Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Good news everyone! The Boards.ie Subscription service is live. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Artificial Life Created

1…89111314…23

Comments

  • #302
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    Just like you are still ignoring the subject being abiogenesis and you beginning a diatribe on
    "what biology accepts as true" with an expose on evolution and not on abiogenesis.

    they weren't misplaced! You should not have begun with evolution but you did because it was in response to a question about what biology accepts. It doesnt progress from abiogenesis to evolution since the topic IS abiogenesis. appealing to other aspects of biology is off topic.

    If you refer to evolution at all I would be correct. In fact the reference to evolution was quickly followed by a comment that "this of course had nothing at all to do with abiognesis"

    As I have said before, I included both evolution and abiogenesis to ensure people are free to talk about both the beginning of life in the fist place and the development of the complexity of life. I made a precise distinction, yet you accused me of conflating the two, even though I have not.
    SO? shutup already about evolution!

    Let me make myself very clear. You are not the moderator of this forum. So you will not be permitted to jump into conversations (in this case, myself and lmaopml) and declare I shut up simply because you have not familiarised yourself with the conversation. If you have a problem, then tell a moderator. Otherwise, such childish statements will be summarily ignored in the future.
    You were asked in relation to the current experiment about artificial life
    What have biologists concluded?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66008159&postcount=195

    I was asked in relation to my own post, where I said it is not the conclusion of biologists that life is unlikely to have occured without an intelligent being. If you still think my inclusion of evolution, even as distinct from abiogenesis, is inappropriate then please take it up with a moderator. Because until then I will continute to offer discussion of the occurence of life in terms of both the creation of life from non-life, and the creation of life as we know it from simpler forms of life, as both are relevant to "likeliness" statements.
    You began
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66008288&postcount=197
    with evolution and then went on about abiogenesis. If evolution was off topic why doid you introduce it?

    It is not off topic.
    The discussion is about the creation of artificial life and NOPT about the evolution of life after creation!

    I will reiterate and say that, if you truly think it is off topic then report me to a moderator. Otherwise I will continue to talk about overcoming the imrobabilities of life in the context of both abiogenesis and evolution.
    A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)

    I don't know how many times I have to repeat that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, yet the strawman of "how did life start" always creeps up in every evolution debate...
    http://www.factsnotfantasy.com/abiogenesis.php

    Actually, as this article touches on, chemicals that are thought to have been spontaneously generated (i.e. abiogenesis) can actually the product of biochemical evolution. Scientists studying abiogenesis often apply darwinian principles to chemical systems to understand how crude replicating processes might act like scaffolding for what we call life.

    From the article above:

    "it may be fruitful to explore a middle ground in which self-replicating molecules direct the assembly of new copies of themselves from a modest assortment of component modules. Competition for utilization of these components might provide the basis for Darwinian evolution, while the threshold for achieving self-replication would be greatly lowered compared with that required for residue-by-residue copying of a long polymer."


  • #303
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Interesting design. Do post it here sometime.

    Bah my bad. I read your question as "Is electricity required for your waterfall?"


  • #304
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    JimiTime wrote: »
    How many times is this asked, answers given and then some threads later repeated again! Its a flippin simple answer, so why is the above constantly asked, and by the same posters??!!

    The natural world is what it is. You DON'T apply the rules of the natural world to God. While evident inside his creation, his realm is OUTSIDE of his creation. By definition he DOESN'T have to obey natural laws etc. He is the creator of them and the natural world. He has defined what natural is, and wrote the laws of Physics etc. One can observe the world, and see its patterns and laws etc. You cannot then apply them to a being who is OUTSIDE and not under these laws and patterns.

    Of course you can disregard this creator, but can you please just TRY to comprehend why the whole Cause and effect scenario DOES NOT have to be applied to God. Phooey it or not, its a very simple concept.

    Oh yes the answer is simple, but completely unsatisfactory. The obvious question is how do you know that God is outside the laws of this realm. Is it explicitly stated anywhere?


  • #305
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's asked because what you'be just given me is a very unsatisfying answer.

    Any answer relating to God will not satisfy you. That is NOT the purpose of the answer. The purpose of the answer is to INFORM you how you CANNOT apply the Cause and Effect rule on God. It is applied to things in the universe. God being evident in, but in a realm OUTSIDE, means that he is SUPERNATURAL, and not under the created NATURAL law.
    You define a rule with no justification, that complexity requires a designer,


    then immediaty go on to mention the one and only exception to the rule. You're saying "complexity requires a designer except when it doesn't".

    No, I'm saying YOU DONT APPLY THE RULES OF THE NATURAL UNIVERSE TO THE CAUSE WHICH WAS OUTSIDE OF IT.
    If you acknowledge that complexity can arise without a designer in the case of a god, why not even consider the possibility that there might be other exceptions to the rule? We are both after all stating that complexity can arise without a designer given certain conditions so we both know that the idea that complexity requires a designer is false

    There is NO EXCEPTION. An exception would be something happening WITHIN THIS REALM. They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REALMS.


  • #306
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's asked because what you'be just given me is a very unsatisfying answer. You define a rule with no justification, that complexity requires a designer, then immediaty go on to mention the one and only exception to the rule. You're saying "complexity requires a designer except when it doesn't".

    If you acknowledge that complexity can arise without a designer in the case of a god, why not even consider the possibility that there might be other exceptions to the rule? We are both after all stating that complexity can arise without a designer given certain conditions so we both know that the idea that complexity requires a designer is false

    Hi Sam,

    I'm sure most people these days do 'consider' things before they make a leap of faith..

    With respect, what makes you believe that people of faith 'consider' any less?

    ....and has Science always been 'satisfactory' for you?...even when it errs really bad? I understand having 'faith' in the 'method'....but I don't see how it equates to living in the very 'best' manner and informs us as to how to make choices.

    God, imo is a reasonable choice, far more reasonable than 'chance'...

    or the FSM, who I must say brings a smile to my face when I see him mentioned so often..:)


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Any answer relating to God will not satisfy you. That is NOT the purpose of the answer. The purpose of the answer is to INFORM you how you CANNOT apply the Cause and Effect rule on God. It is applied to things in the universe. God being evident in, but in a realm OUTSIDE, means that he is SUPERNATURAL, and not under the created NATURAL law.






    No, I'm saying YOU DONT APPLY THE RULES OF THE NATURAL UNIVERSE TO THE CAUSE WHICH WAS OUTSIDE OF IT.


    There is NO EXCEPTION. An exception would be something happening WITHIN THIS REALM. They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REALMS.
    yes I know they're defined as being different realms but the fact that you are able to conceive of a realm where this arbitrary rule that you have defined does not apply does not mean that this realm exists. And nor does it mean that your application of this rule to our realm is valid

    I'm told time and time again how there is no conflict between science and religion and how most Christians accept evolution but here you are applying an arbitrary rule to our universe, that complexity requires a designer, even though 150 years of scientific research, the theory at the core of biology that is as strongly supported as any in science shows this not to be the case. Either you accept the theory as it's written in the science books or you don't and since you're applying a rule to our universe that is quite clearly broken by the theory it would appear to me that you don't.


  • #308
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    JimiTime wrote: »
    No, I'm saying YOU DONT APPLY THE RULES OF THE NATURAL UNIVERSE TO THE CAUSE WHICH WAS OUTSIDE OF IT.

    There is NO EXCEPTION. An exception would be something happening WITHIN THIS REALM. They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REALMS.

    And what are these rules? We currently don't have a physical description of what has been called the "beginning" of the universe. And our current approximation doesn't imply a cause (as there was never a moment when the universe did not exist.)


  • #309
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Hi Sam,

    I'm sure most people these days do 'consider' things before they make a leap of faith..

    With respect, what makes you believe that people of faith 'consider' any less?

    ....and has Science always been 'satisfactory' for you?...even when it errs really bad? I understand having 'faith' in the 'method'....but I don't see how it equates to living in the very 'best' manner and informs us as to how to make choices.

    God, imo is a reasonable choice, far more reasonable than 'chance'...

    or the FSM, who I must say brings a smile to my face when I see him mentioned so often..:)

    Hey lmaopml, :)


    It's more about a quest for truth and what a person e.g Sam, Malty
    perceives as the best way to getting to the truth. To me, the idea of a God seems too convenient an answer to be the truth. It may indeed be true, but the sceptic in me says "If it seems too good to be true...". Science has many unsatisfactory answers in that namely it doesn't actually have many answers at all. What it does do though is help eliminate false answers. Yes it will sometimes err in regard to this but as history has shown science has the humility to self correct itself. Indeed that is basically what science is : a self correcting process. It also rather annoyingly poses questions that put my brain in huge knots. However that's what I want to be actively seeking and questions things, not just accepting an answer because they offer an explanation that you can't question. (St Augustine it was that said God created Hell, before he created the universe for people like me who are ask the awkward questions.) I'd rather die knowing the truth but open to the possibility of my truth being wrong. Than die with a falsity and be certain that I am right. In short, sceptism is my belief and science is the best tool that allows me to express it.


  • #310
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Hi Sam,

    I'm sure most people these days do 'consider' things before they make a leap of faith..

    With respect, what makes you believe that people of faith 'consider' any less?

    ....and has Science always been 'satisfactory' for you?...even when it errs really bad? I understand having 'faith' in the 'method'....but I don't see how it equates to living in the very 'best' manner and informs us as to how to make choices.

    God, imo is a reasonable choice, far more reasonable than 'chance'...

    or the FSM, who I must say brings a smile to my face when I see him mentioned so often..:)

    I don't know if replying to this will be considered off topic but you asked me a question so I'll answer it

    Science is of course not always satisfactory, it errs all the time. But what is less satisfactory to me is taking a supernatural man and using him to plug all the gaps in our knowledge. People throughout history have ascribed the unlikely and the unexplained to intelligent supernatural agency and as human knowledge has advanced we have found that they were invariably wrong to do so. There are still some gaps left to be plugged but since we were wrong about the supernatural man/woman/whatever all those other times I see no reason to think we're right about him this time.


  • #311
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Hey lmaopml, :)

    It's more about a quest for truth and what a person e.g Sam, Malty
    perceives as the best way to getting to the truth. To me, the idea of a God seems a lazy cop out because people don't have the humility to admit that they're actually not important in the grand scheme of things. We all like to think we were created for some purpose. I'm comfortable with thought of my life being ultimately meaningless. Science has many unsatisfactory answers in that namely it doesn't actually have many answers at all : All it does it poses questions that put my brain in huge knots. However that's what I want to be actively seeking out and questioning things, not just accepting an answer because it feels good and others have done so. I'd rather die knowing the truth but open to the possibility of it being wrong. Than die with a falsity and be certain that I am right. In short, sceptism is my belief and the scientific method is the best tool that allows me to express it.

    LOL, yeah I get that, and can understand why people may feel that way....I can assure you that keeping faith isn't always easy - with anything really...

    However, ( there's always an 'however':) ) what I don't get is why we're fighting over it? Not me in particular now..lol..

    ..or the assumption that accepting the belief in God somehow compromises the search for truth? Also, I understand the idea of not alligning oneself with anything that 'may' be proven false and always seeking answers and looking for truth and seeing the attraction of a scientific method to do so...

    ...but the biggest strawman here is that any Religion is making a scientific proposal? They aren't.....although I know there have been some hairy characters, but we're all living in this century now, with equal knowledge and freedom of choice..

    I don't want to get all biblical; but there are a few words that explain the underlying issue with this arguement that we have to face up to...

    'Happy are those who have not seen and yet have believed'....

    ..call it foolish, that's ok we can be called foolish for many things, but that's what we call 'faith'...


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    yes I know they're defined as being different realms

    Then that should be the end to the whole, 'If you say that Cause and Effect is something in this universe, what caused God'.
    I'm not interested in convincing anyone of the Cause and Effect scenario, or presenting evidence for a designer etc. I am simply showing how the 'Well what caused God then?' question is a complete nonsense question when used to discredit the arguement that things in the universe have a cause. By all means present evidence to show how maybe they don't have a cause, but understand how trying to discredit it by saying 'Well what caused God then', is completely lacking in any understanding of what does and does not apply to a Christians understanding of God.


  • #313
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    straw man deconstruction. If a deity is not required then why would a deity be involved?

    I don't know, because it can ?
    MS, we know by your own admission you are atheist, anti-theist, hate evangelicals and by logical inference you have a problem with Christianity and scientists who profess a faith.

    Atheist - yes
    Anti-theist - To an extent.
    Hate Evangelicals - Absolutely.
    Christianity - No problem whatsoever.
    Scientists who have a faith - Absolutely no problem whatsoever with anyone, scientist or not who has faith in any religion they wish.

    My problem is when they try to force it on others, or deny facts, and preach this falsehood. e.g > Creationism.
    Now, imagine you are a member of M. mycoides. How would man appear to you. As a deity perhaps?

    Of course. And we would appear so to people born 1000 years ago. So what ?
    Now, imagine you are a member of the newly created M. mycoides venter. How would man appear to you. As a scientific deity perhaps?

    Of course.
    Proof positive to my mind that if you are M. mycoides venter that for your creation a deity is both required and involved.

    Since when does 'appear to be a deity' = being a deity ?


  • #314
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Then that should be the end to the whole, 'If you say that Cause and Effect is something in this universe, what caused God?
    Um, if you read the rest of my post you'll see why it shouldn't, why the baseless assigning of a rule to our universe and the equally baseless declararion that there is a realm where this arbitrarily defined rule does not apply is not a satisfactory answer.


  • #315
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    lmaopml wrote: »
    LOL, yeah I get that, and can understand why people may feel that way....I can assure you that keeping faith isn't always easy - with anything really...

    However, ( there's always an 'however':) ) what I don't get is why we're fighting over it? Not me in particular now..lol..

    ..or the assumption that accepting the belief in God somehow compromises the search for truth? Also, I understand the idea of not alligning oneself with anything that 'may' be proven false and always seeking answers and looking for truth and seeing the attraction of a scientific method to do so...

    ...but the biggest strawman here is that any Religion is making a scientific proposal? They aren't.....although I know there have been some hairy characters, but we're all living in this century now, with equal knowledge and freedom of choice..

    I don't want to get all biblical; but there are a few words that explain the underlying issue with this arguement that we have to face up to...

    'Happy are those who have not seen and yet have believed'....

    ..call it foolish, that's ok we can be called foolish for many things, but that's what we call 'faith'...

    Hmm well I had to run a lightening edit on my original post, looks like I wasn't quick enough. :o

    Anyways the jist of both posts was more or less the same. Though I took out somethings that may go against the charter. :)

    Having been a devout Catholic for oh so many years I know how troublesome and mentally tormenting faith can be at times. Especially when things don't go your way and seemingly unfairly so. The reason why having a positive belief in God is unacceptable to me is because if I am to follow Christian doctrine properly I cannot follow various fundamental attributes applied to Him. If I cannot question an idea then I will not subscribe to it, that is my philosophy.

    Like you I don't think Christianity makes any scientific statements. My grounds for questions are purely philosophical ones about God, the bible etc.


    Btw, I don't think people of faith are foolish, I just think some are. Like I do with people of sport, politics etc, lol :)


  • #316
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Again, it being wildly unlikely to have occurred otherwise, gives credence at least as far as I am concerned that there is a higher intelligence involved.

    We have no idea how probable or improbable it was because we don't know how it happened.

    You might as well talk about the probability of an alien from planet X winning their version of the lotto. Its impossible to make even a guess at the probabilities involved.
    People discard what seems unlikely to them, and affirm what seems to make sense. That's what I and others are doing in this case.

    Yes and its wrong. People believe all sorts of stuff because it personally makes sense to them. Thats why you have astrology, scientology etc.

    People naturally see patterns in randomness, its human nature, its how we work.
    Indeed, this is the justification that many use to reject God also.

    That he is unlikely ? I think you don't understand most atheists' positions. I don't reject god, I have no feelings whatsoever regarding the christian god. I don't know he exists, I don't know he doesn't exist. But much much more importantly, I don't care.


  • #317
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    monosharp wrote: »
    My problem is when they try to force it on others, or deny facts, and preach this falsehood. e.g > Creationism.

    Well there are no Creationists here that I am aware of and if there are they are keeping it quiet. There might be one or two in the A&A forum or discussing it in the active creationists thread which is fine.
    And if there were this is probably the best place for them so if you do see one here best leave them be. If you meet them in A&A that's a different matter.
    monosharp wrote: »
    Since when does 'appear to be a deity' = being a deity ?

    in the context of this thought experiment when you said "of course"


  • #318
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Equally frustrating is talking to atheists who make assumptions about religious persons understanding of science.

    Anyone that comes out with a sentence containing the words "Just a theory" has already proven they have no understanding of science.

    Theories, laws, facts, hypothesis. These are the basis of science and if you don't understand the terminology and the meaning then how can you claim to understand anything else ?
    Strawman. What has been mentioned here and elsewhere is that the Big Bang theory explains what happened after the universe started.
    Unfortunately for atheists some other atheists don't understand that and have tried to use the Big Bang theory to assist them in support of their assertions for their belief in the non-existence of God.

    Some atheists can use whatever they wish to support their belief in the non-existence of god. It matters not to me. Atheism is not a group, atheism is not a belief.

    There are enough scientists here, both professional and armchair, to debunk any use of science in support of atheism or anti-Christianity.[/QUOTE]


  • #319
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Um, if you read the rest of my post you'll see why it shouldn't, why the baseless assigning of a rule to our universe and the equally baseless declararion that there is a realm where this arbitrarily defined rule does not apply is not a satisfactory answer.

    The rest of your post is irrelevant!

    If a person says, 'God created the universe. And everything in the universe has a cause.'

    IT IS distinctly lacking in understanding to think, 'WHAT CAUSED GOD' is somehow a question that discredits their position. IT DOESN'T. By the very definition, a creator is not confined to its creation, and therefore any laws/rules etc the created observe DO NOT then relate to the creator. They only observe the creation. They may be talking utter cr@p, but that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The point is, saying 'Well what caused God' as a means to discredit their position is moronic, senseless, and completely lacking in understanding.

    You may be able to pull asunder the view that the universe has a cause etc, and I couldn't care less if you could or not. Saying, 'But what caused God?' in an effort to discredit their assertion that all in the universe has a cause however, simply displays a complete lack of comprehension of the difference between what applies to the created compared to the creator.


  • #320
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    monosharp wrote: »
    Of course. And we would appear so to people born 1000 years ago. So what ?

    Sorry, missed this bit. Eh, no. We appear to people born 1000 years ago as people. Evolution does not work that fast.
    They may think our clothing strange and our technology either magical or satanic but if we appeared to them naked they would only see that we speak a different language and are more likely to be obese.

    We are not vastly more powerful or more intelligent. We do have more knowledge but knowledge and intelligence while related are not the same thing.


  • #321
    Nick Dolan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭Nick Dolan


    Man, This thread is a pirana tank but its kept me glued to my laptop for a couple of hours reading every single post, and id like to weigh in my opinions as a pro - science Atheist ( while acknowledging they dont have to go together)

    1. I think the OPs point was that A Chritian God was not required to produce this new strain of life. This to me is another example of science reducing the domain of events/phenomenon that 100% require a supernatural creator. The arguements revolved around how much of a decrease Ventners actions resulted in, but this supernatural domain has been reduced and continues to be reduced by science.

    2. Forgive me if this is off topic but that stuff about religion informing science or in any way helping our understanding of the universe made my blood boil. Religious thought (including non Christian) has been such a barrier to critical thought and progress. Scientists had to be Christian, the same way they had to be heterosexual, and it was only when they dared to venture outside their faith that they advanced our knowledge


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    monosharp wrote: »
    Anyone that comes out with a sentence containing the words "Just a theory" has already proven they have no understanding of science.

    I think you are mixing me up with some politician or journalist. A theory or always just that, a theory. Open to debunking or change depending on peer review or what another scientist or team discovers no matter how wildly accepted.
    The LHC will probably destroy a few theories in its time, just as the theory of geocentricity was destroyed by new evidence and new discoveries, as were the theories of early medicine, alchemy and spontaneous generation. All widely held in their time. Will the theory of evolution be debunked? Probably not but it will change.
    When I say a theory is just a theory I mean it is not yet written in stone and is open to review and modification. Human evolutionary theory is constantly under change as new fossils and DNA records are found. Quantum theory, again constantly under change. Big Bang theory constantly under change.
    If you do not understand this you are less of a scientist than those you throw atheistic dogma at.
    monosharp wrote: »
    Theories, laws, facts, hypothesis. These are the basis of science and if you don't understand the terminology and the meaning then how can you claim to understand anything else ?

    I do. Do you?

    monosharp wrote: »
    Some atheists can use whatever they wish to support their belief in the non-existence of god. It matters not to me. Atheism is not a group, atheism is not a belief.

    My definition of atheism is that it is a dogmatic faith based belief in the unprovable. It matters not to me what your definition is as I am fairly certain that If I can get 10 atheists in a room I will get more than a few definitions. Wiki provides at least three. My definition works for me and my dealings with atheists has provided no evidence that my definition is wrong. Quite the opposite in fact.

    I think that's only fair as the God I believe in is not the same God you don't.
    Put it another way - I don't believe in the God you don't believe in either.


  • #323
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Nick Dolan wrote: »
    Man, This thread is a pirana tank but its kept me glued to my laptop for a couple of hours reading every single post, and id like to weigh in my opinions as a pro - science Atheist ( while acknowledging they dont have to go together)

    Are there many atheists who are not pro-science?
    Nick Dolan wrote: »
    1. I think the OPs point was that A Chritian God was not required to produce this new strain of life. This to me is another example of science reducing the domain of events/phenomenon that 100% require a supernatural creator. The arguements revolved around how much of a decrease Ventners actions resulted in, but this supernatural domain has been reduced and continues to be reduced by science.

    Judeo-Christian - he paraphrased Genesis. I say paraphrased because he gave no source and plagiarism is a charter violation. There are lots of versions of the Bible around these days.

    We need a definition of "new strain of life" as it is clear that God did not create hybrid creatures. It could be argued that this new "Mycoplasma laboratorium" is a synthetic hybrid. The OP moved swiftly to vitalism, to be followed sporadically by others, ignoring the fact that vitalism was essentially debunked by Watson and Crick in 1967. Since then we have known that putting viable DNA into a host cell or cell nucleus will produce a living cell. Ask Dolly the sheep. Sorry, she's dead now.

    Whether science has reduced this or is continuing to reduce this, is immaterial as science does not have at its heart the goal of debunking the supernatural. In fact science has nothing to say about the supernatural. Studies of the supernatural are generally left to theologians and atheists. While theologians may sometimes call on science, science being a creation of God, atheists rarely call on theology. Go figure. The Media may think differently but they're chasing the money.
    Nick Dolan wrote: »
    2. Forgive me if this is off topic but that stuff about religion informing science or in any way helping our understanding of the universe made my blood boil. Religious thought (including non Christian) has been such a barrier to critical thought and progress. Scientists had to be Christian, the same way they had to be heterosexual, and it was only when they dared to venture outside their faith that they advanced our knowledge

    off topic - inflammatory perhaps - personally because I happen to be a scientist who has faith in God. But that's just me. Given the number of Christians in Ireland and the number of third level courses that are based in science that would not be unusual.

    I understand where some can suggest religious thought can inhibit certain forms of thinking but anyone calling themselves a scientist knows what is presentable and what is not, depending on when they are trying to present it and and what, and maybe even why, unless we are in an Islamic country which we are not. However we have moved beyond that now so I would ask why you moved so swiftly from the infinitive present to the past tense in your narrative.

    I suspect Galileo will come up. I'm open to correction if required. Did he venture outside of his faith or did he impartially explore the science? Did he later make a mistake by accidentally insulting his greatest supporter, the Pope? So, was it religion or politics that caused Galileo his problems?

    If not Galileo is it some other form of scientific research you feel is inhibited by Christianity or religious thought then please present whatever it is in science you feel is inhibited.

    This is 2010. Yes we made mistakes in the past. But this is now.

    Get over it.

    Move on.

    If you have a problem now tell us.


  • #324
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    All we need now are experiments for the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution.

    Well first of all you might want to read up on the scientific method and what evidence is required to qualify something as a theory.

    Second of all there are experiments for the Big Bang, models of abiogenesis and as for evolution, theres literally thousands of experiments which have all verified the fact of evolution.

    Thirdly, the Big Bang is a theory supported by evidence. Abiogenesis is an umbrella term for several models which try to explain how life could have come about, there is no clear theory of abiogenesis, in that abiogenesis is the 'theory' that ;'In the natural sciences, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.' (wiki)

    Evolution is a fact (Organisms change over time, common descent) and a theory (How).

    Of all three, evolution (fact & theory) is as strong as the law of gravity and the theory of relativity. (fact & theory)

    The Big Bang (theory) is very well supported by the evidence.

    Abiogenesis (theory containing many models) is nowhere near as well supported.
    I trust whoever performs these knows that they need to mimic exactly the conditions of the Big Bang, the earth when life appeared and a method of speeding up evolution so the experiments can be peer reviewed.

    Utter nonsense not worthy of a reply.
    Evolution - is it observable in real time? No- we cannot see things evolve.

    Yes we can see organisms evolve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
    Is it repeatable? No - we cannot make things evolve. Is it verifiable? Plausible from historic evidence

    Yes it is repeatable.
    Big Bang - is it observable in real time? No. Is it repeatable? No, but bits of it are in small scale experiments. Is it verifiable? Plausible from historic evidence

    Observable -> Grab a telescope.
    Repeatable -> Theres this small experiment running in Switzerland, perhaps your've heard of it ?
    Abiogenesis - is it observable in real time? No. Is it repeatable? No. Is it verifiable? No. Is it in fact a theory? Not yet but there are hypotheses.

    There is no concrete model of abiogenesis to test. Examples of experiments would include the Miller-Urey experiment which observed organic material organising itself from inorganic material. Not life, but organic material.
    In the meantime I'm sending a request to Mythbusters to see if life can be created with only four bottles of chemicals, a computer, something from under the foreskin, and some brewers yeast.

    Your scientific knowledge comes from Mythbusters ? Good job.


  • #325
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    monosharp wrote: »
    You might as well talk about the probability of an alien from planet X winning their version of the lotto. Its impossible to make even a guess at the probabilities involved.

    Probability theory is universal so they would have the same probability as a lotto player on earth.

    D'oh!

    monosharp wrote: »
    Yes and its wrong. People believe all sorts of stuff because it personally makes sense to them. Thats why you have astrology, scientology etc.

    I've heard of them. Aren't they the atheists favourite sciences?

    monosharp wrote: »
    That he is unlikely ? I think you don't understand most atheists' positions. I don't reject god, I have no feelings whatsoever regarding the christian god. I don't know he exists, I don't know he doesn't exist. But much much more importantly, I don't care.

    If you don't care why bother coming in to the Christianity forum?


  • #326
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    ISAW wrote: »
    This particular research does not prove that. But if it did so what?

    I think thats what I've learned from this thread. Theres absolutely nothing scientific that would ever make the majority of religious people of any faith question it.

    Science has shown us that the bible cannot be taken literally regarding genesis, that god did not create all life as it is now but that life evolved over millions of years from much simpler forms of life.

    No problem to mainstream christians, they just start taking genesis metaphorically instead of literally.

    Science has shown us that a worldwide flood a la Noah never happened, nor could ever happen the way its portrayed in the bible. Literally of course.

    No problem to mainstream christians, they just start taking that story metaphorically or change their minds from a 'worldwide' flood to a localised one.

    If science showed us tomorrow that abiogenesis did indeed occur and thats how all life started on this planet then christians would simply say "God started it all, abiogenesis and evolution were his tools".

    If scientists showed us next week that the Universe has actually always existed (No idea how they would do this, just an example) and that our universe continues to expand and contract christians would simply sidestep it again.

    Its impossible to get religious people to accept their beliefs might be wrong or even slightly wrong. They will never admit it, they will simply sidestep it as they have done throughout history.

    So yes, I understand your 'so what?' very well now.


  • #327
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    ISAW wrote: »
    So somewhere there is a perfect theory which perfectly describes the universe? and science is trying to reach they goal you believe exists?

    You know as well as I that I said no such thing. I said 'less wrong'.
    But like God isn't it?

    Science can say nothing about the supernatural.
    Now you are contradicting yourself. all of a sudden there is no science describing the real world . all there is is "available evidence" and science is only about describing what is available at the time and there are no absolute laws to the universe?

    When did I say there were absolute laws ? gravity is a law 'as far as we know'. Take a spacecraft somewhere else in the universe and maybe gravity is different/doesn't exist.

    Science is falsifiable, not provable. Evolution will never be 100% proven, gravity will never be 100% proven.

    Although I think you know that and your just trying to grab at straws.


  • #328
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Gravity is a fact, observable, repeatable, irrefutable. It keeps us and everything else on the planet, provides orbits for satellites, free return trajectories for lost astronouts etc etc etc

    Evolution is a fact, observable, repeatable, irrefutable (nothing in science is irrefutable, gravity included). It keeps us and everything else on the planet evolving to better adapt to our environment.
    How gravity works is a theory.

    How evolution works is a theory.

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

    http://www.notjustatheory.com/
    There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.


  • #329
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    I can see and experience the effects of gravity every day. I can test it at will.

    I cannot see or experience the effects of evolution every day.

    Look in the mirror. Look at your parents, look at other organisms.
    I cannot test it at will.

    Sure you can. Have a child.
    I can see over time some species go through minor changes but that is not necessarily evolution.

    That is exactly what evolution is. 'Change over time'.
    I can examine the palaeontological record and make deductions.

    Yep.
    I can examine bacteria in the lab and make observations.

    Yep
    This is why I am fully prepared to accept evolutionary theory but while repeatability does not exist it remains a theory for me. Others may consider it a fact but fact it is not.

    The theory of gravity could not exist without the law of gravity.
    The theory of evolution could not exist without the fact of evolution.


  • #330
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    JimiTime wrote: »
    By all means present evidence to show how maybe they don't have a cause, but understand how trying to discredit it by saying 'Well what caused God then', is completely lacking in any understanding of what does and does not apply to a Christians understanding of God.

    Jimi, cause and effect, indeed time itself is just how we perceive things.

    There was no 'before' the big bang because time was created at the big bang. There can be nothing before time started.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    in the context of this thought experiment when you said "of course"

    So you think 'gods' in religions today simply 'appear' to be deities but are in fact just more advanced then us ? :confused:

    You'd be happy to worship a natural being that was simply more advanced technologically or physically or ... ?

    All hail RA. :pac:

    egyptand03.jpg


Advertisement