Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2012 - 02:15pm PT
|
Enjoy it but don't pretend for a second that others will willingly follow your lead.
I don't. I've said it a thousand times. To each their own. It's the 21st century, it's the free marketplace of ideas now. It's believer's choice.
Don't confuse (a) expressing one's beliefs (or models for how the world works or even models for where we should go in this great adventure we call life) with (b) proselytizing or forcing indoctrinations.
(Then again, I suppose some confusion is understandable - or should be expected and dealt with - given the ages our species just evolved from.)
Again, it's believer's choice. Believe as you will. Practice as you will.
.....
You can create meaning. You can live on purpose. I have no expectations beyond this. I decided long ago after much work of uninstalling archaic programs and expectations and re-booting, re-initializing, that this (just earthly expectation) would have to do. And - thank Vitarius - it did. And does.
.....
It should come as no surprise that 'no purpose no design' is met with stiff resistance.
100% spot on.
Hence the Great Challenge ahead. Good luck everyone!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2012 - 02:36pm PT
|
Believers are worthless .....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2012 - 03:33pm PT
|
Right on, man, you sound like a sagan or bronowski. Keep it up.
As we can see, a new mythology (of explanation) is underway. 100 times more people will have grown up with it by century's end. Good.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2012 - 03:58pm PT
|
re: accidents
"They would have us believe all this is an accident. The atheists and commies would have us believe that WE are accidents. They would have us believe the human eye is an accident. How silly is that? Those nutty scientists."
"Vote for Rick Santorum."
.....
re: "We're accidents."
Oh, and in my "practice" of living (still currently on the dl) we don't call them "accidents" - we call them concadences. A concadence is a "falling out" of a (mechanistic) process. Our species is a "concadence" of the evolutionary process.
It's all in the wording.
Right framing.
Right language.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2012 - 04:02pm PT
|
And don't forget - only a tenth of your cells are human, HERVs make up just under 10% of your genome, and you don't even want to know about what retrotransposons are doing to your brain as you read this.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2012 - 11:57pm PT
|
I'd like to just list the link for this but I lost it. Here's the end.
Would anyone believe that a supercomputer could assemble itself in the shifting sands of the earth's primitive deserts even given trillions of years? But why not?
All the building blocks for a supercomputer are there mixed up in the desert sands. Volcanic activity, lightening, and wind could provide the necessary energy for construction. What's the problem then? Homogeny. Homogeny is the problem. Parts do not assemble themselves in a non-homogenous way that is very far beyond the sum of the collectively functional/meaningful information contained in the individual parts themselves. This doesn't happen via the normal processes of nature, and this is not mediated or explained away by statistical random/chaos models popular with some physicists ("If you only understood the math?"). Pre-established information and directed energy from an outside source is needed for the assembly of parts that produce a function that is very much greater than the informational sum of the individual parts. It is the pre-established order of a living cell, to include the pre-formed information contained in its DNA that allows it to be what it is.
If brought together randomly, the individual parts of a cell would never self-assemble themselves into the form and function of a living cell regardless of how much outside energy and interactive potential was provided to the parts.
It would be like taking millions of watch parts and shaking them all together for a billion years and expecting a watch to self-assemble just because all the necessary parts and required energy are there. After a billion years, or even trillions upon trillions of years, would anyone really expect something even close to the functional level of a watch to be formed by such a process?
The challenge is to demonstrate that the molecules that form a living cell are in some basic way unique and would blindly assemble into life, no matter how slowly and how many intermediate steps along the way.
It's been estimated that the probability of a DNA helix ever emerging from the primordial soup, again, even in a trillion years, is roughly the same as a whirlwind blowing through a junkyard and spitting out the space shuttle.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 12:07am PT
|
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 12:10am PT
|
It's been estimated...
oh silly rabbit, what would convince you?
evolution is a fact.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 12:19am PT
|
Fruity is a believer .....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 12:23am PT
|
Nah .... everything is just chance.
Sh!t just happens.
Today I had all my parts laid out on the work bench.
I waited for sh!t to happen.
All the parts are still on the table .....
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 12:29am PT
|
I in no way refute evolution. But natural selection could only find traction once there was a form that was advantaged enough to survive, and evolve into higher or more organized states. The organization of that form, in the first instance, seems an unlikely event if chance alone were the "cause."
I think there is quite possibly some inherent organizing principal, possibly what Ed was getting at, which can explain some of the conundrums about first or "efficient" causes. Hauling "God" into the mix can only crowd things at this stage, IMO. I don't agree that life could emerge only by pure fluke, or by the hand of Jesus. I can think of many ways, each as improbable as the next, but none so fantastically rich as the idea that a DNA helix just happened in the old methane flumes.
JL
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 12:29am PT
|
If 1. is impossible that leaves only the second option.
And, likewise, if 2. is impossible that leaves only the first option.
But both of those "if, only" statements are only relevant if your initial premise (Life could only have arisen in two ways) is valid.
Come up with something that validates the premise, and your "either 1. or 2." is meaningful.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 12:31am PT
|
Would anyone believe that a supercomputer could assemble itself in the shifting sands of the earth's primitive deserts even given trillions of years? But why not?
actually, when you think about it, that's just what happened...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 01:01am PT
|
Jonnnyyyzzz
videos are interesting on a number of levels, I thought the production level was high, but that the scientific content was very low
for "irreducible complexity" to "pose a severe challenge to the power of natural selection" you'd have to prove that natural selection could not, in principle, produce the machine. If you could point me to that proof it might be instructive to study it, but you cannot, since no such thing exists. A case it made, instead, of the presumed improbability, but even that lacks some serious quantitative argument. to be serious, you'd have to show how any evolutionary path would be fail to produce the machine.
The same is true for the second video, which is to say that the calculation of the probability of the occurrence of life on earth, or even in this universe, is so small that it is unlikely to have come into being by "just random process." However, we cannot even decide on the definition of life, which would be at least a starting point to calculating the odds.
Interestingly, the problems of "fine tuning" are well known in particle physics and cosmology, the problem is that any "universe" is equally likely as any other "universe," so for our universe to exist, it would seem to be highly unlikely. To overcome this one searches for a mechanism, a physical mechanism, that results in any initial universe becoming a universe that is like any other. Such physical process exist, and they have consequences which are observable, and those things have been observed... so it seems plausible that such mechanisms exist.
Taking this a step further, if this universe happens "naturally," then it is incorrect to go around calculating the likelihood that the triple-alpha reaction in stars which proceeds through a very narrow energy resonance (the "Hoyle resonance") necessary for building carbon in stars exists, it exists because it is the consequence of those natural processes... for a universe that is determined by physical processes.
Now this may seem ridiculous, but it's a very likely explanation, and not only that, it is testable by the observable consequences.
However intelligent design works in detail is sort of irrelevant to its primary construction, which is to say that these things are designed rather than happening naturally. It is a point of view that is not in contention. One can believe in intelligent design if one wishes, there is, of course, no manner of proving or disproving it, and it is constructed to explain everything.
But one can also propose a completely natural way in which the universe, and life, came to be without recourse to any supernatural entity. Not only that, but the proposal can be tested and modified and extended. It can lead to the discovery of completely new things, unanticipated and not known before. It can expand as we learn these new things and change our viewpoint along with the expansion.
Science provides a way to view the world, the universe without the need to resort to supernatural explanation of how it works. To some of us, that is a very appealing viewpoint, and one that could be entirely correct.
|
|
Jonnnyyyzzz
Trad climber
San Diego,CA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 01:33am PT
|
That's right Largo. If Vegas put up odds for ID vs Random Chance I think the smart money has to go on ID every time. Random Chance is just a total long shot at best. Now I'm not going to guess on who or what was behind the ID (it shouldn't really matter as far as science and its method is concerned) but come on, it takes way more faith to think there was no ID behind everything. Whats the problem people have with ID anyway? I mean SO WHAT! Dose it threaten them somehow or what? I just don't get why it gets people so worked up. If its design rather than random chance isn't that just as interesting or even more interesting. It shouldn't take anything away from science and its quest, if science is still the search for truth and or facts and not a quest to remove the need for a designer. The universe is still there with all its physical laws for science to figure out how it works. So get to it scientists and let evidence lead the way wherever it points, Start reverse engineering how this world was put together. Then the rest of us can focus our arguments/debates on why it was put together and the conspiracy behind it. lol
|
|
Jonnnyyyzzz
Trad climber
San Diego,CA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 01:48am PT
|
Ed I agree with what your saying except for the part about ID getting in the way of science or leading to things that we don't have to try to understand It seems to me that all the science is still there in the design and there is probably still more science behind the designer.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 01:54am PT
|
perhaps it's because scientists believe that "every observable effect has a physical cause."
I didn't say that ID "get's in the way of science" I said that ID is not science, and that science explains the universe without resorting to the D in ID...
|
|
laughingman
Mountain climber
Seattle WA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 02:04am PT
|
knew this thread was going to be a Sh#t show....
|
|
Jonnnyyyzzz
Trad climber
San Diego,CA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 02:30am PT
|
OK Ed I agree to disagree but Just for fun. Who's to say a designers cause was not physical ie, the big bang. All though This leads to the Philosophy of Determinism and then to the question of free will and I'm not sure I want to take it there but if a designer could some how know the position and velocity of particles at the same time and not lose that information in black holes than?
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012 - 02:55am PT
|
perhaps it's because scientists believe that "every observable effect has a physical cause."
Scientists don't believe anything. Research shows that every observable effect does have a physical cause.
Not everything that scientists have encountered are currently testable so there is no way for a scientists to know if the observable effect of those things has a physical cause or not. But since everything that is testable has been tested with the same results, statistics tell us that there is a high probability that everything with an observable effect has a physical cause.
Understanding that there is a high probability of something is not the same as just believing it.
Dave
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!