Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do people believe what they believe?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 51 (95943)
03-30-2004 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
03-30-2004 11:19 AM


an easy confusion
I don't necessarily know that abiogenesis is kept completely and utterly separated from discussions of evolution. In fact I'd say it isn't. It's just that the connection is only one that arises naturally because both are discussing something about life.
Also, the constant tangling of them up by creationist organizations makes it easy to become confused.
However, if you just consider what evolution is about, specifically the ToE, you should be able to decide for yourself whether they are the "same thing" or only part of a continuum of scientific endeavour. You don't gotta take my word for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 03-30-2004 11:19 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
secondlaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 51 (95945)
03-30-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
03-30-2004 10:41 AM


your note to Mike
I found the information in your note to Mike fairly fruitful.
Moreover, I have to admit that I am finding it difficult to come up with an actual definition of what we are debating in this forum. Is there a definition drawn from general consensus that I can use as a reference for the future.
The only time that I have ever come upon it was in evolutionary biology and the presentation always went the way that I have already discussed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 03-30-2004 10:41 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 51 (95949)
03-30-2004 11:36 AM


Lol, consider me out of this debate. It'll take a dive into "what's abiogenesis in relation to evolution" if I say anything more. I feel what Ned said was fairly accurate, when discussing life and how it evolved it is going to be only natural to maybe ask then, "where did it come from". I for one, will not consider abiogenesis as evolution, if only to be fair to the evolutionists who get frustrated with us imposing it onto them, it's almost a strawman position.
Okay, please don't run with this, because I'd like message 1 to be the continuing theme.

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 19 of 51 (95967)
03-30-2004 12:21 PM


secondlaw stated:
"1) I have a hard time reconciling life coming from non-life."
"2) Laws of Thermodynamics: particularly the law of entropy."
Truthlover was right that these 2 arguments have been shot down before many many times.
The first one deals with philosophy, and the second deals with science. I'll address the second first.
I'm going to oversimplify a lot of things to fit it in this one post. Can't really write everything I've learned in one post.
Let say that you have an enclosed box. If you insert a handfull of particles into this box, the law of entropy says that the particles will eventully reach a state of equilibrium where all the particles are evenly spread out. If you could take a 3-D snapshot of the inside of the box, you will be able to see that there are equal spaces between all the particles. In other words, entropy has reached optimum.
The problem with trying to use the laws of thermodynamics is that it doesn't apply to living beings. The very definition of life is to be able to violate certain laws of nature.
Now, let us put a single cell into this box that is already full of particles. Because this cell is "alive," the cell wall will actively pump out certain particles and pump in certain particles to create less entropy INSIDE the cell. However, this process causes an increase in entropy in the cell's surroundings.
You are using the definition of life itself to try to use against it, which doesn't work to people that are trained in this field.
Let us now address the second statement there. So far, philosophers that support the creationist view have made 3 possibilities, which they claim to be the ONLY 3 possibilities for existence.
(1) Something had to come from something
(2) Something came from nothing
(3) Something came about from its own sake
Since I am a science person and a philosophy person, these statements are very simple minded as far as I'm concerned.
Here is an anology. I am sitting in my room. I am looking at the wall. I cannot see anything beyond the wall. THEREFORE, nothing exist beyond the wall.
See anything wrong with this logical progression? Just because I can't see anything beyond the wall doesn't mean there is nothing beyond the wall.
Going back to the 3 possibilities that creationists present. Just because we can't think of any other possibility for existence to come about doesn't mean that there aren't any out there. The human mind is still very limited. Not even the brightest minds in the world could imagine any dimension beyond the 4th, let alone 10 (recent calculations based on the string theory tells us that the universe have 10 dimensions, not 4). I don't know why these people think that they can just assume 3 possibilities and say "that's it, there's no other way..." Sounds too arrogant to me.
If these are the only 2 issues you have with science, boy do you have things to think about tonight. However, I doubt that, because you have your "unshakable faith."
Please understand that what I've written above is a grossly simplified version of what's out there. Don't start nitpicking things because I left out a dot on the i or a cross on the t.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by secondlaw, posted 03-30-2004 12:52 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 25 by compmage, posted 03-30-2004 2:07 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
secondlaw
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 51 (95975)
03-30-2004 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by coffee_addict
03-30-2004 12:21 PM


I find it humorous
You stick the one major point of life from non-life in a philosophical box, because it makes it easier to digest. It goes along with the same argument, "Because we are, it must have been." Let's speak of this in the sciences (even though as Mike said, it's a point to be discussed else where). Mathematically, quite possibly the most scientific of all disciplines, the possibility of life coming from non-life is nil. This isn't even taking all of what we know into consideration. The production of amino acids by chance, the organization of said amino acids into proteins of proper structure, the determination of proteins to be put into order to begin the chain of life. You ridicule me as though I am speaking of things in too light of a manner because 'they have already been dealt with' while that is demeaning and unscientific. Life from non-life is a principle that cannot and probably will not be overcome through laboratory conditions or any other means. I ask that you be careful before trivializing something of such bare bones evaluation.
I hold on to things because of my faith, and I hold on to other things because of observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by coffee_addict, posted 03-30-2004 12:21 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by MrHambre, posted 03-30-2004 1:10 PM secondlaw has not replied
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 03-30-2004 1:36 PM secondlaw has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 21 of 51 (95982)
03-30-2004 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by secondlaw
03-30-2004 12:52 PM


Re: I find it humorous
quote:
Mathematically, quite possibly the most scientific of all disciplines, the possibility of life coming from non-life is nil. This isn't even taking all of what we know into consideration.
I'll say it isn't. You have decided that abiogenesis is impossible, which means that a miracle had to have happened to form the original proto-life-forms. How is that any more defensible on mathematical grounds?
Our "belief" that life arose from non-life is based on the fact that naturalistic explanations have been sufficient to account for all other natural phenomena that have been studied. The way that previously-unsolvable mysteries of our Earth have yielded to empirical evidential inquiry gives us the confidence that abiogenesis may yield to the same methods. Being content to call a natural phenomenon a miracle has never furthered our understanding of anything, so we're fairly certain that the universal application of natural law is not irrelevant just yet.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by secondlaw, posted 03-30-2004 12:52 PM secondlaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 22 of 51 (95985)
03-30-2004 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by secondlaw
03-30-2004 12:52 PM


Re: I find it humorous
secondlaw writes:
Mathematically, quite possibly the most scientific of all disciplines,...
Mathematics is a tool of science, not a scientific discipline. When describing science, mathematics is often used as counterpoint because proof lies within the mathematical but not the scientific realm.
...the possibility of life coming from non-life is nil.
You said the same thing just 10 minutes before in another thread. You're welcome to try to demonstrate this mathematically, or provide a reference to someone who demonstrates this, but the experience of everyone here so far with this argument is that it is never supported, just asserted. This is because you cannot calculate the probability of events when you don't know how they happened.
It would be different if scientists first said, "Life developed like this," and then Creationists sat down with their math tables and said, "Look, this is mathematically impossible." But scientists cannot say how life first developed because there is too little evidence to go upon at this time. There may never be sufficient evidence.
So the next time someone tells you the development of life from non-life is mathematically impossible, you know they're blowing smoke.
The production of amino acids by chance...
Amino acids form by chance in space. Eight of the twenty amino acids comprising life on earth have been found in meteorites.
Life from non-life is a principle that cannot and probably will not be overcome through laboratory conditions or any other means.
Look at the company your statement keeps: Man will never travel faster than 50 mph. Man will never fly. Man will never go to the moon. Man will never create life from non-life.
You're probably aware we can build DNA sequences to order. Scientists have already constructed made-to-order uni-cellular life by borrowing the cell wall and contents from one organism while replacing the nucleus and nucleic material with their own customizations.
If life were here (which it is) and we could conceive no natural means by which life could arrive, your arguments might carry more weight. But scientists have no problem speculating on ways it might have happened, and none of them violate known physical laws.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by secondlaw, posted 03-30-2004 12:52 PM secondlaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 03-30-2004 1:53 PM Percy has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 23 of 51 (95992)
03-30-2004 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
03-30-2004 1:36 PM


Re: I find it humorous
(note: first attempt at reply to this got to "perfectnav" page, again ok the second time)
This is wondering off topic. Perhaps we should start another thread if ppl want to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 03-30-2004 1:36 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 03-30-2004 2:00 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 24 of 51 (95994)
03-30-2004 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by NosyNed
03-30-2004 1:53 PM


Re: I find it humorous
I have started a similar topic, I hope it fits your request. MrHambre - Abiogenesis and Origins
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-30-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 03-30-2004 1:53 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 25 of 51 (95997)
03-30-2004 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by coffee_addict
03-30-2004 12:21 PM


Lam writes:
The very definition of life is to be able to violate certain laws of nature.
I don't know if this is just a result of trying to simplify your explanation, but the quoted statement is wrong. Life in no way, either defined or in reality, violates the laws of nature.
Lam writes:
If you insert a handfull of particles into this box, the law of entropy says that the particles will eventully reach a state of equilibrium where all the particles are evenly spread out.
This is also incorrect. Thermodynamics has to do with how heat behaves. Entropy in thermodynamics is a word used to refer to the heat energy that is no longer available to do work.

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by coffee_addict, posted 03-30-2004 12:21 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 26 of 51 (96017)
03-30-2004 3:04 PM


compmage, the point I was trying to make was that life seem to violate certain laws of nature, like the laws of thermodynamics. But for simplicity's sake, I just said that you can't treat something that is alive like everything else.
About the particles in a box thing, I think you are thinking about enthalpy, not entropy. Entropy is the measure of disorder, which is supposed to increase naturally.
Secondlaw, scientists have been able to create amino acids out of non-organic materials under the theoretical premordial conditions. It is very possible that these amino acids, over a very very very long time, combined to form the first protein, the building block of life.
As far as the "mathematical impossibility" that you asserted, would you mind clarifying that?
People can't calculate possibilities of something they don't know, not yet anyway. The best that this fact can do in your favor is show that we still have a lot to learn about math, science, and the universe. It doesn't support creationism one bit.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by compmage, posted 03-30-2004 3:32 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 27 of 51 (96027)
03-30-2004 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by coffee_addict
03-30-2004 3:04 PM


Lam writes:
But for simplicity's sake, I just said that you can't treat something that is alive like everything else.
I thought this might be the case. You should consider being careful when you try to simplify things, sometimes (and I have done this) you end up making statements that aren't technically correct and could lead to more confusion than anything else.
Lam writes:
Entropy is the measure of disorder, which is supposed to increase naturally.
Entropy does increase naturally, but in thermodynamics it has very little to do with disorder. See this site for a slightly technical explanation of Thermodynamic Entropy.

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by coffee_addict, posted 03-30-2004 3:04 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 28 of 51 (96042)
03-30-2004 4:03 PM


Compmage, I am well aware of the technicalities behind the laws of thermodynamics (physics major). However, I've heard these arguments from creationists before, and most of them can't understand all the science behind the laws. Therefore, I've only used the concept of entropy because that was what Secondlaw was refering to. He didn't care about anything else about the law because it doesn't do much to support his view.
Coincidently, here is a direct quote from that site of yours: "For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state." The second law deals with heat and energy, but it also deals with the disorder of things. So, please stop nitpicking while you're at it.
Edited:
By the way, did you even read that website you recommended to me? If you scroll down to the bottom there, it has a whole section on the second law of thermodynamics and entropy.
[This message has been edited by Lam, 03-30-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by compmage, posted 03-30-2004 4:30 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 38 by secondlaw, posted 03-31-2004 7:26 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 29 of 51 (96050)
03-30-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by coffee_addict
03-30-2004 4:03 PM


Lam writes:
The second law deals with heat and energy, but it also deals with the disorder of things. So, please stop nitpicking while you're at it.
I was indeed nitpicking and I was perhaps a little to harsh. From your usage of the common creationist misunderstood version of the 2nd law (Entropy as disorder) I got the impression that you didn't really know what entropy was, however, having reread your posts, I see that I was mistaken. For this I apologise.

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by coffee_addict, posted 03-30-2004 4:03 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 03-30-2004 4:50 PM compmage has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 30 of 51 (96057)
03-30-2004 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by compmage
03-30-2004 4:30 PM


c, I have come to wonder indeed if there is not some intellecutal relation of changes of forms OVER time with disorder. It is beginning to seem true to me that the origin of a form and the modification of the same are different but that there is a latent (unconscious?) association of past form making thought and ORDER itself! Just a thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by compmage, posted 03-30-2004 4:30 PM compmage has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024