| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2006 12:07:39 PM · #526 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...every few million years (or less) a mountain sized asteroid would pile into the earth and wipe everything out. |
That's pretty much what the fossil record shows. We may well discover someday that the simplest forms of life can arise just as readily and spontaneously as complex molecules naturally form from simpler molecules and atoms under favorable conditions. The fact that we haven't discovered it YET doesn't mean it isn't true. Early visions of detecting black holes and breaking the sound barrier have since been proven possible despite many naysayers, and I believe that the discovery of life in some form on other planets is only decades (or even years) away. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 12:16:01 PM · #527 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...every few million years (or less) a mountain sized asteroid would pile into the earth and wipe everything out. |
That's pretty much what the fossil record shows. We may well discover someday that the simplest forms of life can arise just as readily and spontaneously as complex molecules naturally form from simpler molecules and atoms under favorable conditions. The fact that we haven't discovered it YET doesn't mean it isn't true. Early visions of detecting black holes and breaking the sound barrier have since been proven possible despite many naysayers, and I believe that the discovery of life in some form on other planets is only decades (or even years) away. |
a) We certainly see this in the fossil record, but what you may be missing is my point that in the bombardment phase this occurence was hundreds if not thousands of times more common.
b) I agree that nondiscovery does not equate to being false. However, I go back to my "we're in the same boat" idea...
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 12:32:38 PM · #528 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
a) We certainly see this in the fossil record, but what you may be missing is my point that in the bombardment phase this occurence was hundreds if not thousands of times more common. |
Maybe not.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
b) I agree that nondiscovery does not equate to being false. However, I go back to my "we're in the same boat" idea... |
We may be in the same boat, but I'll take my chances with a passenger who studies astronomy, cartography, geography, oceanography, hydrodynamics, naval engineering, etc. over one who relies solely on a translation of a several-thousand-year-old map any day! ;-) |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 01:06:02 PM · #529 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Maybe not.
We may be in the same boat, but I'll take my chances with a passenger who studies astronomy, cartography, geography, oceanography, hydrodynamics, naval engineering, etc. over one who relies solely on a translation of a several-thousand-year-old map any day! ;-) |
The hydrothermal vent hypothesis has it's own issues. There are plenty of opponents who feel the evidence shows the hydrothermal vents consume more organic matter than they produce.
I guess it all depends on whether you believe the map was written by someone who had been there before...
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 01:18:21 PM · #530 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There are plenty of opponents who feel the evidence shows the hydrothermal vents consume more organic matter than they produce. |
If that were true, I wouldn't expect to find life around hydrothermal vents today since it would tend to diminish over time.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess it all depends on whether you believe the map was written by someone who had been there before... |
...or was written by someone who translated the text of another writer who relayed the account of still another person who claimed to be delivering the message of someone else assumed to have been there before. :-/ |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 02:13:26 PM · #531 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If that were true, I wouldn't expect to find life around hydrothermal vents today since it would tend to diminish over time. |
Well, the hydrothermal vent of today is placed in a very different ecosystem. Nutrients, other life (i.e. food), is constantly being rained down and arriving from other areas of the ocean. That wouldn't be the case 4 billion years ago. I'm not sure you can draw much from the vent of today other than life amazes us in its ability to adapt to hostile environments.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 02:25:08 PM · #532 |
Hydrothermal vent ecosystems are based on bacteria that feed on inorganic sulfides in the vented liquid itself, not anything that rains down from above. The same would likely be true of prehistoric versions.
Message edited by author 2006-08-08 14:26:10. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 02:53:02 PM · #533 |
Ya, I was aware of that. However, to quote the wikipedia article...
"The bacteria then grows into a thick mat that attracts other organisims such as amphipods and copepods. These amphipods and copepods then attract larger organisims such as snails, shrimp, crabs, tube worms, fish,and octopi. The snails, clams, and mussels eat the bacteria. The Larger organisims feed on the organisims that feed on the bacteria."
So there are many levels of the ecosystem which are arriving from other parts of the ocean (the copepods, etc.)
Another issue I've had with hydrothermal vents being the cradle of life (and I realize your original article talked about the vents as more of a lifeboat than a cradle) is the limited space. The sheer # of chemical reactions which could occur is limited when you limit your space to a billionth of the ocean. Abiogenesis, whatever the theory, is going to rely somewhat on the sheer force of repetitive trying.
To take a philosphical bent, abiogenesis is just amazing to me. Personally I would be more dumbstruck if I knew it happened without direction than if it did. To me, the more I learn about biology and life, the more I'm directed to a creator, but I fully realize that people see what they want. The same evidence directs someone else to deny a supreme being.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 03:22:39 PM · #534 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Milo, we can assuredly agree that natural causes occur. But there are supernatural causes which get put in quasi-scientific terms and people think "hey, this is natural". |
But then mustnât one ask how can one tell the difference between a natural cause and a supernatural cause appearing as a natural cause?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll back up a step in our timeline and go to the big bang. I've heard many times the multiple universe hypothesis. This sounds scientific, but is every bit as supernatural as God. If you disagree, then you may simply want to say you aren't comfortable with another intelligence and are willing to accept any other reasonable explanation that does not involve an intelligent force. |
While Iâve seen multiverse hypothesis batted around (which even its proposers agree is speculative), I donât see people trying to make it a part of the public school curriculum (much less hire a PR firm â à la The Discovery Institute of the Pennsylvania/Kansas/Ohio âIntelligent Designâ matters â to present it to the public) ⦠so Iâm not overly concerned about it.
Iâm comfortable with other intelligences, but I would, however, like empirical evidences for them. When speaking of the origins of the universe, all Iâve seen (not from you personally), when it comes to extra-natural intelligences arguments are versions of the Primer Mover, the anthropic principle, the fine-tuning argument and god-of-the-gaps â each having their own particular scientific and philosophical flaws. One of the above may ultimately be right (i.e, a extra-natural intelligence creates a 13.7 billion-year-old, millions-of-light-years-wide universe for the purpose of our existence), but we have no reasonable or reliable way to test them. Again, I come back to parsimony, why add more assumptions to an explanation than are necessary?
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 03:54:12 PM · #535 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Again, I come back to parsimony, why add more assumptions to an explanation than are necessary? |
Don't worry Milo, I'm not trying to get ID taught in schools. We do a poor enough time teaching science as it is.
So to point to your question here, what explanation do you have currently for the origin of the universe? In other words, what do you see as the backbone which others are adding their extraneous assumptions to?
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 04:01:29 PM · #536 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So there are many levels of the ecosystem which are arriving from other parts of the ocean (the copepods, etc.). ...The sheer # of chemical reactions which could occur is limited when you limit your space to a billionth of the ocean. |
The bacteria do not rely on pre-existing organic compounds for food and live in environments well-protected from radiation and bombardment, so they would be prime candidates as examples of "first" life. More advanced life such as copepods may simply evolve from that bacteria. Related species found near the surface may have further evolved from these or migrated back to the depths just as whales migrated back to the oceans from earlier land animals. While the vents themselves represent a limited area, the circulation of surrounding oceans and inderlying magma/water are considerably LESS limited in their potential for chemical reactions.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally I would be more dumbstruck if I knew it happened without direction than if it did. |
The possibility that the simplest forms of life developed without guidance leaves you dumbstruck, yet the premise that an intelligent/sentient being has always just "existed" with the ability to direct and/or manipulate the entire universe is perfectly reasonable? We obviously have different standards of amazement.
Message edited by author 2006-08-08 16:03:50. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 04:08:50 PM · #537 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The possibility that the simplest forms of life developed without guidance leaves you dumbstruck, yet the premise that an intelligent/sentient being has always just "existed" with the ability to direct and/or manipulate the entire universe is perfectly reasonable? We obviously have different standards of amazement. |
Amazing, isn't it? I guess I assume there has to be a First Cause for the universe and I don't have a problem with it being intelligent as non.
To me, the two problems (origin of the universe and abiogenesis) are similar. We really have no reasonable ideas about each (read origin of the universe to be "pre-Big Bang") and I count them as being on equal footing with the belief in a God. I have as much evidence of God as I do for any idea of origins. I guess I choose to leap in a different direction than you.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 04:28:09 PM · #538 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To me, the two problems (origin of the universe and abiogenesis) are similar. We really have no reasonable ideas about each (read origin of the universe to be "pre-Big Bang") and I count them as being on equal footing with the belief in a God. |
I dunno, even I can imagine plausible explanations for the Big Bang. I mean, a white dwarf is a whole bunch of matter compressed into a very small space, a neutron star is even more matter compressed into an even smaller amount of space, and a black hole is a ridiculous amount of matter compressed into a singularity. Each of these objects follows some seriously explosive stages, and I have no reason to doubt that still more matter could be compressed into (or originate as) something even smaller than a singularity (basically nothing) that could later explode and lead to what we see today. An infinite amount of matter might be infinitely compressed.
On the other hand, I can't come up with anything to explain an intelligent being existing even before there was anything to exist IN, and before there was any "reason" for the intelligence (i.e.- why have the ability to communicate when there's nothing else to communicate with?). |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 04:28:44 PM · #539 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't worry Milo, I'm not trying to get ID taught in schools. We do a poor enough time teaching science as it is. |
Iâm apologize. It wasnât my intention to imply that you did. I was just holding ID up as an example of a socio-religious/politically motivated pseudoscience trying to worm its way into the science curriculum.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So to point to your question here, what explanation do you have currently for the origin of the universe? In other words, what do you see as the backbone which others are adding their extraneous assumptions to? |
I donât have an explanation for the origin of the universe, but I do see natural and testable processes currently at work today in the universe. I donât think itâs too much of a stretch to âbelieveâ that natural processes have occurred in the past and will occur in the future (much in the same way that I âbelieveâ, based upon experience, the sun will âriseâ again tomorrow morning).
In other words, we know that there are natural processes. We also know that there are natural processes which we do not understand. We donât know, though many believe, that there are supernatural forces affecting natural processes. I donât see the need to attribute processes we donât understand to supernatural forces that may or may not exist.
If you believe that the gaps in our knowledge of the beginnings of the universe (or, for that matter, life on earth) are best explained by appealing to extra-, external- or supernatural forces, Iâm fine with that. But Iâm left with the question âwhy?â
(ps. I am enjoying the conversation. Thank you.)
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 04:30:51 PM · #540 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
On the other hand, I can't come up with anything to explain an intelligent being existing even before there was anything to exist IN, and before there was any "reason" for the intelligence (i.e.- why have the ability to communicate when there's nothing else to communicate with?). |
This is an interesting line of thought, but then I would ask - 'why are we able to contemplate the existence of a 'god'? Unlike everything else we can think about or imagine, it is a concept that has no represenation whatsoever in the entirety of our existence. Yet it is an awareness that is common throughout our race and has, apparently, been with us throughout all of our history.
Message edited by author 2006-08-08 16:32:18. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 04:41:29 PM · #541 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
On the other hand, I can't come up with anything to explain an intelligent being existing even before there was anything to exist IN, and before there was any "reason" for the intelligence (i.e.- why have the ability to communicate when there's nothing else to communicate with?). |
I guess I see this as applying a very paradoxical question to one side and not to the other. We are going to have to, at some point, find the Prime Mover (as milo put it). So either we have God as that entity who exists outside time and space as we know it, or we have the singularity doing the same thing. The original singularity had to exist in "something" as well. Even the quantum effects of creating virtual particles out of nothing has to happen IN a Higgs field (or so the speculation goes). So I don't see it as fair that you say "how can you believe in a God who must exist outside time and space?" when I can just as easily retort "how can you believe the universe arose from a singularity which existed outside time and space?"
Grab an oar, we're in the same boat...
Milo, the "God of the gaps" argument is powerful. It does appear that we have a long history of being able to fill those gaps in. However, as they say in commercials for mutual funds "past experience may not predict future behavior". To me, I take these gaps and add to them my own personal evidence of Right and Wrong and so forth and the equation comes up with God. For a much more articulate version of what I just said, check out the first 40 or so pages of Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. Lewis was the thinker's Christian having grown up in the church, deciding he was an atheist and then convering back on purely philosophical and logical grounds (not many are converted that way). I highly recommend the read even if only to understand how thinking people can be Christians too.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 05:34:16 PM · #542 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So I don't see it as fair that you say "how can you believe in a God who must exist outside time and space?" when I can just as easily retort "how can you believe the universe arose from a singularity which existed outside time and space?" |
Not quite. We know that white dwarfs represent a certain amount of matter and a certain size. We know that neutron stars have even more matter and a radius of 10-20km. We know that a black hole can contain enormous amounts of matter in a single point (no measurable size) and that time and space do weird things in Black Holeville. We observe and test this knowledge and find that it fits theoretical predictions. It's a small step of logic to suppose that the progression continues, and that even more matter could yield even smaller and more exotic objects. By contrast, it's a HUGE leap of faith (there is no logic) that a supernatural being with the ability to manipulate/write the phyical laws of the universe simply exists and makes everything happen by magic. Those are very different boats indeed. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 05:46:59 PM · #543 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Not quite. We know that white dwarfs represent a certain amount of matter and a certain size. We know that neutron stars have even more matter and a radius of 10-20km. We know that a black hole can contain enormous amounts of matter in a single point (no measurable size) and that time and space do weird things in Black Holeville. We observe and test this knowledge and find that it fits theoretical predictions. It's a small step of logic to suppose that the progression continues, and that even more matter could yield even smaller and more exotic objects. By contrast, it's a HUGE leap of faith (there is no logic) that a supernatural being with the ability to manipulate/write the phyical laws of the universe simply exists and makes everything happen by magic. Those are very different boats indeed. |
You don't think having a singularity which contains all time and space and matter existing without cause and not existing "in" anything (time or space as we know it since it's all contained within the singularity) requires a leap of faith? You don't think inflation theory, which requires that for a brief period the laws of physics were quite different than we know requires a leap of faith? You don't think the singularity itself, which is so mindcrushingly dense that all physical laws as we know them break down into what's called "quantum foam" and thus provides a wall past which it will be impossible to "see" doesn't require a leap of faith?
Message edited by author 2006-08-08 17:47:59.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 08:03:13 PM · #544 |
Since we know that time and space are not the constant and infinite things that people used to, then no, it is not hard to conceive that there could have been an instant when the universe was something very different. Combined with out best observations of the universe (and in particular background radiation, or the echo from the big bang), then the big bang theory seems reasonably probable. We can see a certain amount of the evidence, so why do we need to explain it using mysticism?
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 09:13:04 PM · #545 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You don't think having a singularity which contains all time and space and matter existing without cause and not existing "in" anything (time or space as we know it since it's all contained within the singularity) requires a leap of faith? You don't think inflation theory, which requires that for a brief period the laws of physics were quite different than we know requires a leap of faith? You don't think the singularity itself, which is so mindcrushingly dense that all physical laws as we know them break down into what's called "quantum foam" and thus provides a wall past which it will be impossible to "see" doesn't require a leap of faith? |
Time is relative (literally). We know of black holes that contain tens of millions of suns worth of matter, so believing there was a larger one is no more a matter of faith than believing there's a larger fish in a lake (in stark contrast to believing there's a mermaid when there's no physical evidence). Such a massive explosion DID have a cause or it wouldn't have happened. We just don't yet understand what it was, and it could have existed in a vacuum. The rest are simply our best guesses based on observations that fit mathematical models. Scientists are a skeptical lot, and would love nothing more than to DISprove someone else's theory.
Therein lies the key difference between science and faith: scientists start with observations and try to find answers that fit, while religion starts with an assumed answer and tries to make the observations fit. If observations conflict with a scientific model, then the model is assumed flawed and modified or discarded. If observations conflict with a religious model, then the observations are assumed flawed or dismissed as miracles. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 09:32:39 PM · #546 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Milo, the "God of the gaps" argument is powerful. |
Iâd have to say I strongly disagree with you and for the exact reason you give in your second sentence.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It does appear that we have a long history of being able to fill those gaps in. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However, as they say in commercials for mutual funds "past experience may not predict future behavior". |
Or, as J.P. Morgan put when someone asked him what the market would do, âFluctuate.â I see that as a theological weakness rather than strength. Iâm not comfortable with the idea of having to put gods off in the unknown. I find it akin to a person standing on the metaphorical shores of the limits of human knowledge, pointing to the distant horizon and declaring âThere be dragons.â Iâd prefer more evidence for the dragons than the fact I havenât been far enough out to sea.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To me, I take these gaps and add to them my own personal evidence of Right and Wrong and so forth and the equation comes up with God. For a much more articulate version of what I just said, check out the first 40 or so pages of Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. Lewis was the thinker's Christian having grown up in the church, deciding he was an atheist and then converting back on purely philosophical and logical grounds (not many are converted that way). |
OK. Moving out into theological territory - admittedly, itâs been almost twenty years since I read Mere Christianity, but, as I recall, itâs more a book for shoring up the faith of those on the âinsideâ of Christianity who are questioning, rather than answering the questions of those who are on the âoutsideâ. I found his arguments less than convincing, but, not having read it recently, Iâm at loss to go deep into specifics. The Right and Wrong argument is nice but do a poor job addressing those moral grey areas (birth control, for instance) and neglects other âsocial contractâ type possibilities. The âtrilemmaâ (lord, liar, lunatic) argument leaves out other options â myth, mistaken, misinterpreted â or any combination thereof â lord and liar, lord and liar and lunatic, myth and liar and lord, etc. etc. In the end, it seemed to be series of arguments by analogy and analogies only take you so far. I found the âleap of faithâ once you reach the edge of the analogy unwarranted.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I highly recommend the read even if only to understand how thinking people can be Christians too. |
Trust me, I think Christians can be thinking people, too. I should mention that one of my brothers is a Christian and working on a doctorate in theology. I look forward to reading his thesis and, based upon the subject, suggested that he might eventually âtranslateâ it for mass market.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2006 09:59:21 PM · #547 |
"I find it akin to a person standing on the metaphorical shores of the limits of human knowledge, pointing to the distant horizon and declaring âThere be dragons.â Iâd prefer more evidence for the dragons than the fact I havenât been far enough out to sea. "
Then you lack Faith, and as Faith is the core of every religion in existence you can pretty much wrap up your take on the subject right there. You either believe it without asking for proof, or you don't.
I don't. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:06:55 PM · #548 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Then you lack Faith, and as Faith is the core of every religion in existence you can pretty much wrap up your take on the subject right there. You either believe it without asking for proof, or you don't.
I don't. |
This is leading into an entirely different discussion, but ... why believe things for which you have no evidence? |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:10:26 PM · #549 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
This is leading into an entirely different discussion, but ... why believe things for which you have no evidence? |
My personal theory on your specific question is that people need some sort of emotional crutch to get through life. Religion serves as this crutch. They need it because the thought of being an insignificant collection of cells that winks in and out of existence, serves no purpose at all when viewed as a microscopic dot against the backdrop of an infinite universe, and is driven to ask questions for which there simply are no answers makes them uncomfortable. Creating an Answer to the Question gets them through the day. |
|
|
|
08/08/2006 10:23:04 PM · #550 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
My personal theory on your specific question is that people need some sort of emotional crutch to get through life. Religion serves as this crutch. They need it because the thought of being an insignificant collection of cells that winks in and out of existence, serves no purpose at all when viewed as a microscopic dot against the backdrop of an infinite universe, and is driven to ask questions for which there simply are no answers makes them uncomfortable. Creating an Answer to the Question gets them through the day. |
Oh, I think religion does more than that. It serves as a social network and community for its members. It also provides rules to live by so that people can âget it rightâ. It helps provide structure to major events in life (marriage, birth, and, especially, death). It helps to structure behavior within society. Evidence also suggests that activities such as prayer or meditation (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.) stimulate specific portions of the brain.
Still, while doing all that, those arenât evidences that any particular religious belief is ultimately true, if for no other reason than all religions do these sorts of things.
Edited to add: I can't believe I forgot the most important reason people believe any particular religion. Religions (not all) allow one to believe they can escape their own inevitable death. I think that is the most powerful motivator - the fear of death.
Message edited by author 2006-08-08 22:37:21. |
|
