quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So, if someone created life in the lab, would you accept that as proof?
Is this not an intentional trick question? Have not scientists done very nearly that using various amino acids and carbons in a solution, placed in a laboraroty environment with a great deal of extreme temperatures and (static?) electrical discharges? Or am I remembering experiments that produced the "building blocks" of life and not an example of life itself?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just the "building blocks," and even those results were trumped up to be more than they were. It was just a hodgepodge mix of left and right leaning proteins, as would have been expected to occur. There has been nothing even remotely resembling life in that experiment.
But if it does happen, and it is the day, Tom, then I'll... take a nap. And then stay up til 3 in the morning because that's what happens when I take a siesta.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Define "life," Resh. As specifically as you can.
And while you're at it, define "kind," "building blocks," and "evidence." Because you're clearly using your own definition of all of those words, none of which are remotely similar to how scientists use them (if they use them at all).
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kind? Why do I keep getting asked to define this word?
And why should I define any of these things. These words have commonly accepted usages. If I'm not making any sense to you, I'm not going to automatically assume it is a failure on my part.
So in other words, define them your damn self.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem is that you aren't using them in the commonly accepted way, which makes it difficult to have a discussion.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And why should I define any of these things. These words have commonly accepted usages. If I'm not making any sense to you, I'm not going to automatically assume it is a failure on my part.
They do not have commonly accepted useages, that's precisely the problem. Getting back to the lab experiments, again, what exactly would the scientists need to do to satisfy you that they had produced life?
quote:And what of large changes in species? I don't know what you're asking.
If I show you evidence that apes and humans have a common ancestor, is that evidence of marco-svolution?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you could, would you read my recent post or two and respond to some of my queries?
If there's no evidence for a transition from single celled organisms, there must be no evidence for every step along the way. Could you name a step that you'd be interested in hearing the evidence for?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Just the "building blocks," and even those results were trumped up to be more than they were. It was just a hodgepodge mix of left and right leaning proteins, as would have been expected to occur. There has been nothing even remotely resembling life in that experiment.
Just give the scientists another 3-4 billion years. It can take a long time for random events to produce a complex, viable result. Of course, once that happens, you're set.
God, alternately, should have such a fantastically easy time proving His existence. Shame he can't be bothered.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Just the "building blocks," and even those results were trumped up to be more than they were. It was just a hodgepodge mix of left and right leaning proteins, as would have been expected to occur. There has been nothing even remotely resembling life in that experiment.
Just give the scientists another 3-4 billion years. It can take a long time for random events to produce a complex, viable result. Of course, once that happens, you're set.
God, alternately, should have such a fantastically easy time proving His existence. Shame he can't be bothered.
Why would god want to make it easy on us by showing his existence? That would be like getting answers to a test.
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: "The Babel fish," said The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe... The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language ... "Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
posted
Would teacher that gives a multiple choice question, requiring the student to choose a correct answer from 4 possible answers, be considered a cheat?
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would a teacher who gave a test to students, while never teaching them anything they were going to be tested on be considered fair?
When most of the students in the class fail a test, it's generally considered a failure on the teacher's part to either teach the material so the students learn it, or give a fair test.
If God actually wants people to succeed, wouldn't it make sense to give them the best possible chance to do so?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've also got dozens (hundreds?) of other religions with their own, often contradictory, learning material.
Pretty tough to pass a test when you're told that the same question has multiple answers, but only one of them is correct, and there's no way to verify which one.
Couldn't God say, get rid of the false information, or make a really strong case for some of the information? Maybe, give Catholic priests the power to cure cancer, or Mormon Elders the ability to walk on water, maybe Imams could feed their community with a basket of food.
For all the stories in these holy books, it's all talk, and no action. How about some angels flying around on golden wings to deliver messages to the righteous? How about some real, honest to goodness miracles?
If I recall correctly, Jesus said that regular people should be able to do what he did. Peter walked on water. Does no Christian today even have the faith of a mustard seed?
If God's all powerful, but he won't even bother to bring his strays back to the fold, why believe? Jesus said that the shepherd needed to go after a single stray lamb, and bring it back to the flock. So why is most of the world's population still wandering in the wilderness?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
C.S. Lwis made the case that is ones sincerity that matters. In The Last Battle, there was a minor character who did not worship Aslan, because he was raised a Telmarine, and they worhip Tash. He was admitted into Aslan's land because he was sincere in his desire to worship Tash. Nevermind that Tash was rather demonic. It's more complicated than that, but you get the point.
Actually, the enitre subject is much more complicated than to be answered just like that. But since most (or all) people are incapable of finding out those answers for themselves, God has given us an easy way out. That would be Jesus for us Christians. I'm not sure what is required of others, if it isn't just sincerity, but I imagine that God gives all of us an equal chance at salvation.
Maybe this will help: The Bible says there is only one sin that is unforgivable, and that is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. And since the Holy Spirit is made distinct from the Father and the Son, that says to me that the Holy Spirit must be represented in different ways for different people.
So my point is that placing all your eggs in one basket (happy Easter!) does not put you at risk of getting the wrong answer on this test we are all taking.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry fugu. Ok, tell me about the transistion from single celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms. Was it as Darwin said must happen; the smallest, most incremental steps imaginable? So, was there once a two-celled organism? How did that happen? Is there any evidence for it having happened, besides the obvious one that it had to happen, because here we are?
JT, did you want to comment on anything I said, or are you just throwing out random complements?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to say that I read a book once that I'm not sure I fully understood and that was probably mostly unsupportable conjecture that disproved every single one of your arguments.
But I feel confident that every word of it was pure truth, and my opinion will remain unswayed even in the face of unmistakable logic. Mainly because I'm not able to distinguish between unmistakable logic, tenuous leaps of faith, and rationalizations.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Those are excellent questions, MightyCow.
C.S. Lwis made the case that is ones sincerity that matters. In The Last Battle, there was a minor character who did not worship Aslan, because he was raised a Telmarine, and they worhip Tash. He was admitted into Aslan's land because he was sincere in his desire to worship Tash. Nevermind that Tash was rather demonic. It's more complicated than that, but you get the point.
Actually, the enitre subject is much more complicated than to be answered just like that. But since most (or all) people are incapable of finding out those answers for themselves, God has given us an easy way out. That would be Jesus for us Christians. I'm not sure what is required of others, if it isn't just sincerity, but I imagine that God gives all of us an equal chance at salvation.
Maybe this will help: The Bible says there is only one sin that is unforgivable, and that is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. And since the Holy Spirit is made distinct from the Father and the Son, that says to me that the Holy Spirit must be represented in different ways for different people.
So my point is that placing all your eggs in one basket (happy Easter!) does not put you at risk of getting the wrong answer on this test we are all taking.
That was nice. I don't agree (obviously), but very well said.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh: I've read a lot of Lewis, but I didn't realize that any major faiths have started accepting his stories as holy books. I was under the impression that he was simplifying things to quite a degree, in order to tell a good story. Lots of the religious people I know or have heard from think that there are a whole mess of sins that will get you sent to hell.
Also, every organism besides unicellular ones have been two-celled organisms at one time. You and me included.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's quite a bit of evidence for how the single-cell multi-cellular transition happened.
For instance, there are some organisms which aren't clearly single-cell or multi-cellular (they're usually classified as the former, because its viewed as the less restrictive category). Some single-celled creatures that eat dung, for instance, behave individually until food in their area grows short. As the 'group' notices that happening (actually, each individual is reacting independently in response to chemicals deposited by each individual, creating collective effects), they coalesce into a blob. That blob moves for a ways, moving along chemical gradients generated by individual reactions to the environment. That blob then grows a stalk; the head of the stalk 'pops' off and is blown a distance, where the process starts over. The body of the stalk dies. Whether an organism is present in the head or the body is determined by a number of criteria, ultimately coming down to where it started in the blob + the environment.
So despite these acting most of their lives like single-celled organisms, we have them acting cohesively and coherently, having functional differentiation, and dying for the genetic furtherance of the 'whole'.
Furthermore, there's nothing 'different' from the basic operation of single-celled organisms going on. Single-celled organisms are all about responding to the chemistry of the surrounding environments; its only the results of the particular chemical setup that are a little unusual.
However, there's no problem seeing how it happened. The crawling along the ground probably came first, when the 'scatter' response to too high a density of the organisms happened to be tuned such that they went in the same direction. Then it started becoming advantageous to first react by moving all to the same place to trigger a stronger scatter response and get a longer distance. Then some mutation led certain of those in such a formation to produce a substance the organism didn't like, causing the building of the stalk to get away from that substance, which allowed bits of the group to be carried away by the wind, and eventually there was selection for ones that, when furthest away from the substance-to-be-avoided, changed in such a way that they were more easily carried away by the wind.
There've been very nice computer simulations, and the entire thing can take place with just simple interactions with two chemicals. Its not nearly as complicated as it sounds.
We see similar behaviors all over the place. Many theoreticians have started questioning the idea of a hard line between single-cell and multi-cellular organisms. Some organisms we think of as single-celled cooperate as much as organisms we think of as multi-cellular.
Furthermore, as much as it seems like plants and animals are different from the above, they really aren't at the level of cells. Its all a dance of responses to chemicals that are constantly being created/channeled/et cetera by cells.
Going back to the examples, there are also organisms that act like multi-cellular organisms nearly all the time . . . except under certain conditions, typically ones of stress, when they break up into clumps of one or a few cells that go off every which way.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
MightyCow, I don't think I implied anything like what you're refuting. I'm just saying something that Lewis said, and I tend to agree with him. But most of what I know about Lewis' theology is not based upon his fiction, which I imagine is what you are most familiar with, being as how most of his writings would probably look to you like the ramblings of some brainwashed dupe.
I appreciate your imput, JT. Oh look, you finished all your applesauce, yes you did! Big boy!
Very nice, fugu. No wonder you kept insisting on me addressing your post. You clearly know what you're talking about. How about the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For any of those who were wondering, if any. My friend, whose arguments lead me to start this thread, actually got more information on his stance then I did for mine.
But I learned allot, and I thank you guys for giving me more views on this stuff.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Thanks rollainm.
MightyCow, I don't think I implied anything like what you're refuting. I'm just saying something that Lewis said, and I tend to agree with him. But most of what I know about Lewis' theology is not based upon his fiction, which I imagine is what you are most familiar with, being as how most of his writings would probably look to you like the ramblings of some brainwashed dupe.
Actually, I think Lewis was obviously a very intelligent, well-spoken writer, and I respect his views a lot more than many I've come across. Just because I don't find his religious beliefs compelling doesn't think I look down on his intelligence. I try to judge a person's smarts by how he expresses himself and what he has to say.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hang on, though - Lewis presented the hoary old false trilemma as though it were both a new argument, and any good. But any moderately clever person must certainly have seen the huge, gaping hole in it. So aren't you forced to the conclusion that Lewis was either being deliberately dishonest in an intellectual argument, or else he was determined to be not-very-bright when it came to seeing holes in what he believed? Neither one seems worthy of very much respect to me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lewis presented the hoary old false trilemma as though it were both a new argument, and any good. But any moderately clever person must certainly have seen the huge, gaping hole in it. So aren't you forced to the conclusion that Lewis was either being deliberately dishonest in an intellectual argument, or else he was determined to be not-very-bright when it came to seeing holes in what he believed?
*giggle* Are you saying Lewis was obviously a liar, an idiot, or a God? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
More of this, KoM? Saying he's wrong, but without explaining just how? You see, I've heard the supposed refutation of the trilemma. And much like my syllagism about abortion, I see poeple asserting thier refutaions, but the only people who find those refutaions compelling are people who already disagree with the original argument.
I remember you telling me that, Sam. I don't remember you having anything worthwhile to say to back up that patently false assertion. Now if fugu explains it, I might listen. He seems to know what hes talking about.
Well, MightyCow, by your criteria, surely you place him in nearly as much esteem as I do. He was brilliant.
I don't get the goalpost thing. I must be missing something
Pre-emptive retort: "That's the understatement of the week!" *high-fives; ass-slapping*
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hahahahaha! Except you have to make them all start with the same letter. Deceiver, dunce, or deity?
quote:That swishing sound you hear is the goalposts moving.
I think that's a little unfair. Fugu did say to list off any steps Resh had questions about, and the evolution of sexual reproduction seems tricky until you find out that (like the borders between single-cell and multi-cell organisms) the dividing line isn't so clear. I know I had several questions I needed answered before I could accept the theory, because I used to believe strongly in a more or less literal interpretation of Genesis. I'm glad that people took the time to explain things. On the other hand, it's possible that Resh is just trying to score points and this is the beginning of goalpost-moving behavior. We'll see.
It's late and I'm tired, but I'll throw out a few comments. There are species which reproduce both sexually and asexually. For example, yeast cells can exist in a haploid state and reproduce asexually by budding; diploid yeast cells can bud too. However, yeast does sometimes mate, generally when it's under stress. When life is good, there's no reason to mess with a set of genes that works. But when things are tough, it's a good time for sexual reproduction because shuffling genetic information opens the door for a yeast cell that's better adapted to that environment. Of course, you might also end up with a daughter cell that's worse-off than the parent. It's a gamble.
Mating occurs when one of the haploid cells fuses with another haploid cell to form a diploid cell. There are two different types of haploid cells, and opposite types mate with each other, sort of like the yeast's version of male and female cells. The "sex" of a yeast cell is controlled by just a few genes, and some wild-type strains can actually switch from one to the other during cell division. Essentially, these cells have inactive copies of both sets of sex genes, and an active copy of one or the other. They can remove the active gene set and put in a copy of the other set, thereby switching sex.
Once mating has occurred, the diploid cells can undergo meiosis to form spores consisting of new haploid cells.
So, part of the answer is that in some organisms, asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction happen together. The evolution of sex wasn't a sudden leap from asexual to sexual reproduction, but rather sex probably developed as sort of an emergency mechanism for recombination used when the organism is threatened. Eventually, it became the primary means of reproduction in many species because genetic recombination is so very, very useful.
posted
I think Lewis was an intelligent man who wrote some great books. That doesn't mean that I agree with his theology.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lewis presented the hoary old false trilemma as though it were both a new argument, and any good. But any moderately clever person must certainly have seen the huge, gaping hole in it. So aren't you forced to the conclusion that Lewis was either being deliberately dishonest in an intellectual argument, or else he was determined to be not-very-bright when it came to seeing holes in what he believed?
*giggle* Are you saying Lewis was obviously a liar, an idiot, or a God?
Heh.
quote: I think Lewis was an intelligent man who wrote some great books. That doesn't mean that I agree with his theology.
quote:Lewis presented the hoary old false trilemma as though it were both a new argument, and any good. But any moderately clever person must certainly have seen the huge, gaping hole in it.
That's fair - that's how I feel about people who blather on about Invisible Pink Unicorns, FSMs, and teapots circling Mars.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Out of interest, what's the gaping hole in the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy?
As used in the original letter to the Kansas School Board? There's really not a gaping hole.
As commonly used now as another version of the teapot (also as used now), the same thing that's wrong with the teapot analogy.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:More of this, KoM? Saying he's wrong, but without explaining just how?
I beg your pardon, was I speaking to you? Anyway, the problem with the trilemma is threefold: First, it leaves out the option of 'legend'; second, it takes the Gospels as - you should excuse the expression - gospel truth; and third, it applies just as much to Joseph Smith, in whose prophet-hood you do not believe.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It also ignores the historical groups of early Christians, some of whom had direct contact with Jesus, who didn't believe any of the three options.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That swishing sound you hear is the goalposts moving.
I think that's a little unfair. Fugu did say to list off any steps Resh had questions about, and the evolution of sexual reproduction seems tricky until you find out that (like the borders between single-cell and multi-cell organisms) the dividing line isn't so clear.... On the other hand, it's possible that Resh is just trying to score points and this is the beginning of goalpost-moving behavior. We'll see.
It didn't read like goalpost moving at all to me, actually. My read on the situation was that Resh was surprised by fugu's level of expertise and the clarity of the explanation, and was asking the question about the development of sexual reproduction because he thought that he'd get a thorough, well articulated answer.
So Resh, what did you think of Shigosei's explanation of the development of sexual reproduction? Do you still need fugu to address it, or did Shig's answer do the job?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I remember you telling me that, Sam. I don't remember you having anything worthwhile to say to back up that patently false assertion. Now if fugu explains it, I might listen. He seems to know what hes talking about.
You must have also forgotten the summary counterpoints I made, and how they were backed up with links detailing the categorization, validity and observation of macroevolution.
You just ignored them, and ignored much of the same from others, and then wander into this thread making statements that seem to imply that you don't even have a working understanding of what macroevolution is.
But you have not at any time let this trivial detail stop you from being certain that it does not exist.
Now, got anything else to say about replicated macroevolution being a 'patently false assertion,' or do we get to move on from here?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I guess you weren't talking to me, KoM. But I was talking to you. Fair enough? But your objection to the options you believe are being left out are really not possible. Jesus most certainly was not a legend, and no one really doubts that the things that the gospels said that he said were never really said. There were many thousands of people who heard his words, and much of the gospel's content was considered common knowledge at the time.
And yes, the three choices do apply to Joseph Smith. And with all due respect to the Mormons -who seem to be doing something right because there are times that I wish I was a Mormon- I believe that Smith was either a Madman or was lying or decieved. In fact, that is really probably the only option that is not included as pertains to Jesus: He was deceived into believing that his words were true.
Mr Squicky, what did they believe? That he was not a liar, not crazy, and yet was not what he said he was? If you say they thought he was deceived, well, I'll have to accuse you of stealing my idea.
Shigosei's answer was adequate, Noemon, and as fascinating to me as Fugu's description of the little stalk monsters. The diversity of life here on Earth is amazing. You guys are proving your point very well, and I had no doubt that you would. That was why I wasn't really concerned with asking the question that fugu kept insisting that I ask. But I didn't want to hurt his feelings by ignoring him because he's been really nice and patient with me.
I already know how well the theory works; there have been extremely smart people working on it for many decades. But for those of you who took the paradigm shift ride with me on an older thread already know that I only think the theory works within a certain specific framework, and I don't believe that the framework accurately represents existence. So there's your goalpost getting moved. Explain the theory within the context of my paradigm (which I would really rather not have to explain again, but I will go and look for the thread so that I can link to it), and then you'll get your field goal.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
This was the thread, and what a thread it was! I ended up re-reading most of it. Very exciting. My first post on page five (where I'm linking) is where I start explaining the paradigm, but you may want go back a page or two. Hell, read the whole thread. It's great.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mr Squicky, what did they believe? That he was not a liar, not crazy, and yet was not what he said he was?
You are aware that what made it into the Bible wasn't accepted by everyone and that there were other accounts of Jesus's life and ministry, right?
The canon for the Bible was put together by people who bought strongly into the idea that Jesus was divine, many of whom suppressed (sometimes violently) other versions. They eventually won out, but that doesn't mean that there weren't groups that believed differently.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
