AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Really, this whole reply has pointed out the incredibly obvious

---

Then you take back your claim? If what I said was obvious, and since it pointed out the fallacies of your argument, that must mean you agree that your own argument was fallacious.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

For the same reason that evolution isn't linked to the origin of life.

---

​

I am sorry, but that makes no sense to me. They have to be linked.

---

Why? Are you saying god cannot create life that evolves?Evolution doesn't care where life came from. It could have arisen chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any number of other methods I haven't mentioned.So long as that life did not reproduce perfectly from generation to generation, evolution is satisfied.Does the vending machine care if the quarter came from the Philly mint as opposed to the Denver mint?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And yet, you suddenly started rejecting the findings of science just because you found god.

---

​

I just said that I didn't.

---

But your other statements belie that. You say that you won't accept the idea that humans can create life. Instead, humans can only create "biological machines."

quote:

---

Science helps define my faith.

---

...until the conclusions of science conflict with it. Then you'll reject science for your faith.

---

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 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.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

Basically, God baked life from scratch and humans used premade ingredients.

​

Is that what you understand him to have said?

---

Yes and no. I asked him directly and he responded yes: He will not be satisfied unless and until humans can clap their hands, declaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear. In short, as he has said before, anything that humans do can be no better than a "biological machine."In short, if god did it, it's "life." If humans did it, it isn't "life" but something else.The question is, how could you tell? If you were given an object with no information as to how it came into being, how could you determine if it were "life" or merely a "biological machine"? And if there were no way to distinguish between the two, then they necessarily must be the same thing: A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Science, by its very nature, is a self-correcting system. It sometimes takes a while, but science is always willing to reject everything that it thinks it understands about everything when the evidence indicates that it is wrong.

---

​

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.

---

You mean you will abandon a self-correcting system for a self-deluding system? Simply because you don't like the corrections made?

quote:

---

quote:

---

When was the last time the Bible was re-written to accomodate new evidence that showed that it was wrong?

---

​

The NIV, you've said it yourself.

---

And what, pray tell, were the errors corrected in the NIV? And when will it be updated to reflect the new evidence that shows that it is wrong? Exactly how far are you willing to go with these corrections? Are you willing, as science is, to throw everything away, declaim that everything contained within it is mistaken and needs to be discarded?Science is willing to do that. What will it take for you to do the same?

quote:

---

But being that it is so old, and there is no way to really prove that it is wrong

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? There are no such things as archaeology, paleontology, geology, biology, and history?F'rinstance: The Exodus never happened. The historical record is quite clear about this. When will we see a Bible that lays that book aside?

quote:

---

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.

---

So you're saying that the Bible is on the same level as the Iliad and the Odyssey?

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why? Are you saying god cannot create life that evolves?

---

​

Why would you think that

---

Because you're the one saying that evolution and origins are necessarily linked. They're not. Evolution is completely independent of origins. So long as the life that originated did not reproduce perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied. Evolution starts with something that is already alive and ends with something that is also alive. Origins starts with something that isn't alive and ends with something that is.

quote:

---

when I asked you earlier, if you thought that God could have create life that evolves?

---

Well, no, you didn't. The question of whether or not god can create life that evolves has long been mine of others. As I quite often say, sometimes directly to you:Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

quote:

---

quote:

---

until the conclusions of science conflict with it. Then you'll reject science for your faith.

---

​

You do not know what my faith is

---

I never said I did. And, in fact, I don't need to know. All I need to know is what you say here. And what you have said here is that you will reject the conclusions of science for your faith. You said it just now in the previous post: You don't "live your life" by science.

quote:

---

I will share that, at one point about 4 years ago

---

Irrelevant. I have never questioned your personal experiences. I simply wish to ask why you reject directly observable events that have developed into a unified theory that is so useful and pervasive that we cannot find anything against it despite all attempts to do so.

quote:

---

I am a strong component in telling people in my church, not to use science to explain God

---

And yet, you come here and try to tell us not to use science to explain physical reality. What is the point of science, then?

---

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 about me:

quote:

---

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.

---

Huh? Non sequitur. How are gametes not biological? How is reconjugation not a biological process?Are you indicating that the universe is a biological organism in toto?

---

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:

quote:

---

I think the problem in the discussion is the ex nihilo part.

---

Indeed. As I directly said to him, if he meants "ex nihilo," then he should say "ex nihilo."

quote:

---

Sometimes people are using the word create with the implication of ex nihilo and sometimes they are not.

---

But the thing is, "ex nihilo" is not a part of "create." It is merely a method of creation. All methods of creation are valid.Was there a house here before? Is there a house here now? Then a house was "created," no matter what process was used to get it into existence.What we're pointing out is that riVeRraT seems to want to play word games: He won't be satisfied unless and until a human can clap his hands, declaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear. If that particular process isn't done, then it isn't "life" but is rather a "biological machine."But if you couldn't tell the difference by examining it, then there isn't any difference. It is nothing more than a word game to claim that it isn't really "life."Especially since, as the Bible directly states, god "created" life from the dust and water of the earth. So if riVeRraT won't be satisfied until one can bring forth life ex nihilo, then not even god "created life." Instead, he converted dust and water into a "biological machine."

---

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:

---

Even identical chemicals can be distinguished as synthetic or natural because of the way they were processed, yet they are chemically identical.

---

Well, no. All processes to create a chemical are "synthetic" since they "synthesize" the product from the reagent.The difference is whether the process is biological or via some other process.F'rinstance, you can create water by taking hydrogen and oxygen gas, mixing them, and sparking the mixture. You can also create water inside a human being (the oxygen you breathe goes to create a molecule of water).One is not "natural" and the other "artificial." Instead, one is "biologically synthesized" and the other might be called "directly synthesized."Are there "artificial" things in biology? Yes. There's "artificial selection," for example. It is contrasted with "natural selection." Why? Because "natural" selection deals with selective events that happen on their own. "Artificial" selection deals with selective events that are deliberately, consciously, and personally initiated.When I take hydrogen and oxygen gas and spark the mixture, it isn't like I'm personally reworking the intermolecular forces between the atoms. Instead, it happens chemically, all on its own.But in artificial selection, I personally choose which organisms will reproduce.

quote:

---

They are both life, its just that one was created by man and one wasn't. How can you say that that is not a difference?

---

It is a difference, but it is one of method, not results. It's "life" no matter how you slice it, not a "biological machine."

---

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 responds to molbiogirl:

quote:

---

What's the difference between RNA/DNA assembling life, and us? It's all natural, since that's how it started.

---

Are you saying that RNA/DNA has existed forever? There has never been a moment of time when there wasn't RNA/DNA?That'll come as a shock to the cosmologists since they're of the opinion that there was a time when there weren't even atoms.Question: Why do you think life requires RNA/DNA?

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

There really is no benefit to introducing the ”biological machine” concept. Both the natural and artificial are life.

---

But that's my point: Since there is no difference, why does riVeRraT insist that there is something different between life created by magic and life created chemically?He won't be satisifed until humans can clap their hands, declaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear.

quote:

---

In general, I’m not so sure I agree with this. I mean, what if just we cannot tell the difference, like, we are unable to detect the difference that does exist?

---

But if you look at riVeRraT's position, it isn't a question of difference in outcome. Instead, it's a difference of process. Somehow, even if the result is exactly the same, the fact that the process by which the end results happen makes it different.By his logic, a water molecule created by taking hydrogen and oxygen gas and sparking them is fundamentally different from a water molecule created by oxidizing a hydrocarbon. Because the process by which the molecule was created is not the same, then that means that one is a "water molecule" while the other is a "chemical machine."He will not be satisfied until we can clap our hands, declaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear.What he doesn't understand is that definitions actually have a meaning. If something satisfies all of the conditions of the definition, then it is necessarily an example of the definition. It might be more than that (a square is a rectangle, after all), but it is still an example of the definition.In essence, riVeRraT wants to define "life" to include a "Made Lovingly by God in Heaven" tag. If it doesn't have the special hologram, then it isn't "Genuine Life."

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

Since nothing is ever proven, how do I know those corrections, are correct?

---

You don't. That's the beauty behind a self-correcting system. While you cannot know for sure, you can know that if you keep working at it, you are certain to get closer and closer to the correct answer.

quote:

---

You've pointed them out yourself, need I go back in time and post it?

---

You're missing the point: The NIV didn't actually correct anything.

quote:

---

Are you saying it is proven that it never happened?

---

Yes. The things that must necessarily exist for it to be true don't. Ergo, it didn't happen. You see, observational inquiry can't definitively show something to be true, but it can easily show something to be false.I am sure we all understand this process: We can more easily indicate what something is not than show what it is.Note, observations don't change simply because we have a new theory to explain them. Just because we moved from Aristotelian to Newtownian to Einsteinian physics doesn't mean that apples suddenly stopped falling to the ground, hovering in midair, waiting for us to make up our minds.One example: The geography mentioned in the Exodus does not correspond to reality.Now, we might be able to resurrect the concept of the Exodus by eliminating the geographic details, but there are other problems.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So you're saying that the Bible is on the same level as the Iliad and the Odyssey?

---

​

If you only focus on what is wrong with it, you'll never understand what is right about it.

---

Until you understand what is wrong with it, you will never be able to comprehend what is right with it.That said, you didn't answer my question: Why should we treat the Bible any differently from the Iliad and the Odyssey?

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

Yes it is all made up of the same stuff, but it isn't linked.....ok

---

No, who said anything about "linked"? Nobody is saying life isn't made of chemicals. What we're saying is that it doesn't matter where the chemicals came from or the process by which the chemicals come together. If the end products are identical, then they are the same thing.Thus, if one person claps his hand, declaims "Presto!" and a kitten appears, it is still a kitten, identical to one birthed from a cat.I'm reminded of a time when I was taking a class in stagecraft. We were working on a set and the plans called for a trapezoidal frieze to be built. The designer had listed the lengths of the top and bottom pieces and the distance beteen them but had neglected to indicate the lengths of the side pieces.How to figure it out? Well, I pointed out we could calculate it directly: Pythagorean theorem. We know the height since that's the distance between the top and bottom pieces. And since we knew their lengths, all we had to do was subtract the smaller length from the larger and divide by two. That's the base. Thus, square the base and the height, add, take the square root, and there's the length of the side pieces.The others were amazed: "You can do that?" Well, yes. How were they going to do it? Well, they were going to take the two long pieces, put them on stage the required distance apart, then lay two more boards connecting the ends of the two pieces. Just mark off where they would need to be cut, and you've got the two end pieces. You'll have to be careful to make sure the boards are straight, but it's a purely mechanical process.Now here's the thing: Given the two trapezoids, how could you possibly tell the difference? What makes one a "frieze" while the other is merely a "set piece"? Why does the process by which the item was made affect what it is?

quote:

---

No, what I said was science helps define my faith, because science studies truth, and my faith deals with truth.

---

But you reject the truth when it conflicts with your faith. Why?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I simply wish to ask why you reject directly observable events that have developed into a unified theory

---

​

I think I have been saying this for quite some time, and that is, I neither reject it, or accept it.

---

You don't accept observable events?

---

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.