Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 152 (238921)
08-31-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by iano
08-31-2005 6:04 AM


Re: Science revealing God...
AEA writes:
The problem is that you are not qualified to know what science can and can’t answer. If it lies in the realm of the natural universe then it is fair game for science.
This one can be put to bed if you want. If I post quotes with references from acknowledged non-theist scientists who talk about what they feel science can't discover about the natural world, would that be enough for you to agree that there are natural limits past which science itself doesn't think it is qualified to go.
I think we are having difficulty here because we are debating different points. Let me try to be clear. I understand that there are areas of thought where science can not go. I understand that if the BB is true then any information prior to the BB event is inaccessible to science. I understand that my belief that this may be figured out analogously, one day, is a belief. At this point I understand that this is where philosophers are free to posit their best guess. Although I may not agree with their guess, as I think personifying first cause is a ridiculous start, I fully support their right to their belief.
The problem lies with creationists that push their philosophical belief as fact and not only try and fill every gap with their god but try and create more gaps where there should be none. Evolution is the example du jour. There is enough scientific evidence to support the Theory of Evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet there are theistic philosophers trying to keep this area of knowledge a gap because it doesn’t happen to agree with their philosophical beliefs. In cases such as this, I believe their philosophy has overstepped it’s bounds and should be reevaluated in light of new scientific knowledge.
I’m new here and I’m not sure what your beliefs are, but if you are a theistic evolutionist I have no quarrel with you on this issue. If you refuse to acknowledge the Theory of Evolution as truth because it doesn’t coincide with your creationist beliefs then the issue lies there and all of my arguments will make more sense.
it’s only a matter of time before the evidence for evolution and common ancestry is accepted as fact by even the theistic philosopher.
This is scientism again not science. Saying it "will be discovered" because it "has been discovered" is extrapolating a line into the future without knowing what can be discovered that will alter the path of the line. That you drive around 5000 blind bends and don't meet an oncoming car on your side of the road says nothing about the next bend. This is faith, not science.
Here is where I will definitely disagree. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) requires no future evidence to be supported beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have not accepted the ToE based on current evidence then it is only because your cognitive dissonance is causing you to hold on to your philosophical beliefs past their utility. Philosophy is not the authority in this matter, science is.
Your god could produce an unlimited number of miracles that we could scientifically measure. It should be child’s play to such a big and powerful entity right? Like falling off a log? Then why are they so conspicuously absent?
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: NO GOD. Your presumption is based on what YOU think God should or shouldn't do. Your demand is that he provides evidence on YOUR terms. But again, if you consider what he would be you would no doubt agree that his way of revealing himself (presuming again that he indeed wanted to) might well be done on HIS terms not yours. I asked before if you would consider what God would be like - if he existed. If you carried out this one minute exercise you may have noticed your jaw dropping onto the keyboard. The word 'humility' may have flashed across your skull.
Stop trying to reduce God to your size for a moment and consider that if he was able to make a logical, ordered and predictable world he was able to do other things as well which you may not be as privy to. Especially if you don't want to be.
I understand that if there is a god and if he/she created the universe it brings into play matters that are difficult, if not impossible to wrap our minds around. Like the dog that has no chance of learning higher math, we may not posses the cognitive ability to understand the nature of atemporality and omni-x. In the end, however, it is a purely philosophical exercise.
In evaluating specific claims about a theistic philosophical system I have seen assertions that your god can and has performed miracles to demonstrate his power (Moving mountains, creating floods, etc.). He has even showed up in person to handle business and kill and wrestle with men. At this point it begs the question as to why none of this happens today? Apparently your god is willing and able to definitively prove his existence in the past. Why not now? As an unbeliever, there are questions that need to be answered by more than Have faith, here’s the collection plate.
You miss the point. Although I don’t know what your particular beliefs are, many creationists believe that your god created each kind of life separately and distinctly.
If you were to finish the creationist sentence then we may be able to close this issue. "...separately and distinctly out of material he created: atoms, proteins, amino acids, DNA etc"
That's Creation. The designer Created materials then fashioned them into everything. That I can take a tree and turn it into a table doesn't mean I've closed a gap. Creating vs "creating". Your comparing apples and pears here.
Not really. A new kind of life has been created. What you are doing is simply moving the goalposts.
The most complex electron microscope in the world is powerless to remove the spark plug from my motorcycle engine. It's a question of applying the appropriate tool. Science is not a tool for investigating everything. God can be investigated - and by using core elements of the scientific style method too. First you clear out all preconceptions about God that you may have picked up (sterilising the equipment). Then you form a hypothesis of God that fits the obeservations that you can make. Based on that you deduce some tools you will need and go excavating. After you get some evidence you can possibly check the various Gods to see which one (if any) fit your theory. If you find one that fits the theory well then you go do some further investigation etc
I think you are being purposefully vague here. Please explain exactly how you use a scientific style method (whatever that is) and what evidence you used to conclude that your god exists.
If you were to decided to form a theory and go looking the one thing that should strike you early on is what it is you are looking for. Should you find it, you can expect to be humbled. If your traveling towards a destination it would seem sensible that the clothes you use to travel in are suitable for the journey. Humility would seem like sensible clothes to wear - both for the journey and the destination (should you get there). It's not like you would be influncing the data by being humble - it is good scientific practive afterall....
Invoking the words science and method, and practice does not make your evidence for belief in your god any stronger or science like. I’ve already been humbled by science and the vast unknown that science seeks to explain. I don’t need to have a philosophical belief in a personified supernatural entity to tie loose ends for me.
I see plenty of seekers. Just no evidence to be found.
If they look in the wrong place and don't use the correct tools then it is no surprise. There are millions who have satisfied themselves. And they ain't all stupid, ignorant, indoctrinated people either.
I know they aren’t all inculcated. In my journeys I have only met a few in the sea of theistic philosophy that have come to their beliefs by thinking for themselves. If 99% of people believe via inculcation, crisis, promise, and threat then I will reserve the right to generalize from time to time.
Take this from Lord Hailsham, a former Lord Chancellor of England (it's the very highest level judicial role - people who hold it are highly qualified in what constitutes evidence.)
"You do not get out of your philosophical troubles arising out of the fact of evil by rejecting God, For, as I have tried to point out before, the real problem is not the problem of evil, but the problem of good, not the problem of cruelty and selfishness, but the problem of kindness and generosity, not the problem of ugliness but the problem of beauty.
If the world is really the hopeless and meaningless jumble which one has to believe it to be once we reject our value judgements as nothing more that emotional noises, with nothing more in the way of objective truth than a certain biological survival value for the species rather than the individual, evil then presents no difficulty because it does not exist. We must expect to be knocked around a bit in the world which consists only of atoms, moleculs and strange particles. But how then, does it come about that we go through life on assumptions which are perfectly contrary to the facts, that we love our wives and our families, thrill with pleasure at the sight of a little bird dressed in green and black and white, that we rage at injustice inflicted on innocent victims, honour our martyrs, reward our heros, and even occasionally, with difficulty, forgive our enemies and do good to those who persecute us and despitefully use us?. No. Light is the problem, not darkness. It is seeing, not blindness...It is love not callousness. The thing we have to explain in the world is the positive, not the negative. It is this which led me to God in the first place
(From his book 'The door wherein I went' Collins P41-42)
I see this line of reasoning a lot. Believing that god is necessary for these qualities to exist or that atheists lack these qualities is fallacious reasoning no matter who you are. It’s just another gap filled with goddidit. I’ve seen enough examples of bad people who wear crosses and go to church every Sunday and enough good people that are atheists to know this argument holds no weight.
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-31-2005 09:55 AM
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-31-2005 03:51 PM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by iano, posted 08-31-2005 6:04 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by LauraG, posted 08-31-2005 4:34 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 92 of 152 (238938)
08-31-2005 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Ooook!
08-31-2005 6:12 AM


Re: The "I don't know" of the Gaps
ooook writes:
This demonstrates what I see as the main problem if you’re going to have a consistent position on the place of science and the supernatural. According to you, it is perfectly fine to cram God into gaps in our knowledge and then, when science provides a satisfactory explanation, you just move onto the next gap: no problem. This seems like a rather odd, changeable ‘knowledge’ to me.
I not speaking for others so whatever they've retreated from is for them. My point is that science doesn't close gaps what science does is opens them. Every step reveals more to find out than before. Think of the start of science being at the hub of a wheel. Science is just a few spokes crowded around the hub: motion, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics etc. As science moves radially out along the spokes it filling gaps, it finds that the distance between it and the next spoke has widened - creating gaps. So, more spokes get added to the hub (new areas of science, derivative areas of sciences). The further that is progressed the biggers the gaps the more science needs to be added. Which is what we find today. A bewildering number of areas of investigation.
Eventually the spokes will be so numerous that there will be no space between them and the others, the gaps will become filled faster that new gaps open up. What I call God is the rim of the wheel to which every spoke leads. Nature will be explained but without terminating anywhere but in mystery. First Cause and Abiogenesis are two that spring to mind. These are not the same as "science doesn't know yet". These are those at which science itself considers itself to be unqualified to be ever able to penetrate (First Cause) or where it is apparent that science will never be able to comment in anything but a very tentitive way(abiogenesis)
I really don’t mind if people want to make themselves feel warm and fuzzy inside by taking comfort in this exponentially expanding collection of gaps. The problem arises when people then use this ‘truth’ to attack the progress of science or to justify otherwise unjustifiable actions.
I agree. Let science progress I say. Just don't say science/objectivity/empiricism is the only way to know anything. Otherwise that warm fuzzy feeling (peace is a better description for it) might just turn nasty..
believers in the ‘truth’ have a direct influence on people’s lives.
They do indeed. Ever hear of the Red CROSS (I ain't sure who set it up but the name might give a clue). Alcoholics Anonymous (set up by Christians) Religious charities working in third world countries all over the world, the abolitionist (slavery) Bishop William Wilberforce, schools, universities, hospitals again all over the world by religious orders.
There are whackos on all sides, But to think science and belief in God are at loggerheads is a fallacy witnessed by the fact that 40% of scientists surveyed in a Nature poll 1997 said they believe in God.
We don’t let this kind of thinking effect us in any other aspects of life
Your not going to turn out to be another "empiricism uber alles" adherant are you. Please say your not. But if you are, demonstrate it...empirically

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Ooook!, posted 08-31-2005 6:12 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Ooook!, posted 09-01-2005 5:19 AM iano has replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 152 (239120)
08-31-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-31-2005 9:27 AM


Re: Science revealing God...
iano writes:
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: NO GOD. Your presumption is based on what YOU think God should or shouldn't do. Your demand is that he provides evidence on YOUR terms. But again, if you consider what he would be you would no doubt agree that his way of revealing himself (presuming again that he indeed wanted to) might well be done on HIS terms not yours. I asked before if you would consider what God would be like - if he existed. If you carried out this one minute exercise you may have noticed your jaw dropping onto the keyboard. The word 'humility' may have flashed across your skull.
Stop trying to reduce God to your size for a moment and consider that if he was able to make a logical, ordered and predictable world he was able to do other things as well which you may not be as privy to. Especially if you don't want to be.
Let's try this excercise for a moment:
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: NO EVOLUTION. Your presumption is based on what YOU think Evolution should or shouldn't do. Your demand is that it provides evidence on YOUR terms. But again, if you consider what it would be you would no doubt agree that its way of revealing itself (presuming again that you indeed wanted it to) might well be done on ITS terms not yours. I asked before if you would consider what Evolution would be like - if it existed. If you carried out this one minute exercise you may have noticed your jaw dropping onto the keyboard. The word 'humility' may have flashed across your skull.
Stop trying to reduce Evolution to your size for a moment and consider that if it was able to make a logical, ordered and predictable world it was able to do other things as well which you may not be as privy to. Especially if you don't want to be.
Hmmm. Still fits pretty well, doesn't it?
Bold indicates my edits to iano's original text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-31-2005 9:27 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Rahvin, posted 08-31-2005 5:45 PM LauraG has not replied
 Message 96 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 5:36 AM LauraG has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


Message 94 of 152 (239158)
08-31-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by LauraG
08-31-2005 4:34 PM


Re: Science revealing God...
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: NO EVOLUTION. Your presumption is based on what YOU think Evolution should or shouldn't do. Your demand is that it provides evidence on YOUR terms. But again, if you consider what it would be you would no doubt agree that its way of revealing itself (presuming again that you indeed wanted it to) might well be done on ITS terms not yours. I asked before if you would consider what Evolution would be like - if it existed. If you carried out this one minute exercise you may have noticed your jaw dropping onto the keyboard. The word 'humility' may have flashed across your skull.
Stop trying to reduce Evolution to your size for a moment and consider that if it was able to make a logical, ordered and predictable world it was able to do other things as well which you may not be as privy to. Especially if you don't want to be.
Hmmm. Still fits pretty well, doesn't it?
Bold indicates my edits to iano's original text.
Lol, that was both highly amusing and entirely accurate.helpdesk

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by LauraG, posted 08-31-2005 4:34 PM LauraG has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5805 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 95 of 152 (239394)
09-01-2005 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by iano
08-31-2005 10:47 AM


Ring-fencing the start of life
Hello again,
I've just had a look at the last few posts we've exchanged and (I know it's hard to believe) I think we may be up OT creek without a paddle.
Your not going to turn out to be another "empiricism uber alles" adherant are you. Please say your not.
You know, I rather think I am one of the variations within that evil bunch . I'd love to continue the debate on the wrongs and rights of non-empirical 'knowledge' - there are a few things that you've picked up on that I'd like to clarify - but I don't think it's particularly relevant to abiogenesis and synthetic life. Is there another thread for it?
I think the discussion of what can be open for scientific knowledge and investigation, and what gets defined as 'unknowable' in a conventional sense can be focused towards the start of life on earth. So I'd like to look at that part of your argument, if that's alright - and I'll try not to stray too far.
iano writes:
Think of the start of science being at the hub of a wheel. Science is just a few spokes crowded around the hub: motion, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics etc. As science moves radially out along the spokes it filling gaps, it finds that the distance between it and the next spoke has widened - creating gaps. So, more spokes get added to the hub (new areas of science, derivative areas of sciences)...
...What I call God is the rim of the wheel to which every spoke leads.
This seems like a bit of a mixed metaphor to me - you've got gaps in knowlege being described as both the spaces between spokes and as the rim of the wheel itself. On top of that you've got an expanding wheel, so presumably at one point in the progression of knowledge something that is now inside the rim (and therefore empirically knowable) was once on the rim (and therefore 'Goddidit'). How are you ever going to distinguish between spoke gaps and rim gaps? How can we predict what will be discovered and what won't?
In the case of abiogenesis and ID, creationists want people to believe that the 'wheel of knowledge' is solid and immutable. They ring-fence gaps in knowledge as 'God' and refuse to accept any evidence that may undermine their confident assertions. "Don't know" can change, quite happily, to "Evidence suggests" without any philosophical cartwheels. "I know!" switching to "Evidence suggests otherwise" is a different kettle of fish entirely, and that's where the conflict between faith and science emerges.
You can quite easily declare that the 'universal' genetic code and the protein synthesis machinary could not have sprung up by random changes/natural selection but when evidence appears to suggest that RNA could support basic metabolic processes and that the coding for amino acids could have arisen in a step-wise manner then you have to respond. ID's response is to shout "No! I mean really prove it" followed by a slight shift of the boundaries of their black box. They don't have to provide a shred of evidence in support of their own position, they just 'know'.
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 01-09-2005 10:21 AM

Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinis alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by iano, posted 08-31-2005 10:47 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 6:08 AM Ooook! has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 96 of 152 (239395)
09-01-2005 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by LauraG
08-31-2005 4:34 PM


Re: Science revealing God...
LauraG writes:
Let's try this excercise for a moment:
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: NO EVOLUTION....
It is amusing but I'm afraid it falls at the first fence. Having a why? then presuming the answer to the question to be a negative is not an answer
But you've given me an idea!
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: EVOLUTION. Your presumption is based on what YOU think Evolution should or shouldn't do. Your ensure it provides evidence on YOUR terms. But again, if you consider what it would be you would no doubt agree that its way of revealing itself (presuming again that you indeed wanted it to) might well be done on ITS terms not yours. I asked before if you would consider what Evolution would be like - if it existed. If you carried out this one minute exercise you may have noticed your jaw dropping onto the keyboard. The word 'impossible' may have flashed across your skull.

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by LauraG, posted 08-31-2005 4:34 PM LauraG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by LauraG, posted 09-01-2005 10:14 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 97 of 152 (239399)
09-01-2005 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Ooook!
09-01-2005 5:19 AM


Re: Ring-fencing the start of life
ooook writes:
This seems like a bit of a mixed metaphor to me - you've got gaps in knowlege being described as both the spaces between spokes and as the rim of the wheel itself. On top of that you've got an expanding wheel, so presumably at one point in the progression of knowledge something that is now inside the rim (and therefore empirically knowable) was once on the rim (and therefore 'Goddidit'). How are you ever going to distinguish between spoke gaps and rim gaps? How can we predict what will be discovered and what won't?
The wheel is a fixed diameter and, after only 400 years of scienctific activity we're getting an idea of how large the diameter is. If the area inside the rim is completely filled you'd have a solid disc - not spokes and gaps. A solid disc is when everything is known. But we're not that far yet. It's still spokes and gaps. Everything inside the rim is consistant with everything else inside the rim. This whether you travel radially along a spoke (a particular branch of science) or whether you travel in a circular direction from spoke to spoke (consistancy between diverse branches of science). Consistant that is, internally, within the rim. The natural world.
We know what the diameter of the wheel is when we get to the end of the spokes. There are like I say, areas cropping up which end in mystery. Science develops theories but until they start delivering up answers (which they very often do) they remain just speculative theories. When there is only theories but no way of extracting answers from them then science is at the end of a spoke. It is at the rim. Mystery.
First cause is one, abiogenesis is another. I'm sure there are dozens being approached. Science, for instance can provide a location in the brain to answer why 'I am happy, sad, depressed, horny'. It cannot provide a location for 'I am'. There is no way to test for it. The statement that 'I am' is the whole brain is but a thoery. You can apply an electrical impluse to the brain to get the right hand to move involuntarily. You can prescribe drugs to make "I am depressed" into "I am happy". You cannot probe a part of the brain to get a person to say " I am not"
Notice that the areas of mystery are all massive, origin ones - from which all else derives. And they will all be like that. Science can explain how - but only up to a point. It can explain why - but only up to a point. It will always arrive at a gap and the gap isn't small.
It's infinitely large.

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Ooook!, posted 09-01-2005 5:19 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 6:22 AM iano has replied
 Message 103 by Ooook!, posted 09-01-2005 9:06 AM iano has replied
 Message 105 by LauraG, posted 09-01-2005 10:23 AM iano has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 98 of 152 (239400)
09-01-2005 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by iano
09-01-2005 6:08 AM


Re: Ring-fencing the start of life
You cannot probe a part of the brain to get a person to say " I am not"
What is your evidence for this? People can be made to believe some pretty bizarre things due to monkeying around with their brain, I'm not so convinced that they might not beleieve that they don't exist. The fact that we haven't done it yet is not solid evidence that it can't be done, that is gapism at its most blatant. similarly with abiogenesis there is a considerable body of work which gives us several reasonable scenarios for abiogenesis, we may never be able to know if one particular scenario is how it actually happened but it is a million miles away from a metaphysically unapproachable concept such as 'first cause'.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 6:08 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 7:27 AM Wounded King has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 99 of 152 (239412)
09-01-2005 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Wounded King
09-01-2005 6:22 AM


Re: Ring-fencing the start of life
woundedking writes:
What is your evidence for this? People can be made to believe some pretty bizarre things due to monkeying around with their brain, I'm not so convinced that they might not beleieve that they don't exist.
No matter how you monkey around with something you are only affecting the 'x' part of "I am 'x'" You might get a person to say the words "I am not". That's fiddling with some cognitive element of the brain. It's probably relatively straightforward - but for them to actually realise they are not, they have to be. To be or not to be may be the question. But there is no answer. Only mystery. That's what I mean. The only way to even suspect a person 'is not' is when they are dead. But of course death is another unfathomable mystery so not even that provides us with an answer. As far as evidence goes - I cannot produce evidence for something that no one seems to have found any evidence for - the location of something we know exists "I am"
(I'm not familiar with near death experiences but presumably no brain activity is apparent for the person to be pronounced dead - yet when such people 'come back' to life they have been the whole time the brain showed no function. I don't know though as I haven't investigated it)
The fact that we haven't done it yet is not solid evidence that it can't be done, that is gapism at its most blatant. similarly with abiogenesis there is a considerable body of work which gives us several reasonable scenarios for abiogenesis, we may never be able to know if one particular scenario is how it actually happened but it is a million miles away from a metaphysically unapproachable concept such as 'first cause'.
The fact that we haven't done it yet but presume we can is Scientism at it's most blatant. The most central element of who we are. The skeleton on which all cognitive function hangs and nothing. The very basis for all the rest. And no objective evidence. It's precisely like first cause - because it is another first cause - as is abiogenesis.
Setting up an experiment by which life can come into existance (say a strand of self-replicating RNA) may well be done. But not undirectedly - only by using intelligent analysis of what makes up life then setting up and intelligent experiment which intelligently presumes (but cannot know for sure) things about the conditions back then. That says nothing about how it came about. If it is claimed (as it no doubt would be) that another gap has been filled it is only because pseudoscience says so. No one can know - any experiment will be speculative. It can only say "it could have happened this way".
A book of evidence isn't a case. It's a book of evidence. Don't let a bucketful of assertion fool you into thinking otherwise.

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 6:22 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 7:57 AM iano has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 100 of 152 (239424)
09-01-2005 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by iano
09-01-2005 7:27 AM


Re: Ring-fencing the start of life
The fact that we haven't done it yet but presume we can is Scientism at it's most blatant.
Just as well that isn't what I did then.
You might get a person to say the words "I am not". It's probably relatively straightforward - but for them to actually realise they are not, they have to be.
I love that sound the goalposts make when you move them.
No one can know - any experiment will be speculative. It can only say "it could have happened this way".
Which is exactly what I was saying, but the level of the unknown between abiognesis and 'First cause' is considerable.
But not undirectedly - only by using intelligent analysis of what makes up life then setting up and intelligent experiment which intelligently presumes (but cannot know for sure) things about the conditions back then.
You seem to be driving this toward some metaphysical twaddlefest on the impossibility of really 'knowing' anything.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 7:27 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 8:24 AM Wounded King has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 101 of 152 (239437)
09-01-2005 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Wounded King
09-01-2005 7:57 AM


Re: Ring-fencing the start of life
wounded king writes:
Just as well that isn't what I did then.
That you said "no reason to suppose we won't know" didn't include the other half "no reason to suppose we will" meant I jumped to the conclusion that you were an adherent to scientism. Sorry
I love that sound the goalposts make when you move them.
I was taking a leaf out of sciences book. Tentitive theory. If a gap in the theory is shown either modify the theory to accomodate it or the theory is dumped. Whats good for the goose...
Which is exactly what I was saying, but the level of the unknown between abiognesis and 'First cause' is considerable.
Many here would not agree with you. They pose causless singularity, Bang for no reason, something from nothing, unknown dimensions etc. All speculation. Precisely the same as abiogenesis. Only speculation is possible here too. Nothing concrete. Ever
You seem to be driving this toward some metaphysical twaddlefest on the impossibility of really 'knowing' anything.
You said it not me. Which is precisely the way it is when you think about it. Every piece of scientific knowledge is based, somewhere along the line on an unknown. Thus all knowledge is partial and tentitive. And it will always be.
Maybe that's why people start looking for God. They find the tentitive doesn't satisfy and want to know something true. Not tentitively true but actually true. It was the case for me anyway.
The alternative is to be tossed around in whatever direction the tentitive Titanic happens to be moving in at a particular moment in time. I found it made me a little queasy...
If you want to walk on water, you gotta get out of the boat
This message has been edited by iano, 01-Sep-2005 01:25 PM

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 7:57 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2005 8:38 AM iano has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 102 of 152 (239441)
09-01-2005 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by iano
09-01-2005 8:24 AM


Re: Ring-fencing the start of life
They pose causless singularity, Bang for no reason, something from nothing, unknown dimensions etc. All speculation. Precisely the same as abiogenesis.
Wow, you know, I can't think of a single experiment in the field of abiogenesis which resembles any of those aspects associated with theories of the start of the universe in any way. The whole point is that the empirical experiments performed with respect to abiogenesis mean that it isn't all speculation. We may never know for sure exactly how it happened but the more avenues we explore and the more detailed our knowledge becomes the less tentative the likelihhod for certain hypothesis is bound to become. So while we may neve know we may one day be able to make a bloody well informed guess.
I just don't see where knowledge of God is any less tentative than any other sort.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 8:24 AM iano has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5805 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 103 of 152 (239451)
09-01-2005 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by iano
09-01-2005 6:08 AM


Re: Ring-fencing the start of life
iano writes:
The wheel is a fixed diameter and, after only 400 years of scienctific activity we're getting an idea of how large the diameter is. If the area inside the rim is completely filled you'd have a solid disc - not spokes and gaps. A solid disc is when everything is known. But we're not that far yet. It's still spokes and gaps.
Aha! I think I've got the analogy now. But I've still got the same kind of questions about when we should declare the 'rim' is or whether it's possible to define where the spokes will end at all.
When there is only theories but no way of extracting answers from them then science is at the end of a spoke. It is at the rim. Mystery.
The world is full of mysteries, true. But before we started all this scientific discovery business it was full of a boat load more. It was once thought that the atom was the smallest thing in the universe, and then the electron, and then people started to taste the quark etc and they are still looking. Why should we have to try and define the limits to our knowledge, why not just wait and see what comes up?
If it were up to the Young Earthers then the evolution spokes would be considerably shorter than they are now. According to traditional creationism God and only God could explain the diversity of species on this planet. Scientific knowledge would be extremely impoverished. Now the IDers want to try the same trick with abiogenesis and announce that God and only God can explain things like the genetic code and complicated protein complexes. Should we stop looking for evidence about the start of life simply because some people 'know' we can't find anything else?

Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinis alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 6:08 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 10:44 AM Ooook! has replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 152 (239472)
09-01-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by iano
09-01-2005 5:36 AM


Re: Science revealing God...
iano writes:
It is amusing but I'm afraid it falls at the first fence. Having a why? then presuming the answer to the question to be a negative.
You must be a little irked that I have you arguing my case for me. Let me remind you how this little exchange got started:
iano writes:
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: NO GOD...
Now, on to your argument, which I'll take sentence by sentence, as I did before, instead of just flipping around the first sentence and calling it impossible at the end.
iano writes:
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: EVOLUTION.
No, we had a series of observations and a curiosity for an explanation. The evidence produced by the investigation took us to an explanation and it was called Theory of Evolution. An alternative you have to make your argument fit is to follow the same process of observation and investigation to god, then follow the evidence that and see where you end up... and no, the bible isn't evidence.
iano writes:
Your presumption is based on what YOU think Evolution should or shouldn't do. Your ensure it provides evidence on YOUR terms.
Please support how everyone who has studied the ToE has messed with the evidence to support their opinion of how evolution should behave.
iano writes:
But again, if you consider what it would be you would no doubt agree that its way of revealing itself (presuming again that you indeed wanted it to) might well be done on ITS terms not yours.
It has revealed itself on its terms. If you think it hasn't, please disprove the whole of the evidence that took us to the ToE.
iano writes:
I asked before if you would consider what Evolution would be like - if it existed. If you carried out this one minute exercise you may have noticed your jaw dropping onto the keyboard. The word 'impossible' may have flashed across your skull.
Why? You can't just tack on the word "impossible" to a theory and not support it. You run the risk of revealing bias.
Show me again why your original argument works, while my restructuring of it doesn't?
This message has been edited by LauraG, 09-01-2005 10:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 5:36 AM iano has not replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 152 (239473)
09-01-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by iano
09-01-2005 6:08 AM


Re: Ring-fencing the start of life
About your wheel-spokes-rim analogy...
I can't believe you're arguing unknowables in science, only to turn to an unknowable to explain why there are unknowables. Really, this isn't a case were "fighting fire with fire" works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 6:08 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 1:16 PM LauraG has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024