|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: 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: ...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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:quote: Doesn't matter. Does the vending machine care if the quarter came from the Philly mint as opposed to the Denver mint?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT writes:
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: 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: (*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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT writes about me:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist:
quote: Indeed. As I directly said to him, if he meants "ex nihilo," then he should say "ex nihilo."
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to molbiogirl:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote: 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're missing the point: The NIV didn't actually correct anything.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote: 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: But you reject the truth when it conflicts with your faith. Why?
quote:quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024