What idea in it makes you not think of evolution as true? And poll

[Clara Tea]

I've recently tried a number of religion based forums seeking intelligent conversation around life's impossible questions. And in every one of them there have been trolls attempting to clutter up and pollute the threads with pointless, meaningless garbage in an apparent attempt to frustrate people into abandoning thier attempts of establishing human interactions in an age where people are becoming increasingly isolated.

What I can't understand is why. I can think of conspiracy theories where the wealthy and powerful seek to create great enough social disintegration to sieze power but its hard to believe that individuals would buy into this even if they are getting paid. It would be too easy to know where you are on the spectrum of right and wrong.

The alternative is there are lots lonely and angry people out there who can't bear the idea of other people conversing and do what they can to shut it down.

Both seem unlikely but one must be true as I can't think of a third option and the only thing that is certain is that the phenomenon is real.

Opinions out to get you?

 

[Clara Tea]

That's false. Highly improbable most certainly does not mean impossible. (I have no idea what "beyond impossible" means). Highly improbable, in a scientific or mathematical sense, just means it takes a huge number of tries before it is likely to have occurred. In science, highly improbable events are responsible for a number of observed phenomena. All you need is a very large multiplier of the number of "throws of the dice". That could be due to a large number of throws taking place all the time, as with events at the atomic scale (e.g. radioactive decay of long-lived radioisotopes), or to a large number of throws taking place over a very long period of time. Current estimates are that life took about 500 million years to arise on the early Earth. That's time for an awful lot of throws of the dice.

Your caricature of a Golgi apparatus being formed by "sea currents and electricity" is a bit of a disappointing Aunt Sally. I had hoped you would do better. If you are as knowledgeable about biology as you would have us believe, you should be able to understand the posts from @sayak83 in the following thread, posted a while ago, that go into some details of the biochemistry of life and how building blocks could have arisen: Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

Post 22 in particular is very interesting, but so are some of the other he has posted.

If we are intellectually serious, this is the level at which we should be discussing abiogenesis, rather than throwaway remarks about electricity, surely?

I believe that the latest theory about the creation of life is about certain chemicals (like amino acids) forming from lightning strikes in tide pools, where protolife bloomed. Maybe this is what he meant by Golgi apparatus?

 

[Clara Tea]

Not as Truth.
As a theory with a very low probability of being disproved.

Right. Science doesn't deal with proofs, it deals with theories. Theories are not merely wild guesses, but they are based on a great deal of observation, calculation, and a tiny bit of educated guessing. They are, for scientists, the best idea of reality.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Lets not leave out the fact that DNA proves a clear link between all life. This, of course, proves that life evolved once (unless the other life died out). Isn't it odd, that on a planet where life, as we know it, which has perfect conditions for life to exist, only produced one instance of life (that evolved into others) in the billions of years of its existence. SETI found no radio signals linked to life (a few might not be explained, but lets not leap to a conclusion based on that). While most astrophysicists are awe struck by the myriads of planets and potential places to find new life, and they are certain that it is out in the universe other than earth, somewhere. Yet, we have not yet found any sign of it. Maybe Earth is the only place that life was created?

I don't think the Earth had perfect conditions for life to exist for all of its life - as per this informative timeline - and perhaps some luck was involved:

This Timeline Shows The Entire History of The Universe, And Where It's Headed

 

[Audie]

Lets not leave out the fact that DNA proves a clear link between all life. This, of course, proves that life evolved once (unless the other life died out). Isn't it odd, that on a planet where life, as we know it, which has perfect conditions for life to exist, only produced one instance of life (that evolved into others) in the billions of years of its existence. SETI found no radio signals linked to life (a few might not be explained, but lets not leap to a conclusion based on that). While most astrophysicists are awe struck by the myriads of planets and potential places to find new life, and they are certain that it is out in the universe other than earth, somewhere. Yet, we have not yet found any sign of it. Maybe Earth is the only place that life was created?

I trust you arenot saying its been proved that abio only has occurred once. It may occur millions of times every day, unnoticed, except that is to the protists which engulf them.

Its way too early imo to decide there's no life / advanced life "out there ".

Several plausible reasons incl that space is awful big.

 

[Clara Tea]

Even if one doesn't know a lick of biological science, the answer is logically yes. Our experiences clearly show us that all material objects change one way or another over time, and organisms are not an exception to these observations.

And in no way does the above counter a belief in Divine creation, btw.

Some things change slower than others. There are still bacteria. They didn't change much in billions of years of evolution.

 

[exchemist]

I believe that the latest theory about the creation of life is about certain chemicals (like amino acids) forming from lightning strikes in tide pools, where protolife bloomed. Maybe this is what he meant by Golgi apparatus?

No. Golgi apparatus is one specific component of modern cells: Golgi apparatus - Wikipedia

 

[AshT]

That's false. Highly improbable most certainly does not mean impossible. (I have no idea what "beyond impossible" means). Highly improbable, in a scientific or mathematical sense, just means it takes a huge number of tries before it is likely to have occurred. In science, highly improbable events are responsible for a number of observed phenomena. All you need is a very large multiplier of the number of "throws of the dice". That could be due to a large number of throws taking place all the time, as with events at the atomic scale (e.g. radioactive decay of long-lived radioisotopes), or to a large number of throws taking place over a very long period of time. Current estimates are that life took about 500 million years to arise on the early Earth. That's time for an awful lot of throws of the dice.

Your caricature of a Golgi apparatus being formed by "sea currents and electricity" is a bit of a disappointing Aunt Sally. I had hoped you would do better. If you are as knowledgeable about biology as you would have us believe, you should be able to understand the posts from @sayak83 in the following thread, posted a while ago, that go into some details of the biochemistry of life and how building blocks could have arisen: Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

Post 22 in particular is very interesting, but so are some of the other he has posted.

If we are intellectually serious, this is the level at which we should be discussing abiogenesis, rather than throwaway remarks about electricity, surely?

As you noted it was a caricature. A intentional simplification and illustration. And I am not that knowledgeable about Biology as I eluded to earlier. But it wasn't a throw away comment. You would not need a single throw of the dice. You would need hundreds, maybe thousands of throws of the dice to come up sixes at the same time. Even the production of complex compounds is still far away from a functioning life form. So I think the illustration has merit even if it is too simplistic for your scientific appetite. I will concede that I will never be able to produce an illustration that would change your mind. I don't intend to try but I respect your knowledge of the subject and am interested in your point of view. I don't think that invalidates my point of view.

 

[exchemist]

As you noted it was a caricature. A intentional simplification and illustration. And I am not that knowledgeable about Biology as I eluded to earlier. But it wasn't a throw away comment. You would not need a single throw of the dice. You would need hundreds, maybe thousands of throws of the dice to come up sixes at the same time. Even the production of complex compounds is still far away from a functioning life form. So I think the illustration has merit even if it is too simplistic for your scientific appetite. I will concede that I will never be able to produce an illustration that would change your mind. I don't intend to try but I respect your knowledge of the subject and am interested in your point of view. I don't think that invalidates my point of view.

Aha, but you get billions and billions of throws of the dice if you let 500 million years elapse, on the entire surface of the early earth. And at the end of that, nobody expects to see a modern Golgi apparatus (or whatever), just some kind of biochemical assembly that can grow by taking in chemical building blocks of some kind and can use them to make copies of itself, after a fashion. Once you have replication, the mechanism of natural selection will begin to operate and....... bingo!... life is off and running.

 

[AshT]

Opinions out to get you?

Did you look at the post I was referring too? It was a far cry from an opinion.

Edit: in hindsight, I shouldn't have bothered. Somebody was posting noise, over and over, and I was calling it out. Perhaps in a more colorful way than I should have but it was late, what can I say, turns out I'm just a flawed human being after all.

 

[Audie]

Some things change slower than others. There are still bacteria. They didn't change much in billions of years of evolution.

Theres really a lot of them.
" dont mess with success "

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Sure they do. Given enough time, sea currents and electricity eventually elements will form a Golgi Aparatus which will start packaging proteins.

Highly improbable is a polite way of saying the odds are beyond impossible even over extreme time periods.

Most people fall into one of three camps.

1. They believe in unguided creation in spite of the improbability.
2. They are unwilling to speculate.
3. They believe there was intelligence involved in the design which itself creates a paradox. Where did the designer come from?

There is really no easy or safe choice. It comes down to what you choose to believe and how you justify your choice.

Why do you believe that an intelligence is a viable option here?

 

[AshT]

Why do you believe that an intelligence is a viable option here?

Engineering requires an engineer. It is as viable an answer as any.

To eliminate intelligence you may well be arbitrarily removing the correct answer.

I provided 3 choices in spite of my personal belief in only one of the three. There may be more that I haven't thought of but wouldn't refuse to consider them or recognize their existence.

In the space of creative thinking, theory, and speculation it is best to promote exploring all the possibilities rather than shutting down ideas you don't like.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Engineering requires an engineer. It is as viable an answer as any.

To eliminate intelligence you may well be arbitrarily removing the correct answer.

I provided 3 choices in spite of my personal belief in only one of the three. There may be more that I haven't thought of but wouldn't refuse to consider them or recognize their existence.

In the space of creative thinking, theory, and speculation it is best to promote exploring all the possibilities rather than shutting down ideas you don't like.

I think you believe that intelligence is an option because you come from a culture that has a creator-deity in it. You're encultured to think in terms of Creator/no-creator when looking at questions of existence.

If you came from a culture that did not have a creator-deity, I don't think you'd find claims like "engineering requires an engineer" compelling, largely because neither the universe nor living creatures are examples of engineered machines.

 

[AshT]

I think you believe that intelligence is an option because you come from a culture that has a creator-deity in it. You're encultured to think in terms of Creator/no-creator when looking at questions of existence.

If you came from a culture that did not have a creator-deity, I don't think you'd find claims like "engineering requires an engineer" compelling, largely because neither the universe nor living creatures are examples of engineered machines.

Sorry but that's nonsense. Maybe I should accuse you of not considering intelligence because your atheism is more important to you than considering any idea that would threaten that atheism. If you read my posts you would see that I have been considerate and open to the opinions and ideas of others even if they don't align with my personal beliefs.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Sorry but that's nonsense. Maybe I should accuse you of not considering intelligence because your atheism is more important to you than considering any idea that would threaten that atheism. If you read my posts you would see that I have been considerate and open to the opinions and ideas of others even if they don't align with my personal beliefs.

Sure, you can "accuse" me of such a thing. I have no problems with you telling me that my enculturation shapes my thinking. You'd be right to say such a thing as it applies equally to both of us.

That's the crux of it, though. Deities are the product of culture. Believers are therefore encultured to "know" their deities had something to do with the universe and life.

Yet, outside of our encultured "ways of thinking," there's no compelling reason for that to be the case. None of our explanatory models contain deities - not a single one. In fact, we've moved from having deities within our explanatory models to removing them and this step improved our science.

If all our explanatory models do better without deities, why do you imagine deities are important for explanatory models we have not yet built?

 

[AshT]

Sure, you can "accuse" me of such a thing. I have no problems with you telling me that my enculturation shapes my thinking. You'd be right to say such a thing as it applies equally to both of us.

That's the crux of it, though. Deities are the product of culture. Believers are therefore encultured to "know" their deities had something to do with the universe and life.

Yet, outside of our encultured "ways of thinking," there's no compelling reason for that to be the case. None of our explanatory models contain deities - not a single one. In fact, we've moved from having deities within our explanatory models to removing them and this step improved our science.

If all our explanatory models do better without deities, why do you imagine deities are important for explanatory models we have not yet built?

Where your logic fails is you hear intelligence and automatically assume we are talking about a statue or other inanimate object that primitive cultures have been known to kneel in front of and pray for rain. Obviously such things have no intelligence and aren't worth considering.

Honestly it's insulting to be lumped in with this and I consider it to be ignorant and bigoted.

It is not irrational to conclude a book has an author, or a program has a coder, information stored chemically has a designer.

But considering a thing has an author, designer, engineer, is different than defining who or what that source of intellect is.

I have not hidden the fact that I have a religious world view but I do not make it a habit of denigrating people because they don't believe the same as I do.

I will however defend myself. Possibly a personality flaw as my faith calls on me to turn the other cheek.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Where your logic fails is you hear intelligence and automatically assume we are talking about a statue or other inanimate object that primitive cultures have been known to kneel in front of and pray for rain. Obviously such things have no intelligence and aren't worth considering.

Honestly it's insulting to be lumped in with this and I consider it to be ignorant and bigoted.

It is not irrational to conclude a book has an author, or a program has a coder, information stored chemically has a designer.

But considering a thing has an author, designer, engineer, is different than defining who or what that source of intellect is.

I have not hidden the fact that I have a religious world view but I do not make it a habit of denigrating people because they don't believe the same as I do.

I didn't call you stupid. I explained to you how enculturation works.

But right now you're being arrogant. You're arrogantly denigrating people whose religions includes statues and inanimate objects and you're claiming that their experiences "aren't worth considering."

Your religion isn't better than any other religion. It doesn't make you smarter just because you really, really believe in it. And it doesn't give you better answers to questions of reality. It just gives you answers that you find appealing because they're culturally appropriate to you.

 

[AshT]

I didn't call you stupid. I explained to you how enculturation works.

I changed my wording but you drew a lot of conclusions about me based on your bias, and not really knowing about who I am or what I believe.

 

[rational experiences]

I've recently tried a number of religion based forums seeking intelligent conversation around life's impossible questions. And in every one of them there have been trolls attempting to clutter up and pollute the threads with pointless, meaningless garbage in an apparent attempt to frustrate people into abandoning thier attempts of establishing human interactions in an age where people are becoming increasingly isolated.

What I can't understand is why. I can think of conspiracy theories where the wealthy and powerful seek to create great enough social disintegration to sieze power but its hard to believe that individuals would buy into this even if they are getting paid. It would be too easy to know where you are on the spectrum of right and wrong.

The alternative is there are lots lonely and angry people out there who can't bear the idea of other people conversing and do what they can to shut it down.

Both seem unlikely but one must be true as I can't think of a third option and the only thing that is certain is that the phenomenon is real.

Consciousness was the human defined topic why to write the bible.

The subject conditional humans Christ heavens consciousness. Support of bio holy ox symbol oxygen regeneration.

It was a review of the human man theist occult science satanist. By humans as humans about humans.

Our brothers as men in a group.

Behaviour. DNA change advice why chemical biological behaviour changed. We aren't machines. Machine reactions or released earths God UFO mass radiation.

Direct thesis for machines and machine metal body only.

Man thesis said earths flood had sealed earth by conditions 1.space 2.water mass 3.pressure.

Second modern science choice said saviour 1.ice body mass 2.pressure 3.water cold support kept God saved.

For stable nuclear life support with God the earth.

Ignored science advice was first advised.

DNA biology of animal beasts is similar to our owned biology said men of science. KRA ARK baboon review DNA status was stated known.

KRA Egyptian baboon status.

Human scientific medical healer biological advice.

Father said man's background mass advice about electricity is the amount of carbon by held pressure that now exists. In the heavens.

As empty space was the gas background sucking one way out. Light.

Above us only is extra radiation accumulation is not a carbon shadow background seen.

From carbon a theist only says as a human aware told you how you get electricity. Mind said state AI taught me science. So carbon mass told you first.

Consciousness the topic first. Why a human knows then theories about being informed.

So it was in fact an aware conscious science psyche warning. Not a new thesis for science. Earths heavens gas state has accumulated too much carbon.

If it converts into electricity we all get super fried the status. Stephen Hawking Multi warnings science to science. The king thin king thinker advised by life of man body sacrifice notification.

Is exact human wisdom.