Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 185 (419110)
09-01-2007 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by ringo
08-31-2007 7:47 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by ringo, posted 08-31-2007 7:47 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ringo, posted 09-01-2007 1:13 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 137 of 185 (419112)
09-01-2007 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by New Cat's Eye
09-01-2007 12:28 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
if there's no evidence of a difference
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-01-2007 12:28 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 138 of 185 (419126)
09-01-2007 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by New Cat's Eye
08-31-2007 10:56 AM


Re: Rrhain is wrong.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-31-2007 10:56 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 139 of 185 (419127)
09-01-2007 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by riVeRraT
08-31-2007 12:05 PM


Re: Not a good corner RR
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by riVeRraT, posted 08-31-2007 12:05 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by riVeRraT, posted 09-04-2007 1:15 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 140 of 185 (419128)
09-01-2007 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by riVeRraT
08-31-2007 12:16 PM


Re: You beat me to it!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by riVeRraT, posted 08-31-2007 12:16 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by riVeRraT, posted 09-04-2007 1:19 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 141 of 185 (419129)
09-01-2007 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by riVeRraT
08-31-2007 12:20 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by riVeRraT, posted 08-31-2007 12:20 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 142 of 185 (419130)
09-01-2007 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by New Cat's Eye
08-31-2007 1:26 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-31-2007 1:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by riVeRraT, posted 09-04-2007 1:27 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 143 of 185 (419131)
09-01-2007 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by New Cat's Eye
08-31-2007 5:44 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-31-2007 5:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2007 11:41 AM Rrhain has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 144 of 185 (419695)
09-04-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by New Cat's Eye
08-31-2007 12:42 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-31-2007 12:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2007 11:50 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 145 of 185 (419696)
09-04-2007 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by molbiogirl
08-31-2007 5:13 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by molbiogirl, posted 08-31-2007 5:13 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2007 3:55 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 185 (419710)
09-04-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rrhain
09-01-2007 7:25 AM


From Message 138
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"?
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:
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."
Yes, I agree that it is, in fact, life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2007 7:25 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by riVeRraT, posted 09-04-2007 1:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 158 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2007 4:08 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 185 (419712)
09-04-2007 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by riVeRraT
09-04-2007 9:50 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by riVeRraT, posted 09-04-2007 9:50 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 148 of 185 (419721)
09-04-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Rrhain
09-01-2007 6:46 AM


Re: Not a good corner RR
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2007 6:46 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2007 4:26 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 149 of 185 (419722)
09-04-2007 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Rrhain
09-01-2007 6:54 AM


Re: You beat me to it!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2007 6:54 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2007 4:46 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 150 of 185 (419726)
09-04-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Rrhain
09-01-2007 7:06 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2007 7:06 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2007 5:04 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024