@ Aqueous Id
AId, I found your Post #947 to be very insightful.
Especially the following statements :
Is it just the way I read those statements, or are you actually trying to say that : "Therefore God is a human invention. Therefore God does not exist.", and : "It is a fact that there is no God because every God ever conceived of was/is a human invention."
You are confusing premise and conclusion. The premise is that every allegation attesting to a divinity are fabricated and the conclusion is: therefore God does not exist. Have you by any chance ever taken Geometry? I think this is where people usually get exposed to the flow of logic (from premise to conclusion). They are not equivalent.
AId, what would you call the "Logic", or "thought process" that led you to those statements?
For starters I would call it Geometry.
AId, could you apply that same "Logic", or "thought process" to other "human inventions"?
Be careful in mincing what I said to extract your own flavor. By “invention” I am clearly referring to the invention of myth, legend and fable, by and through the imaginative faculties of superstitious minds.
For instance, how would you respond, if it was stated :
1.) - "Therefore Science is a human invention. Therefore Science does not exist."
I would say that comparison is absurd.
2.) - "It is a fact that there is no Science because every Science ever conceived of was/is a human invention."
That’s even more absurd. How about if I said that I can mince anything you say, convolve it around some other result I wish you to say, and remanufacture all of your posts to come out expounding the elegance of
Origin of the Species?
AId, simply replace the word "God" in your statements with the words "Science" or "Mathematics" or even "Language", simply to test the applied "Logic", or "thought process".
What are the results of that simple test?
A mess of fallacious nonsense.
Aqueous Id, your Post #947 seemed quite knowledgeable, except for the caveats that I posited above.
Great. Now try removing all the additives to what I said and the caveats go away.
Restating the proposition for clarity: Every allegation ever made attesting to God is a flight of the imagination lacking a substantial basis in reality. In other words, every such allegation is superstitious nonsense. Therefore the conclusion that God exists, particularly those based on literal interpretation of such allegations, which are known to have originated in cults who invented their gods to explain phenomena for which there was no science, are premised in a fallacy and therefore the conclusion that God exists is not only false, but positively proven false.
Conversely, science is collection of human knowledge based on observations of real phenomena. It’s a discipline, too, one founded on necessarily meticulous standards of quality control, and therefore not tolerant of the processes, systems and methodologies that insert superstition where informed advice and consent are crucial to making good decisions, particularly in the public policy making arenas.
leopold said:
Actually I said all true scientists are atheists.
this is what you would like the world to believe isn't it.
What I would like the world to do is to read
Origin of Species and become better informed about the facts of science than is currently the case. The fact that some scientists claim a belief in God does not comport with the word “true”. I suppose you could offer a definition of “true scientist” if the spirit moves you. But they’re not being truthful if they admit to a God. That’s the issue I raised.
The rest are having a serious issue with honesty.
actually they have a problem with the evidence aqueous.
There is abundant evidence that every allegation attesting to God is based in superstition. If they’re having any problem other than basic honesty, it’s not for a lack of the evidence.
. Me, for one. It’s quite elementary: every definition of God is one invented by some person or culture of people. Therefore God is a human invention. Therefore God does not exist.
humanity has been questioning the existence of god since time began.
You have that backwards. Humanity has been probing the origin of the world, of our selves, and the causes of natural phenomena, since at before the beginning of recorded history. And throughout that time they have been inventing Gods to explain those phenomena for which they had no science.
some of the greatest minds has been tasked with the question.
you swoop in here and solve it for everyone . . . with one sentence.
I’ve been saying this for a long time. But thanks for your accolades.
Then something is still not clear about your posts.
i don't know how much clearer i can make it.
it's really simple, i provided a link to be commented on.
I’m not trying to bicker, I’m trying to give you positive feedback. I think you would get more mileage if you would strive to be clear. You made creationist statements (academics is just indoctrination akin to religion, scientists who disbelieve something (ot yet specified) about evolution are being suppressed, etc. Then you’re sending us to creationist sites. For clarity you should draw the line between your own propositions and those of the creationists, esp since you cast them in the same posts.
Didn’t you say, and isn’t it your position, that scientists who oppose “Darwinism” are repressed?
You used the term “dissent”. This is a creationist position. It has zero basis in fact, and when that question was raised you cited the creationist sites that support the claim.
yup, i did.
so far you have not addressed anything the link presented.
Sure I did. I noted that Grumpy correctly observed that these were creationist links. Are you trying to tell us they have merit?
So it might help to clarify your position.
i don't need to clarify anything aqueous.
If you wish to be understood, you should strive to be clear.
Does speciation “accumulate small changes”? That’s a very subjective creationist perspective.
not according to the "science" source i posted.
The creationist site is irrelevant. It has no merit.
You are aware that living cells have already been synthesized.
point me to this alleged cell please
Not alleged. The real deal.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK84435/
i don't think water can be considered "organic chemistry".
i also do not believe it takes "billions of tries" before a water molecule is formed from its elements.
More than that. You're just imposing the egocentric view. Out there in the cold distance there are all kinds of conditions unfavorable to water formation. Water formation on Earth is a consequence of the host of physical conditions that also make the natural formation of lipids, amino acids and even primitive RNA likely in the primordial stew from whence we came. But now ask yourself: how likely it is that carbon will bond with itself to form graphite? Diamond? What is the probability that opal will form? How about amber? What are the odds of lead forming naturally? You can take this to the Nth degree. It simple makes no sense to try to establish the probabilities of a particular genetic molecule as you seem to want to do, as compared to the probability of producing water (presumably from oxygen and hydrogen gases). That's not even the mode of formation proposed. Nor does it have any bearing on the reality of the primordial world. Also note, it doesn't matter how low the probability is. Once the self-replicating macromolecule forms, out of and endless ocean of water molecules in which it resides, it carries the new power to change those odds--exponentially over time.
But it's nonsensical to say "I don't think abiogenesis happened because the odds are too low". Once you were born, and able to recognize yourself in the mirror, you were able to discern that the process changed from a stochastic one to a deterministic one. (There's still plenty left to chance; but once the seminal event happened, it was no longer a question of odds. It was a done deal.) You might as well ask yourself what the odds are that the molecules which formed your zygote would ever come together. By that reasoning, you should not even exist, since it’s far less probable than simple water formation from oxygen and hydrogen gas.
i want you to follow up on "the storehouse of knowledge" cite i gave earlier.
then i want you to explain why creationist scientists are denied tenure.
There is a new court case that struck down the awarding of tenure to bad teachers. The court said it denied equal educational opportunity to all students. So there’s a legal answer if that’s of any use to you.
leopold said:
Write4U said:
You yourself already conceded that from a chaotic elemental soup, it wouldn't take all that long for "water" to form.
yes, because it's a simple 3 atom molecule, the reaction is instantaneous and requires no catalyst or enzyme to complete.
Aha. So a biotic macromolecule is less likely to form than water (presumably from gaseous Oxygen & Hydrogen). Of course with self-replicating molecules you have genes so all of that probability modeling completely changes. Now it becomes very likely that the new macromolecule will form after all.
leopold said:
Write4U said:
Here we are both agreed on the existence of the fundamental building materials of all things in the universe, including living things.
miller-urey demonstrated this almost 60 years ago.
they never got life to come out of it though.
That would be alchemy.
leopold said:
Write4U said:
Carbon and water, throw in a little sunlight, and "salt and pepper" and presto, we have life in say a couple of billion years.
easy to say but so far has been impossible to prove.
What was proved was that the building blocks leading to abiogenesis of RNA can occur naturally. What’s your objection to this kind of proof?
leopold said:
Write4U said:
science hasn't even been able to back engineer a cell from a functioning specimen.
The argument for evolution from "inert particles" to "reactive structures" is so simple and straight forward that IMO, no other argument can "be clearer" in concept or explanation.
yes, i agree that it's the most logical approach.
all we need now is the proof.
exactly ZERO proof has been provided in this entire thread
So far all you’ve asked for is alchemy. Actually what’s lacking in the thread is the actual story of what Darwin discovered and how he explained it. The rest is all ancillary (once we cull out the irrelevant facts posted). Once you have the foundations for how this branch of science came forward, you’re well on your way to settling your concerns about the truth of it and the abundance of evidence for it. In fact I suspect you’ll drop your suspicions about people being repressed, too, as well as your belief that scholarship in science is done through a kind of rote or indoctrination.
yes, there is no reason to believe things become alive.
there is no precedent ANYWHERE.
On the contrary, it’s happening all the time. You’re only concerned about the low probability of biotic macromolecules forming spontaneously vs some other subjective reaction you want to use as a control. As an interesting exercise, you might even try to speculate about the probability that it
won’t happen (abiogenesis). And if you like to play with numbers (we had a thread on large numbers recently) you might try to speculate about the number of collisions between the elements Trippy showed in red out, per (say) gram of some hypothetical primordial body of water.
yes, there is no reason to believe things become alive.
there is no precedent ANYWHERE.
Another subject also comes to mind. Consider the rich life that forms wherever possible. Look at the abundance of flora and fauna in a desert oasis. Consider esp. the abundance of marine life found around thermal vents. One of the ingredients you are missing in your “model” is energy. The water you think forms easily is incorrectly stated. It takes immense energy to electrolyze one molecule of water, for example. The atoms you envision coming together to spontaneously form water is not the complete picture. Those atoms have originated from a highly energized source. What’s the probability of that happening? Pretty damn low on Earth. The water that we commonly encounter is nearly entirely the product of precipitation, and/or the unimaginably huge cataclysmic forces that led to the formation of the Earth. Not to mention the energy of the Big Bang itself, and the supernovae from which out solar system formed. Your simple zero energy reaction view of the comparative chemistries is not even close to what Miller-Urey set out to demonstrate. They wanted to know what would happen to natural water (eg sea water) under the conditions of natural high energy inputs (esp lightning, vents, sunlight). We see this at thermal vents. If you haven’t visited the many caldera of Yellowstone, you’ll be surprised to find life forms unlike any others on Earth living in some little forlorn cauldron of chemicals. These are the conditions Miller-Urey were aware of that dominated the Earth in its formative era.
scientists can prove photosynthesis by keeping plants out of the sunlight.
by using various controls they are able to prove sunlight is responsible for the energy needed for plant chemistry.
no such proofs exist in regards to life arising from the elements.
every controlled experiment into this area has FAILED.
Photosynthesis is the name of the natural process. It’s not in the same category as a theory. But again, you miss the main point of what “theory” means. It means “explanation”, not “hypothesis”. We’re not out to prove or disprove evolution. The goal is to explain how the species originated, beginning with the odd critters Darwin found at Galapagos. Evolution explains how they got there, and indeed,
Origin of Species explains how all life got here. The onus is not on any one to prove or disprove evolution. The onus is on them to prove or disprove how the species came into existence. Evolution explains it, whereas no other “alternative theory” does. I feel like Arlo Guthrie saying “Remember Alice?” 15 minutes into the story of “Alice’s Restaurant”, but remember the topic here was “alternative theories”? There is no alternative theory to Evolution. So not much of what we’ve discussed is really on point. Nonetheless, recognizing that you set out to argue that “alternative theories about Evolution” are being repressed, let me remind you that the issue is moot. No
realistic theories have tendered. God is not a theory, it’s just superstitious nonsense.
you should keep an open mind.
evolution IS NOT what it's cracked up to be.
hey, see that pile of dirt over there?
one of these days it's going to give you an opinion on an abstract piece of art
That has little or nothing to do with evolution. It has more to do with, say, zoology, where we track the development of neurons in primordial forms (hydra/jellies). If you want to know the history of the development of the human brain from the hydras then we’d need an extensive treatment of phylogeny in another thread.
where is it written that it takes X amount of "years" for life to arise from the elements?
oh, it MUST take a long time because science has never observed it.
it happens, we've never seen it, we've never proved it, but it happens.
The way you tell it. The way the fossil record tells it, the process is entirely different. Life does not form “from the elements”. Molecules precipitate out of the primordial stew, some of these form lipids, some form macromolecules that are the progenitors of primitive RNA, and once the two come together (a lipid membrane and a self-replicating molecule, the mutations in that primitive DNA that would build and maintain its own lipid enclosure are favored for survival. That I think is where you want to focus your energy. It’s not an issue of what happens at the elemental level.
bridge for sale . . . cheap!
Just as it costs a fortune to build a bridge like the one in question (shares in Brooklyn Bridge were being peddled to immigrants coming in from Ellis Island) it takes a lot of personal investment to come up to speed on the technical matters at hand. (Taking a Biology course and reading
Origin, for starters.) I think the more appropriate adage is “you get what you pay for” and/or “garbage in/garbage out”.
what surprises me is that DNA is common to ALL life.
When that stop surprising you I think you’ll be cured of what ails you.
and like you said, very little variation.
That’s a very loose characterization. I would submit that DNA is a chemical system that resides within a nested biotic system that resides within a nested ecosystem. All of them—chemical, cell, tissue, organ, system, individual, herd and ecosystem—are intimately related through overriding moderators such as natural selection, isolation and gene flow. All of this is common to all life yet varies widely.
DNA also has the ability to "repair" itself.
Not sure what you mean. Damaged genes don’t normally fix themselves. That’s why people don’t naturally grow out of muscular dystrophy.
mutations seldom last beyond one or two generations.
That contradicts the evidence for natural selection. The mutations that lead to bacterial drug resistance, for one. Of course, you haven’t said what you mean by “seldom”.
this doesn't bode well for "accumulating small changes".
The way you tell it. Besides the simple example of microbial drug resistance, let’s go back to the Darwin’s Finches. Did they “accumulate small changes”? Does it even matter? What he discovered was
adaptive radiation which says that the changes bifurcate indefinitely (radiate). Whichever trait is best adapted to the niche of the day is the one that lives on. Or many of them live on in parallel, filling multiple niches.
then again we are faced with "well it takes a looooong time", with no basis in fact for that statement.
You’re wrong there. First go find out how long it takes to develop a new breed of plant of animal by artificial selection. That gives you an extremely optimistic number of years of how long it takes (best case scenario) under controlled conditions. Hence, “it takes a loooong time” has indeed been proven. (Actually it was observed long before any such proof even came to mind.)
Incidentally, since evidently all life (or nearly all) existed as cyanobacteria for the largest span of all evolutionary history (several hundred million years to nearly a billion years), as evidenced by the stromatolites Grumpy and I showed you (I’ll wager he taught some Biology) then what difference does it make that some of the stages were extremely slow? Does that bother you and why? If that’s what the evidence says, you have to run with it, right? You sure don’t want to affiliate yourself with those nasty creationists who go around inventing their own evidence, do you? That would be insanely egregious.
i have NO PROBLEM with stating i am VERY different than my phone, computer, microwave oven or any other inanimate object.
Genetically, you are similar to a banana, whose peel Salvador Dali may have rendered as a clock draped over a piece of deadwood, but the banana itself can not paint. Is the banana an animate object?
the really interesting thing is, there MUST be a third option.
which of the following absurdities do you want:
1. things become alive
or
2. intelligence without substance
If, by “things become alive”, you mean abiogenesis, then (1) is the only realistic explanation there is. What does (2) mean? God? No, that’s impossible. God does not exist. God can not possibly exist.
Fraggle Rocker said:
He was formed in the union of a sperm with an ovum. Both of those were already alive.
Every living organism is formed from bits and pieces of other living organisms. This doesn't give us any clue about the specific mechanism of abiogenesis.
In the current processes and systems we are aware of, all organisms reproduce and all species are subject to evolution. Abiogenesis is the primordial stage of both kinds of processes. We don’t speak of chemicals reproducing when they recombine but I suppose we might say that (thinking etymology) if abiogenesis happened to have been discovered before the periodic table.
I think observations give us a few clues – there has to be DNA and there has to be a lipid membrane. I think that means there has to have been two independent paths of natural macromolecule formation, with the recognition that these came together into a single threaded process over, say 100 million years or so.
