Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   International opinions: USA on science!
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 132 (330393)
07-10-2006 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Hyroglyphx
07-10-2006 9:04 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
Interaction does not equal incompetence.
Well, I did give you three options - incompetence, capriciousness, or nonomnipotence. There's no other option for God interacting with the universe after its creation. A perfect God has no need to interact with the universe after creation, because he's gotten it right the first time and taken everything into account. A God that can't do that is no God at all.
What would God have changed His mind for?
You tell me. If he meant to do it one way all along, why would he have to interact along the way?
People mess up all the time, but I wouldn't call God 'powerless,' I'd call Him patient and intimately acquainted with the past, present, and future.
It's precisely his aquaintance with the future which neccessitates one of the three conclusions about God if he's interacting post-creation.
The only basis of my view is contained within the Bible.
The Bible, too, is wider than your view of it. The people whose beliefs you disparage? They support them from the Bible just like you. Sometimes with the very same words.
Now, you can question the integrity of the Scriptures all you want, but if you want to know the basis for my "view," it comes directly from His Word.
Yeah? So do theirs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 9:04 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 132 (330399)
07-10-2006 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hyroglyphx
07-10-2006 9:45 AM


Re: Watching the moving goal posts makes me dizzy.
quote:
No, sorry... The entire premise of the experiment was to prove that life could have come about all on its own.
What? You yourself stated:
Miller posited that simple amino's could have arisen in a prebiotic soup.
And that is what the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated. That complex organic molecules (like amino acids) can come about in conditions roughly similar to what is believed to have existed on the earth way back in the day. I don't see how you can claim that an experiment that succeeded in validating the hypothesis of the experimenters is a "failure". Miller and Urey posited that under conditions believed to have existed on the ancient earth, relatively complex organic molecules can be formed. That is all that they posited. And the experiment confirmed it. Subsequent experiments also confirmed this, using different energy sources and different atmospheric compositions. When someone makes a prediction, and the experiment confirms that prediction, the experiment (or hypothesis) is considered a success.
-
quote:
So, now complex organic molecules were eternal in order to make simpler ones?
I'm not sure how you got this from what I wrote. A reasonable hypothesis is that organic molecules should exist before life does. That means that there should have been organic molecules on earth before life arose. So it must be possible for organic molecules to form without life to produce it. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that, indeed, one can produce organic molecules without life. Subsequent experiments have also managed to produce, abiotically, in conditions that are believed to have existed on the very early earth, a wide range of organic molecules -- just the sort that would have to exist before life can arise.
So there you have it. This is how science works. One has a hypothesis, one makes predictions based on the hypothesis, and then one tries to confirm or falsify the hypothesis by observing whether the predicted phenomena are seen.
Here is how the science works:
The hypothesis is that life arose on the early earth through natural processes. The assumption is that there would have to have been organic material from which life can be formed before there was life. So we predict that it is possible for organic material to be formed, through natural processes, under the conditions that existed on the early earth.
This is a prediction that can be tested. A laboratory experiment that is believed to mimic the relevant conditions of the early earth is set up, and then it is seen whether or not organic molecules of the type believed to be necessary for life is formed spontaneously. Urey and Miller did this experiment. They observed that organic molecules can be produced exactly as they had predicted! This counts as a confirmation of the hypothesis that life arose on the early earth through natural processes. Because if life did arise through natural processes, organic molecules should have been produced first, through natural processes. So if life did arise through natural processes, then it should be possible to produce organic material abiotically under conditions relevant to the early earth.
This is how science is done. One has a hypothesis, one makes predictions based on that hypothesis, and then one tests whether the predicted phenomena are observed. The Urey-Miller experiment is a classic example of good science.
Edited by Chiroptera, : correct typo; add clarity

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 9:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 93 of 132 (330957)
07-11-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by anglagard
07-10-2006 1:18 PM


Re: Behaviors without Causes
The fact that some wars were fought for non-religious reasons does not absolve religion from have promulgated wars.
"everybody does it" or "but he did it first" are not a logically valid excuses to do anything, whether it is war or stealing apples from some tree.
Wars were fought for religious domination. That is undeniable. It still goes on today. Sheesh. THAT is inexcusable.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by anglagard, posted 07-10-2006 1:18 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 94 of 132 (331012)
07-12-2006 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Hyroglyphx
07-10-2006 12:54 PM


Re: Anotherone bites the dust
http://www.issol.org/miller/miller1953.pdf
honestly read the actual experiment. Its under the heading A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. (bold emphasis mine).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 12:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 132 (331630)
07-13-2006 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Coragyps
07-10-2006 11:05 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
Coal? The carbonaceous portion of a carbonaceous chondrite? Those are rocks, and partly organic.
Coal was once living material. But it is no longer a living thing, and it isn't going to come back to life because life only comes from life.
And the chondrite never saw a living thing until it hit our planet.
And this scenario is empirically verified, by what?
What about those of us who don't worship anything?
Everybody worships something. We don't have to think of worship to simply mean somebody bowing down in submission or an act of oblation.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Coragyps, posted 07-10-2006 11:05 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by kjsimons, posted 07-13-2006 9:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 102 by Chiroptera, posted 07-14-2006 1:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 96 of 132 (331637)
07-13-2006 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Hyroglyphx
07-13-2006 8:47 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
Everybody worships something.
Nope! I don't! So either retract your statement or be a liar!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2006 8:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-14-2006 8:40 AM kjsimons has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 132 (331699)
07-14-2006 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by lfen
07-10-2006 11:42 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
Atoms that were part of inorganic structures become part of organis structures and then once again to become "dead" or unliving atoms.
Everything material is composed of atoms. To combine atoms to create life is a highly improbable event without the intervention or aid from many other subatomic particles. But of course, this again misses the obvious conundrum, which is, what created the atom, the quark, or the neutrino? We can break life down to its simplest subatomic particle, only to be met with the same question.
Abiogensis might be possible. The universe manifest the great range of possibilities that the basic energy and structures allow.
People have been rooting for abiogenesis for a long time, but it really does defy logic if think about it- and so much so, that anyone capable of scoffing at creationists for believing that a Creator might just exist, seems trivial when we weigh the juxtaposition between abiogenesis and a Creator. Furthermore, a belief such as that is taken completely on faith, consequently, the same kind of faith that evolutionists charge creationists with. The only difference being, creationists believe that something created everything, whereas evolutionists believe that nothing created everything. The plain fact about any kind of spontaneous generation was put on the chopping block, once and for all, by Pasteur. Anyone's beliefs that run counter to Pasteur's experiments is no longer within the realm of science, but has ventured into the murky waters of science fiction.
A creationist and apologist, William Lane Craig, expounded on an old philosophical notion known as Kalam's cosmological argument. Needless to say, its a very interesting concept. Anyhow, I figured I'd alow you all to read up on it, if you aren't currently aware of an argument such as this.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
What we don't yet know is the role of consciousness in all this.
What do you mean by this?
Have you a proposed range of values for "many"? I know that some people are interested in Druids, Wicca, etc. but I think they are a minority of the population. I've seen no figures but haven't seen anything that appears to me to be a resurgence in these activities. Press coverage of Wiccans around Halloween is just not evidence.
Yes, for face value I'd say that true Druids and their cheesy spin-off, Wicca, is a nominal figure. However, what I meant by Druids is nature worshippers, those who are enamored by nature and find themsleves believing that nature itself has a conscience. And taken a step away from any intent, yet while still maintain some level of fascintation with nature, I see the evolutionist as being similar, in that they worship the creation rather than the Creator.
Perhaps you have been referring to the popularizers of ToE like tv shows and Dawkin's books? The vast majority of biologists never write popular books. Their work and publications are for peers in peer reviewed journals. I really think you need to study more science as your criticisms give the impression that you've a very distorted idea of how it is done.
Of how what it is done?

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by lfen, posted 07-10-2006 11:42 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2006 9:03 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 100 by lfen, posted 07-14-2006 9:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 101 by nwr, posted 07-14-2006 9:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 103 by Chiroptera, posted 07-14-2006 1:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 109 by lfen, posted 07-15-2006 3:05 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 132 (331703)
07-14-2006 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by kjsimons
07-13-2006 9:47 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
Nope! I don't! So either retract your statement or be a liar!
Everybody worships something.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by kjsimons, posted 07-13-2006 9:47 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coragyps, posted 07-14-2006 10:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 99 of 132 (331705)
07-14-2006 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
07-14-2006 8:38 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
I've read the Kalam Cosmological argument. The best part of it is that Craig recognises that it is necessary to actually present an argument for God rather than for some other "first cause". The worst part of it is the content of that argument - it's completely worthless.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-14-2006 8:38 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 100 of 132 (331709)
07-14-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
07-14-2006 8:38 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
Perhaps you have been referring to the popularizers of ToE like tv shows and Dawkin's books? The vast majority of biologists never write popular books. Their work and publications are for peers in peer reviewed journals. I really think you need to study more science as your criticisms give the impression that you've a very distorted idea of how it is done.
Of how what it is done?
How science is done. Specifically how biology is done. Only a very few people do nothing but theorize. Most working biologists are either experimental or doing field observations.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-14-2006 8:38 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 101 of 132 (331714)
07-14-2006 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
07-14-2006 8:38 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
People have been rooting for abiogenesis for a long time, but it really does defy logic if think about it ...
I have thought about it. And no, it does not defy logic.
Perhaps it is improbable, as some argue. But there is no principle of logic that says improbable things cannot happen. If you want to argue this, you will need a better argument than "defies logic."
The plain fact about any kind of spontaneous generation was put on the chopping block, once and for all, by Pasteur.
Why do creationists keep using such arguments? Is it that they lack integrity. Anybody who looks at the facts can see that Pasteur's concern was not with abiogenesis as the term is used today.
Anyhow, I figured I'd alow you all to read up on it, if you aren't currently aware of an argument such as this.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
Theologians who use such bogus arguments take Christians to be gullible fools. Regrettably, their assumptions about Christians are too often correct.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-14-2006 8:38 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-14-2006 9:41 PM nwr has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 132 (331753)
07-14-2006 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Hyroglyphx
07-13-2006 8:47 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
quote:
We don't have to think of worship to simply mean somebody bowing down in submission or an act of oblation.
No, we don't, but seeing that is what most people mean when they use the word in a conversation about religion, thinking that worship means something else is apt to create a bit of confusion.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2006 8:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 132 (331754)
07-14-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
07-14-2006 8:38 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
quote:
To combine atoms to create life is a highly improbable event without the intervention or aid from many other subatomic particles.
To be able to state whether something is probable or improbable, one needs to actually calculate (or at least estimate) the probability of the event. That will require knowing about the processes involved. Since science is still working out the possible processes, it seems to be a bit premature to make definite statements about probabilities.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-14-2006 8:38 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 11:01 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 132 (331856)
07-14-2006 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by nwr
07-14-2006 9:41 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
I have thought about it. And no, it does not defy logic. Perhaps it is improbable, as some argue. But there is no principle of logic that says improbable things cannot happen. If you want to argue this, you will need a better argument than "defies logic."
Everything comes from something, right? Its always been that way for every organism since the dawn of time, right? So then, if we keep reducing life's components down to its simplest elements, we will still have to come to a reasonable conclusion for the first cause. Does the First Cause mean the Judeo-Christian God, YHWH? No, not necessarily. Now, this is where you bring up "Flying Spaghetti Monster's", but something outside of the material universe, something not limited to time-space is necessary for anything to exist from nothing. If you say otherwise, then you completely undermine the immutable laws of physics. Its a chicken-egg argument. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
There is nothing so pernicious than any theory that invents b.s. in order to supplant the need for an intelligent designer.
Why do creationists keep using such arguments? Is it that they lack integrity. Anybody who looks at the facts can see that Pasteur's concern was not with abiogenesis as the term is used today.
Pffft. Pasteur was virulently opposed to Darwinism and all its baggage, to include, but not limited to, spontaneous generation. Oh, he was a believer as well. You can try and rewrite history to fancy your particular brand of worship, but truth is truth, and it will either set you free or condemn you.
Theologians who use such bogus arguments take Christians to be gullible fools. Regrettably, their assumptions about Christians are too often correct.
If what Craig wrote was bunk, then refute it with an intelligible treatise more laudable than mere rhetoric.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by nwr, posted 07-14-2006 9:41 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Coragyps, posted 07-14-2006 10:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 108 by nwr, posted 07-14-2006 11:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 105 of 132 (331867)
07-14-2006 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Hyroglyphx
07-14-2006 8:40 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
Everybody worships something.
Bullshit. You don't speak for all humanity, kid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-14-2006 8:40 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 10:23 AM Coragyps 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