Artificial Life Created

monosharp · 24-05-2010 04:51AM

StealthRolex wrote: »

Sorry, missed this bit. Eh, no. We appear to people born 1000 years ago as people.

What ? If I went back to Rome with my AK47, my laptop, an airforce attack helicopter and an atom bomb, declared myself to be a new 'god' do you really think they wouldn't believe me when I nuked a few cities with my 'red button of doom', took out 10-30 enemy soldiers at a time with my 'thunder bolt stick' and showed them my magic 'moving picture' window ?

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.

uh huh ... why would we appear to them naked if the point was to make them think we were gods ?

We are not vastly more powerful or more intelligent.

With technology yes we are. We would be god-like.

monosharp · 24-05-2010 05:03AM

StealthRolex wrote: »

All widely held in their time. Will the theory of evolution be debunked? Probably not but it will change.

Of course it changes. It changes every day.

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.

And this is why I said what I did. A theory is never written in stone, theories do not get proven 100%, theories always change. A theory does not change into a law or a fact, a theory explains laws and facts. Theories are above laws and facts.

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.

So that computer your using, aren't you worried that its based on a theory ? :pac:

I do. Do you?

Clearly you do not. And you've proven you do not.

My definition of atheism is that it is a dogmatic faith based belief in the unprovable.

Good for you. I don't care. I'm sure the other people here don't care. and I'm pretty sure most of humanity doesn't care.

My definition of 'fun' is cigarettes, booze and two <censored>. It matters not what 'my' definition is the same way it matters not what your definition is.

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.

Faith based belief in the unprovable ? Tell me what I believe thats unprovable ?

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.

Not having belief is not having a belief. I do not believe theres no god, I don't think its probable.

monosharp · 24-05-2010 05:07AM

StealthRolex wrote: »

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

Oh would they ? What kind of machine do they use ? How many names are entered ? How often does their lotto take place ? How is a winner decided ? How many numbers do you pick ? Whats their counting system ? Decimal ? Binary ? Hexadecimal ? How .... etc.

We don't have anywhere near enough information on the factors involved to make any kind of guess at the probabilities involved. You can make probabilities about tossing a coin or winning the lotto because you know all the factors. We have little to no idea about the factors involved in the origin of life through abiogenesis hence why there are so many models.

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

When did I ever try to persuade anyone that a deity didn't exist ?

Sam Vimes · 24-05-2010 08:01AM

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

Jimitime, I understand what is being said, I simply reject it as being baseless semantics

The first problem is your premise, that complexity requires a designer in this realm. This is an entirely baseless declaration that is in direct conflict with 150 years of scientific research. If your premise is right, the theory of evolution is wrong

The second problem is the declaration that there is a realm outside our universe where this rule does not apply. It begs the question "how do you know?" I know that you define this realm as being outside of creation and therefore not subject to the same rules but just because you define such a place does not mean it actually exists. We both have to tackle the idea of complexity arising without a designer. I do it by pointing to the theory of evolution that describes a mechanism that can do this and you do it by making an unjustified blanket assertion about our universe and then making a baseless assertion that there is a realm outside our universe where this otherwise blanket assertion does not apply.

The overall point is that there is absolutely no need to posit a supernatural realm outside our universe that contains (please use a phrase which doesn't attempt to troll) in order to find the exception to this rule you have defined, the exception is already known to science as existing inside this realm. It's evolution, that theory that Christians are so eager to say they accept

Either you accept the theory which describes a mechanism by which complexity can arise without a designer, showing your premise to be false or you dont, in which case your religious beliefs are in direct conflict with science

Turtwig · 24-05-2010 09:29AM

StealthRolex wrote: »

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.

How convenient. There's so many different flavours of atheism because for some it's a positive belief there is no God. For others it's a lack of belief. If your want to form your own suitable definition of atheism that you find easy to argue against feel free to do. It is however one big huge hunk of straw. Atheism, doesn't require any set characteristics or philosophical beliefs, all it requires is a lack of belief in God. I'm sorry if you find that awkward to accept but if you want to discuss stuff with atheists in an approachable manner the least you could do is understand that atheism can be basically anything as long as the belief in a Deity isn't involved.

As for not believing in the God you think we think you do. Well, as a Christian, you are required in the believe in a God under a set definition and characteristics as defined by the Bible.

If this isn't the God you believe. Then please state so.

StealthRolex · 24-05-2010 09:43AM

monosharp wrote: »

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.

and atheists, religious or otherwise?

StealthRolex · 24-05-2010 09:46AM

Malty_T wrote: »

As for not believing in the God you think we think you do. Well, as a Christian, you are required in the believe in a God under a set definition and characteristics as defined by the Bible.

If this isn't the God you believe. Then please state so.

There are probably more flavours of Christianity than there are flavours of atheism. Or the reverse could be true.

It might be easier if you explained which God you don't believe in.

StealthRolex · 24-05-2010 09:55AM

monosharp wrote: »

Oh would they ? What kind of machine do they use ? How many names are entered ? How often does their lotto take place ? How is a winner decided ? How many numbers do you pick ? Whats their counting system ? Decimal ? Binary ? Hexadecimal ? How .... etc.

We don't have anywhere near enough information on the factors involved to make any kind of guess at the probabilities involved. You can make probabilities about tossing a coin or winning the lotto because you know all the factors. We have little to no idea about the factors involved in the origin of life through abiogenesis hence why there are so many models.

Alien Lotto: Does it matter? mathematics is the same across the universe. Decimal, binary, hexadecimal , whatever can all be used to provide a measure of probablility.
All we need to know is how many numbers they to chose from how many are available.

Abiogenesis. Isn't that a bit too convenient. You say evolution is a fact without having all the factors yet not enough factors to make a stab at abiogenesis yet you give it the same weight of validity.

monosharp wrote: »

When did I ever try to persuade anyone that a deity didn't exist ?

When did you ever engage in a discussion in the Christianity forum without an agenda?

monosharp · 24-05-2010 10:00AM

StealthRolex wrote: »

and atheists, religious or otherwise?

Wrong about what ? I make no statement of belief in anything. I don't claim to know there is a god, I don't know to claim there isn't. What can I possibly be wrong about when I make no claims to know either way ?

Atheism has no belief, atheism has no doctrine.

ISAW · 24-05-2010 10:12AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm hoping this is considered on topic enough to avoid the wrath of the moderators......

On what basis do you declare that to be a fact? What I see is that in this specific case intelligence was applied to create synthetic life that is far more complex than what is theorised to have been the first form of life. How do you get from "intelligence was applied in this case" to "intelligence must be applied for this to happen"?

That is a fair point. I would think more along the lines of "we know of no instance where it happened by accident and all the instances we know of another intelligence was involved"
a bit like "when we look at the surface of Mars we see features which we have seen elsewhere and are ONLY caused by water elsewhere. We therefore think that in the case of Mars the features were caused by water. Of course the FSM could have made the Mars surface features with his "noodly appendage" but based on the observation of such features being caused by water in every other instance that we know of we think that water on Mars in the past is a more likely explanation."

Similarly it is possible that biological life happened by accident but any lifeform we know of involved a prior intelligence or life form being involved in its creation.

Also, if intelligence must be applied in order for such complexity to be created, what was the intelligence that was involved in creating god?

That is a different matter. The concept of god does not require a creator of god. It isn't "turtles all the way down"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Or are there some exceptions made to this rule that complexity requires a designer?

That is an argument to do with intelligent design which I am not making. But if you want to go into it complexity requires someone observing it to understand what complexity is. given their definition it doesn't require a designer. But the point in this instance is whether initial life required a designer. I might have been designed or it might not have in either case that does not disprove God.

monosharp · 24-05-2010 10:16AM

StealthRolex wrote: »

Alien Lotto: Does it matter? mathematics is the same across the universe. Decimal, binary, hexadecimal , whatever can all be used to provide a measure of probablility.
All we need to know is how many numbers they to chose from how many are available.

Completely missed that didn't you ?

We can predict the probability of someone winning the lotto in ireland for example because we know all the factors involved.

The lotto takes place twice a week. X number of people enter the draw.
Person X buys a ticket for each draw.
The draw consists of X balls and Y number of balls are drawn.
etc. etc. etc.

We have no idea what a 'lotto' draw on an alien world would be like. Maybe they have a draw only once a year, or once a month or once a day, maybe only 5 aliens enter this draw or 5 million or 50 million or 50 billion. Maybe there are only 2 balls, maybe there are 20, maybe 200, maybe 300. Maybe balls can be selected more then once, maybe .... etc etc etc.

We have absolutely no idea about the factors involved.

Take a simpler example. Could you predict the probability of an alien coin toss ?

50/50 yeah ? What if they have more then 2 sides ?

Somalian coins ->

Abiogenesis. Isn't that a bit too convenient. You say evolution is a fact without having all the factors yet not enough factors to make a stab at abiogenesis yet you give it the same weight of validity.

No I don't, I specifically corrected you on the differences involved. Your the one who packed them all togeather.

StealthRolex · 24-05-2010 10:26AM

monosharp wrote: »

Clearly you do not. And you've proven you do not.

Nonesense. because I treat science in a manner different to how you want me to is no proof whatsoever. If anything it is proof positive that you are a poor scientist if a scientist at all.

I take a hypothesis and test it. It passes the test or it fails. You on the other hand are clearly prepared to take any theory that suits your agenda and pass it off dogmatically as fact.

people like you are the ruin of science.

ISAW · 24-05-2010 10:31AM

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)

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.

Good point but I suggest you look up "God of the Gaps" and "xeno's paradox"
Think of a mathematical series where every step you take is half the last one. So you go 1->1.5 -> 1.75 and so on. Assuming "proof of no God" > 2 you will never reach 2, well

you will at infinity maybe so that why I put >2 ... but I think you might get the point.

Another point I would like to introduce here is the Chinese Room, and the scientist as an "intelligent observer or intelligent experimenter" standing apart form the expierment.

Ill begin with the latter. Let us say a scientist rolls balls down a hill and used this to explain the probability pattern of where the balls eventually come to rest. One can say that in order to do the experiment a scientist was required to start the balls rolling. But the experiment can also explain the probability of them ending up in particular destinations even if balls just magically appeared at the top of the hill.

the chinese room is a senario to fo with artificial intelligence. Ther is a Room in China and you write out questions and stick them in a slot and some time later an answer comes back. No suppose ther is a man inside the room who cant read chinese or whatever language the question is in. He has a big book of instructions beginning "look at the first symbol on the paper" and looks up the symbols and goes to certain drawyers which lead him to other symbols and eventually his instruction list says " put the paper (answer) back out through the hole" Effectively he is a computer system. The questionis is the chinese room intelligent? It is a bit off topic though but worth considering for those people who posted about intelligent designers being involved
http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

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.

Really? So you think geneticists can decide for themselves what they should clone or whether abortion should be allowed on demand and religious people and the rest of society should just butt out?

Religious thought (including non Christian) has been such a barrier to critical thought and progress.

Science and theology are steeped in rationalism the "logos" of the Greeks.

Scientists had to be Christian,

AHA! So Chinese and African and other countries didnt have "science" ? It is only the Western Greek rationality based science that is really science? The SAME rationality that the Church absorbed?

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

That is a preposterous Claim! "Only people who ventured outside Christianity advanced science" Nonsense!

monosharp · 24-05-2010 10:35AM

StealthRolex wrote: »

Nonesense. because I treat science in a manner different to how you want me to is no proof whatsoever. If anything it is proof positive that you are a poor scientist if a scientist at all.

When did I ever say I was or was not a scientist ?

Whereas you think someone who would use the phrase "just a theory" is knowledgeable about science ? Anyone who would use that phrase about any scientific theory would be laughed out of any scientific gathering.

A theory in science is not the same as a theory in the English language.

I've given you numerous links and you have seemingly failed to read or understand them.

Evolution is a fact : Organisms change over time. Common Ancestry.
Evolution is also a theory : The 'How' of the fact.

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

Sam Vimes · 24-05-2010 10:35AM

ISAW wrote: »

That is a fair point. I would think more along the lines of "we know of no instance where it happened by accident and all the instances we know of another intelligence was involved"
a bit like "when we look at the surface of Mars we see features which we have seen elsewhere and are ONLY caused by water elsewhere. We therefore think that in the case of Mars the features were caused by water. Of course the FSM could have made the Mars surface features with his "noodly appendage" but based on the observation of such features being caused by water in every other instance that we know of we thing that water on Mars in the past is a more likely explaination.

Similarly it is possible that biological life happened by accident but any lifeform we know of involved a prior intelligence or life form being involved in its creation.

By "any lifeform we know of", you mean the one case where a scientist has done something like this. What this shows is that a direct miracle from a supernatural being is not required for life to come from non-life. Many christians do not suggest this to be the case but many do and this breakthrough shows them to be wrong. It downgrades the assertion from "only a god can create life from non-life" to "it's very unlikely that this happened without a god", an assertion that it isn't really possible to make because without knowing what the condidtion were we have no idea how unlikely it might have beem.

ISAW wrote: »

That is a different matter. The concept of god does not require a creator of god. It isn't "turtles all the way down"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

I've responded to that point to Jimitime. Just because you define it thus does not make it so. Saying that there is a realm where these rules do not apply is irrelevant unless

1) you can give some form of indication that this realm actually exists
2) You can give some form of indication that the rule you are saying does not apply to that realm in fact applies to this one.

In all cases where I have seen this argument put forward the people doing so have failed on both counts.

ISAW wrote: »

That is an argument to do with intelligent design which I am not making. But if you want to go into it complexity requires someone observing it to understand what complexity is. given their definition it doesn't require a designer. But the point in this instance is whether initial life required a designer. I might have been designed or it might not have in either case that does not disprove God.

Again we're talking about disproving god. It is not possible to disprove a being that is defined in such a way as to be unfalsifiable. The point is that an inability to disprove something is not a reason to believe in it. There are an infinite number of things that cannot be disproved but which we nonetheless do not believe in because there is no good reason to.

Zombrex · 24-05-2010 10:42AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just because you define it thus does not make it so. Saying that there is a realm where these rules do not apply is irrelevant unless

I agree with you, but it does make it some what pointless to argue with.

The argument that everything that has a beginning has a creator and God is the most likely creator for the universe is flawed on so many levels it as a whole is irrelevant to any serious discussion of origins, and this makes it pointless to debate.

It is just shifting of definitions.

You shouldn't give such a concept the oxygen of arguing about it, it makes it sound like such an argument is flawed in the details, rather than the whole.

Just my 2 cents

philologos · 24-05-2010 10:54AM

monosharp wrote: »

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.

Of course it isn't.

It is unlikely that the physical arrangement of the planets would be in the correct place at the correct time, and it is unlikely that the correct chemical combination would exist of its own accord without any form of intervention so as to sustain life. It seems that there is an awful lot of tuning that has to take place from the Big Bang, to the point of life forming on earth.

Alien on planet X is fairly irrelevant, as planet X would of necessity have to exist to begin with, but don't let that inconvenience your argument.

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.

This is what you do as an atheist.

monosharp wrote: »

People naturally see patterns in randomness, its human nature, its how we work.

There is nothing "random" about the circumstances to life, given how complicated the prerequisites of it even occurring on earth are.

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.

See, the second one raises what atheists have argued to them before one argues that it isn't an atheist argument. Yes, this argument has been raised to me before on numerous occasions, so lets not enter into pretence that it isn't an "atheist position".

You reject God, precisely because you do not believe in Him. That's the point. If you accepted God, you would believe in Him. It's really that simple.

Sam Vimes · 24-05-2010 10:57AM

Jakkass wrote: »

It is unlikely that the physical arrangement of the planets would be in the correct place at the correct time, and it is unlikely that the correct chemical combination would exist of its own accord without any form of intervention so as to sustain life. It seems that there is an awful lot of tuning that has to take place from the Big Bang, to the point of life forming on earth.

Jakkass, if you were to blindfold yourself, throw a dart at a dartboard and hit the bullseye in one shot one might well be led to believe that you were guided by some unknown force but if you blindfolded yourself and threw a hundred billion darts and eventually hit the bullseye, that wouldn't give quite the same indication of guidance would it?

lmaopml · 24-05-2010 10:58AM

monosharp wrote: »

We have absolutely no idea about the factors involved.

I concur, we have absolutely no idea about the factors involved......and that's exactly where we are at for the time being. Perhaps in time we'll develop some kind of technology like on Star Gate etc. ( love that show:) , but Star Trek wins hands down!) and know more....

...but for now, we absolutely can rule nothing out, cause we know very little at present.

I think Atheists get their back up when it's inferred that they have a common denominator other than their Atheism. It's really annoying isn't it?...it's equally annoying for people of faith to be 'tagged' as having a common agenda that is 'against' Science - which is the perceived presumption on this side...:)

Religion is not Science. Religion is a philosophy or personal quest, Science is a tool to examine the natural world and natural phenomena...both Atheists and Religious people use that tool...

There is something I often think about when looking at the 'free will' debate and how it is contradicted to a certain extent by both some religious quarters, and in the Science community, in the natural sense. It makes me wonder about the Chemical daydream it's proposed we function in daily, and the impact of that, or how far it goes with regards everyday life - like natures bitches tbh, you me them everybody..lol..

....I don't totally buy it, and that's my prerogative! God 'raises' us, Science, as is it's nature reduces us first...

...if this is the case then we might as well shut up shop as regards patting ourselves on the back for either 'choice', there's no such thing really...

Yay us

Sam Vimes · 24-05-2010 10:59AM

lmaopml wrote: »

...but for now, we absolutely can rule nothing out, cause we know very little at present.

I wholeheartedly agree. That's why we object to christians ruling out every possibility other than the direct involvement of the specific god that they believe in.

Turtwig · 24-05-2010 11:02AM

ISAW wrote: »

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

That is a preposterous Claim! "Only people who ventured outside Christianity advanced science" Nonsense!

Scientists had to be Christian,

AHA! So Chinese and African and other countries didnt have "science"?

I think you need to reread Nick's post again. As the understanding you took from it is miles from the understanding I got from it.

a) How exactly does the phrase Scientists had to be Christian imply that China and Africa didn't have science. Even the slightest bit of common sense here should tell you the OP was referring back to Christian Europe and how to it was much easier to be an influential academic if one were a Christian.

b) How is stating that it was only when scientists ventured outside of their faith they advanced science the equivalent of stating that it was only when anyone ventured outside Christianity they advanced science?

philologos · 24-05-2010 11:04AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Jakkass, if you were to blindfold yourself, throw a dart at a dartboard and hit the bullseye in one shot one might well be led to believe that you were guided by some unknown force but if you blindfolded yourself and threw a hundred billion darts and eventually hit the bullseye, that wouldn't give quite the same indication of guidance would it?

I've heard this (Texas Sharpshooter) argument before.

The reality is, that people decide what is more reasonable for them to believe, and on that basis adopt their viewpoint. Based on the gross improbability that life exists on our universe, and in the gross improbability that this universe exists without any form of intelligence, I find the hypothesis that God exists, and that He is the Creator of the universe to be much more reasonable than the position that the Big Bang occurred for no reason, and the universe exists without a cause.

Even if one is to accept this argument, one would have to hold that there would be someone to throw the dart in the first place :pac:

Back to the books for now though (:(), I will check the thread later!

lmaopml · 24-05-2010 11:07AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree. That's why we object to christians ruling out every possibility other than the direct involvement of the specific god that they believe in.

'Some' Christians may very well do that; 'Some' Atheists are a pain in the proverbials too

It's great fun!

Turtwig · 24-05-2010 11:09AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I've heard this (Texas Sharpshooter) argument before.
Based on the gross improbability that life exists on our universe, and in the gross improbability that this universe exists without any form of intelligence

Back to the books for now though (:(), I will check the thread later!

Jakkass : You cannot calculate the probability of an event occurring if you don't know the actual conditions needed for that event to occurr. So you cannot know that probability of life existing is grossly improbable or probable. Please stop thinking that life is improbable because you wish it to be so, it may be the case, but you have no mathematical grounds to stake your claim upon.

P.S Good luck with the exams.:)

Zombrex · 24-05-2010 11:09AM

Jakkass wrote: »

It is unlikely that the physical arrangement of the planets would be in the correct place at the correct time

In this solar system? Yes that is true. Life appearing in this specific solar system is ridiculously unlikely. Life appear in a solar system, much more likely if not inevitable.

Jakkass wrote: »

, and it is unlikely that the correct chemical combination would exist of its own accord without any form of intervention so as to sustain life.

That on the other hand isn't true. Life as we know it is made from carbon and oxygen which are some of the most abundant atoms in the universe.

The "improbable" bit is getting them on a planet where they aren't frozen or gas.

Of course this also falls into the fallacy of looking for specific outcome, rather than satisfactory outcomes. Our form of life is not the only form theoretically possible.

If there are a trillion trillion trillion trillion planets in the universe (there are a lot more, but anyway) what is the odds that one of them, just one, would have the correct distance from a star to allow for free chemical reactions?

The experiment mentioned in this thread is actually much less interest to this question that experiments such as these

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

The first building blocks of life were most likely self replicating chemical molecules, not even as complex as what is mentioned in the OP's article.

monosharp · 24-05-2010 11:13AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course it isn't.

It is unlikely that the physical arrangement of the planets would be in the correct place at the correct time, and it is unlikely that the correct chemical combination would exist of its own accord without any form of intervention so as to sustain life. It seems that there is an awful lot of tuning that has to take place from the Big Bang, to the point of life forming on earth.

Where are you getting these assumptions from ?

Alien on planet X is fairly irrelevant, as planet X would of necessity have to exist to begin with, but don't let that inconvenience your argument.

I'm not talking about alien origin of life, I'm talking about probability knowing the factors involved.

As it stands we have no idea about the factors involved for abiogenesis to occur.

This is what you do as an atheist.

What do I believe as an atheist ?

There is nothing "random" about the circumstances to life, given how complicated the prerequisites of it even occurring on earth are.

We don't know what the prerequisites of it occurring on earth were which is why we can't know the probability of it.

You reject God, precisely because you do not believe in Him. That's the point. If you accepted God, you would believe in Him. It's really that simple.

So having a neutral position is impossible ?

Sam Vimes · 24-05-2010 11:14AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I've heard this (Texas Sharpshooter) argument before.

The reality is, that people decide what is more reasonable for them to believe, and on that basis adopt their viewpoint. Based on the gross improbability that life exists on our universe, and in the gross improbability that this universe exists without any form of intelligence, I find the hypothesis that God exists, and that He is the Creator of the universe to be much more reasonable than the position that the Big Bang occurred for no reason, and the universe exists without a cause.

Even if one is to accept this argument, one would have to hold that there would be someone to throw the dart in the first place :pac:

Back to the books for now though (:(), I will check the thread later!

So you give the argument, it's pointed out to you that the argument, and your estimate of the probability, is based on a Texas sharpshooter logical fallacy, you have no defence other than "this is what I find reasonable to believe" and you continue making the same argument that has already been pointed out to you is based on a logical fallacy. Fair enough

monosharp · 24-05-2010 11:17AM

Jakkass wrote: »

The reality is, that people decide what is more reasonable for them to believe, and on that basis adopt their viewpoint. Based on the gross improbability that life exists on our universe, and in the gross improbability that this universe exists without any form of intelligence, I find the hypothesis that God exists, and that He is the Creator of the universe to be much more reasonable than the position that the Big Bang occurred for no reason, and the universe exists without a cause.

How do you come up with the probability ?

Sam Vimes · 24-05-2010 11:19AM

monosharp wrote: »

How do you come up with the probability ?

We've already established that. He does it with a Texas sharpshooter logical fallacy. He doesn't seem to contest this but goes on making the argument anyway

Zombrex · 24-05-2010 11:23AM

lmaopml wrote: »

I think Atheists get their back up when it's inferred that they have a common denominator other than their Atheism. It's really annoying isn't it?

I think atheists get their back up when people start distorting reality to fit a religious agenda.

I could go into all the things that are wrong with Jakkass' post but as Sam has already pointed out these were explained and he simply ignored them and continued to post inaccurate statements about cosmology on the basis that it is reasonable to him.

lmaopml wrote: »

...it's equally annoying for people of faith to be 'tagged' as having a common agenda that is 'against' Science - which is the perceived presumption on this side...

I certainly would not tag everyone with that, but man alive it is hard to not see that as a general theme on this forum.

lmaopml wrote: »

Religion is not Science. Religion is a philosophy or personal quest, Science is a tool to examine the natural world and natural phenomena...both Atheists and Religious people use that tool...

Both religion and science make proclamations about the natural world, both come from a human desire to understand. The argument that religion and science are distinct is flawed because they both attempt to answer questions in a similar domain.

The issue someone like myself takes is that people more often than not use religion to fill in the blanks of current scientific understanding.

This is a bad idea because the blanks exist in science for a reason. It is a recognition of what we don't yet know or can't know. To simply ignore this because we would rather have an answer and start providing religious answers is to utterly misunderstand the point of science in the first place, the point of why these things are as yet unknown.

If we could simply turn to religion for the answer when science can't tell us then religion would be science.

Artificial Life Created

Comments