REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Rue and Causal Thread--Philosophical Grudge Match!

POSTED BY: CAUSAL
UPDATED: Friday, August 24, 2007 06:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 16135
PAGE 5 of 7

Thursday, August 9, 2007 5:36 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

LeadB-
Just curious, you have a list...
"there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. ", which I presume are within a particular 'archetype' as you define it. Do homo sapiens fall into this 'archetype', or are they in a different 'archetype'? If so, is anything else in the same 'archetype' as humans?



i dont believe so.. but this is where i differ from these other guys. its my opinion that the variety of 'races' make up the human 'archetypical' range, different tones or features etc.. but still 'man'. i do not believe we were ever part of the primate family, which is IMO a completely separate species. for a primate to even walk upright would require different knees, hips, and a redesigned inner ear... never mind the other obvious physical and mental alterations. these changes do not exist within the primate 'archetype', they are unique features of ours, because we were created uniquely


Thanks for explaining. Is there someplace you can reference which draws out the 'archetypes' and what is 'in' each, since it isn't obvious to me.

Edit: Would you take a look over -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

"The species is distinguished by an upright gait"
Would seem to counter your 'for a primate to even walk upright would require different knees, hips, and a redesigned inner ear'. Are you inclined to drop that from the archetype distinction, or are there other features you would call out?

Specificly, recent DNA results suggest... "More recent studies have shown that chimps are more closely related to humans than to gorillas.[8] The most recent genetic analyses of chimpanzee and human genetic similarity come from whole genome comparisons and have shown that the differences between the two are more complex both in extent and character than the historical 98% figure suggests."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 9, 2007 7:15 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
i'm not missing the point, perhaps you are Sarge. i stress more then anything the work of a Creator, a 'great architect', which established the laws of the universe(including the role of matter/elemnents/morality etc).

\

But evolution doesn't deny a Creator. You reject evolution, not because it denies a creator, but because it doesn't line up exactly with your literal interpretation of the old testament creation myth. As I mentioned, I have many mainstream Christian friends who don't have any problem accepting the discoveries of science as new understandings of God's 'creation'. They still honor the bible as God's word, but they recognize the pointlessness of using it as a guide to biology and science.

And that gets to what I mean by missing the point. Is Religion really suppose to be the final word on scientific discovery? Does that really have anything to do with the deeper spiritual aspect?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 1:36 AM

LEADB


Sarg's post raises what to me is an interesting question.... a raise of hands if you don't mind...

All:
Do you consider yourself a theist?

My reply would be yes, though not a very conventional one.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 2:20 AM

SERGEANTX


Good question. I'm slightly surprised that I'm not totally sure how to answer. I guess it depends on how you define 'theist'. If you define it as someone who believes gods are real, then I'm a theist. But I believe they are very different entities than their followers generally imagine.

But I don't follow a particular god (unless you count 'evolution', as anti insists, or perhaps the weatherman) and I don't believe that gods are supernatural, nor responsible for 'creation'.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 2:37 AM

LEADB


How I define a theist? Personally, I'm content to take whatever you define a theist to be; then indicate if you consider yourself one or not. I'll leave it to someone else if they want to sort out 'real theists' from 'self-proclaimed theists' ;-)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 12:02 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
All:
Do you consider yourself a theist?



I believe that none of our religions are correct, I believe that if there is a god it has not chosen us to receive special treatment, I acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a god-like supernatural entity but do not believe that such an entity exists. I am an Atheist with minor concessions to Agnosticism.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 12:18 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
are their differences between cats and dogs? or did they share a common ancestor?



Yes and yes.

Quote:

the extinction of dinosaurs allowed for the dominance of mammals, right.. so what preceded the bear, or the gazelle, or the lion?


Are you going to ask us for a complete list of every single species that ever existed?

Quote:

Quote:

Honestly, at this point the burden of proof is on you. Where's the evidence that a species can't change past a certain limit?


show me what the cat species was before they were cats?



That requires looking at the fossil record which you refuse to accept.

Quote:

the burden of proof is in fact on you


No it isn't, we've been over this before. Evolution has no logical endpoint except extinction, none, there's no logical reason for it to not progress to extreme levels. YOU are saying that there is a reason that it can't, YOU need to demonstrate the "archetype barrier".

Quote:

the kind of evolution you believe in is just as much a religion as creationism.


This has been covered before as well and it's a blatant lie that devalues both science and religion.

Quote:

what is the difference between Earth and Venus(or Pluto or Mars)? we either exist here, by design, or by mathematical chance


No, we exist here because Earth can support life, the only chance involved is that we are on Earth instead of some other life-supporting world. If we had appeared on Mars that would be great evidence for ID as there's no way we could have evolved into our present forms there. The origin of life is not randomly picked, life doesn't have an equal chance of appearing and evolving in deep space or in the middle of Jupiter as it does on Earth, life appeared on Earth because the conditions were favorable, if they were favorable on Mars or Venus life would have appeared there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 12:24 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I'm not a theist, though I've been considering HKC's idea of gods being in everything.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 12:26 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
thats ridiculous.. so one day, an ape was born hairless



Actually possibly, ever hear of Human Werewolf Syndrome? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis There's apparently only a couple genes that need to switched to go between covered in hair and almost hairless.

Quote:

and upright, with newfound mental abilities?


Not in a short period no, there was probably a few hundred generations at least including a few complete species between our common ancestor with chimps and us.

Quote:

maybe this only happened over a few generations.. but what caused it?


Hairlessness I can barely even guess at, maybe sexual selection, I heard it might have been because we moved from the forest to the plains and thus lived in warmer areas.

Upright posture would be the natural result of leaving the trees, we can move faster upright and we're more agile while in motion, plus the extra height gives us a sight advantage that we lost when we left the trees.

We've covered intelligence before, intelligence improves tool use, tool making and teamwork, all evolutionary advantages.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 12:39 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hairlessness I can barely even guess at ... the aquatic ape theory draws parallels between other mammals who went back to warm water and became hairless, or nearly so (dolphins, whales, elephants, pigs)

Upright posture would be the natural result of leaving the trees, we can move faster upright and we're more agile while in motion ... it's faster to run with four legs than two. Living your life wading in water would make an upright position mandatory.


We've covered intelligence before, intelligence improves tool use, tool making and teamwork, all evolutionary advantages ... the big increase in brain size, our biochemistry regarding fats, the composition of the human brain ("fish oil" is the largest single component after water) indicate that humans increased their brain size on a fish diet. The shore would also be a good place to have improved hand skills and a great place to develop tools for smashing shells, digging clams, carrying water etc.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 1:15 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Fredgiblet-

Evolution has no logical endpoint except extinction, none, there's no logical reason for it to not progress to extreme levels.



thats your hypothesis though Fred, we have only ever witnessed micro changes

Quote:

YOU are saying that there is a reason that it can't, YOU need to demonstrate the "archetype barrier".


can cats and dogs mate? theres your archetype barrier right there. cats HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CATS.. they were never(for example)amphibious organisms(at least, as far as we can 'prove')

Quote:

No, we exist here because Earth can support life, the only chance involved is that we are on Earth instead of some other life-supporting world.


like which one? we don't know of any others.. so what are you basing that on? what we do know is that we couldn't survive on any of our nearest planets. so again, either we are here by chance, or by design

Quote:

If we had appeared on Mars that would be great evidence for ID as there's no way we could have evolved into our present forms there.


what IS evolving on mars?

Quote:

The origin of life is not randomly picked, life doesn't have an equal chance of appearing and evolving in deep space or in the middle of Jupiter as it does on Earth, life appeared on Earth because the conditions were favorable, if they were favorable on Mars or Venus life would have appeared there.


ok.. so is this by chance, or by design? you cannot fault me for believing differently then you


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 2:06 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I'm not a theist, though I've been considering HKC's idea of gods being in everything.

Ok, I believe HKC's is a pantheistic approach, which is a type of theist.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 2:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Anti- You have your chance to ask me a question. If I were you, I'd ask me about abiogenesis. But mebbe that's just me!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 2:53 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Do you consider yourself a theist?
No. Nor do I consider myself an atheist, just as I do not consider myself an aZeusist. Nor do I consider myself and agnostic. However, I'm against all forms of "belief", which I consider to be intellectual poison.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 2:55 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Rue-
Hairlessness I can barely even guess at ... the aquatic ape theory draws parallels between other mammals who went back to warm water and became hairless, or nearly so (dolphins, whales, elephants, pigs)



lol Rue.. this has to be speculation

Quote:

Upright posture would be the natural result of leaving the trees, we can move faster upright and we're more agile while in motion ... it's faster to run with four legs than two. Living your life wading in water would make an upright position mandatory.


i agree with you in theory, but these are just our observations. i believe a species does have a 'barrier', after which point it will become extinct due to natural selection. otherwise, don't you have to assume that a species can willingly change its entire nature(or 'archetype'), if necessary to survive? why not all the time? primates may be comfortable now, but they have to envy our frugality.. so is it only a matter of time?

you believe in the global warming theory right? i don't think the cat species would ever become amphibious if the earths surface becomes inundated (over time)by water. the species might adapt to become proficient swimmers, maybe better lung capacity and so on, but it will still be of the cat family; at some point, it will be beyond its 'niche', and selection will run its course to extinction. we don't know that they would, or even can, turn into sea lions.

as for primates, why cant we be a different species altogether? all mammals share a common internal 'design', a heart, eyes, ears a nose and a mouth. maybe its because we share a 'designer', who created us of the same elements(with the same intelligence), and we exist, in all our varieties, in the same environment. primates walk upright, and have a skeletal structure designed for versatile movement.. it makes sense that they might resemble us in some ways. but that doesn't automatically make them our descendants


Quote:

We've covered intelligence before, intelligence improves tool use, tool making and teamwork, all evolutionary advantages ... the big increase in brain size, our biochemistry regarding fats, the composition of the human brain ("fish oil" is the largest single component after water) indicate that humans increased their brain size on a fish diet. The shore would also be a good place to have improved hand skills and a great place to develop tools for smashing shells, digging clams, carrying water etc.


these are still just circumstantial observations.. every species makes use of its designed 'niche', we just happened to be created for a *special purpose



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 2:59 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti- You have your chance to ask me a question. If I were you, I'd ask me about abiogenesis. But mebbe that's just me!



hey, what about abiogenesis... just what was it that inspired that first lucky composition of elements to intelligently order themselves?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 3:04 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


mei got ... I've been told there's no such thing as a dumb question ... but ...

HEY ! if this is a contest I've got one just like it ...
Whatever makes an object decide to fall to earth, even if it hurts ?

And another one -
What do electrons get out of flowing through a conductor toward a positive charge ?

Oh and here's one too-
Why does light refuse to go around corners ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 3:27 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Rue-

HEY ! if this is a contest I've got one just like it ...
Whatever makes an object decide to fall to earth, even if it hurts ?



unfortunately, the law of gravity is impartial. perhaps the better question is whether gravity is necessary for life

Quote:

And another one -
What do electrons get out of flowing through a conductor toward a positive charge ?



i know.. how mindless?? they're like robots fulfilling their assigned duties or something

Quote:

Oh and here's one too-
Why does light refuse to go around corners?



good question.. when i speak to God next, ill ask 'him' what he meant by 'let there be light'

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 3:52 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Wow, do your answers hopscotch all over.
Gravity - impartial law
Electrons - fulfilling their assigned nature
Light - god only knows why it want to do what it does !


So, if gravity can be an impartial law, can the random combinations of atoms also be an impartial law ? Or do atoms get to "decide" what they do, while gravity doesn't ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 3:58 PM

ANTIMASON


no im consistent, they each fulfill their designed roles, within their designed niche. whats your answer? how rediculous to assume that everything in the universe randomly ordered itself to function. can a computer or car build itself? but our DNA, and the laws of the universe just settled themselves into working order..


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 3:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Did the solar system decide to come into being ? Or was it a random accretion that, through inevitable loss of unstable parts, achieved stability ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 4:11 PM

ANTIMASON


Did the solar system decide to come into being ? Or was it a random accretion that, through inevitable loss of unstable parts, achieved stability ?

whats the difference? this seems to be what you advocate, absent a 'designer'

i believe in a power not bound by the universe. in this case God created the elements, designing them to fulfill their purposes( ie to allow for order; rather then mathematical odds and randomness)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 4:13 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"this case God created the elements, designing them to fulfill their purposes"

So a complex solar system came about from simple parts, as god designed them to. Perhaps life also came about from simple parts as god designed them to.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 4:28 PM

ANTIMASON


perhaps.. and i am willing to concede this much. is that a step youre willing to take? it has greater implications obviously

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 4:45 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


No.

I'm not here to proselytize or be proselytized.

I was truly wondering if you could imagine, starting from your beliefs, that a god that could make it the nature of matter to come together under gravity, to have opposite charges attract, to have light EM go in straight lines, and even to self-assemble into solar systems - might be able to make matter whose nature is to self-assemble into life.

I've discovered I'm more comfortable as a non-theist, though in a few years I may decide about the possibility of god in everything. Currently, though, I don't consider a western-style god as the ultimate origin of it all.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 6:00 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
...otherwise, don't you have to assume that a species can willingly change its entire nature(or 'archetype'), if necessary to survive? why not all the time? primates may be comfortable now, but they have to envy our frugality.. so is it only a matter of time?...



anti, if I had the same misconceptions about evolution that you do, I'd reject it too. I don't know what you're arguing against exactly, but it's not evolution, which as nothing to do with 'will' or animals 'changing into other animals'.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 7:54 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Rue-

I was truly wondering if you could imagine, starting from your beliefs, that a god that could make it the nature of matter to come together under gravity, to have opposite charges attract, to have light EM go in straight lines, and even to self-assemble into solar systems - might be able to make matter whose nature is to self-assemble into life.



yeah i can imagine that. it seems more logical to me then elements intelligently ordering themselves. so if i follow this to its logical end.. we have to consider the 'designer'. it is not my intention to argue with people over this, im not trying to force my personal belief on anyone(although i do respect a fair, open forum), but more then anything i just try to emphasize the philosophical implications of our theory

also one thing i should point out.. its misleading to characterize our theoretical Creator with a small 'g', since we are talking about a singular, infinite God. typically, we refer to the various pantheons as 'gods', since they do not really fit the 'omni' requirements

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2007 3:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Anti- You have your chance to ask me a question. If I were you, I'd ask me about abiogenesis. But mebbe that's just me!- Signy

hey, what about abiogenesis... just what was it that inspired that first lucky composition of elements to intelligently order themselves?- Anti

Urghh. I can't answer that question as framed, since the theory of abiogenesis has nothing to do with inspiration and intelligence. And maybe that's where we have our biggest disconnect: It's your QUESTIONS that are causing communication problems, not your answers.

If you had asked me "how" abiogenesis occurred ...instead of "what" ("who" actually, in your usage) caused it... I would have been able to answer the question!

And, if you had asked me "how" abiogenesis had occurred I would have said.... But that's cheating. Can you rephrase your question into something I can understand? Remember, I'm a "how" kind of person just as you are a "who" kind of person. And my answer will surely surprise you!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2007 3:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

yeah i can imagine that. it seems more logical to me then elements intelligently ordering themselves. so if i follow this to its logical end.. we have to consider the 'designer'.
Anti- do not mistake intricacy for intelligence. Snowflakes: intricate but not intelligent. Which, once we get past the abiogenisis question, will be my question to you: What is the purpose of the universe?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2007 5:10 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
All:
Do you consider yourself a theist?

I believe that none of our religions are correct, I believe that if there is a god it has not chosen us to receive special treatment, I acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a god-like supernatural entity but do not believe that such an entity exists. I am an Atheist with minor concessions to Agnosticism.



Yeah - what Fred said.

Anti, you're killing me. I gave you evidence of evolution, and you ignored it. I know - textbook posts aren't as fun as hand-waving and saying "I believe this and I believe that" with no actual substance behind it. Too much mental effort, I guess. But your inability to ingest new information makes you look more and more like a man in pretty serious levels of denial... fingers in ears, singing "LA LA LA LA" really loud.

"...all mammals share a common internal 'design', a heart, eyes, ears a nose and a mouth. maybe its because we share a 'designer'..."

We do share a designer, that designer is nature and the process of evolution. BTW, this does not rule out god or God if you insist, it just rules out your literal interpretation of the bible and the incredibly flawed arguments of creationists.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2007 7:11 AM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:

Yeah - what Fred said.

Anti, you're killing me. I gave you evidence of evolution, and you ignored it.



I AM NOT IGNORING IT! i am being realistic about its limits. you seem to think that a hand full of elements, given enough time, will properly order themselves to create something complex(like a human being)

Quote:

I know - textbook posts aren't as fun as hand-waving and saying "I believe this and I believe that" with no actual substance behind it. Too much mental effort, I guess. But your inability to ingest new information makes you look more and more like a man in pretty serious levels of denial... fingers in ears, singing "LA LA LA LA" really loud.


am i the close minded one? as far as i can tell i include every belief in mine, evolution, polytheism, theism... and it still makes sense(to me). you wont even consider the possibility that any of these other views are even partially correct. maybe you are the one in denial


Quote:

We do share a designer, that designer is nature and the process of evolution.


so youre a pantheist.. finally, some honesty! thats not quite the same as atheistic evolution.. you do realize thats what your saying when you infer that nature inherently 'exhibits' intelligence sufficient enough to randomly order elements(to create the visible universe)?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2007 7:24 AM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Urghh. I can't answer that question as framed, since the theory of abiogenesis has nothing to do with inspiration and intelligence.



maybe it does. my question will always be 'what initiates an abiotic change'? at some point, the object(inanimate or otherwise) literally has to 'will' itself to change.. does it not? even if it is already composed of a combination of microbes or proteins, they still have to progressively order themselves to 'ascension'. isnt this the explanation for the origins of all living organisms on earth?

Quote:

If you had asked me "how" abiogenesis occurred ...instead of "what" ("who" actually, in your usage) caused it... I would have been able to answer the question!


i did want to know your answer.. i was (poking fun at myself, and)just being stereotypical



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2007 8:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, since you clarified!

My answer to the question "How did abiogensis occur" is I don't know. So perhaps the question really is DID abiogensis occur and my answer is still I don't know. There are all kinds of self-assemblying molecules: crystals (even snowflakes), DNA, prion proteins, and all the fancy stuff now being done with nanotechnology. But one of the things that all self-assemblying molecules have in common is there has to be a high enough concentration for the molecules to find each other so the forces of assembly aren't over taken by the forces of dissolution.

I haven't spent a lot of time on the abiogenisis argument. My guess is that if it occurred, it would have to take place in an area where chemicals are close to precipitating- where a hot sea-vent outflow meets colder ocean water, for example, or in a shrunken lake or even an underwater cave. But the chemicals involved in those examples (salt, cyanide, sulfide etc) are not the chemicals involved in life as we know it (amino acids) so I would have to posit conditions that are a far cry from what see see today, and I'm simply not enough of a geologist or biochemist to speculate what that might be. So for now, the answer (for me) is unknown.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2007 8:20 AM

ANTIMASON


well thank you for clarifying.. i appreciate and respect your honesty, and thats all i'm asking for; i don't have all the answers myself, which i think is why i personally connect with the spiritual, theistic side of the argument, since it 'feels' tangible to me

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2007 9:13 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, since you clarified!

My answer to the question "How did abiogensis occur" is I don't know. So perhaps the question really is DID abiogensis occur and my answer is still I don't know. There are all kinds of self-assemblying molecules: crystals (even snowflakes), DNA, prion proteins, and all the fancy stuff now being done with nanotechnology. But one of the things that all self-assemblying molecules have in common is there has to be a high enough concentration for the molecules to find each other so the forces of assembly aren't over taken by the forces of dissolution.

I haven't spent a lot of time on the abiogenisis argument. My guess is that if it occurred, it would have to take place in an area where chemicals are close to precipitating- where a hot sea-vent outflow meets colder ocean water, for example, or in a shrunken lake or even an underwater cave. But the chemicals involved in those examples (salt, cyanide, sulfide etc) are not the chemicals involved in life as we know it (amino acids) so I would have to posit conditions that are a far cry from what see see today, and I'm simply not enough of a geologist or biochemist to speculate what that might be. So for now, the answer (for me) is unknown.

I'm going to throw in my version of "I don't know."....
Personally, it would not 'offend' me if it turns out God reached down and 'kicked off' life; and I cannot rule that out. I suspect that instead, much in the same way snowflakes and some other rather simple structures form; the Creator designed the universe so life was likely (and almost 'certainly' given the size of the universe) to come into being via abiogensis.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2007 5:07 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

can cats and dogs mate? theres your archetype barrier right there.


...Wow...you aren't even correctly stating your own argument now. What you have said before is that it is impossible for one "archetype" to evolve into another, it is certainly impossible for species to interbreed unless they are very recent divergences (horses and donkeys for instance), but that doesn't mean that they can't evolve into something very different from what they are now. You still haven't demonstrated a barrier to "archetype" shifts.

Quote:

cats HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CATS..


As of 10.8 million years ago or so...right.

Quote:

like which one? we don't know of any others.. so what are you basing that on?


Trillions of stars with solar systems, chances are good that at least one of them has a planet that can sustain life, this is, however, speculative. Also, it's quite possible that Europa can or even does sustain life.

Quote:

so again, either we are here by chance, or by design


*sigh* There is no randomness involved in where we are, we are here because the Earth can sustain complex life. Maybe the Earth was created for us, I don't know, but there's no chance involved either way.

Quote:

what IS evolving on mars?


Not much if anything, possibly some anaerobic bacteria.

Quote:

i believe a species does have a 'barrier', after which point it will become extinct due to natural selection


And yet you have no evidence for said barrier. Also, extinction is not required unless a better adapted species comes along, if a species hit some sort of mystical barrier in today's highly specialized world it probably wouldn't go extinct without a massive environment change.

Quote:

otherwise, don't you have to assume that a species can willingly change its entire nature(or 'archetype'), if necessary to survive?


As I have said several times before will has nothing to do with it, there's no way to choose to evolve (or at least no way until we get a much better grasp on genetic engineering).

Quote:

just what was it that inspired that first lucky composition of elements to intelligently order themselves?


The rules of chemistry. Given the proper environment complex molecules including amino acids and nucleotides are not only possible but possibly inevitable.

Quote:

can a computer or car build itself?


No, but natural processes frequently create molecules complex enough to have formed a self-replicator.

Quote:

you seem to think that a hand full of elements, given enough time, will properly order themselves to create something complex(like a human being)


And from the evidence we have it is quite plausible, we know that the necessary building blocks for a self-replicator can spontaneously form in several different sets of conditions that may have existed on a pre-biotic Earth, we know that evolution happens, there is no known barrier to the accumulation of changes from evolution, it is perfectly plausible that we exist today because of natural processes.

Quote:

you wont even consider the possibility that any of these other views are even partially correct


I can't speak for Mal but I freely admit that it is possible that things are not as they seem, it's entirely possible that humans were created uniquely, it's entirely possible that your as-yet-undemonstrated "archetype" barrier exists. However there is no evidence pointing towards these things and an enormous amount of evidence pointing away from them, until such a time as you produce actual evidence I will continue to consider them as backup ideas.

Quote:

you do realize thats what your saying when you infer that nature inherently 'exhibits' intelligence sufficient enough to randomly order elements(to create the visible universe)?


I'm fairly certain that Mal was referring to the "blind watchmaker" which is to say that nature using non-intelligent methods accounts for the world we see.

Quote:

at some point, the object(inanimate or otherwise) literally has to 'will' itself to change.. does it not?


No, as we've been over again and again.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2007 6:35 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


ANTI- If you're satisfied with my answer on abiogenesis, do I get to ask my question? My question is:

What is the purpose of a snowflake?



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 13, 2007 4:20 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
I AM NOT IGNORING IT!


Well, see, I posted a list of fossils that are clear evidence of one body type changing to another. You didn't respond to that, you clearly never went to the web site that lists all manner of such transitions, and a few posts later you're AGAIN saying that there is no evidence of large changes in body types... That's not ignoring the evidence? Wow, I'd hate to see you when you are ignoring something LOL!

And how about C14 dating and ice cores? Are you going to address the flaws we've brought up in your arguments there?


Quote:

am i the close minded one? as far as i can tell i include every belief in mine, evolution, polytheism, theism... and it still makes sense(to me). you wont even consider the possibility that any of these other views are even partially correct. maybe you are the one in denial


To quote my earlier post: "BTW, this does not rule out god or God if you insist, it just rules out your literal interpretation of the bible and the incredibly flawed arguments of creationists."

I have stated that I know God could exist. I'm not denying that it's a possibility. It's not the thing I personally believe. But that's not the point. What I'm strongly disgreeing with is your arguments against evolution. They're flawed, anti. Very flawed!

And... when did you allow that evolution could be true? I don't recall you ever saying that... I could have missed it. My presence online is spotty.

Quote:

Quote:

We do share a designer, that designer is nature and the process of evolution.
so youre a pantheist.. finally, some honesty! thats not quite the same as atheistic evolution.. you do realize thats what your saying when you infer that nature inherently 'exhibits' intelligence sufficient enough to randomly order elements(to create the visible universe)?



Um... no, I'm not a pantheist. Here's the thing you don't seem to get: you seem to think that either nature is completely random or it's guided by an "intelligence" which is similar to human consciousness - "God." What I've told you before is that nature is not purely random. It is guided by physical and chemical forces, and those have acted to create order. This is well documented.

To call the set of laws that create order "intelligence" is misleading. This would give the structure and laws of the universe a personality, opinions and such, where it's just not like that. Think of nature as an automated factory of incredible complexity. The big bang (or whatever it was the got things rolling) went in one end, and the universe we live in is at the other. The laws of physics and chemistry are the cogs and machines and such that have made things change in between.

Who built the factory? Who wrote these complex and perfectly balanced laws that have guided the evolution of the universe, and of us? Maybe that's God. And what an incredible God, to be able to design this thing. And maybe this God checks in from time to time, does inspections, so to speak. That's quite possible.

But - here's the thing - it's not necessary. We don't *need* an active hand of God to explain what we observe of life and the universe. The natural "factory" can do it all.

Really, it's mind-blowingly beautiful. I'm sad that you can't see it.



-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 13, 2007 6:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BUMP for ANTI: So, if you're OK with my answer about abiogensis (I can't imagine how it could have happened, but then my imagination in this area is limited so I leave that theory as "don't know") then my question to you is:

What is the purpose of a snowflake?


Snowflakes can only be created within a very narrow range of conditions: so narrow that up unlit just recently it couldn't be re-created in a lab. Too cold, and you get ice spindles. Too wet, and you get hail. There has to be water in three phases, gravity, and just the right kind of condensation nucleus. And as simple as they are, and only made of water (with a microscopic bit of dust at its center) we have not been able to mathematically model its creation, with all its beauty, complexity, order, and uniqueness.

God, as you imagine him, imbues the universe with meaning and purpose. Everything has a reason for being. Everything is intentional, and just as God wanted it to be.

So- what is the purpose of a snowflake?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 13, 2007 4:31 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"So- what is the purpose of a snowflake?"

I think that AntiM's asnwer to the 'purpose' of a snowflake is that god is inscrutable, like the Chinese are said to be.

"you seem to think that either nature is completely random or it's guided by an "intelligence" which is similar to human consciousness - "God.""

I think AntiM has a hard time not seeing the entire universe in anthropomorphic terms. Since humans create things for a purpose, the universe was created by a human-like being for a purpose.


I guess what I find amusing is that people say god(s) is huge - unknowable and all powerful. But WE got it(them) all figured out. We know exactly what god(s) wants from you.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:12 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070814/sc_space/hotgasinspacemimicslif
e
; _ylt=AuKZz2zqlwdKSbKXfekc3wr737YB

Electrically charged specks of interstellar dust organize into DNA-like double helixes and display properties normally attributed to living systems, such as evolving and reproducing, new computer simulations show.

But scientists are hesitant to call the dancing dust particles "alive," and instead say they are just another example of how difficult it is to define life.

*************************************

Complex things from simple parts.




***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:48 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:

Well, see, I posted a list of fossils that are clear evidence of one body type changing to another. You didn't respond to that, you clearly never went to the web site that lists all manner of such transitions, and a few posts later you're AGAIN saying that there is no evidence of large changes in body types... That's not ignoring the evidence? Wow, I'd hate to see you when you are ignoring something LOL!



you're right, i didn't check the sites.. i don't check Fred's talkorigins links(anymore)either. even i don't bother posting links on this subject, because i know this thread is far from impartial, and no one will actually objectively read them(otherwise, they could search ID arguments themselves). but i've had my share of the evolutionary theory throughout school, and theres not much new ground to be broken. i will likely always be skeptical and left with the same questions, because no one will ever know what happened 'in the beginning'


Quote:

And how about C14 dating and ice cores? Are you going to address the flaws we've brought up in your arguments there?



C14 no.. ice cores, yes: i don't think they're definitive, but its usable data


Quote:



To quote my earlier post: "BTW, this does not rule out god or God if you insist, it just rules out your literal interpretation of the bible and the incredibly flawed arguments of creationists." I have stated that I know God could exist.



so you believe God may exist, but you know for sure that my God doesn't..? if its possible, in theory, for a perfect transcendent Creator to exist, then thats what i believe


Quote:

I'm not denying that it's a possibility. It's not the thing I personally believe. But that's not the point. What I'm strongly disgreeing with is your arguments against evolution. They're flawed, anti. Very flawed!



thats your opinion Mal. i just do not see the kind of evolution you propose.. i see variations in 'kinds', but not the type of 'blank check' scenario that some of you envision


Quote:

And... when did you allow that evolution could be true? I don't recall you ever saying that... I could have missed it. My presence online is spotty.



thats always been my opinion.. i do not believe we are here because over billions of years, elements stumbled and came together, ordering themselves to create the complexity and life that we witness(especially on earth). i believe something infinitely 'intelligent' provided for this

Quote:


Here's the thing you don't seem to get: you seem to think that either nature is completely random or it's guided by an "intelligence" which is similar to human consciousness



yes, thats correct


Quote:

What I've told you before is that nature is not purely random. It is guided by physical and chemical forces, and those have acted to create order. This is well documented.



but how? are you suggesting that the eye, or the complexities of the human brain, given enough time will design and order themselves? i know this is something we cannot possibly duplicate or test in a lab.. so why hinge an entire theory on this premise?


Quote:

But - here's the thing - it's not necessary. We don't *need* an active hand of God to explain what we observe of life and the universe. The natural "factory" can do it all.



maybe not.. you said yourself it was possible 'God' established the universes laws(like evolution); if this is the case, then he WAS/IS necessary


Quote:

Really, it's mind-blowingly beautiful. I'm sad that you can't see it.



don't doubt my appreciation for nature.. i understand how things work, i just give God the credit



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So Anti, at the risk of being a nudge, did you see my snowflake question?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Reposted so it doesn't get lost. There might be a few people interested in inanimate "things" doing what "life" does - all on their own.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070814/sc_space/hotgasinspacemimicslif
e
; _ylt=AuKZz2zqlwdKSbKXfekc3wr737YB

Electrically charged specks of interstellar dust organize into DNA-like double helixes and display properties normally attributed to living systems, such as evolving and reproducing, new computer simulations show.

But scientists are hesitant to call the dancing dust particles "alive," and instead say they are just another example of how difficult it is to define life.

*************************************

Complex things from simple parts.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:27 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Signym-
So Anti, at the risk of being a nudge, did you see my snowflake question?



i did.. and i had honestly never thought about it before(at least in this context), so i didn't feel i had anything worthwhile to contribute. nevertheless i did some digging around, to see what the ID'ers position is on snowflakes.. this is basically the 'gist' of what i found


"Snowflakes are often cited as evidence against intelligent design as examples of highly ordered structures that form naturally. Snowflakes are highly ordered and possess a somewhat complex, specified structure. While the probability of the exact conformation of each individual flake is quite low, the structure of snowflakes is the predictable result of matter obeying the laws of chemistry and physics under certain conditions. Snowflakes, then, although low-probability and specified, are also low in information, because their specification is in the laws, which are always and everywhere the same. So the formation of a snowflake is quite different from the natural formation of DNA which is highly ordered, complex, and high in information content." ARN.org

"A snowflake takes on an ordered appearance. That order itself is a result of natural laws and contains no information. On the other hand, if the laws and forces that produce that snowflake were deconstructed, one would find the same precisely fine-tuned laws that govern life’s existence " -Darrick Dean




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:19 PM

LEADB


"A snowflake takes on an ordered appearance. That order itself is a result of natural laws and contains no information. On the other hand, if the laws and forces that produce that snowflake were deconstructed, one would find the same precisely fine-tuned laws that govern life’s existence " -Darrick Dean
I like that quote. I might have to use that, myself. It well supports the notion that that these precisely fine-tuned laws were what gave rise to the beginnings of life.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Leadb- I was surprised to find that quote attributed to a creationist. I can't even figure out HOW a creationist might even think that quote is at all supportive. Maybe Anti can explain it.


Anti- I wasn't using snowflakes as an evolution analog. I'm using your assumptions, I think. Maybe I misinterpreted but what I'm getting from your posts is that God created everything, and being omniscient he must have created everything for a reason. Mostly, you focus on how humans came into being and what our purpose is, but what about the rest of cosmos? Galaxies, dust clouds, other planets... even snowflakes? What is the purpose of a snowflake? Or another galaxy? Why did God create these other things?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


bump for Anti

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 17, 2007 12:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Anti, I'm going to clarify my question by quoting you extensively, so as to make my meaning clear:

Quote:

it [evolution] negates or relegates any work done by God to something which happens purely randomly, by chance, with no higher purpose or guidance or design.
if there is no purpose for our being here, but that we happened into existence, it makes the case for moral and ethical absolutes...
... you choose to believe in naturalism. you dont know the absolute truth, but you have faith that there was no higher power involved. the kind of evolution you believe in is just as much a religion as creationism. i believe in a Creator, you dont. i take the data, and i see intelligence and purpose...
every species or plant of its 'kind' is designed for a purpose, with their own inherent uniqueness. this is what we mean by order, which by contrast makes your view appear chaotic
these are still just circumstantial observations.. every species makes use of its designed 'niche', we just happened to be created for a *special purpose



Having re-read your posts, I'm reasonably confident that I've been asking a fair question which should have meaning in your parlance, simply because you've used the key word so often. You see "purpose" in the universe. A grand design created for a reason. So, in the context of the above quotes, I'm going to repeat my question:

What is the purpose of an outside galaxy? Or of a snowflake?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 18, 2007 7:04 AM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Signym:

what is the purpose of a snowflake?




well... what's the purpose of snow? i think that would be my answer.. snowflakes are part of the infinitely complex and interdependent cycles that exist to provide for and accentuate life here on earth

Quote:

posted by Rue-

I think AntiM has a hard time not seeing the entire universe in anthropomorphic terms. Since humans create things for a purpose, the universe was created by a human-like being for a purpose.



well hold on, i never described the Creator as human-like.. id say rather we may share some of Gods qualities, but we are not infinite or eternal, omnipresent or all knowing. the bible says that no eye has seen God, which i believe... i certainly dont envision an old white guy with a beard. but yeah, i do believe there is a purpose to everything, as opposed to just a roll of the dice. the thought that something as complex as our DNA, or our internal biological functions(like the heart or brain or eyes) forming solely by time and chance, with no blueprint or design.. just seems ridiculous to me

Quote:

I guess what I find amusing is that people say god(s) is huge - unknowable and all powerful.


he would have to be omniscient, in theory, to create the universe. thats what we believe, not many forces which contain the same frailties as the human character

Quote:

But WE got it(them) all figured out. We know exactly what god(s) wants from you.


them? we believe in a single infinite, just force, which is aware of all things; not multiple gods. is that what you propose? because that theory makes even less sense and is not something i have ever promoted

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:45 - 982 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:44 - 496 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, March 18, 2024 08:03 - 6091 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts
CNN: Is the US on the brink of another civil war?
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:22 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL