RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth.

RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/9/2008 5:13:41 PM)
quote: They can't keep up with the educational background required to engage in communication. Well, I think in many ways this is true of evolutionary biologists themselves; many of their ideas are beginning to look quite dated. But this is perhaps true any specific science field. I don't however think it's simply a matter that there will be so much known that it will simply overwhelm any attempt to dispute evolution; indeed, I think in many case the opposite may be true. As we become more sophisticated in our understanding of how genetics works, of how the molecular machinery of the cell works, of how organisms are related through sequencing, I think this new information will give us a better picture, and more sophisticated criticisms of evolution. Indeed, it is often said, and I think it is true, that ID is born more out of the information age than anything else, because it is our growing knowledge of what information systems require that informs ID as much as anything else. I think biology, especially systems biology and biomimicry, is inevitably taking that route.

swan42 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/9/2008 5:37:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: They can't keep up with the educational background required to engage in communication. Well, I think in many ways this is true of evolutionary biologists themselves; many of their ideas are beginning to look quite dated. But this is perhaps true any specific science field. I don't however think it's simply a matter that there will be so much known that it will simply overwhelm any attempt to dispute evolution; indeed, I think in many case the opposite may be true. As we become more sophisticated in our understanding of how genetics works, of how the molecular machinery of the cell works, of how organisms are related through sequencing, I think this new information will give us a better picture, and more sophisticated criticisms of evolution. Indeed, it is often said, and I think it is true, that ID is born more out of the information age than anything else, because it is our growing knowledge of what information systems require that informs ID as much as anything else. I think biology, especially systems biology and biomimicry, is inevitably taking that route. Yes, thus this style discussion ultimately is pointless. Among evolution proponents biologists trust geologists to be correct and vice versa, but specialization in those fields inhibits communication between biologists and geologists. Sometimes hidden research in one field resurfaces as "novel" in another field. Or in another language, (German, Russian, English). Ultimately, neither the evolution proponent or the evolution critic can communicate. Immovable Object vs. Irresistible Force. Perhaps evolution proponents and evolution critics will merge their points of view at some point in the future, but to do so, rational evolution critics must split from the YEC and quit using ID as a back door for religion into science.

swan42 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/9/2008 5:42:43 PM)
quote: Indeed, it is often said, and I think it is true, that ID is born more out of the information age than anything else, because it is our growing knowledge of what information systems require that informs ID as much as anything else. The more we learn, the more we become aware of our own ignorance. Time will tell.

swan42 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/9/2008 5:45:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: swan42 quote: Indeed, it is often said, and I think it is true, that ID is born more out of the information age than anything else, because it is our growing knowledge of what information systems require that informs ID as much as anything else. The more we learn, the more we become aware of our own ignorance. Time will tell. Until then, evolutionary theory is a strongly self-consistent model by which to further biological sciences even if evolutionary theory is ultimately proven wrong. We still use Newton's laws of motion when launching objects into space because Einstein's Special and General Relativity are overkill.

unclemonkey -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/11/2008 10:41:47 PM)
ORIGINAL:drj11 quote: quote: What is testable about it? I'm curious to understand why you think it isnt testable? Try answering my question. What is testable about abiogenesis? It is interesting that you fail to understand why I say abiogenesis isn’t testable while at the same time you are unable to provide anything testable about it. quote: They come up with a hypothesis explaining how they think it happened... then they try to test it. Feel free to cite ANY tests that have supposedly confirmed the dogma you are calling an hypothesis.

drj11 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/12/2008 1:22:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey Try answering my question. What is testable about abiogenesis? It is interesting that you fail to understand why I say abiogenesis isn’t testable while at the same time you are unable to provide anything testable about it. Well, I really shouldn't have too, Uncle. If you had the tiniest, faintest bit of intellectual curiosity about abiogenesis, you would already know how and why various models of abiogenesis are testable. Information is all out there, at your fingertips, you just have to spend 5 seconds using google. One would think you would take the time to learn about something before you impugn it, as you do. As I don't think you are actually interested in learning about it before you dismiss it, I'm probably wasting my time typing this. You will undoubtedly automatically dismiss it, and resort to your usual répartie of calling it a dogma/faith/atheist conspiracy.. clearly illustrating you haven't the faintest idea of what it is or what is involved. But what the hey... maybe I'm wrong. You should also note that there is no hard consensus over particular models of abiogenesis as most have yet to be experimentally proven or disproven, so calling it faith or dogma is extremely off the mark, even for you. Some models may not be testable with current technology, but given technology advances we may be able to test them in the future. This happens all the time... just as particle physicists had no way to perform any experiments to attempt to detect the theorized Higgs Boson particle until the new CERN supercollider was built. First you need to understand what abiogenesis is... Its the area of science that is attempting to discover how life could have formed from non-life. There is no well established model (yet) for how it happened, but there are several models proposed. Testing them would generally be a matter of attempting to simulate what are thought to be the conditions of early earth where life may have formed. The infamous miller-urey experiements are an example of this, and showed how some organic molecules could naturally form from inorganic matter. In any case, they generally propose a pathway of pre-biotic chemicals and compounds that would have to form naturally to create life, and then go about trying to recreate it. Very very difficult, complex work, yet totally testable. quote: quote: They come up with a hypothesis explaining how they think it happened... then they try to test it. Feel free to cite ANY tests that have supposedly confirmed the dogma you are calling an hypothesis. Wait, hypotheses are dogma now, not just theories? I can't keep up. Also, you should note I never claimed they were confirmed... just that they are testable... as experiments are performed it should eventually lead us closer to the truth, at which time the realm of abiogenesis will transform from the collection of proposed, yet tentative models and hypotheses it is today to a much more firm and precise scientific theory. A scientist by the name of Andy Ellington has been working on the RNA world hypothesis for quite a while: http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/state-of-the-art-evolution.ars

unclemonkey -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/12/2008 9:43:27 AM)
ORIGINAL:drj11 quote: If you had the tiniest, faintest bit of intellectual curiosity about abiogenesis, you would already know how and why various models of abiogenesis are testable. Information is all out there, at your fingertips, you just have to spend 5 seconds using google. One would think you would take the time to learn about something before you impugn it, as you do. Should I follow your lead in trying to turn this discussion into a contest of insult casting? Uh, no thanks. quote: First you need to understand what abiogenesis is... “Abiogenesis : the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis Let’s not pretend that it is something it isn’t. quote: Also, you should note I never claimed they were confirmed... just that they are testable... People like Miller have attempted to demonstrate it and every one of those “tests” (if that is what you wish to call those attempts) have failed miserably. I am willing to concede that abiogenesis is testable if you admit that since it has failed EVERY “test” it is nothing more than an unscientific belief. If accepting something as valid that has failed EVERY attempt to confirm it isn’t faith just what is it?

drj11 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/12/2008 10:11:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:drj11 quote: If you had the tiniest, faintest bit of intellectual curiosity about abiogenesis, you would already know how and why various models of abiogenesis are testable. Information is all out there, at your fingertips, you just have to spend 5 seconds using google. One would think you would take the time to learn about something before you impugn it, as you do. Should I follow your lead in trying to turn this discussion into a contest of insult casting? Uh, no thanks. quote: First you need to understand what abiogenesis is... “Abiogenesis : the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis Let’s not pretend that it is something it isn’t. Gross oversimplification. How bout reading about it from a scientific oriented source? Heck, even wikipedia. Youre more than likely going to be steered wrong by any dictionary on scientific terms. There's not anything glaringly wrong about it though, other than its poor use of the phrase 'spontaneous generation', which for whatever reason sends creationists into a frenzy. quote: People like Miller have attempted to demonstrate it and every one of those “tests” (if that is what you wish to call those attempts) have failed miserably. I am willing to concede that abiogenesis is testable if you admit that since it has failed EVERY “test” it is nothing more than an unscientific belief. Miller-Urey experiments failed in actually creating life, but they were important in because amino acids and other biological chemicals were created. It proved that these compounds could form in nature, all on their own, given the right conditions. Far from a failure, they were quite a revolutionary stepping stone. Since that time they have succeeded in forming other biological compounds. That's progress, not failure. quote: If accepting something as valid that has failed EVERY attempt to confirm it isn’t faith just what is it? No, stopping any investigation and experiments into abiogenesis, just to say "Goddidit" is faith. Experimenting and testing for means of abiogenesis is science. Heck, if it were actually faith, I would think you would be much more agreeable towards it.

Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/12/2008 10:53:04 AM)
quote: Miller-Urey experiments failed in actually creating life, but they were important in because amino acids and other biological chemicals were created. It proved that these compounds could form in nature, all on their own, given the right conditions. Far from a failure, they were quite a revolutionary stepping stone. Since that time they have succeeded in forming other biological compounds. That's progress, not failure. As much as such experiments are evidence against the notion of the unguided development of life is progress, I agree. quote: No, stopping any investigation and experiments into abiogenesis, just to say "Goddidit" is faith. Experimenting and testing for means of abiogenesis is science. Heck, if it were actually faith, I would think you would be much more agreeable towards it. Again, materialists say this but they have no point at which they can either confirm or deny such a notion. The idea that science should go on and on century after century in a quixotic quest to provide some substantive foundation for naturalism wasting untold numbers of man hours and intellectual resources when it could instead actually be studying life with the mind of an engineer and student, learning the lessons it can teach us by observing it as a gift and template for sophisticated biological technologies, is the saddest of all tragedies.

drj11 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/12/2008 1:56:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud As much as such experiments are evidence against the notion of the unguided development of life is progress, I agree. They are evidence we have a lot to learn. quote: No, stopping any investigation and experiments into abiogenesis, just to say "Goddidit" is faith. Experimenting and testing for means of abiogenesis is science. Heck, if it were actually faith, I would think you would be much more agreeable towards it. quote: Again, materialists say this but they have no point at which they can either confirm or deny such a notion. Life predates any known, measurable, tangible intelligence. That's reason enough to assume and explore natural causation. When the ID camp produces some actual research and evidence, maybe it will shift gears. You can extoll about the virtues of ID all you want, but there still isn't a shred of evidence. quote: The idea that science should go on and on century after century in a quixotic quest to provide some substantive foundation for naturalism wasting untold numbers of man hours and intellectual resources when it could instead actually be studying life with the mind of an engineer and student, learning the lessons it can teach us by observing it as a gift and template for sophisticated biological technologies, is the saddest of all tragedies. I don't think methodical naturalism is mutually exclusive with studying life with the 'mind of an engineer'. We do this already. ID is not a prerequisite to that. We have always been attempting to mimic the efficiency of many biological systems. As a basic example, look at solar panels... we figured out plants harness the sun to create energy and enterprising engineers have been hard at work developing similar technology. Look at flight... look at the field of nano-technology. Why do you assume it somehow impinges our ability to do these things by assuming natural causes?

unclemonkey -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/12/2008 2:24:39 PM)
ORIGINAL:drj11 quote: Life predates any known, measurable, tangible intelligence. That's reason enough to assume and explore natural causation. Why is that cause enough to ASSUME natural causation? I agree that is reason to explore causation, but ASSUMING natural causation is anti-science. quote: You can extoll about the virtues of ID all you want, but there still isn't a shred of evidence. Extrapolations should be based on what is known rather than what is assumed.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI