On the Origins and Development of Life

[sao123]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: shira
Okay. Let me propose a different "solution":

I think that at any point in time in the universe, there exists a superbeing who has a "life span" of precisely 10 seconds. At the end of ten seconds, the superbeing creates a new superbeing (who will reign supreme for the next 10 seconds), and then destroys both him/herself and the existing universe. The new superbeing creates a new universe the moment he/she comes into existence. Everything in the new universe is given an "initial condition" that makes it appear that the universe is 14 billion years old. The superbeing also creates within the minds of sentient beings (such as humans) the apparancy of memory; thus we humans believe we have each lived for many years, when in fact we exist for 10 seconds. And because the superbeing creates fossils, mutations, sedimentary layers, and radioactive decay products, we humans see abundant evidence that there are natural processes at work that caused life to begin and to evolve. But it's really all a sham, created by the then-current superbeing.

Now, the above "theory" is quite complex. We have no way of proving or disproving it. Yet except for this specific post, I have NEVER seen it included in a philosphical argument on ultimate cause and the diversity of life. I doubt very much that you will be including it in your next exegesis. Why? Why do you choose to include the "simpler" explanation that involves a single superbeing, but ignore all of the more complex supernatural explanations?

The answer is you're applying Occam's razor. You are ruling out an infinity of supernatural explanations and choosing the simplest supernatural explanation. Why? Couldn't a more complex explanation be the right one? Why are you not troubled by simply ignoring all of the other supernatural explanations, one of which might be correct? And if you CAN simply ignore these other explanations without being troubled, why do you have such a difficult time also ignoring the God-as-cause exlanation, which is far more complex than naturalistic explanations?

I claim you are introducing bias into the discussion, for no reason other than that you have a preference for the supernatural.

You're right - I do apply Occam's Razor. However, I also recognize that there are two possible governing assumptions. I simply choose the one that makes the most sense to me, since I've learned since day one that it's pretty tricky to have a net creation of mass AND energy. So, unless you can put forth some alternative hypothesis explaining how an instantaneous influx of near-infinite mass and energy created the universe, I think I'll stick with what I've got, as reducing the variable (the superior being) out of the equation leaves me with a model that can't explain the data I have.

Ahhh yes... how did we get this far without debating the grand unification theory, also known as the big bang.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: shira
Okay. Let me propose a different "solution":

I think that at any point in time in the universe, there exists a superbeing who has a "life span" of precisely 10 seconds. At the end of ten seconds, the superbeing creates a new superbeing (who will reign supreme for the next 10 seconds), and then destroys both him/herself and the existing universe. The new superbeing creates a new universe the moment he/she comes into existence. Everything in the new universe is given an "initial condition" that makes it appear that the universe is 14 billion years old. The superbeing also creates within the minds of sentient beings (such as humans) the apparancy of memory; thus we humans believe we have each lived for many years, when in fact we exist for 10 seconds. And because the superbeing creates fossils, mutations, sedimentary layers, and radioactive decay products, we humans see abundant evidence that there are natural processes at work that caused life to begin and to evolve. But it's really all a sham, created by the then-current superbeing.

Now, the above "theory" is quite complex. We have no way of proving or disproving it. Yet except for this specific post, I have NEVER seen it included in a philosphical argument on ultimate cause and the diversity of life. I doubt very much that you will be including it in your next exegesis. Why? Why do you choose to include the "simpler" explanation that involves a single superbeing, but ignore all of the more complex supernatural explanations?

The answer is you're applying Occam's razor. You are ruling out an infinity of supernatural explanations and choosing the simplest supernatural explanation. Why? Couldn't a more complex explanation be the right one? Why are you not troubled by simply ignoring all of the other supernatural explanations, one of which might be correct? And if you CAN simply ignore these other explanations without being troubled, why do you have such a difficult time also ignoring the God-as-cause exlanation, which is far more complex than naturalistic explanations?

I claim you are introducing bias into the discussion, for no reason other than that you have a preference for the supernatural.

You're right - I do apply Occam's Razor. However, I also recognize that there are two possible governing assumptions. I simply choose the one that makes the most sense to me, since I've learned since day one that it's pretty tricky to have a net creation of mass AND energy. So, unless you can put forth some alternative hypothesis explaining how an instantaneous influx of near-infinite mass and energy created the universe, I think I'll stick with what I've got, as reducing the variable (the superior being) out of the equation leaves me with a model that can't explain the data I have.

Ahhh yes... how did we get this far without debating the grand unification theory, also known as the big bang.

Are you sure? I thought the grand unification theory, if discovered, would be a theory that unites all the forces in a single equation.

 

[DealMonkey]

Frankly, I don't understand the point of this thread. I mean honestly CW, you've framed the debate so narrowly that it's unclear what we can even talk about here. The crux of the debate seems to be random genesis vs. your own brand of ID. I don't foresee anyone putting forth evidence to support either, so what's left? Perhaps it would help if you were a little clearer on what it is that you expect.

 

[M00T]

YATID

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: shira
The answer is you're applying Occam's razor. You are ruling out an infinity of supernatural explanations and choosing the simplest supernatural explanation. Why? Couldn't a more complex explanation be the right one? Why are you not troubled by simply ignoring all of the other supernatural explanations, one of which might be correct? And if you CAN simply ignore these other explanations without being troubled, why do you have such a difficult time also ignoring the God-as-cause exlanation, which is far more complex than naturalistic explanations?

You're right - I do apply Occam's Razor. However, I also recognize that there are two possible governing assumptions. I simply choose the one that makes the most sense to me, since I've learned since day one that it's pretty tricky to have a net creation of mass AND energy. So, unless you can put forth some alternative hypothesis explaining how an instantaneous influx of near-infinite mass and energy created the universe, I think I'll stick with what I've got, as reducing the variable (the superior being) out of the equation leaves me with a model that can't explain the data I have.

But you see, this is the classic "God of the gaps" argument: Anything which cannot (yet) be fully understood by comtemporary scientific theories is ascribed to the supernatural.

Yet we know that science inexorably continues to close the gaps. It would seem that a more intellectually mature position would be to just accept that science will at some point cogently explain that which we cannot understand today. Is that really such a difficult pill to swallow?

As the power of computers continues to grow and programming techniques continue to increase in sophistication, computer modeling will, I think, conclusively explain for us the creation and dynamics of the primordial universe, the creation of life on Earth (and on other worlds), the evolution of eyes and other "irreducibly complex" structures, climate change, and pretty much everything else.

Consider medicine: Does anyone really doubt that we will at some point (assuming we don't blow ourselves to bits first) conquer disease and aging? Is the fact that we cannot today cure (say) metastatic malignant melanoma an indication that such a cure will never be found or that medical science is useless?

Why, then, is it so difficult to accept that science will at some point be able to explain everything to which you give God the credit?

 

[shira]

I just thought of a couple of interesting questions that I think get to the heart of the matter:

If science at some point convincingly explains EVERY "gap" (for example, the creation of the universe, the creation of life, the evolution of species, consciousness, and even why humans believe in the supernatural), would you be happy with that state of affairs? Would you still believe in God, and if so, why?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Very well said. You hit my beliefs right on the head.

Ironically, the only part I take issue with is your first paragraph. You can choose to ignore this diversion if you wish.

I believe that the fact that these questions cannot be answered and are purely philisophical does not mean we shouldn't take a stand against political perversions of the questions. For example, the ID spewed by President Bush and the religious right. In fact, I think to preserve the integrity of this issue (though you said you don't care about it), it is important to speak out against those who use these questions with a political or religious agenda in mind. I think where people get confused is that you do not actively speak out against these political/religious perversions, but only speak for these philisophical questions. Personally, I take a different approach where I try to make clear the distinctions between the politics and the philosophy.

Just my two cents.

I've also said that ID should not be taught, especially not in public schools. People tend to ignore those posts and focus on the ones where they think I am advocating it. Unfortunately, for those who actually read my posts, they find that I never advocate these stances. They're frustrated by my open-minded approach in which I do not chastise those who believe differently than myself and I advocate their right to believe whatever they like in these philosophical issues. Accordingly, I am branded a religious zealot because it's just easier to bin me in with a stereotype than address my points.

Originally posted by: totalcommand
So are you in MSTP MD/PhD at WashU or not?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Frankly, I don't understand the point of this thread. I mean honestly CW, you've framed the debate so narrowly that it's unclear what we can even talk about here. The crux of the debate seems to be random genesis vs. your own brand of ID. I don't foresee anyone putting forth evidence to support either, so what's left? Perhaps it would help if you were a little clearer on what it is that you expect.

I expect only two things:
1. People to stop misrepresenting my views on these subjects, which were never stated here until this thread
2. People to recognize the difference between philosophical and scientific theories

Originally posted by: shira
But you see, this is the classic "God of the gaps" argument: Anything which cannot (yet) be fully understood by comtemporary scientific theories is ascribed to the supernatural.

Yet we know that science inexorably continues to close the gaps. It would seem that a more intellectually mature position would be to just accept that science will at some point cogently explain that which we cannot understand today. Is that really such a difficult pill to swallow?

As the power of computers continues to grow and programming techniques continue to increase in sophistication, computer modeling will, I think, conclusively explain for us the creation and dynamics of the primordial universe, the creation of life on Earth (and on other worlds), the evolution of eyes and other "irreducibly complex" structures, climate change, and pretty much everything else.

Consider medicine: Does anyone really doubt that we will at some point (assuming we don't blow ourselves to bits first) conquer disease and aging? Is the fact that we cannot today cure (say) metastatic malignant melanoma an indication that such a cure will never be found or that medical science is useless?

Why, then, is it so difficult to accept that science will at some point be able to explain everything to which you give God the credit?

My reasons for believing as I do are my own. I presented this argument only so you can see how Occam's Razor may be applied and still arrive at the conclusion that some superior being must exist. To borrow a quote from the Matrix, "I expect what I've always expected... I expect you to make up your own damn mind."

edit: I don't mean to avoid your question altogether, so I'll give you this: God is love. The rest is implied by this simple statement.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Unfortunately, for those who actually read my posts, they find that I never advocate these stances. They're frustrated by my open-minded approach in which I do not chastise those who believe differently than myself and I advocate their right to believe whatever they like in these philosophical issues. Accordingly, I am branded a religious zealot because it's just easier to bin me in with a stereotype than address my points.

Tons of substance in that post...

Do you really love hearing yourself speak THAT much? What you're really saying is that even though you're sure that you're better than those who disagree with you, you let them have their plebeian opinions.

Your "open-minded approach" consists of saying things that sound clever and philosophical, but bear no substance. You suggest that God exists, and takes part in all processes... either making it look like they are happening on their own, or creating the rules that cause them to happen this way. Well guess what - in a system such as that, God is redundant. Using Occam's razor - what is more likely:
1. That universe obeys certain natural rules
or
2. That an invisible all-powerful and all-knowing being is making the universe appear as if it's following certain rules
or
3. That an invisible all-powerful and all-knowing being created those rules

#3 goes because it's redundant, and #2 goes because it is less likely. So we're left with #1, which is where we were in the first place.

So next time, before you lecture everyone else on making substantive arguments, try to make one yourself - it's more difficult then you think.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
So are you in MSTP MD/PhD at WashU or not?

Yes... or no...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Tons of substance in that post...

Do you really love hearing yourself speak THAT much? What you're really saying is that even though you're sure that you're better than those who disagree with you, you let them have their plebeian opinions.

Your "open-minded approach" consists of saying things that sound clever and philosophical, but bear no substance. You suggest that God exists, and takes part in all processes... either making it look like they are happening on their own, or creating the rules that cause them to happen this way. Well guess what - in a system such as that, God is redundant. Using Occam's razor - what is more likely:
1. That universe obeys certain natural rules
or
2. That an invisible all-powerful and all-knowing being is making the universe appear as if it's following certain rules
or
3. That an invisible all-powerful and all-knowing being created those rules

#3 goes because it's redundant, and #2 goes because it is less likely. So we're left with #1, which is where we were in the first place.

So next time, before you lecture everyone else on making substantive arguments, try to make one yourself - it's more difficult then you think.

Ever think maybe it's just you? After all, there are plenty of people here agreeing with what I said.

Yes... or no...

LOL.... We have a real genius on our hands here, folks.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
Tons of substance in that post...

Do you really love hearing yourself speak THAT much? What you're really saying is that even though you're sure that you're better than those who disagree with you, you let them have their plebeian opinions.

Your "open-minded approach" consists of saying things that sound clever and philosophical, but bear no substance. You suggest that God exists, and takes part in all processes... either making it look like they are happening on their own, or creating the rules that cause them to happen this way. Well guess what - in a system such as that, God is redundant. Using Occam's razor - what is more likely:
1. That universe obeys certain natural rules
or
2. That an invisible all-powerful and all-knowing being is making the universe appear as if it's following certain rules
or
3. That an invisible all-powerful and all-knowing being created those rules

#3 goes because it's redundant, and #2 goes because it is less likely. So we're left with #1, which is where we were in the first place.

So next time, before you lecture everyone else on making substantive arguments, try to make one yourself - it's more difficult then you think.

Ever think maybe it's just you? After all, there are plenty of people here agreeing with what I said.

If you feel that totalcommand and Moonbeam are "plenty", sure... but you're just avoiding the issue. You keep telling people that they are avoiding your points, yet you blatantly ignore my arguments.

Also, from your words it is clear that you don't want an argument, but rather sheep who'd agree with you. Maybe you're better off talking to the mirror.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge

Yes... or no...

LOL.... We have a real genius on our hands here, folks.

Answer the damn question for the record. The more you avoid answering it, the clearer the answer becomes to everyone.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
If you feel that totalcommand and Moonbeam are "plenty", sure... but you're just avoiding the issue. You keep telling people that they are avoiding your points, yet you blatantly ignore my arguments.

Also, from your words it is clear that you don't want an argument, but rather sheep who'd agree with you. Maybe you're better off talking to the mirror.

How about this... Everyone who actually read and comprehended my OP agrees with it. Everything else in this thread is mere diversion propagated by you and your ilk and will be ignored accordingly.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Answer the damn question for the record. The more you avoid answering it, the clearer the answer becomes to everyone.

Go click on the smiley face smart guy. :roll:

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Go click on the smiley face smart guy. :roll:

I can take a picture of a paper-pusher ID here, and it'll say "NYU School Of Medicine: Pathology".

The ID doesn't actually say anything with regards to your status.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Go click on the smiley face smart guy. :roll:

I can take a picture of a paper-pusher ID here, and it'll say "NYU School Of Medicine: Pathology".

The ID doesn't actually say anything with regards to your status.

It's posted on my personal site hosted by the department of chemical engineering. What do you want - a copy of my transcript, or will a copy of my dissertation proposal suffice? Get a job man. :roll:

edit: Just in case you actually want a copy of my dissertation proposal, here it is. link Probably not the most interesting reading, but I guess you've dug your grave deep enough that I can toss you the line.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
edit: Just in case you actually want a copy of my dissertation proposal, here it is. link Probably not the most interesting reading, but I guess you've dug your grave deep enough that I can toss you the line.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (despite your "no biology since freshman year in high school" shtick). No offense, but if you are in that program, it makes me glad that I withdrew my application to Wash U.

Is that why you're so obsessed with the "irreducible complexity" of the eye? It would make sense, except you're taking your awe in a direction that is nothing but futile.

You still haven't responded to my challenge of your quasi-argument, but I've gotten accustomed to that.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (despite your "no biology since freshman year in high school" shtick). No offense, but if you are in that program, it makes me glad that I withdrew my application to Wash U.

ROFL. You just have fun over there at NYU doing whatever it is that you do. Of course, how do we know that you even do go there? Why don't you fax me your CV? :roll:

If you had ever taken an engineering class, you'd know damn well why I never needed biology to get in here - because it's so easy relative to what I do in my day-to-day coursework that learning it is almost trivial. Of course, you have no idea how difficult an engineering class, so you're hardly in a position to make this judgment. I guess you'll have to give me the benefit of the doubt again when I tell you that there's a reason someone with a ChemE degree makes a buttload more than someone with a biology degree. Of course, there's plenty of evidence that that's true, but there's also plenty of evidence that I'm in the MSTP program here, though apparently you're still just giving me the benefit of the doubt. Maybe next time you look at admissions stats, you'll check and see that ChemEs have the highest admission rate of any undergraduate discipline, then wonder why this might be the case.

Is that why you're so obsessed with the "irreducible complexity" of the eye? It would make sense, except you're taking your awe in a direction that is nothing but futile.

Who says I'm obsessed with it? I doubt you read my proposal already, so I doubt you have any idea what direction I'm going. Just more of your pissing contest that you lost and will promptly flee from now that evidence to the contrary has been presented. At least this time you didn't post the evidence refuting your case on your own.

You still haven't responded to my challenge of your quasi-argument, but I've gotten accustomed to that.

You still have yet to address the OP, which is the only topic of discussion in this thread. Once you discuss its merits and/or deficiencies, I'll be more than happy to delve into side issues with you.

edit: Oh, no offense, but I'm glad you didn't apply here. Had you gotten in, I could have used my diploma for toilet paper. Going to the #32 med school is not really the same as the #3. You'll note that this has no bearing on whether my arguments are superior to yours or not, something you should note well and remember when you talk down to everyone else in the forum.

 

[Todd33]

I'm going to agree with Meuge, the OP has very little substance. CW loves to preach and lecture and use big words (and lots of them) to try and impress. The catch is, intelligent people can explain complex things in a simple manner. Not that the OP was complex it was basically a couple of sentences (God could set it in motion.. bla bla) stretched into a verbal overdose and the typical followup posts that explain how smart CW is and how we all can't follow his 200 IQ topics.

I think some one was just seeking attention, but I'm no Tom Cruise.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm going to agree with Meuge, the OP has very little substance. CW loves to preach and lecture and use big words (and lots of them) to try and impress. The catch is, intelligent people can explain complex things in a simple manner. Not that the OP was complex it was basically a couple of sentences (God could set it in motion.. bla bla) stretched into a verbal overdose and the typical followup posts that explain how smart CW is and how we all can't follow his 200 IQ topics.

I think some one was just seeking attention, but I'm no Tom Cruise.

You didn't address any of the points made in the OP, you just attacked me. Try again.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm going to agree with Meuge, the OP has very little substance. CW loves to preach and lecture and use big words (and lots of them) to try and impress. The catch is, intelligent people can explain complex things in a simple manner. Not that the OP was complex it was basically a couple of sentences (God could set it in motion.. bla bla) stretched into a verbal overdose and the typical followup posts that explain how smart CW is and how we all can't follow his 200 IQ topics.

I think some one was just seeking attention, but I'm no Tom Cruise.

You didn't address any of the points made in the OP, you just attacked me. Try again.

After you attacked a dozen people in this thread I'll have to just laugh and move on. Your topic really has no substance to respond too, it's just a platform for you to lecture everyone.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

How about this... Everyone who actually read and comprehended my OP agrees with it.

I disagree.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira
I just thought of a couple of interesting questions that I think get to the heart of the matter:

If science at some point convincingly explains EVERY "gap" (for example, the creation of the universe, the creation of life, the evolution of species, consciousness, and even why humans believe in the supernatural), would you be happy with that state of affairs? Would you still believe in God, and if so, why?

I guess you weren't asking me, but I find your question to be the most interesting so far asked at least of what I remember here and now. Certainly, in one case at least, it would depend on what science proved is the answer. What if the ultimate computer spits out the name of God? Just trying to show that there are assumptions here in your question that are not expressed.

It will, I think, be a rather sad day when we can pronounce that everything is know. But that aside, it all depends on what you mean by God. God for me is not a man in the sky with a long white beard. He is not separate from me. God is what lives in your heart when 'your ego' is dead. He does not exist except as a reflection of your real self. This fact cannot be changed by knowledge because it is in self knowledge that God comes into being. No amount of description in words or pictures can ever equate to a rose. The intoxication of the wine is known only by turning up the glass. The meaning of life is known in being.

 

[Moonbeam]

CW: LOL.... We have a real genius on our hands here, folks.

M: All you had to do was inform him that the smiley was a link. Implying he's not too smart is insulting and of a piece with what you also get and complain of.

 

[M00T]

Jeebus sabes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm going to agree with Meuge, the OP has very little substance. CW loves to preach and lecture and use big words (and lots of them) to try and impress. The catch is, intelligent people can explain complex things in a simple manner. Not that the OP was complex it was basically a couple of sentences (God could set it in motion.. bla bla) stretched into a verbal overdose and the typical followup posts that explain how smart CW is and how we all can't follow his 200 IQ topics.

I think some one was just seeking attention, but I'm no Tom Cruise.

You didn't address any of the points made in the OP, you just attacked me. Try again.

After you attacked a dozen people in this thread I'll have to just laugh and move on. Your topic really has no substance to respond too, it's just a platform for you to lecture everyone.

And you know this how?

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shira
I just thought of a couple of interesting questions that I think get to the heart of the matter:

If science at some point convincingly explains EVERY "gap" (for example, the creation of the universe, the creation of life, the evolution of species, consciousness, and even why humans believe in the supernatural), would you be happy with that state of affairs? Would you still believe in God, and if so, why?

I guess you weren't asking me, but I find your question to be the most interesting so far asked at least of what I remember here and now. Certainly, in one case at least, it would depend on what science proved is the answer. What if the ultimate computer spits out the name of God? Just trying to show that there are assumptions here in your question that are not expressed.

It will, I think, be a rather sad day when we can pronounce that everything is know. But that aside, it all depends on what you mean by God. God for me is not a man in the sky with a long white beard. He is not separate from me. God is what lives in your heart when 'your ego' is dead. He does not exist except as a reflection of your real self. This fact cannot be changed by knowledge because it is in self knowledge that God comes into being. No amount of description in words or pictures can ever equate to a rose. The intoxication of the wine is known only by turning up the glass. The meaning of life is known in being.

I agree, but this is all explained in the Bible. You are not God, and God exists whether or not you want Him to. What a pitiful thing He would be if His existence depended on you.

Science, if the world lasts long enough (infinity), will explain everything in time, because God made an orderly universe with rules and laws. As I have previously stated, in theory, evolution might be possible, but we never came about as a result of it. It is a theory, and I am confident that one day, people will laugh in consternation at Darwin, as we laugh at those who thought that the universe revolved around the earth. Of course there will be something else then, because there are always people who will not accept a God.