophy allow for evolution of any kind or is it, that the "design" is a predetermined and never changing hence, SOLE "structure"...whether plant, human being or other life form.

Admittedly I have not got into the "guts" of what ID'ers "believe", but I do know that the likes of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are followers of that rhetoric and their examples of ID/"creator "proof", was a banana...claiming it has always been designed "specifically" (by "GOD") to "fit" into the hand.... and for some reason a Pepsi Can...(the pepsi-can was their own personal analogy as to the "intelligent design" of the universe)...*shrug*
These examples, like those of the original poster actually showed ZIP to support their own personal stance.

BTW... if anyone has not seen the comfort/cameron BS... I am more than happy to post it! lol

Nasik

Mar 21st, 2008, 9:18 PM

Um.... Can science prove that a whale is a fly? No? I wonder why... I'm willing to bet that it is the same reason it can't prove that "god" exists.

Just saying...

I think the point is that science has its limits - it is not the answer to all of the questions that face man, and nor should it be.

I an not an evolutionist, and quite obviously not an ID type either, however there IS evidence of evolution. Anyone who has children, just look at them and listen to them. The simple fact that the ideals or ideas I have are in many ways a total contrast to that of my own children, shows this change...the evolving. In turn too, from listening TO that perspective and taking much of it onboard, I in turn, continue to EVOLVE myself!

I EVOLVE as a human being any time "just stuff" happens! Does ID philosophy allow for evolution of any kind or is it, that the "design" is a predetermined and never changing hence, SOLE "structure"...whether plant, human being or other life form.

Admittedly I have not got into the "guts" of what ID'ers "believe", but I do know that the likes of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are followers of that rhetoric and their examples of ID/"creator "proof", was a banana...claiming it has always been designed "specifically" (by "GOD") to "fit" into the hand.... and for some reason a Pepsi Can...(the pepsi-can was their own personal analogy as to the "intelligent design" of the universe)...*shrug*
These examples, like those of the original poster actually showed ZIP to support their own personal stance.

BTW... if anyone has not seen the comfort/cameron BS... I am more than happy to post it! lol

Evolution and ID are not, by definition, contrary ideas. You may find the original poster's reason unpersuasive, but the emergence of life is certainly fodder for lively debate.

cmar1965

Mar 22nd, 2008, 4:00 AM

Nasik

Mar 23rd, 2008, 3:04 PM

Hi Freaked Out,
Yes it was the original posters comment I found a tad dodgy!

I suppose though by your comments, as I interpret them, is that the ID perspective is in a sense perhaps "agnostic", BY definition?

Hello Cmar,

I believe a higher power, God, created life, which is a big statement, but I don't exactly understand or know what God is. I don't know if that fits strictly within the definition of agnostism as I understand it.

eldingo12

Mar 23rd, 2008, 4:01 PM

Hello Cmar,

I believe a higher power, God, created life, which is a big statement, but I don't exactly understand or know what God is. I don't know if that fits strictly within the definition of agnostism as I understand it.

I am curious as to why you think that... Do you mind explaining?

cmar1965

Mar 23rd, 2008, 4:54 PM

freaked out wrote:
Hello Cmar,

I believe a higher power, God, created life, which is a big statement, but I don't exactly understand or know what God is. I don't know if that fits strictly within the definition of agnostism as I understand it.

Hi Freaked Out,

Ok, but I am trying to understand something here. Are you a proponent of the concept of Intelligent Design or Creation? If so, (one or the other) what are the differences in the structure?

I appreciate that creationism tends to rule out evolution in its concept, but as per your previous comment "Evolution and ID are not, by definition, contrary ideas", ID apparently doesn't?

I know squat about ID, hence my questions.

Nasik

Mar 24th, 2008, 12:26 PM

I am curious as to why you think that... Do you mind explaining?

My position is laid out all through this thread - including my reasons why I make such a big statement.

freaked out wrote:

Hi Freaked Out,

Ok, but I am trying to understand something here. Are you a proponent of the concept of Intelligent Design or Creation? If so, (one or the other) what are the differences in the structure?

I appreciate that creationism tends to rule out evolution in its concept, but as per your previous comment "Evolution and ID are not, by definition, contrary ideas", ID apparently doesn't?

I know squat about ID, hence my questions.

I'm not going to pretrend I know the nuances between Creationism or Intelligent Design, I simply say this - God created that first life - that first cell. This position therefore, doesn't preclude evolution. I do not subscribe to dinosaurs and people living together, or the world being 6000 years old. But I do believe that the emergence of life was not simply a happy chance.

Cartesiantheater

Mar 24th, 2008, 12:39 PM

I'm not going to pretrend I know the nuances between Creationism or Intelligent Design, I simply say this - God created that first life - that first cell. This position therefore, doesn't preclude evolution. I do not subscribe to dinosaurs and people living together, or the world being 6000 years old. But I do believe that the emergence of life was not simply a happy chance.

Is it not possible for God to create the first cell using the physical laws he determined would rule the universe in the first place?

Also,

Must he violate his physical laws in a way that seems to suggest that he "didn't get it right the first time?"

Why can't God be the grand architect of Deism? Sure, Deism is a bit closer to theism than agnosticism, but I would say "design" arguments favor Deism more than any other theory of God. :0.02:

Nu Kua

Mar 24th, 2008, 1:23 PM

Is it not possible that the creator "God" him/her/itself evolved into being first, and then later (much later, after having learned) created more life?

The difference between ID and Creationism is that ID doesn't attribute an intelligent design to an omnipotent god-like being. ID kind of combines evolution and creationism.
I was recently reading up on that, I will try to find the sources and stick it in here for review.

Nasik

Mar 24th, 2008, 9:29 PM

Is it not possible for God to create the first cell using the physical laws he determined would rule the universe in the first place?

Also,

Must he violate his physical laws in a way that seems to suggest that he "didn't get it right the first time?"

Why can't God be the grand architect of Deism? Sure, Deism is a bit closer to theism than agnosticism, but I would say "design" arguments favor Deism more than any other theory of God. :0.02:

Clever.

While I admit that this is "possible" - the caveat obviously, must include the participation of God. In the way you've structured this question, I think I know where you're heading. Clever. I just don't think, absent some higher power, that life emerged sporadically from the primordial ooze.

Your second statement confounds me. If you're referring to evolution - I don't know how to answer this statement - I'm not sure there was a mistake necessitating revision involved.

As for your third statement - well, I can't argue that - now can I.

Is it not possible that the creator "God" him/her/itself evolved into being first, and then later (much later, after having learned) created more life?

The difference between ID and Creationism is that ID doesn't attribute an intelligent design to an omnipotent god-like being. ID kind of combines evolution and creationism.
I was recently reading up on that, I will try to find the sources and stick it in here for review.

Yes, but that delves into the mystery, if we are to accept there is a God, who or what God is, where did God come from, what was here before the big bang and frankly, unless someone can put into some simple terms for me, I'll have an anxiety attack thinking about it - contemplating the universe (what's beyond, it's beginning what was there before - freaks me out!)

DontBeAfraid

Mar 25th, 2008, 12:11 AM

While I admit that this is "possible" - the caveat obviously, must include the participation of God. In the way you've structured this question, I think I know where you're heading. Clever. I just don't think, absent some higher power, that life emerged sporadically from the primordial ooze.Why do you think it makes more sense for life to need to be created in direct violation of, or in spite of, the natural laws that some deity has set up instead of as an eventual result of this deities natural laws? In your scenario there are obvious disconnects.

cmar1965

Mar 25th, 2008, 5:16 PM

Cornish Maid

Mar 25th, 2008, 5:50 PM

cmar1965

Mar 25th, 2008, 5:57 PM

Hi Cornish Maid,

You reckon Stephen Hawking is a "new ager"? LMAO

Nasik

Mar 25th, 2008, 11:21 PM

There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation.

Food for thought!

I read one of S. Hawking's books and frankly I was not impressed. About a good half of the book consisted of his unabashed slamming of scientists and great thinkers before him. "Now a word against Newton, "Now a word against etc.... "

Notwithstanding my personal dislike of the man, it doesn't impact my original position. They can talk string theory until the cows come home. In passing, some of Hawkings' theories have since been disproved, for example, some of his theories on the nature of black holes have since been disproved. Perhaps one day I can read a book that has a chapter in it called, "Now a word against Hawkings"

Why do you think it makes more sense for life to need to be created in direct violation of, or in spite of, the natural laws that some deity has set up instead of as an eventual result of this deities natural laws? In your scenario there are obvious disconnects.

There is no disconnect in first the environment and then life. Someone explain to me where the violation of the "natural laws" occurs here. Someone explain to me how my position on the emergence of life defies any natural law. You might begin by explaining to me your definition of "natural law" so we have an equitable footing on which to proceed.

DontBeAfraid

Mar 26th, 2008, 12:06 AM

I read one of S. Hawking's books and frankly I was not impressed. About a good half of the book consisted of his unabashed slamming of scientists and great thinkers before him. "Now a word against Newton, "Now a word against etc.... "All the greats bashed their predecessors; thats what made them greats. This is what CT and others are referring to when describing the situation of the new guy that comes along someday and disproves evolution. If evolution were seriously turned on its head, the person that does it is now one of the greatest scientists ever. If you think Hawking gave it to people you would be amazed at how hard people hand it to Aristotle.

There is no disconnect in first the environment and then life. Someone explain to me where the violation of the "natural laws" occurs here.OK, your scenario: there is unliving matter that a god has to personally manipulate and change its natural destiny to form it into living material. Theviolation of natural laws occurs when this god makes it do something that you say CANT happen without divine intervention.... Divine intervention is the breaking of the laws.... I think thats the definition of divine intervention.

You might begin by explaining to me your definition of "natural law" so we have an equitable footing on which to proceed.That which happens within and according the laws of nature. That which is not natural is that which can only be accomplished by breaking the laws of nature. If you contend that the formation of life can only happen if a god makes it so then you contend that the formation of life is not natural.

Raptor Witness

Mar 26th, 2008, 12:30 AM

My argument has always been that this is a simple thought experiment. That is, if we sent out a probe to look for intelligent life on another planet, and it beamed back photographs of that planet being materially organized, we would immediately believe that something intelligent had been at work down there. Alien life would likely use the same criteria for our own planet, seeing the roads, high-rise buildings, etc..

This means we already recognize that the organization of matter is a key to spotting "intelligent design." Therefore, if we look at the universe and it's organization as a whole, the same rule should apply. That is, the organization of the universe implies an intelligent design.

Einstein's statement that "God does not play dice with the universe," is well known, and essentially the same simple argument. It's a valid thought experiment easily conducted and replicated by students.

The best proof of intelligent design, was when Jesus died and rose again from the dead, because if He'd of been "intelligent" according to most standards, He would of saved Himself. Instead, He choose to save you and me, proving that might doesn't make right, and that real power is perfected through weakness.

By believing in the seemingly impossible and looking like fools to this age, you'll verify your own intelligent design.

DontBeAfraid

Mar 26th, 2008, 2:00 AM

My argument has always been that this is a simple thought experiment. That is, if we sent out a probe to look for intelligent life on another planet, and it beamed back photographs of that planet being materially organized, we would immediately believe that something intelligent had been at work down there. Alien life would likely use the same criteria for our own planet, seeing the roads, high-rise buildings, etc..

This means we already recognize that the organization of matter is a key to spotting "intelligent design." Therefore, if we look at the universe and it's organization as a whole, the same rule should apply. That is, the organization of the universe implies an intelligent design.This thought experiment a flop. The criteria that it assumes we look for is wrong. Matter has an inherent ability to self organize. What we are really looking for as a sign of other worldy intelligence is matter that is organized in an UN-natural way. Simply finding organized matter does not equal some intelligent organizing agent.

That is the easier of the flaws, in your though game, to enumerate. The other one, which is really what this debate encompasses is unlike roads or watches or anything else that "starts" in an unnatural, complicated and fully complete state; biologic matter starts out very very simply and, due to rather high reactivity, is able to change and build upon itself.

cmar1965

Mar 26th, 2008, 3:11 AM

I read one of S. Hawking's books and frankly I was not impressed. About a good half of the book consisted of his unabashed slamming of scientists and great thinkers before him. "Now a word against Newton, "Now a word against etc.... "

I have read a few of his books (well at least STILL trying to get my head around them! lol)but "slamming" seems to be part of who we are as human beings(ironically though only those taught certain concepts) and it is not only in the realms of science, it is across the board, hence I guess there too being so MANY religions as well in the world, with their own offshoot denominations, then THEIR offshoot little sects etc, always slamming the previous theory, of what "is" or what "could be"...so many opinions...generally. Why I suppose as well, debate and discussion forums(such as this one) exist.

Notwithstanding my personal dislike of the man, it doesn't impact my original position.

case in point.

They can talk string theory until the cows come home.

The uncaused universe from my understanding has ZIP to do with any "string theory"??

In passing, some of Hawkings' theories have since been disproved, for example, some of his theories on the nature of black holes have since been disproved.

I do have to say though that his theorys re black holes cannot be disproved, because others trying to disprove the "theory" would have to be able to actually see the blackholes (ALL)TO disprove the hawkings theoretical explanation. Just because one thing may happen in one, does not mean it would be the exact same result in another. Again, it is theory...he is not putting it out there as FACT.

Perhaps one day I can read a book that has a chapter in it called, "Now a word against Hawkings"

Save the $$ and just re-read your own post. It is already published.

BTW, I am not an advocate of any of hawkings works as I would have to understand them fully to do that.

If anyone is interested though, I think that the universe...geez...maybe multi-verses, have always JUST BEEN..uncaused, infinite and eternal. My personal opinion has nothing to do with any scientific theory, "god" belief, or anything like that. It is just what I personally think. I just don't NEED it to be anything more as I don't personally need within myself, my reason for "being" to be justified. :humpin:

Raptor Witness

Mar 26th, 2008, 4:36 PM

This thought experiment a flop. The criteria that it assumes we look for is wrong. Matter has an inherent ability to self organize. What we are really looking for as a sign of other worldy intelligence is matter that is organized in an UN-natural way. Simply finding organized matter does not equal some intelligent organizing agent.

That is the easier of the flaws, in your though game, to enumerate. The other one, which is really what this debate encompasses is unlike roads or watches or anything else that "starts" in an unnatural, complicated and fully complete state; biologic matter starts out very very simply and, due to rather high reactivity, is able to change and build upon itself.

If I saw this on the surface of another world or planet, I wouldn't say to myself, oh, that's just part of the landscape that "materialized." Do not try and make me believe that [nonsense,] (http://forums.armageddononline.org/130_mph_f2-t14378.html) did it.

You cannot self organize yourself into being, can you? So why would you assume that you can, into oblivion? That's the basis of your argument. "Nothing intelligent here, but me."

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3130/2351671494_bb1fd7e7bb_o.jpg

DontBeAfraid

Mar 26th, 2008, 6:15 PM

WTF? I am the sum and product of a lot more than just my parts.... But MOST of my parts go about their existence being organized and organizing things around them based on the laws of nature.

And your thought experiement which seems to involve a tornado building a skyscraper is not at al analogous to carbon binding to other elements....

Nasik

Mar 26th, 2008, 9:20 PM

I have read a few of his books (well at least STILL trying to get my head around them! lol)but "slamming" seems to be part of who we are as human beings(ironically though only those taught certain concepts) and it is not only in the realms of science, it is across the board, hence I guess there too being so MANY religions as well in the world, with their own offshoot denominations, then THEIR offshoot little sects etc, always slamming the previous theory, of what "is" or what "could be"...so many opinions...generally. Why I suppose as well, debate and discussion forums(such as this one) exist.

The uncaused universe from my understanding has ZIP to do with any "string theory"??

I do have to say though that his theorys re black holes cannot be disproved, because others trying to disprove the "theory" would have to be able to actually see the blackholes (ALL)TO disprove the hawkings theoretical explanation. Just because one thing may happen in one, does not mean it would be the exact same result in another. Again, it is theory...he is not putting it out there as FACT.

I'm referring to "string theories" or similar theories attempting to realize a univeral theory - something Einstein was working on before he passed away - you raised the scientific "mumbo-jumbo" - layman's terms would have probably been more helpful and if you wanted to provide link perhaps that also might be helpful.

As for "disproved" fine - if you insist (sigh) I'll put it a different way. His theory that a black hole crushes everything to a single point and nothing escapes has since been shown to be flawed or wrong - better?

Cartesiantheater

Mar 26th, 2008, 10:27 PM

I'm pretty sure it had to do with information/radiation escaping a blackhole and entropy/quantum fluctuations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox#Hawking_radiation

And I'm pretty sure his earlier work showed that blackholes should emmit radiation, although this is still disputed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Nu Kua

Mar 26th, 2008, 10:39 PM

Hawking remodels his black hole theory (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5452537/)- 2004.

DontBeAfraid

Mar 26th, 2008, 10:47 PM

Hawking himself recants his black hole theory- 2004.

His theory that a black hole crushes everything to a single point and nothing escapes has since been shown to be flawed or wrong - better?He REMODELED it. He did not RECANT anything. The small change in his theory isnt even really about black holes, its about the "information" returned to the galaxy as the black hole evaporates. Please learn the argument before trying to make it.

Nu Kua

Mar 26th, 2008, 10:49 PM

OK, fixed it. Remodeled.

brodyhyde

Mar 27th, 2008, 12:39 AM

Humanity on earth was engineered by more advanced humans who evolved hundreds of thousands of years before we even began losing our hair.
They came to earth and indeed did genetically alter the earliest developing humans by the same techniques of genetic engineering we are on the dawn of learning ourselves, today.
The stories of these events have been passed down over the years and eventually people began referring to these men and women as gods.

I was wondering what your thoughts were about the origins of existence, which allowed these more advanced humans to evolve. And did they make us better then themselves?

DontBeAfraid

Mar 27th, 2008, 5:21 AM

I was wondering what your thoughts were about the origins of existence, which allowed these more advanced humans to evolve. And did they make us better then themselves?This is all explained in the book by the late historian Douglas Adams: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

Nu Kua

Mar 27th, 2008, 10:35 AM

I was wondering what your thoughts were about the origins of existence, which allowed these more advanced humans to evolve.

I do believe that life did emerge from a "primordial ooze" and that it is impossible for an intelligence to exist before that life developed; in other words, it is impossible that the universe and the life in it was created by some sort of an intelligent being.

Intelligence, consciousness, or mindfulness emerge from life, not the other way around. Believing a God came from nowhere and nothing to create the universe completely contradicts the statement that life could not have emerged from "nothing", because where did this God come from?
The only way to assume that intelligence came before life is to believe in some supernatural and magical force, like you might find in a fairy tale.

Life can emerge from substances, chemicals, amino's, ect, that by themselves cannot contain or produce life. As far as we know, water is needed to bring about the conditions for life to form because water is a vehicle, an agent by which these ingredients can connect to one another, become cohesive, exchange "information", become a whole new thing. That is why we always try to see if new planets we find ever contained water.

The closest thing we have to a creator God is advanced life learning to create life as we are, now, as well as learning inter-space travel, and then going to another planetary body that we believe can support life, and creating it there. Just because we haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean it is impossible.
I know in my heart that all through the universe are various other pockets of life, teeming to the brim in some places with intelligence and advancement, and in others, perhaps life is just emerging even as we speak. It only makes sense.
The universe is constantly growing and changing, and it is older than even our best astro-physicists have guessed. It is very egocentric and somewhat retarded to assume that out of all of that time and energy, only on our Earth contains intelligent life.

People on earth think we are somehow special and unique, and that we are the pinnacle of the Creator's artistic design.
Honestly, if we are the most intelligent species of the universe, there is not much hope.
Look at what all we do to our world, collectively, that is antithetical to the survival of our species!
That is backwards and natural history has shown that those life forms that cannot adapt will not thrive- we managed to adapt and now it seems we are hell bent on destroying ourselves. How intelligent is that?
We'll never survive if people don't let go of the blinders.
The most evolved minds on Earth are the ones who are arguing and fighting for healthy environmental practices as well as fair and decent human rights for ALL.
Stick with the genetic/biological scientists and doctors, the astro-physicists with their wide open and starry minds, the spiritual people who call for unity and want to tear down false divisions amongst ourselves, the environmentalists who are working feverishly to stop the poisoning of our planet, the people who are working to serve the poor and needy.
These minds indicate people who are more highly evolved than anybody who insists on staying dumbed down in order to avoid pissing off a Creator god, or anybody who insists on highlighting our differences and always "being right", than anybody who is out for revenge or acts on greed.

If we do not go the way of the highly developed mind and work to adapt and unite with our fellow humans, then we will not survive much longer as a species (I guess 250 years, tops, much sooner if we get nuke happy) and the rest of the existence we do have, we will not thrive nor garner any measure of happiness.

sorry I guess I got off track a little. One thought just leads to another.

And did they make us better then themselves?

I do not believe they made us "better then themselves" at all, but that we do have the capacity to open up the "closed" areas of our brains and become as advanced as them. I truly believe that they spliced their DNA with earlier developing humans on earth, and that could explain the "missing gap" in the evolution of humans.

I know it may sound crazy, but no crazier than this big old God-man who simply existed as if by magic, waving a wand and creating a human out of a handful of dirt. (actually, 'dirt' is metaphorical...
You know those creation stories in Genesis/Bereshit aren't even original, and they've been mistranslated.)

I do believe we are 'becoming our creator'; I do believe that if we do not destroy ourselves first, our human species can evolve to the point that we, too, can travel at least some distance in the Universe and already we are on the verge of creating life.

BTW "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" IS a great book.
Laugh at me all you want, but already the dolphins are thanking us for the fish as they pack up and go. :bounce:
I've not read "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe".

You all should check out the DVD "Genesis- Where Are We Coming From?"
(It has nothing to do with interstellar space travel.)

cmar1965

Mar 27th, 2008, 5:54 PM

I'm referring to "string theories" or similar theories attempting to realize a univeral theory - something Einstein was working on before he passed away - you raised the scientific "mumbo-jumbo" - layman's terms would have probably been more helpful and if you wanted to provide link perhaps that also might be helpful.

I understand what you mean, but I too see creationist theory, ( I cannot say ID theory as I have not investigated it enough as yet) in the same light - attempting to realise universal consensus to that theory. My citing any link directly to any Hawking work as to this would have included even MORE scientific "mumbo jumbo", so it would have been a wasted exercise, however if you are interested, here is a link to something close to layman terms.

http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_1_1.htm and gives information from many differing perspectives.

I did say too re my hawking reference that it was merely "food for thought".

As for "disproved" fine - if you insist (sigh) I'll put it a different way. His theory that a black hole crushes everything to a single point and nothing escapes has since been shown to be flawed or wrong - better?

As determined already by other posters he remodelled it, but that is the nature of science. I for one am glad that science is willing to challenge prior beliefs, even if it is ones own.