| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/05/2008 07:43:42 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Evolution theory does not hold scientific water. ... I can objectively state that evolution theory does not explain based on the evidence how we came to be as we are. |
Ah yes - just a century of consistent and overwhelmingly and crushingly positive evidence coming out of objective and demonstrable experiments by millions of people. Why believe your eyes and ears when you can induce an endorphin rush of religious ecstacy through ignorance...?
The evolution of the eye is just about the worst possible example used by the "watchmaker" critics because it is one of the best evidenced and well understood examples of evolutionary theory. It is also one of the longest standing - Darwin used it as an example in The Origin of Species.
If you really think that the eye stands up as a problem for evolutionary theory to explain, then you have been sold a line by someone with a vested interest in maintaining your ignorance and you have fallen for it. Conclusions may be drawn appropriately.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2008 07:55:09 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
What changed things around for me was proof. |
aha - at last, something that demonstrates the theory of god in a way that can be shown to others, tested, replicated, objectively assessed, qualitively reviewed etc.
Originally posted by dponlyme:
It's not proof that can be shared with others in a scientific way. |
so, not "actual" proof, but rather "empty" proof that cannot be repeated, or assessed, or used to demonstrate anything except that you have a personal belief for which there is zero external evidence.
Compared to "actual" proof of things like evolution, your "empty" proof rather pales into insignificance.
Originally posted by dponlyme:
False prophets (teachers) abound everywhere you look. It's not surprising. |
A point where we can agree.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2008 08:23:48 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
It is also one of the longest standing - Darwin used it as an example in The Origin of Species.
|
Ahem "On the Origin of Species"..
I am such a stickler when it comes to Darwin. ;-)
Although I believe it is hard to find copy with the original title these days and most are, incorrectly named, The Origin of Species..
Still, great discussion!! I love all this theological chat talking about a great, powerful & loving god who lets men rape babies, kill kids etc So glad he loves us and is on our side! Imagine how f****d we would be if he didn't love us! |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 08:35:22 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by chalice:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Evolution and a traditional belief in God are not compatible. Try going back to Spain or Rome in the 1500s and making an argument to Christian authorities that evolution and Christian theology are compatible. Good luck with that. Heck, go back to the early Christians and make the argument. Bring a good pair of running shoes. |
Hyperbole. This is a gratuitous statement devoid of meaning. If we go back to the 1500s or to the early days of Christianity there is no theory of Evolution to discuss and no reason to discuss compatibility or the lack thereof. |
So, because the theory had not yet been expressed, evolution didn't exist in the 1500s or the early days of Christianity? I'm being a little facetious here, but not really, because I'm honestly flummoxed by the distinction you seem to want to draw. You could certainly go back to such times and provide the early believers with the theory, explain the models, let's say you even get to bring back fossils and genetic testing equipment and such. When the science of evolution is placed in front of the traditional belief of these early Christian adherents, what do you think their response would be?
A) A mild and reasoned discussion about how the theory really isn't at all incompatible with a belief in God, or
B) Violent denunciations of the theory, accusations of heresy, and -- in the 1500s at least -- a quick application of hot tongs to delicate bits in order to get me to "voluntarily" renounce.
If evolution, or modern science generally, is compatible with modern religious practice, it is because modern religious belief has changed and adapted in order to keep itself credible as the general wealth of human knowledge has expanded.
Originally posted by chalice:
And as for the theologians? The same thing is going on. What do you think all of the religious scholars are doing digging in the sands of the middle east, translating every scrap of new papyrus they can find and debating among themselves the meaning of every significant word in the ancient texts, with an open mind and willingness to test new ideas, ...and a willingness to dialogue with scientists in matters of common concern. THAT is the stuff of true religion. |
My initial guess would be that they are trying to validate their own beliefs. Or, perhaps more charitably, they are doing their investigations with no thought as to whether the underlying fact of their faith is valid or not. If one is already convinced of the correctness of his or her belief, all evidence found is seen in light of that belief. Ask yourself, what evidence would it take to convince you that your belief in God was false? If there is nothing that would be able to convince you of that, then you're not really open minded. If the potential for a change of mind doesn't even exist, then there really is not true inquiry.
Originally posted by chalice:
What's so wrong with a scientist exploring whether a Creator is behind the universe? What is so wrong with a theologian exploring the validity of Evolution as a process that explains the development and extent of species? I say nothing is wrong with either. And the individual who can not do it while still holding on firmly to what he or she has tested and learned and believes to be true (up to this point in time) is, in his or her own way, a form of radical fundamentalist, whether a scientist or a theologian. |
I say there is nothing wrong with it either. Were that it was as common as you would like it to be. What a great place this world would be if were all so fully open minded and actively testing and learning all the time. I would share that vision of a world with you.
But - if this is what is so desirable, and if truth is what we're all really after, open mindedly and all that -- why is religion so often so very hostile to science? As your post already indicates, by talking about all the supposed Christian scientists that exits, the opposite is not nearly so true -- science is not nearly so hostile to religion as the opposite.
Scientific findings on the other hand have constantly undermined, derailed, and challenged the supposed absolute true beliefs of the world religions. It was possible to believe in a universe with the Earth at its center (or set atop a pile of turtles) before astrology showed us how wondrous the cosmos really are and how fragile and small our little island in that cosmos really is. It was much easier to believe in the virgin birth in 1500 C.E. when knowledge of biology was limited. It was much easier then to believe in God as the <> Creator, before the theory of evolution began to explain how the world around us could have come about without any need for a divine hand. It was much easier to believe in the transformation of water into wine, the miracle of the loaves and fishes, the idea of a man's ability to walk on water, faith healing, etc. before the advent of chemistry, physics, physiology, psychology, sociology, etc.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2008 08:39:21 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And I see new people joining the conversation that are back on the "everybody is fictional" kick. You are welcome to this belief, but you need to realize in historical circles you are waaaaay out on a limb and very few scholars are willing to follow. |
The whole argument is slightly mad.
It doesn't really matter whether or not Jesus existed or the Bible is correct, because for adherents it is only ever a matter of belief (not rational analysis) in the truth of one holy text over another. The fact that one religion is more accurately recorded in history than another seems to be of fairly little consequence. For example, Islamic texts are not translated and are treated with sanctity, and scientology offers video evidence. However, people still believe in the bible. They do so for reasons of social geography rather than the application of any thought process.
The only issue of any importance as to which religion to follow is "where do you live, what year is it, and what do your parents believe?", which will, by and large, determine which holy book you believe in and how.
It really does beggar belief that with zero evidence that there is a persuasive argument for the existence of an interventionist god. Arguing that any particular portrayal might be accurate is layering madness upon madness. Arguing that the one that is middle aged, was rewritten for political purposes in the 4th century, translated through several languages, containing internal inconsistencies, involving a highly developed interpretive approach, is also the one most likely to be accurate, is a further layer of madness. It says so much more about man than "god".
|
|
|
|
04/05/2008 08:51:06 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Actually, I don't agree. When I said "all excellent and good" I meant that I didn't have a problem with you believing in things that you have absolutely no evidence for. Your individual belief is none of my business. The minute you want to base legislation or dictate others actions on that unfounded belief, you need to provide some other source of persuasion. |
Sorta like EITHER argument for or against abortion? Or interpretation of the fourth amendment? Or doctor assisted suicide? |
You are being deliberately pedantic. ALL of those issues could be framed in the forms of argument for which evidence and testable hypothesis would be available. Does one recommendation versus the other provide better social outcomes? Does one recommendation versus the other actually provide the promised outcomes, or provide them at lower costs, with more respect for individual freedom, or spread the costs of the preferred outcome more equitably across the affected groups, etc.?
That arguments in the political sphere are not framed in these ways is the problem. It's perfectly okay to say "this is what I think would be the best way" and then hashing those preferences out in the political field. But saying that "this is the best way because my religion says it is" or "because my holy book says it is" isn't argument, and it's not persuasive to anyone who doesn't share your religious views. Since we live in a heterogenous society, the obligation is on you to provide arguments that persuade those who don't already believe you. Faith-based argument don't.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2008 09:05:25 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by chalice:
I would postulate that those who think that religion and science are mutually exclusive (regardless of whether they are theologically oriented or scientifically oriented) are out of touch with current thinking and are in danger of being left behind in their respective disciplines. Too often, those who are of that ilk are simply nurturing insecurities, have an axe to grind, or need to take a good long look at themselves in the mirror. They also need to look at the opposite discipline than the one in which they are steeped, with fresh eyes and an open mind (they don't have to change their position, they just have to begin asking sincere questions of themselves). |
What does science have to gain from religion? They are mutually exclusive - one relying on evidence, the other faith in the absence of evidence.
People who use the scientific method ("scientists") might still find solace in religion for other areas of life, but that is not the same as suggesting that science would benefit from religion.
Originally posted by chalice:
What's so wrong with a scientist exploring whether a Creator is behind the universe? |
It is quite an odd starting point for any serious scientific enquiry. Science depends on a hypothesis being tested and demonstrated. First, the hypothesis is outlandish (in the absence of all evidence, it is rather an extreme and specific concept) and historic experiments (eg on the power of prayer) have been unsuccessful. So I suspect that until something changes then it would most likely be the case that a "scientist" pursuing such a path without a very good reason to do so would be suspected of having ulterior motives.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2008 09:06:55 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Actually, I don't agree. When I said "all excellent and good" I meant that I didn't have a problem with you believing in things that you have absolutely no evidence for. Your individual belief is none of my business. The minute you want to base legislation or dictate others actions on that unfounded belief, you need to provide some other source of persuasion. |
Sorta like EITHER argument for or against abortion? Or interpretation of the fourth amendment? Or doctor assisted suicide? |
You are being deliberately pedantic. ALL of those issues could be framed in the forms of argument for which evidence and testable hypothesis would be available. Does one recommendation versus the other provide better social outcomes? Does one recommendation versus the other actually provide the promised outcomes, or provide them at lower costs, with more respect for individual freedom, or spread the costs of the preferred outcome more equitably across the affected groups, etc.?
That arguments in the political sphere are not framed in these ways is the problem. It's perfectly okay to say "this is what I think would be the best way" and then hashing those preferences out in the political field. But saying that "this is the best way because my religion says it is" or "because my holy book says it is" isn't argument, and it's not persuasive to anyone who doesn't share your religious views. Since we live in a heterogenous society, the obligation is on you to provide arguments that persuade those who don't already believe you. Faith-based argument don't. |
Well what examples are you talking about? All social issues can be framed in the same manner. I'm a bit lost on what you are talking about unless you are worried about a specific state enforced religion. I'm not much for that either. |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 09:10:37 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by chalice:
What's so wrong with a scientist exploring whether a Creator is behind the universe? |
It is quite an odd starting point for any serious scientific enquiry. Science depends on a hypothesis being tested and demonstrated. First, the hypothesis is outlandish (in the absence of all evidence, it is rather an extreme and specific concept) and historic experiments (eg on the power of prayer) have been unsuccessful. So I suspect that until something changes then it would most likely be the case that a "scientist" pursuing such a path without a very good reason to do so would be suspected of having ulterior motives. |
I don't completely disagree with you, but before 1900 who would have supposed that Newtonian physics did not rule at all scales and everywhere in the universe? Some scientists have to push the envelope. Most of the time their work yields little fruit, but at times it is earth shattering and paradigm shifting. If someone is willing to do this mostly thankless work, then more power to them, eh?
Message edited by author 2008-04-05 21:11:05. |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 09:12:52 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
However, people still believe in the bible. They do so for reasons of social geography rather than the application of any thought process. |
I think you are greatly underestimating a large body of people. There are VERY intelligent people who believe the bible. You may not understand why, but that makes them no less intelligent. We don't all check our brains at the door.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2008 09:18:53 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
People who use the scientific method ("scientists") might still find solace in religion for other areas of life, but that is not the same as suggesting that science would benefit from religion. |
Religion may provide clues not to what can be done, but what should be done. That question definitely lies outside the realm of the scientific method. |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 10:13:22 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Religion may provide clues not to what can be done, but what should be done. |
Really now? Surely you are not advocating that all that is or has been done in the name of religion is "what should be done".
Ray |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 10:16:00 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Religion may provide clues not to what can be done, but what should be done. |
Really now? Surely you are not advocating that all that is or has been done in the name of religion is "what should be done".
Ray |
Of course I'm not. But obviously the question cannot be answered by science. |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 10:58:25 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
However, people still believe in the bible. They do so for reasons of social geography rather than the application of any thought process. |
I think you are greatly underestimating a large body of people. There are VERY intelligent people who believe the bible. You may not understand why, but that makes them no less intelligent. We don't all check our brains at the door. |
There are VERY intelligent people who believe in the Khoran. There are VERY intelligent people who don't believe in the New Testament, but think the Old Testament is pretty great. There are VERY intelligent people who believe in Buddhism. Etc., etc., etc. . . .
What is your point?
|
|
|
|
04/05/2008 11:06:23 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
However, people still believe in the bible. They do so for reasons of social geography rather than the application of any thought process. |
I think you are greatly underestimating a large body of people. There are VERY intelligent people who believe the bible. You may not understand why, but that makes them no less intelligent. We don't all check our brains at the door. |
There are VERY intelligent people who believe in the Khoran. There are VERY intelligent people who don't believe in the New Testament, but think the Old Testament is pretty great. There are VERY intelligent people who believe in Buddhism. Etc., etc., etc. . . .
What is your point? |
My point is you were hyperbolizing by saying "rather than the application of any thought process"... |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 11:06:42 PM · #116 |
Looks like I missed most of the fun today, but I'll hit some of the highlights...
Originally posted by chalice:
Originally posted by scalvert:
We can deduce that some of the characters existed as real people, but not that any of the actions or conversations attributed to them ever took place - as has been plainly illustrated by the example of Davy Crockett. |
If you can't deduce "historical context" or any of the "actions or conversations" attributed to characters who existed, as you suggest, then we had better notify the history departments of all colleges and universities to disband. |
Conversely if we are to accept the words of real people as historical, particularly when multiple writers agree to the same stories, then those history departments are gonna have to take Zeus, Osirus and Vishnu very seriously given all the verifiable, independent references to them.
Originally posted by chalice:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Much has also been made of Paul's conversion as evidence of his conviction, but even that story is suspect...
Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." |
I am currious to know what translation you are using. I have several translations and none of them match those words. A citation would be appreciated.
The New American Standard Bible (NASB) translates the text as follows:
Acts 9:7 "And the men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one."
Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me beheld the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me." Notes to the text indicate that some translations replace "understand" with "hear with comprehension". |
That would be the King James Version (the New King James version is virtually identical). It should bother you that interpretations of the Word of God™ can vary so much, particularly since you weren't around to choose which handful of the 90 or so prospective 4th century gospels would form the basis of any of these versions.
Originally posted by chalice:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Your suspicion that the universe hasn't always existed and was instead created by something even more complicated that HAS always existed does not necessarily make the latter more probable. If a Creator can exist independently of a creator, then it should be even more likely that the same is possible of something considerably simpler. |
I wonder if the Creator can be simpler than the creation? ...I don't see how something simpler is more likely to pre-exist infinitely than something that is more complex. |
Which of these models is simpler?
A: The universe has always existed in some form, following the same general rules of physics and chemistry that exist today. Humans are nothing special (except for apparently having the misfortune to evolve just enough intelligence to destroy their own habitat, and not enough to know better).
B: The universe was invented by an omniscient, invisible entity from another dimension that can suspend the rules of physics and chemistry just by thinking about it. Humans are His special pet project (now that the respective trilobite, dinosaur and mammoth experiments have run their courses), and everyone has to follow the guidelines He set forth in long lost documents widely open to interpretation, that only a minority of mostly illiterate people ever saw, and which must be translated from copies of unknown origin written in an obsolete language or risk an unimaginable fate that we can only imagine because it takes place in yet another dimension that nobody's ever seen.
If you can accept the concept of infinite existence, then there's no reason the universe couldn't have always existed. If you can't accept the concept of infinite existence, then you're only pushing the question back a step to "what came before God?" The simpler model is vastly more likely because it doesn't add the extra improbabilities of hidden dimensions, new laws of physics and an omniscient entity that has allowed most of the world to be ignorant of his mandatory instructions at every known point in history.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There is the possibility you are using "evolution" in different ways. ... While scientists have a general feel for how they suppose things evolved, there are certainly gaps in the knowledge. The further back we go the larger the gaps get until we wind up with a massive gap at the very beginning under the general name of "abiogenesis." |
If you're referring to abiogenesis at all, then you're not even talking about evolution. That theory only describes the process of species development through natural selection. It makes no predictions on the origin of life itself, although theists could face a minor crisis if we find signs of life on another planet, and a major meltdown if someone actually manages to develop a living microbe from organic molecules. |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 11:16:26 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There is the possibility you are using "evolution" in different ways. ... While scientists have a general feel for how they suppose things evolved, there are certainly gaps in the knowledge. The further back we go the larger the gaps get until we wind up with a massive gap at the very beginning under the general name of "abiogenesis." |
If you're referring to abiogenesis at all, then you're not even talking about evolution. That theory only describes the process of species development through natural selection. It makes no predictions on the origin of life itself, although theists could face a minor crisis if we find signs of life on another planet, and a major meltdown if someone actually manages to develop a living microbe from organic molecules. |
If abiogenesis does not work in an evolutionary context, what hope would we ever have? Random chance has been shown by lots of theist proponents to be a very unlikely model for developing even the simplest forms of life. What you are saying is false. All the ideas we have now with abiogenesis work on a "survival of the fittest" model. I agree it's "adapted evolution" in the sense we aren't working with genes or DNA, but the general concept still holds. If you somehow still disagree then I'd say we are simply in agreement and you are siding against the people who think that invoking a creator is worse than invoking a big black box.
As far as your meltdowns, I'd frankly reverse them in regards to "major" and "minor". :) If we created life out of organic molecules, that wouldn't be too big a blow to the idea that life was created. (Now of course if the scientists managed to do it with a hands-off approach, then perhaps we'd have some thinking to do.) Life on other planets would depend on what it looks like (at least to me).
Message edited by author 2008-04-05 23:17:22. |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 11:49:59 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If abiogenesis does not work in an evolutionary context, what hope would we ever have? Random chance has been shown by lots of theist proponents to be a very unlikely model for developing even the simplest forms of life. What you are saying is false. |
The theory of evolution is a model that explains how species evolve into new species. Nothing more. What you describe is like faulting a model that shows how streams become canyons for not explaining the origin of water.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as your meltdowns, I'd frankly reverse them in regards to "major" and "minor". :) If we created life out of organic molecules, that wouldn't be too big a blow to the idea that life was created. (Now of course if the scientists managed to do it with a hands-off approach, then perhaps we'd have some thinking to do.) Life on other planets would depend on what it looks like (at least to me). |
That doesn't even make sense unless you think humans are capable of creating life from non-living matter(!). If someone combines a bunch of organic molecules or amino acids already known to form naturally in stars and planets and comes up with microbes, then there's no reason the same couldn't happen outside a laboratory. Your last sentence is about what I would expect, though. |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 11:55:12 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If abiogenesis does not work in an evolutionary context, what hope would we ever have? Random chance has been shown by lots of theist proponents to be a very unlikely model for developing even the simplest forms of life. What you are saying is false. |
The theory of evolution is a model that explains how species evolve into new species. Nothing more. What you describe is like faulting a model that shows how streams become canyons for not explaining the origin of water.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as your meltdowns, I'd frankly reverse them in regards to "major" and "minor". :) If we created life out of organic molecules, that wouldn't be too big a blow to the idea that life was created. (Now of course if the scientists managed to do it with a hands-off approach, then perhaps we'd have some thinking to do.) Life on other planets would depend on what it looks like (at least to me). |
That doesn't even make sense unless you think humans are capable of creating life from non-living matter(!). If someone combines a bunch of organic molecules or amino acids already known to form naturally in stars and planets and comes up with microbes, then there's no reason the same couldn't happen outside a laboratory. Your last sentence is about what I would expect, though. |
Read my original post you quoted. You are doing exactly what I was talking about above. You are talking about the theory of evolution in a general sense. Please recall I don't disagree with this theory. I think it's a good one. I am talking about the "history of life" (and was pointing out in the post that Spaz may have been talking of the former while dpon was talking about the latter). The history of life involves evolution, but also involves abiogenesis. A materialist is eventually going to have to come to grips with both. We both agree with evolution. We disagree on abiogenesis.
Well, right now I don't think humans are capable of creating life (other than the fun way with the opposite sex). My point is that if scientists did it under extremely controlled situations with many different steps requiring many different conditions that doesn't reflect much in the real world. That wouldn't impress me too much (at least in regards to this argument). Doing some Miller and Urey experiment that actually worked and reflected a primitive atomsphere would be impressive (but I'm not holding my breath).
Message edited by author 2008-04-06 00:04:35. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 12:04:55 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We both agree with evolution. We disagree on abiogenesis. |
Fair enough. I'm perfectly OK with the idea that the origin of life is currently unknown, but not unknowable. I'm less comfortable with dodging the question by saying life was artificially created without any obligation explain the origin of the thing doing the creating. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 12:11:50 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
However, people still believe in the bible. They do so for reasons of social geography rather than the application of any thought process. |
I think you are greatly underestimating a large body of people. There are VERY intelligent people who believe the bible. You may not understand why, but that makes them no less intelligent. We don't all check our brains at the door. |
There are VERY intelligent people who believe in the Khoran. There are VERY intelligent people who don't believe in the New Testament, but think the Old Testament is pretty great. There are VERY intelligent people who believe in Buddhism. Etc., etc., etc. . . .
What is your point? |
My point is you were hyperbolizing by saying "rather than the application of any thought process"... |
You messed up your quotes - I never said that , that was Matthew - I do think, however, that it's pretty obvious that a person's particular choice of religious belief is primarily influenced by geography and time.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2008 12:12:45 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My point is that if scientists [created life] under extremely controlled situations with many different steps requiring many different conditions that doesn't reflect much in the real world. That wouldn't impress me too much (at least in regards to this argument). |
Under what conditions would a scientist creating life from nonliving matter NOT be impressive? We would of course require the conditions to be free of contaminating bacteria, microbes, DNA, etc., but what could a scientist possibly do to a chemical solution that would invalidate the formation of a microbe? There are more conditions found in nature than we can currently replicate in a lab. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 12:20:37 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My point is that if scientists [created life] under extremely controlled situations with many different steps requiring many different conditions that doesn't reflect much in the real world. That wouldn't impress me too much (at least in regards to this argument). |
Under what conditions would a scientist creating life from nonliving matter NOT be impressive? We would of course require the conditions to be free of contaminating bacteria, microbes, DNA, etc., but what could a scientist possibly do to a chemical solution that would invalidate the formation of a microbe? There are more conditions found in nature than we can currently replicate in a lab. |
As an example, if step A required UV light and a strongly acidic environment without oxygen and step B is destroyed by UV light, wants a basic environment and is halted by oxygen radicals then we aren't getting very far with regards to a plausible story. That's what I mean.
While doing research, I worked with RNA. It was finicky. I could multiply it using PCR etc, but it doesn't really speak to RNA being a great molecule to float around the "organic soup" with any hopes of remaining intact. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 12:54:31 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As an example, if step A required UV light and a strongly acidic environment without oxygen and step B is destroyed by UV light, wants a basic environment and is halted by oxygen radicals then we aren't getting very far with regards to a plausible story. That's what I mean. |
Ya never know... if the environment of an organic soup is suddenly changed by a meteor or volcanic eruption that blocks out UV rays, shifts the pH balance and changes the oxygen content, you might get exactly the right conditions. With trillions of stars in the universe, anything is possible... and only the places where the right conditions are possible would give rise to life intelligent enough to wonder about it. ;-) |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 01:34:19 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As an example, if step A required UV light and a strongly acidic environment without oxygen and step B is destroyed by UV light, wants a basic environment and is halted by oxygen radicals then we aren't getting very far with regards to a plausible story. That's what I mean. |
Ya never know... if the environment of an organic soup is suddenly changed by a meteor or volcanic eruption that blocks out UV rays, shifts the pH balance and changes the oxygen content, you might get exactly the right conditions. With trillions of stars in the universe, anything is possible... and only the places where the right conditions are possible would give rise to life intelligent enough to wonder about it. ;-) |
Well, to me that sounds like we're back to winning the lottery. But I guess that's just my opinion. Let's pick this argument back up after they've actually done it, eh?
Off to bed. Got a half marathon in the AM.
Message edited by author 2008-04-06 01:34:53. |
|
