When did that mean something productive?

SimpleSam06 · 13-05-2007 07:24PM

Zillah wrote:

The only thing we haven't resolved is the initial origin of life

Bingo!

Zillah wrote:

but its really not as insurmountable as it seems.

Collect your nobel at your leisure, sir...

Zillah · 13-05-2007 08:52PM

Bingo? What? There's something science hasn't worked out yet and therefore whatever magical nonesense you want to invent is true? Get some perspective. Science discovers new things every day, and theres lots of perfectly feasible hypothesises out there. Scientists have caused basic amino acids to spontaneously occur in primordial-like conditions. Just because they haven't worked out the specifics yet gives you no license to act as if the origin of life is somehow special in terms of the physical laws of the universe.

humbert · 13-05-2007 09:05PM

Indeed, as SimpleSam06 said, a hundred years ago radio waves waves were beyond the scope of our understanding so now because there isn't one conclusive model for the origin of life you dismiss science.

SimpleSam06 · 13-05-2007 09:55PM

Zillah wrote:

Bingo? What? There's something science hasn't worked out yet and therefore whatever magical nonesense you want to invent is true?

What magical nonsense did I suggest?

Zillah wrote:

Get some perspective. Science discovers new things every day, and theres lots of perfectly feasible hypothesises out there.

Well thats a load off my mind. Why don't you link to all of these brilliant hypotheses? Or even learn how to spell hypotheses? My preference is for ones not already cast aside by mainstream science as basically theology.

Zillah wrote:

Scientists have caused basic amino acids to spontaneously occur in primordial-like conditions. Just because they haven't worked out the specifics yet gives you no license to act as if the origin of life is somehow special in terms of the physical laws of the universe.

Do some research before you start outgassing about something you have obviously zero knowledge of. I mean, google it, for chrissakes. I'd find you the wikipedia link myself, but, eh, nah.

humbert wrote:

now because there isn't one conclusive model for the origin of life you dismiss science.

Do point out where I was dismissing science... Might be an idea to actually read before you post. Remember what I said about blind dogmatism?

humbert · 13-05-2007 10:14PM

Well would you clarify what you mean by an ultranatural spiritual nature?

SimpleSam06 · 14-05-2007 08:56AM

humbert wrote:

Well would you clarify what you mean by an ultranatural spiritual nature?

You still didn't point out where I was dismissing science. Or, sorry, hold on, does the use of terms that you don't like immediately indicate the abandonment of all things scientific? Would it make you happier if I said the spontaneous coagulation of non baryonic discrete particles resulting from the collapse of a waveform, mimicking that waveform, was quite a normal thing, instead?

Very scientific perspective you have there.

humbert · 14-05-2007 10:45AM

SimpleSam06 wrote:

You still didn't point out where I was dismissing science. Or, sorry, hold on, does the use of terms that you don't like immediately indicate the abandonment of all things scientific? Would it make you happier if I said the spontaneous coagulation of non baryonic discrete particles resulting from the collapse of a waveform, mimicking that waveform, was quite a normal thing, instead?

Very scientific perspective you have there.

Ah the art of pattering on pretentiously while saying nothing.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

When we can adequately explain how puddles of inanimate mud hopped up and started to leave footprints on the moon (and seriously don't bother posting links to the current theories, they are more like theology than science), we will be far closer to a more complete understanding of our spiritual nature, or lack thereof.

Out understanding shows us to be biochemical in nature and you would dismiss this to the extent where you'd suggest a spiritual component becasue there isn't one conclusive model yet?

SimpleSam06 · 14-05-2007 10:59AM

humbert wrote:

Ah the art of pattering on pretentiously while saying nothing.

Actually I said something very clearly there. That you chose not to read it is your problem, not mine.

humbert wrote:

Out understanding shows us to be biochemical in nature and you would dismiss this to the extent where you'd suggest a spiritual component becasue (sic) there isn't one conclusive model yet?

Our "understanding", which you seem to think is comprehensive in every respect, is barely blowing the snow off the tip of the iceberg of reality (which explains the reason for the Lovecraft reference earlier), and to suggest anything else is pure hubris. As for there not being one conclusive model yet, there isn't a shadow of a conclusive model anywhere on the horizon.

Your big weakness is that you seem to think I'm replacing scientific method with hocus pocus. For the last time, like a good lad, can you point out where I said that? Your fascination with the word "spiritual" is once again, more your problem than mine.

One thing I do know for sure however, is that sooner or later, we'll all find out.

Tar.Aldarion · 14-05-2007 11:08AM

Kipperhell wrote:

I was listening to Joe Duffy today when a woman came on giving out about the people criticising the people complaining about the abducted kid's parents. She said
" These people should stop being so critical and do something productive like pray"

I get praying as a way of gaining peace of mind but it doesn't product anything and little use in a real sense.

No it doesn't. It's just somebody thinking to themselves and hoping that what they want will happen. It might make people feel a little better.

Sangre · 14-05-2007 02:33PM

In five lines or less simplesam, what is the argument you're trying to put forward?

ScumLord · 14-05-2007 03:42PM

Back on prayer. I would say it could have an affect on a person, I see prayer as a half assed version of meditation and I've seen and heard of people do incredible things using meditation. Prayer probably does tap into the power of meditation randomly and I wouldn't rule out meditation as being partly responsible for "miracle cures" amongst other thing. This would all be internal and I do think the mind can control the body in a way it shouldn't be able to.

I wouldn't completely rule out meditation being able to affect the outside world either but it's highly unlikely.

LovelyTom · 14-05-2007 04:48PM

hey I'm sure she fully believes that praying is the right thing to do and there is no solid piece of evidence that it is not...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 14-05-2007 04:55PM

LovelyTom wrote:

hey I'm sure she fully believes that praying is the right thing to do and there is no solid piece of evidence that it is not...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=23126d5b41fc5c60&ex=1179288000

except this...

oh, and the millions of people who die of hunger, disease and whatnot every day all around the world. If prayer worked, surely god would do something to help these people?

aidan24326 · 14-05-2007 05:53PM

Mordeth wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=23126d5b41fc5c60&ex=1179288000

except this...

oh, and the millions of people who die of hunger, disease and whatnot every day all around the world. If prayer worked, surely god would do something to help these people?

Exactly. The belief in prayer is one of the aspects of religion that puzzles me the most, since it's patently obvious that even if there is a god, he sure aint listening. Some people will argue that prayer has at least a placebo-effect value. On the face of it this would seem plausible, given that the power of the mind in the healing process is well established but still not that well understood.

However any properly-conducted studies that have been carried out have shown that prayer either has no effect at all, or may even have a slightly negative effect. There isn't a huge amount of data on the subject, but what data is there suggests prayer is of no value at all to someone who's ill.

SimpleSam06 · 14-05-2007 06:46PM

Sangre wrote:

In five lines or less simplesam, what is the argument you're trying to put forward?

I'll do it in one, sure, even if it is a bit of a run-on.

Something as utterly dead as a doornail, literally, became alive, at some point in the past, this is why we are here on these lovely internets; at some point in future, we will likewise be dead as doornails.

The rest is enormously beyond the scope of this discussion, and don't anyone come waving equally simplistic arguments back in my face, or burbling the latest talking point overheard on atheists-r-gods.com. Believe me, we are not on opposing sides of the debate. Whats above is as near to wrong as anything else, but put forward for the edification of Sangre.

Sleepy · 15-05-2007 12:26PM

Hang on, you listened to Joe Duffy and expected to hear sense? :rolleyes:

5uspect · 15-05-2007 02:05PM

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Something as utterly dead as a doornail, literally, became alive, at some point in the past, this is why we are here on these lovely internets; at some point in future, we will likewise be dead as doornails.

You're talking in very big steps there. What does it mean to be alive?
Many of current models of the origins of life revolve around self replicating molecules (much like our own DNA). Deep sea thermal vents have even been cited as giant PCR reactors where such molecules could be amplified.

Would you consider these replicators alive?

What if they evolved complex sensory systems triggered by blind chemical impulses. Bright light = change colour, or contact with other replicator = digest it etc. We're getting close to something or a nervous system now. Our replicators are becoming mindless machines, kinda like bacteria.

Would you consider bacteria alive?

Now imagine that the bacteria developed further and were able to propel themselves crudely. Obviously through natural selection the ones that do so the best will propagate and in the right conditions may grow quite large to become something like microorganisms...

And it goes on an on, there is a spectrum of life. Just because we have developed complex neural networks between our ears doesn't make us any more or less alive. What we are seems to be is aware and thats probably a different debate.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

And yet a few hundred years ago, barely a nerve impulse that spurs the blink of an eye in the lifetime of the planet, radio waves would have been the most utter madness, the realm of the quack and charlatan.

No, making stuff up without proof is the realm of the quack and the charlatan.
Electromagnetic radiation is an observable phenomenon. Just as all of science must be. Ignoring such evidence, if it existed back then, in favour of a particular superstition would have been utter madness.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

It is, I feel, a mistake to confuse spirituality with superstition or the supernatural. Indeed, there, it is more like ultranatural than supernatural. Blind dogmatism is not confined to the realm of the religious.

Do you think rigorous adherence to the skepticism of the scientific method is dogmatic? Spirituality is in effect a flowery way of assigning an unproven, vague and nearly always supernatural aspect to the machinery that is the human mind.

When did that mean something productive?

Comments