AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

That said, the Bible doesn't say life came into being ex nihilo. Instead, it came into being from the dust of the earth.

---

​

Which came from where?

---

Doesn't matter. Does the vending machine care if the quarter came from the Philly mint as opposed to the Denver mint?

quote:

---

I'll ask you now, does anything happen on its own?

---

Yes.That's what science studies: Things that happen on their own.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Why would he be concerned about a place in the universe, or getting answer about cosmology from biology?

---

Because philosophy, while not science, is informed by science.Science can tell you all sorts of things about the acoustic waveform: It's frequency, amplitude, pattern, energy, how well it will transmit in various media, etc.What it cannot do and does not try to do is tell you if it's music.

quote:

---

The word scratch is over rated in that statement.

---

In other words, there is no way you can be satisfied. You have moved the goalposts so far back that unless and until we can create a universe, wait a few billion years, and have the capability of searching the entire universe for life, then there's no way to claim "we did it."In short, you're trying to have it both ways. When face with the ludicrousness of saying that humans personally, consciously, and deliberately altered the intermolecular forces that bind hydrogen and oxygen atoms together and reshape them to form molecules of water, you then say that because humans didn't do it, they didn't "create" water by taking a mole of oxygen, two moles of hydrogen, mixing them at STP, and sparking the mixture.As you directly agreed to, unless and until humans can clap their hands, declaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear, you won't be satisfied.The problem is that if you remove any ability for humans to do anything, you completely do away with freewill. I'm not actually writing this...something else is.So who is it that's writing this, riVeRraT, if not me?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

I don't particularly agree with his position, but I think you've misunderstood what he's saying, or trying to say, at least.

---

No, we're not misunderstanding him at all. I, at least, have been very particular about that very point: Biology is not cosmology and cannot answer questions about cosmology.F'rinstance, chemistry is the study of atoms and their interactions with each other. It does not attempt to answer the question of where atoms came from. That's a question for physics. All chemistry cares about is that there are atoms and that they behave the way they do.Does a vending machine care if the quarter came from the Denver mint as opposed to the Philly mint?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I think, in a simplified version, that rat is saying that god took "nothing" and created atoms which created molecules which created cells which created life.He is also saying that humans have created molecules which created cells which created life.He is saying that these two creations of life are different because humans have started with "something" and just put the pieces together, or let them put themselves together.He is saying that what god created is life and that what humans created is something-very-close-too-but-not life, because they didn't start with the same materials.Basically, God baked life from scratch and humans used premade ingredients.Is that what you understand him to have said?

Yes, that is why I like science. But due to the way it is, I will not always choose to live by it. I like to blend both, and learn as I go. The NIV, you've said it yourself.But if that's not what you meant, I wouldn't have a problem with that either. But being that it is so old, and there is no way to really prove that it is wrong, it might be better off left the way it is, and people need to take it for what it is worth, and only focus on what is relative today, like loving others.

Yes I have. Other religions are fine with me, but not for me. I have been led to this one (whatever that is).

Why would you think that, when I asked you earlier, if you thought that God could have create life that evolves? You do not know what my faith is, so stop pretending.I will share that, at one point about 4 years ago, I felt the presence of God for the first time. I was by myself. I felt as though He told me that He created all "this" (the world) for us, and that He created us also. He did not tell me how He did it, and I guess that is not important for my faith.If God comes tomorrow, and tells me, we did not evolve, then I would have a major problem.God does specific things in my life, that help me grow, and it also helps other people as well, and none of it interferes with science, or vise versa. As matter of fact, I am a strong component in telling people in my church, not to use science to explain God, and I am not liked for it.

According to his way of thinking, every time we procreate, we create life. God has nothing to do with it, because biology and cosmology are not the same.

Life is the end product. The starting materials are irrelevant.If you build a house out of bricks, is it less of a house than one built out of wood? Do you have to make the bricks yourself for it to be a house?You need a kind of Turing test to answer the question, "Is it life?" If you can't tell life created by God from life created by man, you can't claim that life created by man isn't life.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Was I correct in my assessment of your position?

Rat seems to think it is relevant. analogies.... That one doesn't seem analogous to what rat is saying.If you live in a cave, can you say you built your home? seems more like his position, IMHO. That's a good argument.

How is that even remotely like his position? We're talking about building something out of building blocks. riVeRraT's objection to human creation of life is that we didn't build the building blocks (atoms). My brick house analogy is much, much, much, much, much more like his position than your cave analogy.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Okay, jeez. Two 'much'es would have done You don't have to make the bricks yourself for it to be a house, but you do have to have made the bricks to say that you created the house (ex nihilo).I think the problem in the discussion is the ex nihilo part. Sometimes people are using the word create with the implication of ex nihilo and sometimes they are not.The fault of your analogy is that the building blocks of life can form life on their own while you couldn't have a pile of bricks turn into a house without placing each brick by hand.That's why I was trying to use a cave, because it forms on its own. But, looking back, there aren't really any building blocks to a cave so it fails.

Even the idea that God created life ex nihilo is pretty iify, so it shouldn't be used to distinguish His creation from ours. For the record, I personally will never imply ex nihilo because I think it's a useless concept. If riVeRraT can't keep his terminology straight, you shouldn't be defending it. You're missing the point. We're not talking about the assembly or whether the assembly requires intelligence. You're trying to defend riVeRraT's claim that it isn't really life unless we create all the building blocks ourselves. Where the building blocks came from is irrelevant and how the building blocks were assembled is irrelevant.What is relevant is whether or not it's life. If it's life, it's life, regardless of the process that created it. The definition of life is not dependent on the process.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

/nod Am I defending his position? I'm trying to clarify his claim, not really defend it. Just doin my part to keep the straw swept up We're not? I thought we were. Its relevant to distinguish what the scientist have done from normal reproduction. But the process that created it is the discussion. The process is what makes it Artificial Life.From the OP:

quote:

---

Life-from-scratch is going to pose an ... interesting ... dilemma for creos.

---

I think Rat was contesting the whole from-scratch bit, which could be taken to imply ex nihilo, even if it was incorrectly.The process certainly provides a difference for the life, but I agree with you in that if we can't tell the difference after its created then there really isn't any difference.