Logical Thinking
Want to say something off topic? Something that has nothing to do with Trek? Post it here.
Dr. Lazarus
Topic Starter
posted on August 24th, 2007, 2:58 pm
I apologise if I've misunderstood anything you've put forward. It can be difficult to see what another person means on the internet, so I'm sorry for that. However, please allow me to address a few points that relate to the discussion.
I'm certainly not a molecular biologist, but I am a trained chemist, and there's nothing in my book that forbids a molecule from self-replicating, and in fact it happens all the time in our cells. When a DNA molecules duplicates, the amount of material effectively doubles in size, but this material does not come from nowhere, it principally comes from RNA molecules present elsewhere in the cell. I believe that what you were actually referring to was the simple law of conservation of mass, which, in reality, applies only to the whole universe. The mass of the universe is constant, but a chemical reaction vessel may increase in mass if that mass is available and suitable for reactivity. The copying of DNA is a chemical reaction, albeit a highly complex one.
The first law of thermodynamics says that the internal energy of an isolated system remains constant. The isolated system may be the universe, or a shut off reaction vessel such as a Thermos flask. I do not believe that this is what you meant, so it has no bearing on the discussion.
You say this in response to God's seeming fondness for non-human phenomena (and phenomena which may harm us). I agree that some aspects of God (such as the "creation of time" etc) can verge on the metaphysical if taken far enough, but I do not believe that is the case here. The entities I referred to are real, physical, observable things. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, the universe would be a different place if a God existed, and the difference would be a scientific one. This is as close as we can get to disproving God. The universe has all the hallmarks of an indifferent environment, hence parasites, tsunamis and babies being crushed to death become the brakes on some guys car fails and he mounts a pavement. I know it's hard to accept, but it really seems that we got where we are without outside assistance.
Of course, you're quite right, we can force the molecules into one corner, but what if the universe only consisted of molecules and a bedroom to house them? Such a situation is similar to at the start of the universe. I certainly did not exist to push molecules into an ordered system back then, and neither did a God. So, faced woth no other option, I ask the question about how likely it is that they could accumulate in one corner.
It can help here to have an understanding of statistical mechanics. We can define the corner any way we like, because (believe it or not) every possible combination of molecular distributions has the same probability. In fact, it is most helpful to define the corner as infinitely small, i.e. all the molecules at the same location (not possible due to intermolecular forces considerations, but a useful theoretical device). This configuration is just as likely as all the others. The only snag is that all of the other combinations (mostly, molecules distributed about the room) greatly outnumber this one. They are not more worthy, just more numerous. Diffusion of a gas happens because of this. In other words, the apprarently greatly ordered corner system is very possible and worthy. A probability mathematician will tell you that, given enough time, the molecules will accumulate in the corner.
So, to recap, you said that the gas is not likely to accumulate due to random-chance. However, the possible outcomes (accumulation, dispersal etc etc), and the apparent "randomness" that arises, is the result of statistics, not the other way around. This defies intuition but is the basis of modern statistical techniques in chemistry (note: even in molecular biology, where the famous statisical method, the Monte Carlo methos, is employed frequently to try to understand how a bunch of comlex molecules will behave). I advise reading up on the subject, e.g. in Atkins' Physical Chemistry, great book!
Obviously the seemingly ordered system is more likely with an outside "push", but my point is that, faced with no other choice, it is still possible mathematically. And if indeed (as it seems) no God existed, then this is the only choice we have, and it is still satisfactory.
I'm not sure my Christian background is entirely irrelevant. If I could come to a realisation of reality (and believe me, I was hellbent on creationism) then anybody can. Also, it illustrates that, as a past creationist, I once used the very arguments you are using with me. Nobody has said anything to me so far that I haven't heard before. Scientists refute these all the time, but in reality not everybody will listen, and on top of that, many distrust science.
You say that "molecules do not in fact replicate", which I find deeply worrying. You wouldn't be alive if DNA molecules inside you were not constantly unzipping, zipping and doubling up all the time. There are some great biology books out there that will show this to you. The ony proper description is "replication", and even some types of RNA molecules are called "transcription" RNA and "messeneger" RNA, each with a task that you might deem complex. Forgive me for saying, and I mean no insult, but you seem to be confused about some basic scientific principles, ranging from cell biology to the laws of thermodynamics and even elementary probability theory. Would you agree that, if we want to even try to explain how life got here, we must first study the sciences carfully and critically? It's better to attack a problem from a position of strength. If I've yet again misunderstood anything you've said, I apologise.
I also believe that your use of 'self-replicating molecules' was a mistake. Molecules do not in fact replicate, as that would imply creation of new matter which goes against the first law of thermodynamics, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm certainly not a molecular biologist, but I am a trained chemist, and there's nothing in my book that forbids a molecule from self-replicating, and in fact it happens all the time in our cells. When a DNA molecules duplicates, the amount of material effectively doubles in size, but this material does not come from nowhere, it principally comes from RNA molecules present elsewhere in the cell. I believe that what you were actually referring to was the simple law of conservation of mass, which, in reality, applies only to the whole universe. The mass of the universe is constant, but a chemical reaction vessel may increase in mass if that mass is available and suitable for reactivity. The copying of DNA is a chemical reaction, albeit a highly complex one.
The first law of thermodynamics says that the internal energy of an isolated system remains constant. The isolated system may be the universe, or a shut off reaction vessel such as a Thermos flask. I do not believe that this is what you meant, so it has no bearing on the discussion.
I could form a logical rebuttal, but that would delve into theology and metaphysics, a place to which I have pointedly avoided introducing to this purely scientific, albeit hypothetical, question.
You say this in response to God's seeming fondness for non-human phenomena (and phenomena which may harm us). I agree that some aspects of God (such as the "creation of time" etc) can verge on the metaphysical if taken far enough, but I do not believe that is the case here. The entities I referred to are real, physical, observable things. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, the universe would be a different place if a God existed, and the difference would be a scientific one. This is as close as we can get to disproving God. The universe has all the hallmarks of an indifferent environment, hence parasites, tsunamis and babies being crushed to death become the brakes on some guys car fails and he mounts a pavement. I know it's hard to accept, but it really seems that we got where we are without outside assistance.
A hypothetical point: with human intervention, the chance of all molecules moving in a single corner (how do you define this corner?) of your room becomes far more likely that it would be random chance...
Of course, you're quite right, we can force the molecules into one corner, but what if the universe only consisted of molecules and a bedroom to house them? Such a situation is similar to at the start of the universe. I certainly did not exist to push molecules into an ordered system back then, and neither did a God. So, faced woth no other option, I ask the question about how likely it is that they could accumulate in one corner.
It can help here to have an understanding of statistical mechanics. We can define the corner any way we like, because (believe it or not) every possible combination of molecular distributions has the same probability. In fact, it is most helpful to define the corner as infinitely small, i.e. all the molecules at the same location (not possible due to intermolecular forces considerations, but a useful theoretical device). This configuration is just as likely as all the others. The only snag is that all of the other combinations (mostly, molecules distributed about the room) greatly outnumber this one. They are not more worthy, just more numerous. Diffusion of a gas happens because of this. In other words, the apprarently greatly ordered corner system is very possible and worthy. A probability mathematician will tell you that, given enough time, the molecules will accumulate in the corner.
So, to recap, you said that the gas is not likely to accumulate due to random-chance. However, the possible outcomes (accumulation, dispersal etc etc), and the apparent "randomness" that arises, is the result of statistics, not the other way around. This defies intuition but is the basis of modern statistical techniques in chemistry (note: even in molecular biology, where the famous statisical method, the Monte Carlo methos, is employed frequently to try to understand how a bunch of comlex molecules will behave). I advise reading up on the subject, e.g. in Atkins' Physical Chemistry, great book!
Obviously the seemingly ordered system is more likely with an outside "push", but my point is that, faced with no other choice, it is still possible mathematically. And if indeed (as it seems) no God existed, then this is the only choice we have, and it is still satisfactory.
You remind me of another friend of mine. However, all this is, unfortunately, irrelevant to the initial question posed.
I'm not sure my Christian background is entirely irrelevant. If I could come to a realisation of reality (and believe me, I was hellbent on creationism) then anybody can. Also, it illustrates that, as a past creationist, I once used the very arguments you are using with me. Nobody has said anything to me so far that I haven't heard before. Scientists refute these all the time, but in reality not everybody will listen, and on top of that, many distrust science.
You say that "molecules do not in fact replicate", which I find deeply worrying. You wouldn't be alive if DNA molecules inside you were not constantly unzipping, zipping and doubling up all the time. There are some great biology books out there that will show this to you. The ony proper description is "replication", and even some types of RNA molecules are called "transcription" RNA and "messeneger" RNA, each with a task that you might deem complex. Forgive me for saying, and I mean no insult, but you seem to be confused about some basic scientific principles, ranging from cell biology to the laws of thermodynamics and even elementary probability theory. Would you agree that, if we want to even try to explain how life got here, we must first study the sciences carfully and critically? It's better to attack a problem from a position of strength. If I've yet again misunderstood anything you've said, I apologise.
posted on August 24th, 2007, 3:52 pm
Crud, whenever I go on this thread Red makes a point, which I want to respond to.... and then I realize that the Doc has already stated what I wanted to say (albeit, in probably much more coherent phrasing). 
Oh well, the early bird gets the.... uh... I really gotta stop with the cliches.
Oh well, the early bird gets the.... uh... I really gotta stop with the cliches.
Dr. Lazarus
Topic Starter
posted on August 24th, 2007, 4:17 pm
Sorry dude, you've gotta be really quick to get in there 
.
And by the way, I love your little cliches
. And by the way, I love your little cliches
posted on August 25th, 2007, 6:06 am
i've been thinking.
when people get hungry, they eat food. we know that food will make us not hungry, because we strive for it when we are hungry, so therefore, hunger proves the existence of food, because if we were not hungry, we would not need food, and not know what it was. the same can be said of religion. Our own hunger, then- for the Transcendence, the Miracles, the Wonder, the Awe,- is proof of the existence of a food that can fulfill those needs for the Transcendence, the Miraculous, the Awe-Inspiring, the Mysterious, the Divine, and immortal verse of Supernature to which we are attached. Our religious impulses, our hungers for food unseen, which many of us have tasted nevertheless, are not mere mindless, unscientific stupidity. Since the impulses are there, there must be some substance to fulfill those needs.
when people get hungry, they eat food. we know that food will make us not hungry, because we strive for it when we are hungry, so therefore, hunger proves the existence of food, because if we were not hungry, we would not need food, and not know what it was. the same can be said of religion. Our own hunger, then- for the Transcendence, the Miracles, the Wonder, the Awe,- is proof of the existence of a food that can fulfill those needs for the Transcendence, the Miraculous, the Awe-Inspiring, the Mysterious, the Divine, and immortal verse of Supernature to which we are attached. Our religious impulses, our hungers for food unseen, which many of us have tasted nevertheless, are not mere mindless, unscientific stupidity. Since the impulses are there, there must be some substance to fulfill those needs.
posted on August 25th, 2007, 6:18 am
Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on August 25th, 2007, 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Not necessarily lumpybob. What you fail to take into consideration is the fact that perhaps humans seek knowledge. You are being too specific in your claim: for example, to use your analogy, it would be as if you had stated "we know that bananas will make us not hungry... hunger proves the existence of bananas". Spirtuality and religion are just one aspect of the desire to "find knowledge". We can prove that knowledge and hunger exists, but you cannot prove that a quakralkrj fruit exists. Do you get my drift? I'm a bit tired, but I'll return tomorrow to finish this train of thought. CHoo CHooo! Chuga Chuga Ch... 
ps-
With your idea you could just as easily say that "our scientific impulese, our hunger for food unseen..." thus proving the "un-existence" of gods because since many of us seek out unadulterated knowledge about the natural world, gods must therefore not exist. Do you understand what I'm getting at? Anywho... *yawn* to bed I must go (insect hunting tomorrow).
-Dom signing out!
ps-
With your idea you could just as easily say that "our scientific impulese, our hunger for food unseen..." thus proving the "un-existence" of gods because since many of us seek out unadulterated knowledge about the natural world, gods must therefore not exist. Do you understand what I'm getting at? Anywho... *yawn* to bed I must go (insect hunting tomorrow).
-Dom signing out!
posted on August 25th, 2007, 6:22 am
buggers, and i thought it out so well too,
at least i thought i did...
at least i thought i did...
Dr. Lazarus
Topic Starter
posted on August 25th, 2007, 9:20 pm
I have to (predictably) agree with Dom. What we percieve as a hunger for spirituality and the majesty and greatness of God is possibly our insatiable desire for understanding and knowledge, disguised as something else. Religion and related philosophies were the mainstay of intellectuals thousands of years ago, but religion is becoming less relevant each time we advance in knowledge. Every time we have a new Copernican-style revolution, for example, it seems more and more absurd that any God would view us as special, seeing as we're like specs of dust on a minute rock orbiting an average star in an insignificant coner of the galaxy, in an average part of our local cluster, in an unremarkable locale of our local supercluster (Virgo).
The development of technology tend to lead to more elegant, beautiful and powerful laws and physical devices. The very comfort and power that we try to seek in God is edging ever closer. If you think this is too optimistic, consider that in the near future, humankind will either destroy itself or reach utopia. And I don't mean global warming/nuclear holocaust and heaven, respectively. Allow me to explain if I may.
I guess you could call me a Singularistist, but without the cherry on top. What I mean is, I am quite sure that Ray Kurzweil's accelerating technology is spot on, and undeniable, but I don't know where it's heading. The data are undeniable; scientific developments are inproving at a (double) exponential rate. The prime example is Moore's law (computing power doubles every 2 years/18 months/12 months constantly revised), but there are many others (internet bandwith, proliferation of information, genome analysis, world average GDP, patents filed etc etc). By this quite sound reasoning, we see more technology advancement in the first 20 years of a century than the previous 100 years.
If you can't believe this, consider that it alrealy happened at the beginning of the 20th century, and is happening again. Think about it. Life has existed for billions plus millions of years (unless you are a "Young Earth" creationist; we won't even go there). Humans took thousands of years to learn to make iron tools instead of copper ones (creationists will not deny this). Then, the fall of Rome notwithstanding, humans took a few centruries (roughly three) to get from the renaissance to the start of the industrial revolution, which took about a century and a half. Then we had the 20th century in which rapid change on a similar scale occurred over many decades. What I am proposing now is that the scale of similar progression is now compressed down to one or two decades or maybe even less. This is the philosophy of accelerating change.
The proponents of the Singularity suggest that we are not far off human-level AI, in which case eveything goes skewiff because the AIs can carry on our research with the speed and efficiency of a computer. At this pint we can make no further predictions, like past the event horizon of a black hole in physics (hence "singularity"). I believe that this is reasonable and arguable. Either way, the advancement of science is going to radically alter society within our own lifetimes, for much much better or for much much worse.
Faced with such developments, I now suggest that the reason that fundamental christianity (as well as literalist Islamists I might add) are kicking against the world because they feel under threat. This is not without precedent, and indeed Galileo was put nder house arrest for saying that the Earth goes round the Sun. Every major scientific deicovery in history has been at odds woth the church (to me this is highly suspicious, even without the myriad logical reasons why a kind powerful God cannot exist).
Not only that, but religious people, in their march towards armageddon or rapture, risk missing out on the most beautiful, powerful and socially dynamic time ever encountered, all because they "feel" that a God must be there. Religious people are so interested in the unprovable and irrational unknown that they've already missed out on the much greater beauty and poetry in science. It springs to mind that somethimes by looking to the stars we forget the flowers at our feet. Except, in my analogy, the stars actually form part of what I am referring to when I talk about awe anf wonder of science.
I'll admit it: I'd love (more thananything) to believe in an all-powerful, all-loving God, and in fact I did in the recent past, until I couldn't ignore the inconsistencies any longer. God won't protect you if your house is on fire, or if you lose your job, or if you encounter flooding, or get assaulted. Amazingly though, humans will often do all these things. If you had a fire resistant suit on, and heard screams from children next door due to fire, would you sit back and say, "hey, they'll be fine if they have faith in me that one day they'll be rewarded". Hell no! (pardon the pun). You'd be straight in there to save them. This is why all we can rely on are fellow humans. Some are downright nasty, but most people are considerate and reasonably thoughtful.
And, with the incredible advancement of technology, we may actually end up creating our own Gods. This is not as crazy as it sounds. Think about it: how do you define a God? It's only about the power to effect change. If you had the power to eliminate poverty, would you do it? God does nothing. The power you speak of is possible via the singularity of genetics, AI ad nanotechnology, and even if no such cherry on top happens, the remarkable advances will give humans more power to help others or to destroy. I hope it is the former, and seeing as humans are all we have, I choose to put my trust in them. If a god (or gods?) present themselves in the future, fine. But for the moment, we should not believe something just because it is comforting, but we should believe something because it has basis in reality. With a bit of luck and a lot of hard work, we may find we et on just fine (better in other words) without God.
The development of technology tend to lead to more elegant, beautiful and powerful laws and physical devices. The very comfort and power that we try to seek in God is edging ever closer. If you think this is too optimistic, consider that in the near future, humankind will either destroy itself or reach utopia. And I don't mean global warming/nuclear holocaust and heaven, respectively. Allow me to explain if I may.
I guess you could call me a Singularistist, but without the cherry on top. What I mean is, I am quite sure that Ray Kurzweil's accelerating technology is spot on, and undeniable, but I don't know where it's heading. The data are undeniable; scientific developments are inproving at a (double) exponential rate. The prime example is Moore's law (computing power doubles every 2 years/18 months/12 months constantly revised), but there are many others (internet bandwith, proliferation of information, genome analysis, world average GDP, patents filed etc etc). By this quite sound reasoning, we see more technology advancement in the first 20 years of a century than the previous 100 years.
If you can't believe this, consider that it alrealy happened at the beginning of the 20th century, and is happening again. Think about it. Life has existed for billions plus millions of years (unless you are a "Young Earth" creationist; we won't even go there). Humans took thousands of years to learn to make iron tools instead of copper ones (creationists will not deny this). Then, the fall of Rome notwithstanding, humans took a few centruries (roughly three) to get from the renaissance to the start of the industrial revolution, which took about a century and a half. Then we had the 20th century in which rapid change on a similar scale occurred over many decades. What I am proposing now is that the scale of similar progression is now compressed down to one or two decades or maybe even less. This is the philosophy of accelerating change.
The proponents of the Singularity suggest that we are not far off human-level AI, in which case eveything goes skewiff because the AIs can carry on our research with the speed and efficiency of a computer. At this pint we can make no further predictions, like past the event horizon of a black hole in physics (hence "singularity"). I believe that this is reasonable and arguable. Either way, the advancement of science is going to radically alter society within our own lifetimes, for much much better or for much much worse.
Faced with such developments, I now suggest that the reason that fundamental christianity (as well as literalist Islamists I might add) are kicking against the world because they feel under threat. This is not without precedent, and indeed Galileo was put nder house arrest for saying that the Earth goes round the Sun. Every major scientific deicovery in history has been at odds woth the church (to me this is highly suspicious, even without the myriad logical reasons why a kind powerful God cannot exist).
Not only that, but religious people, in their march towards armageddon or rapture, risk missing out on the most beautiful, powerful and socially dynamic time ever encountered, all because they "feel" that a God must be there. Religious people are so interested in the unprovable and irrational unknown that they've already missed out on the much greater beauty and poetry in science. It springs to mind that somethimes by looking to the stars we forget the flowers at our feet. Except, in my analogy, the stars actually form part of what I am referring to when I talk about awe anf wonder of science.
I'll admit it: I'd love (more thananything) to believe in an all-powerful, all-loving God, and in fact I did in the recent past, until I couldn't ignore the inconsistencies any longer. God won't protect you if your house is on fire, or if you lose your job, or if you encounter flooding, or get assaulted. Amazingly though, humans will often do all these things. If you had a fire resistant suit on, and heard screams from children next door due to fire, would you sit back and say, "hey, they'll be fine if they have faith in me that one day they'll be rewarded". Hell no! (pardon the pun). You'd be straight in there to save them. This is why all we can rely on are fellow humans. Some are downright nasty, but most people are considerate and reasonably thoughtful.
And, with the incredible advancement of technology, we may actually end up creating our own Gods. This is not as crazy as it sounds. Think about it: how do you define a God? It's only about the power to effect change. If you had the power to eliminate poverty, would you do it? God does nothing. The power you speak of is possible via the singularity of genetics, AI ad nanotechnology, and even if no such cherry on top happens, the remarkable advances will give humans more power to help others or to destroy. I hope it is the former, and seeing as humans are all we have, I choose to put my trust in them. If a god (or gods?) present themselves in the future, fine. But for the moment, we should not believe something just because it is comforting, but we should believe something because it has basis in reality. With a bit of luck and a lot of hard work, we may find we et on just fine (better in other words) without God.
posted on August 26th, 2007, 7:51 pm
What your forgeting, is that all Science is just Understanding our Universe. Its all here, we just finally 'Discovered' how to make use of it. So, in otherwords, it was Planned. Someone else Planned this all to happen, set us up to occomplish this. That mabey one day, we could reach understanding it, so we can Enjoy the Adventure of Exploring it, and making it our Home.
We are often put in Positions to take Credit for things we Discover, without realizing we didn't Create what we've discoved: We just figured something out! Our Eltitlement is a Fruadulent Emotion, that is the Sole Beginnings of Socialism, Arogance, and Obsesion with ourselfs. That is what puts us on a Path to Distroying ourselves. If we understand what IS realy going on, the Big Picture, it becomes less about our Logical Thinking, and more about Reality (More than just one persons Thinking).
When you Experience different things, in Different places, you can Contruct a Picture from the Puzzle Peices you've collected, and find that None of the Peices alone cant say much, until they are put together to make one Picture: The Truth.
We are often put in Positions to take Credit for things we Discover, without realizing we didn't Create what we've discoved: We just figured something out! Our Eltitlement is a Fruadulent Emotion, that is the Sole Beginnings of Socialism, Arogance, and Obsesion with ourselfs. That is what puts us on a Path to Distroying ourselves. If we understand what IS realy going on, the Big Picture, it becomes less about our Logical Thinking, and more about Reality (More than just one persons Thinking).
When you Experience different things, in Different places, you can Contruct a Picture from the Puzzle Peices you've collected, and find that None of the Peices alone cant say much, until they are put together to make one Picture: The Truth.
posted on August 26th, 2007, 8:16 pm
Who says "we" will ever discover everything? This seems incredibly naive, pardon my bluntness. Plus as the doc stated, what makes us so special? I am a little confused by your argument in the second paragraph... could you perhaps dumb it down for me?
Lastly, who is to say we have the right puzzle pieces... if everything you said is true, then all science would be "meant for" would be for discovering this intelligence which planned for us to discover it. This is unproveable and complicates matters to the extreme. Are you trying to say that this divine power planned for us to discover scientific things in order to divine the nature of this all-powerful being? This seems to contradict itself, because it would render bunk much of science if the laws of physics and nature in general could be so altered as to create such a being.... do you understand what straws I am clumsily trying to grasp at?
-dom
Lastly, who is to say we have the right puzzle pieces... if everything you said is true, then all science would be "meant for" would be for discovering this intelligence which planned for us to discover it. This is unproveable and complicates matters to the extreme. Are you trying to say that this divine power planned for us to discover scientific things in order to divine the nature of this all-powerful being? This seems to contradict itself, because it would render bunk much of science if the laws of physics and nature in general could be so altered as to create such a being.... do you understand what straws I am clumsily trying to grasp at?
-dom
Dr. Lazarus
Topic Starter
posted on August 26th, 2007, 9:39 pm
I've heard many times before accusations by creationists of "arrogance" or even "taking credit". Each accusation is without merit. Of course, if you assume these things to be true, then you can launch forth with a long lasting argument about how "shameful" it is not to believe in a God, but therein lies the absurdity of not verifying your premises before you proceed (if you read earlier posts, you will see that this is very common from creationists). I won't address the argument that "we've figured out how to make use of the Earth, so i was all planned", because that's plainly ridiculous, and Dom refuted that. I will address these dodgy little wordings though.
It's not arrogant to conclude that humans are the most intelligent species that exists, if this fits with the best of the evidence (read earlier posts if you want to see how blatently different the universe would be with a God). Of course, scientists do not rule ot "higher beings", but we do not assume their existence by default (I am getting tired of saying that, but it must be said). If a guy said that he talks to Elvis's ghost, or the flying spaghetti monster, each night, we would askhim to prove it. Ultimately, the burdon of proof rests with the person making the claim; it is not the job of the detractors to disprove, even though they usually do a much better job at it. Prove to me first that God exists, then we'll talk.
Actually, it's far more arrogant of the human race to think that a God is so interested in us personally. At one time the religious establishment even believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe (surprise surprise, it was science that came against this position). What is more, thousands of children die of starvation each day. Why should God answer your prayers? This is the height of self-indulgence, especially when people go on to claim that they got a job etc due to God's good will. It's even more sickening when religious people claim that floods are God's punishment, things like that.
You also say that science takes the credit for things we discover. Wrong again. We may name things after people, but this aids memory and has more to do with avoiding mass confusion than anything else. Not the smoking gun you were looking for. The more scientists discover (and we're discovering an awful lot these days), the more we realise how little we know in relation to the whole (and the whole may be infinite in size; it's certainly going that way). Even Newton, centuries ago, said that he stood on the shoulders of geniuses. Einstein kept photos of famous physicists in his office to remind him who he was indebted to. Science, normally, encourages humility, and gives us a sense of how small we are (not so with the church in history and indeed the present, we're made in God's image, no less!!). ANd finally, scientists must work together nowadays. The simple problems have been solved, and science is now adolescent, so scientists must work in large teams or even international collaborations. There's no room these days for anyone taking credit; we're al in this together.
You'll have to look elsehwere to find the arrogance and self indulgance you are looking for. I encountered more kind, self-sacrificing people when at university studying chemistry than I did when I was a chrisitian. The local Elders were often haughty, arrogant and self-serving. I found my religion to be divisive and depressing. A common claim by religious people is that atheism inspired hatred via socialism due to HItler and Stalin. Well, you can count Hitler out because he firmly believed in God and this inspired his actions (there are many websites about this). Stalin may look like an unfortunate exception, but the very fact that one man can control others in a fascist style shows that it was never a truly humanist, secularist society. If there's one thing we know about the atheist, humanist people, it's that they cannot have their thinking controlled, and will not give allegiance to any hegemony. Stalin, clearly, had his own agenda. These are tired, old arguments, all over the net.
Most of the prison inmates in the US are religious, and were not converted inside. Religion has caused the deaths of countless people, far more than Marxist socialism. In past, recent centures you could expect 30% of men to die through war and conflict. In the 20th century it was just 1%. Of course, it seemed worse due to a hugely bigger population, and due to media reporting. Similarly, one report showed that there were 40% fewer wars on Earth in the past decade, but due to our pessimistic and efficient media, we all see nothing but doom and gloom. Things are improving (believe it or not), and we don't have religion to thank for that. It's all a result of a knowledge based global economy where one nation dare not go to war with another or they risk economic collapse. You may find that as the middle-east's GDP increases they will avoid conflict more and more (the USSR is not a good examole because the US found their GDP was much smaller than previously thought, and the global economy was less joined up even 5 years ago never mind 20).
We could go on forever asking questions such as, "if the uncovering of science is due to a divine plan, then where did the Indonesian tsunami fit into that plan? Hurricane Katrina?". Not to mention suffering and death of any form, in which humans have been our only hope so far. If any God is there (and a finite or partially bad God is much more likely), then he is either disinterested, or utterly powerless. It is tempting to see design or purpose in the development of life and tehcnology, but no such purpose exists with regards to viruses, parasites, predators (except contadictory or competitve purposes) or earquakes and volcanic eruptions. A cold, hard, honest look at the universe reveals it to be just as the evolutionists have been saying all along: built on the blood of competition, and greatly more in favour of beetles, bacteria and cockroaches than people (not to mention black holes). We see purpose where non exists sometimes, and this is comforting, but dangerous. I beleived it myself once. But, in the name of self-integrity, I will never believe it again, unless I receive hard evidence, and rigorous proof.
It's not arrogant to conclude that humans are the most intelligent species that exists, if this fits with the best of the evidence (read earlier posts if you want to see how blatently different the universe would be with a God). Of course, scientists do not rule ot "higher beings", but we do not assume their existence by default (I am getting tired of saying that, but it must be said). If a guy said that he talks to Elvis's ghost, or the flying spaghetti monster, each night, we would askhim to prove it. Ultimately, the burdon of proof rests with the person making the claim; it is not the job of the detractors to disprove, even though they usually do a much better job at it. Prove to me first that God exists, then we'll talk.
Actually, it's far more arrogant of the human race to think that a God is so interested in us personally. At one time the religious establishment even believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe (surprise surprise, it was science that came against this position). What is more, thousands of children die of starvation each day. Why should God answer your prayers? This is the height of self-indulgence, especially when people go on to claim that they got a job etc due to God's good will. It's even more sickening when religious people claim that floods are God's punishment, things like that.
You also say that science takes the credit for things we discover. Wrong again. We may name things after people, but this aids memory and has more to do with avoiding mass confusion than anything else. Not the smoking gun you were looking for. The more scientists discover (and we're discovering an awful lot these days), the more we realise how little we know in relation to the whole (and the whole may be infinite in size; it's certainly going that way). Even Newton, centuries ago, said that he stood on the shoulders of geniuses. Einstein kept photos of famous physicists in his office to remind him who he was indebted to. Science, normally, encourages humility, and gives us a sense of how small we are (not so with the church in history and indeed the present, we're made in God's image, no less!!). ANd finally, scientists must work together nowadays. The simple problems have been solved, and science is now adolescent, so scientists must work in large teams or even international collaborations. There's no room these days for anyone taking credit; we're al in this together.
You'll have to look elsehwere to find the arrogance and self indulgance you are looking for. I encountered more kind, self-sacrificing people when at university studying chemistry than I did when I was a chrisitian. The local Elders were often haughty, arrogant and self-serving. I found my religion to be divisive and depressing. A common claim by religious people is that atheism inspired hatred via socialism due to HItler and Stalin. Well, you can count Hitler out because he firmly believed in God and this inspired his actions (there are many websites about this). Stalin may look like an unfortunate exception, but the very fact that one man can control others in a fascist style shows that it was never a truly humanist, secularist society. If there's one thing we know about the atheist, humanist people, it's that they cannot have their thinking controlled, and will not give allegiance to any hegemony. Stalin, clearly, had his own agenda. These are tired, old arguments, all over the net.
Most of the prison inmates in the US are religious, and were not converted inside. Religion has caused the deaths of countless people, far more than Marxist socialism. In past, recent centures you could expect 30% of men to die through war and conflict. In the 20th century it was just 1%. Of course, it seemed worse due to a hugely bigger population, and due to media reporting. Similarly, one report showed that there were 40% fewer wars on Earth in the past decade, but due to our pessimistic and efficient media, we all see nothing but doom and gloom. Things are improving (believe it or not), and we don't have religion to thank for that. It's all a result of a knowledge based global economy where one nation dare not go to war with another or they risk economic collapse. You may find that as the middle-east's GDP increases they will avoid conflict more and more (the USSR is not a good examole because the US found their GDP was much smaller than previously thought, and the global economy was less joined up even 5 years ago never mind 20).
We could go on forever asking questions such as, "if the uncovering of science is due to a divine plan, then where did the Indonesian tsunami fit into that plan? Hurricane Katrina?". Not to mention suffering and death of any form, in which humans have been our only hope so far. If any God is there (and a finite or partially bad God is much more likely), then he is either disinterested, or utterly powerless. It is tempting to see design or purpose in the development of life and tehcnology, but no such purpose exists with regards to viruses, parasites, predators (except contadictory or competitve purposes) or earquakes and volcanic eruptions. A cold, hard, honest look at the universe reveals it to be just as the evolutionists have been saying all along: built on the blood of competition, and greatly more in favour of beetles, bacteria and cockroaches than people (not to mention black holes). We see purpose where non exists sometimes, and this is comforting, but dangerous. I beleived it myself once. But, in the name of self-integrity, I will never believe it again, unless I receive hard evidence, and rigorous proof.
posted on August 26th, 2007, 11:54 pm
What he said 
posted on August 28th, 2007, 1:19 am
Dr. Lazarus wrote:I apologise if I've misunderstood anything you've put forward. It can be difficult to see what another person means on the internet, so I'm sorry for that. However, please allow me to address a few points that relate to the discussion.I also believe that your use of 'self-replicating molecules' was a mistake. Molecules do not in fact replicate, as that would imply creation of new matter which goes against the first law of thermodynamics, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm certainly not a molecular biologist, but I am a trained chemist, and there's nothing in my book that forbids a molecule from self-replicating, and in fact it happens all the time in our cells. When a DNA molecules duplicates, the amount of material effectively doubles in size, but this material does not come from nowhere, it principally comes from RNA molecules present elsewhere in the cell. I believe that what you were actually referring to was the simple law of conservation of mass, which, in reality, applies only to the whole universe. The mass of the universe is constant, but a chemical reaction vessel may increase in mass if that mass is available and suitable for reactivity. The copying of DNA is a chemical reaction, albeit a highly complex one.
The first law of thermodynamics says that the internal energy of an isolated system remains constant. The isolated system may be the universe, or a shut off reaction vessel such as a Thermos flask. I do not believe that this is what you meant, so it has no bearing on the discussion.I could form a logical rebuttal, but that would delve into theology and metaphysics, a place to which I have pointedly avoided introducing to this purely scientific, albeit hypothetical, question.
You say this in response to God's seeming fondness for non-human phenomena (and phenomena which may harm us). I agree that some aspects of God (such as the "creation of time" etc) can verge on the metaphysical if taken far enough, but I do not believe that is the case here. The entities I referred to are real, physical, observable things. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, the universe would be a different place if a God existed, and the difference would be a scientific one. This is as close as we can get to disproving God. The universe has all the hallmarks of an indifferent environment, hence parasites, tsunamis and babies being crushed to death become the brakes on some guys car fails and he mounts a pavement. I know it's hard to accept, but it really seems that we got where we are without outside assistance.A hypothetical point: with human intervention, the chance of all molecules moving in a single corner (how do you define this corner?) of your room becomes far more likely that it would be random chance...
Of course, you're quite right, we can force the molecules into one corner, but what if the universe only consisted of molecules and a bedroom to house them? Such a situation is similar to at the start of the universe. I certainly did not exist to push molecules into an ordered system back then, and neither did a God. So, faced woth no other option, I ask the question about how likely it is that they could accumulate in one corner.
It can help here to have an understanding of statistical mechanics. We can define the corner any way we like, because (believe it or not) every possible combination of molecular distributions has the same probability. In fact, it is most helpful to define the corner as infinitely small, i.e. all the molecules at the same location (not possible due to intermolecular forces considerations, but a useful theoretical device). This configuration is just as likely as all the others. The only snag is that all of the other combinations (mostly, molecules distributed about the room) greatly outnumber this one. They are not more worthy, just more numerous. Diffusion of a gas happens because of this. In other words, the apprarently greatly ordered corner system is very possible and worthy. A probability mathematician will tell you that, given enough time, the molecules will accumulate in the corner.
So, to recap, you said that the gas is not likely to accumulate due to random-chance. However, the possible outcomes (accumulation, dispersal etc etc), and the apparent "randomness" that arises, is the result of statistics, not the other way around. This defies intuition but is the basis of modern statistical techniques in chemistry (note: even in molecular biology, where the famous statisical method, the Monte Carlo methos, is employed frequently to try to understand how a bunch of comlex molecules will behave). I advise reading up on the subject, e.g. in Atkins' Physical Chemistry, great book!
Obviously the seemingly ordered system is more likely with an outside "push", but my point is that, faced with no other choice, it is still possible mathematically. And if indeed (as it seems) no God existed, then this is the only choice we have, and it is still satisfactory.You remind me of another friend of mine. However, all this is, unfortunately, irrelevant to the initial question posed.
I'm not sure my Christian background is entirely irrelevant. If I could come to a realisation of reality (and believe me, I was hellbent on creationism) then anybody can. Also, it illustrates that, as a past creationist, I once used the very arguments you are using with me. Nobody has said anything to me so far that I haven't heard before. Scientists refute these all the time, but in reality not everybody will listen, and on top of that, many distrust science.
You say that "molecules do not in fact replicate", which I find deeply worrying. You wouldn't be alive if DNA molecules inside you were not constantly unzipping, zipping and doubling up all the time. There are some great biology books out there that will show this to you. The ony proper description is "replication", and even some types of RNA molecules are called "transcription" RNA and "messeneger" RNA, each with a task that you might deem complex. Forgive me for saying, and I mean no insult, but you seem to be confused about some basic scientific principles, ranging from cell biology to the laws of thermodynamics and even elementary probability theory. Would you agree that, if we want to even try to explain how life got here, we must first study the sciences carfully and critically? It's better to attack a problem from a position of strength. If I've yet again misunderstood anything you've said, I apologise.
It disturbs me greatly that you ignore the original question posed, and instead focus on picking my statement apart grammatically. I apologize that my knowledge of chemistry is not as vast as yours, and a bit rusty on top of that. Yet you also waste time begging, it seems, for an argument on God, taking my comments out of place and context whenever possible. God is not a factor in my question. he does not have to be. It seems you are the one inserting religion into science.
I did not ask for an evaluation of God. I asked a simple question on the origin of life as you understand it. I will not force you to answer, but dodging the question seems quite odd.
posted on August 28th, 2007, 1:32 am
I think he just got carried away with the fact that most of the other questions being asked or arguments made were about god/deities; so he assumed... I don't know why I am answering *slaps forehead*
*walk away, just walk... away....*
Crud, I just dug my grave didn't I
*walk away, just walk... away....
*Crud, I just dug my grave didn't I
posted on August 28th, 2007, 1:34 am
And stepped in it.
May I remind you that such an assumption is... illogical?
And I clarified my intentions in the previous post, to boot!
May I remind you that such an assumption is... illogical?
And I clarified my intentions in the previous post, to boot!
posted on August 28th, 2007, 3:54 am
(Tentitively... did you realize I was talking about the Doc?....) No need for harshness now
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests