|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
if there's no evidence of a difference The evidence of the difference is the fact that it is man-made. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : syntax error
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: quote: The evidence of the difference is the fact that it is man-made. If there's no evidence, how can you call it a "fact"? “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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
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. That's a good argument. No, this is not a good argument. Ringo acts as if we applied some kind of magic to make life happen. Life is in the starting elements, if we can just take those elements through them in a dish, and call it creating life. Then the logical people will say I am moving goalposts, but science really doesn't have any goalposts, why should I? I've never sat here and said that the way Genesis says we were created was the way it went down, so I really don't have any goalposts, as far as that goes. Besides, nothing is ever proven, and until we have a time machine, or meet God, we will never know exactly how it went down. We could have come from aliens for all we know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I'm going to have to agree with Ringo here. Life ("artificial") is life ("natural"). Chemically there is no difference. If you back up a few steps and take a look at the bigger picture, there really is no difference. What's the difference between RNA/DNA assembling life, and us? It's all natural, since that's how it started.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 138
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"? You couldn’t. There really is no benefit to introducing the ”biological machine” concept. Both the natural and artificial are life.
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. 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? Presumably, there could exist two different “things” that we are unable to see the difference. Just because we cannot tell the difference does not mean that “they necessarily must be the same thing”.
Message 143 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." Yes, I agree that it is, in fact, life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
That's a good argument. No, this is not a good argument.
Oh... well if you say so
Ringo acts as if we applied some kind of magic to make life happen. What!? I didn't read anything by him to suggest that.
Life is in the starting elements, if we can just take those elements through them in a dish, and call it creating life. The starting elements do not have life in them. They are truely non-life...chemicals and nothing more.
I've never sat here and said that the way Genesis says we were created was the way it went down, so I really don't have any goalposts, as far as that goes. But you are still wrong in what the scientists have used as building blocks to create the artificial life.
Besides, nothing is ever proven, and until we have a time machine, or meet God, we will never know exactly how it went down. Whatever dude. That really isn't helping any. Anyways, do you need a time machine or to meet god for me to prove to you that I ate a bagel for breakfast this morning? Of course not. Why can't the same be true for other things?
We could have come from aliens for all we know. In that case, these scientists would be investigating how the aliens created life, or how that alien life arrose. That doesn't really do anything ot the discussion either. Life can come from non-life. What are the ramifications of this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
You mean you will abandon a self-correcting system for a self-deluding system? Simply because you don't like the corrections made? Since nothing is ever proven, how do I know those corrections, are correct?
And what, pray tell, were the errors corrected in the NIV? You've pointed them out yourself, need I go back in time and post it?
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? I have no way of debating if that is true or not. You are only basing that on current knowledge. Are you saying it is proven that it never happened?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
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. Yes it is all made up of the same stuff, but it isn't linked.....ok
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. No, what I said was science helps define my faith, because science studies truth, and my faith deals with truth.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
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." I think you are confusing a lot of ideas all in one thought there. The bible says what it ways about it, and it has no bearing on my faith. We all came from something, and how that happened is not all that important to me. The bible says God spoke the universe into existence, just what that means is even irrelevant. I do feel God has told me that He has created everything, but not exactly how. If we can take what already is, and make life from it, it doesn't pose a problem as far as me being a creationist. Creationist meaning, I believe we were created, but do not accept the creationist ideas, or theories. I don't know how you can attempt to define the word life in the article provided in the OP, because it hasn't even happened yet. We are all debating, what hasn't even taken place. They only think it will happen. So when it happens, and we can compare real life, to artificial life, then we can define it. It id goes as smooth as cloning a sheep, there will be some discrepancies.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024