Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 10:22 PM
667 online now:
edge, Jon, Louis Morelli, messenjaH of oNe (4 members, 663 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,976 Year: 12,012/19,786 Month: 1,793/2,641 Week: 302/708 Day: 77/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II)
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 31 of 97 (743726)
12-03-2014 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
12-03-2014 6:01 PM


Re: News to Chiral about
Hi RAZD

Interesting thread except that 99% of it is over my head as I haven't taken a biology course in my life.

However I don't think it makes a case for doing away with God. If we assume that everything that is theorized by these scientists is correct then what have we got? We would know how life was formed. We know that there was a natural process that resulted in the natural process of evolution. However we still require a process that resulted in the process that resulted in the process that resulted in the process of evolution, or as atheists like to say it is turtles all the way down.

It certainly makes a case against instant creation but it does not make a case against creation itself. It is a theory of how life came into existence. It still does not answer the question of whether or not there was a prime mover behind any or all of the processes required.

It still boils down to what you choose to believe.

Choice one. An infinite number of natural processes that happened by chance that eventually resulted in RAZD.

Choice two. We are the result, regardless of how many natural process were required, of an intelligent prime mover(s).

Frankly in order to take choice one requires huge faith, in that you have to believe that the chemicals required somehow came into existence in the first place. Then we needed to have all of the correct elements required, as per the theory in the video, to result in sentient beings able to understand the process and also beings capable of understanding and responding to a moral code.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2014 6:01 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2014 9:08 PM GDR has responded
 Message 35 by AZPaul3, posted 12-03-2014 10:15 PM GDR has responded
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2014 10:53 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 33 of 97 (743728)
12-03-2014 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
12-03-2014 9:08 PM


Re: News to Chiral about
Dr Adquate writes:

RAZD didn't mention God, let alone doing away with him. That was your contribution.

Fair enough. I actually should have used prime mover without being specific about the prime mover. Certainly the video and the intent of the original post was to argue for an explanation of abiogenesis that negates the idea of a prime mover.

My argument is that it fails to do that. It doesn't give evidence, even theoretically, for or against a prime mover IMHO.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2014 9:08 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 12-03-2014 9:34 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 36 of 97 (743731)
12-03-2014 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
12-03-2014 9:34 PM


Re: News to Chiral about
jar writes:

But there is no evidence of a prime mover and frankly, to speculate that humans were a desired outcome just makes the prime mover look stupid.

I didn't claim there was any evidence of a prime mover. I'm just saying that the argument presented isn't evidence one way or another.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 12-03-2014 9:34 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 12-04-2014 7:52 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 37 of 97 (743732)
12-03-2014 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by AZPaul3
12-03-2014 10:15 PM


Re: News to Chiral about
AZPaul3 writes:

And so it does. Now the chirality issue is on its way to being settled. This just takes away one more gap in which to hide a god. One less "ignorance" in which to claim majik.

You keep trying to use endless processes as evidence of the non-existence of a prime mover. It will always require an endless series of processes. The question that remains unevidenced and unanswered is whether or not the processes were the result of a prime mover or not. We all form our own conclusions and believe what we believe by faith.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by AZPaul3, posted 12-03-2014 10:15 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Pressie, posted 12-04-2014 12:08 AM GDR has responded
 Message 40 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 12:18 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 41 of 97 (743742)
12-04-2014 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Pressie
12-04-2014 12:08 AM


Re: News to Chiral about
Pressie writes:

Why a prime mover? Why not many prime movers?

I you go back to my first post I gave this as choice 2.

Choice two. We are the result, regardless of how many natural process were required, of an intelligent prime mover(s).


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Pressie, posted 12-04-2014 12:08 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 42 of 97 (743744)
12-04-2014 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
12-03-2014 10:53 PM


Re: News to Chiral you up
Hi RAZD

Here is a concluding quote from the article you quoted.

quote:
From these information sections it seems to me that the building blocks needed for beginning the creation of life were plentiful, not just on Earth but in space in general and from the earliest of times. Probably they have been around since long before even the Earth formed from the cosmic debris left behind by the life and death cycle of previous stars and planets, back to the beginning of time. These "seeds of life" no doubt extend through the far reaches of the universe as well as the depths of time (cue Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young ... "We are star dust ...").

It also seems to me that the natural processes for forming more complex structures from those basic building blocks were likely prevalent on the earth 4.5 billion years ago in a variety of forms, levels of completion and locations. We end with a scenario that has a random combination of plentiful and multitudinous organic molecules forming amino acids all over the earth, with a membranous system to contain and concentrate those molecules and their interactions within a protocell type capsule. We also see that random combination of plentiful and multitudinous amino acids into peptides and proteins is feasible, and that concentration and recombination within the membranous protocells enhances the probability that random combinations of them into the first "replicators" (the predecessors to RNA and DNA) is not as far fetched as it seemed at first. A simple building block process where the probability of a successful combination is almost inevitable: it is no longer a matter of "if" but of "when" it will occur under these conditions ... and once self replication occurs the frequency of replication will necessarily outpace the random action, and replicators that are faster and stronger will outpace their competition ... life seems inevitable when given the conditions for life.

That is my take on the probability of life on earth.


He says things like, "building blocks needed for beginning the creation of life were plentiful", or "under these conditions". It simply assumes the building blocks needed", or the right conditions exist. What process was required for those materials or conditions to exist. What process was required for that process and so on. All of these theoretical processes are based on pre-existing conditions that are simply assumed to exist without explanation.

Your argument for the non-existence of a prime mover(s) is as unevidenced as is Faith's argument for an inerrant Bible. It is simply a belief in either case.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2014 10:53 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 1:20 AM GDR has responded
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2014 1:30 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 43 of 97 (743745)
12-04-2014 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by AZPaul3
12-04-2014 12:18 AM


Re: News to Chiral about
AZPaul3 writes:

What endless processes? We know what a lot of the processes are, we are learning the answers to the ones we didn't fully understand, and we keep learning more about the ones we still do not fully understand. Nowhere in any of this has there been any kind of majik or USDA Prime mover evident or necessary.

As I have already repeated I am not arguing that there is evidence for a prime mover. I am simply saying that what has been presented isn't evidence that a prime mover(s) doesn't exist either.

AZPaul3 writes:

It is you who says that since we do not know all there is to know therefore there might be your Prime Beef in there somewhere. So there is still somewhere to hide your god. Good for you.

To hearken back to a discussion some time ago, you really do need our ignorance to harbor your faith. You're in luck. We will always be ignorant of something.

I'm not hiding my belief anywhere any more than you are. It is belief, it isn't knowledge in either case.

AZPaul3 writes:

Religion requires ignorance. I am not questioning your personal level of intellect but, in general, oh, that really does work on so many different levels.

All belief requires ignorance whether it be religion or atheism, and it does indeed work on many different levels. If there is no ignorance their is certain knowledge and neither of us have that.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 12:18 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 1:31 AM GDR has responded
 Message 48 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 3:18 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 46 of 97 (743749)
12-04-2014 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by AZPaul3
12-04-2014 1:20 AM


Re: News to Chiral you up
AZPaul3 writes:

No they are not. Just because someone has not walked you through each step back does not mean the conditions are assumed or the explanation is missing. This is a number of years of college courses and a whole lot of outside reading to understand in the level of detail you seem to want.

I'm not asking for details as I completely agree that I wouldn't understand them anyway. You talk about each step back. Each step involves another process. There is no evidence whether any or all of these steps were mindless or not. You can simply theorize as to what transpired. These steps or processes exist, (maybe), but just because you can point to a natural cause does not tell us anything about whether that natural cause has an intelligent root or not.

Just take the final step of evolution. Humans have the ability to understand the genetics and even the randomness of the process but we still cannot know whether or not it has an intelligent root. We can't even know that there isn't intelligent intervention in the process.

As I said, arguing that this is evidence to support the anti-theist position is no different than Faith's argument for evidence for inerrancy of the Bible, or for that matter making a scientific argument for ID.

We just form our own subjective conclusions based on what we do know and what we have experienced and those conclusions form our beliefs.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 1:20 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 7:19 AM GDR has responded
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2014 9:36 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 47 of 97 (743750)
12-04-2014 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by AZPaul3
12-04-2014 1:31 AM


Re: News to Chiral about
AZPaul3 writes:

Again, since no one can prove a negative the evidence does not "prove" your brand of initial poof-maker does not exist, it just very strongly indicates that one is superfluous to what we know has taken place.

Using patronizing terms such as poof-maker doesn't really strengthen your argument. It's usually only necessary when your position is weak to start with.

I can't prove a negative either. Presumably your belief is that there is no prime mover(s). I can't disprove your belief that we are nothing but the results of mindless natural processes. The fact that there are any number of complicated processes required for the formation of simple cellular life, let alone sentient moral life, strongly indicates that our existence is the result of a prime mover.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 1:31 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 51 of 97 (743768)
12-04-2014 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by AZPaul3
12-04-2014 3:18 AM


Re: News to Chiral about
AZPaul3 writes:

So, no. While I agree belief requires ignorance, non-belief is somewhat oblivious since there is nothing there. Neither ignorance nor complete knowledge. Non-belief is no belief at all.

I'm a theist. Do you believe I'm wrong?

AbE Actually I should have used prime mover as opposed to theist as a prime mover could be deistic.

I'd also add that I have seen atheists, (I assume including yourself), argue for the position that natural causes are responsible for altruism. I's suggest that is based on the belief that there is nothing beyond natural causes for all that we perceive.

Edited by GDR, : Thought about it a bit more.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 3:18 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 7:53 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 52 of 97 (743769)
12-04-2014 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by AZPaul3
12-04-2014 7:19 AM


Re: News to Chiral you up
AZPaul3 writes:

You want to say we can not know for sure? I agree with you. But we can look to the evidence we already have and we can sure take a hint.

What you have is evidence that processes such as evolution appear to be self sustaining without outside intervention. There is no evidence that natural processes themselves are the result of a prime mover or not.

It would be like looking at an assembly line that endlessly produces widgets and say it is simply the result of natural processes.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 7:19 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 8:14 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 53 of 97 (743771)
12-04-2014 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
12-04-2014 7:52 AM


Re: News to Chiral about
jar writes:

But if there was a Prime Mover and humans were a desired outcome the prime mover must be really stupid or incompetent.
It is very hard to avoid that conclusion based on the fact it took the Prime Mover at least 4 billion years with an almost 100% failure rate to get to the desired outcome.

Who knows what the desired outcome is? Who knows what is to come? Who says that what happened before were failures? Certainly life forms have ceased to exist but a life is a life and other life forms have evolved to take their place.

There are certainly enough scientists that believe that the universe is infinite. If that is the case our human sense of 4 billion years is meaningless anyway.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 12-04-2014 7:52 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 59 of 97 (743852)
12-05-2014 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by RAZD
12-04-2014 1:30 PM


Re: News to Chiral you up, take too
RAZD writes:

Curiously that is not and has never been my argument. As a Deist I am interested in the scientific explanation of how the universe, earth and life were created and how the various processes were set up to cause an end result (not that we are close to that yet).

But I don't pretend that this is evidence that god/s exist nor that they don't exist.

If one believes in a omnipotent omniscient all-powerful god/s creation the logical conclusion you reach is that the universe was created at the very beginning to become what we see, and what we understand of how the universe works is what we understand of how that creation was designed to work. All the natural laws and natural processes are part of the design.

If one does not believe in a omnipotent omniscient god/s creation the logical conclusion you reach is that what we understand of how the universe works is just how it happened to work.

The evidence does not persuade one either way, imho, so people see in it what they want to see.

Sorry that I misrepresented your position. I should have known as you have always said you were a deist. I completely agree with all of that. I am theistic on other grounds. The only thing I would add is that the order and mathematical precision of the universe IMHO suggests an underlying intelligence.

RAZD writes:

(btw -- I used to live in Victoria ... cheers)

...and you are sorely missed. Life is easy out here after growing up in Alberta and living through 15 Montreal winters. (Still, I'll take the Alberta cold to the Montreal snow any day.)


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2014 1:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 60 of 97 (743860)
12-05-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by New Cat's Eye
12-05-2014 9:36 AM


Re: News to Chiral you up
Cat Sci writes:

You're not wrong, but I don't think you are looking at it the right way. And this is coming from a theist.

What we have is an explanation for a phenomenon that works without having a need for a god.

While this doesn't prove that there is no god there, its still a pretty meaningful situation.

I don't think so. What we have is a process that appears to be self sustaining. The question is why does the process exist. I don't mean the purpose of the process, (although that is something to think about), I mean the question that remains open which is whether or not the process itself has an intelligent root cause or not.

Cat Sci writes:

Think about it the other way: What if we could not come up with an explanation that works that didn't require a god?

Wouldn't you take that as a indication that a god may be necessary?

In one sense we have that now when we ask why it is that we perceive anything or that anything exists. However, in answer to that we can still conclude that we just haven't figured it out yet.

Cat Sci writes:

If so, then why can you not go the other way and see that having an explanation that works without a god indicates that a god may not be necessary?

Of course "not being necessary" is not the same as "not being there at all", but science works by keeping only what is necessary.

Things do seem to hum along without any apparent need for intervention much like a robotic assembly line but that is our fundamental perception of things. Science is essentially agnostic and is about natural causes and the question of a deity is not part of any scientific equation. That doesn't mean however that we can't look at science to help inform our subjective beliefs about a deity.

Cat Sci writes:

It may be wrong to discount a god, but if the explanation works without it then nobody really cares.

From a scientific POV I completely agree. However if a god does exist then we should all care as presumably there would be a point to our existence and IMHO it would be helpful to know just what that point was.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2014 9:36 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2014 12:19 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 64 of 97 (743905)
12-05-2014 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by New Cat's Eye
12-05-2014 12:19 PM


Re: News to Chiral you up
Cat Sci writes:

But we shouldn't care as it pertains to our science experiments.

I am in complete agreement with your post. I'm going to have to learn to write more clearly.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2014 12:19 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2014 1:11 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019