A debate about debates

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 22:13
VIEWED: 12983
PAGE 10 of 17

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CARTOON

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
They reproduce just because they can. Reality sucks.

Yes, granted. Things reproduce because they "can" -- i.e. have the "ability" to reproduce. But where does a non-living, non-reproducible, inorganic thing suddenly get an ability to reproduce and become a living, organic thing -- particularly in light of the above quote about the impossible odds of such a thing ever happening without previously having been designed/encoded to act that way?

RUE

Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:05 AM

You have got to be kidding. Prions. Viruses. They're just crystals, like many other chemicals - self-assembling.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:53 AM

Quote:
Yes, granted. Things reproduce because they "can" -- i.e. have the "ability" to reproduce. But where does a non-living, non-reproducible, inorganic thing suddenly get an ability to reproduce and become a living, organic thing -- particularly in light of the above quote about the impossible odds of such a thing ever happening without previously having been designed/encoded to act that way?

You're conflating two topic- "reproduction" and "life". In terms of reproduction, just because proteins are made of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen instead of silicon, oxygen, hydrogen and (toss in your favorite chemicals here) doesn't make them different from other self-assembling molecules. Do you know what prions are, for example? They are proteins that create other proteins of the same form without the intervention of DNA, RNA and all that other stuff... protein crystals, if you will. Self-assembling, reproducing molecules which are fairly well-known in chemistry.

The OTHER issue is "life". I'm not enough of a biochemist to detail what "life" is, other than to say that the chemical reactions that power "life" depend on controlled transport of electrons that are released during oxidation (I think).

One more issue- you speak of this as happening "suddenly". I'm sure that nothing was "sudden".

--------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

RUE

Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:45 AM

There used to be a definition of life about carrying out "life processes" (ingestion, digestion, inorporation, growth, respiration, reproduction) but viruses challenged the definition. Until they bond to a cell they don't do anything. They're just chemicals that self assemble into little crystals. By common usage they're now considered to be a form of life, but prions are now challenging the definition.

Google "what is life" to get a variety of answers.

My personal definition of life is that it uses environmental energy to create more of itself.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 19, 2006 8:13 AM

Any scientific creation Intelligent Design theory is going to have a hole bigger than Evolution itself untill it can tell us where the Intelligent Designer came from. If a few missing links are tiny pinpricks letting out the water of credibillity in Evolution then the absence of evidence for an intelligent designer (and no the smile on a childs face isn't good enough) and the absence of any indication where this designer came from is a gaping blackhole which sucked all credibillity away from the 'theory' (myth) the moment it was created.

If a simple chemical can't spontaneously reproduce, how pray tell, did God spontaneously appear? If simple organic life can't spontaneously come into existance, how can the most awesome intelligence in the universe?

Sticky backplastic glue and glitter perhaps?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I simply believe, whole-heartedly, that to silence opinion, even a foolish one, is to rob mankind of his greatest boon: the freedom to think as he will and express himself as he will. The silencing of expression is a slippery slope; I would not have this forum slide down it.

I'm with you, Causal. Not just on the principle of freedom of thought either. How many times in our history has the consensus of authorities decided that X was absolutely true beyond debate, only to be turned on its ear later?

For the sake of advancement, we have to allow debate on even ideas that we KNOW to be true, such as 1 + 1 = 2, or the earth is spherical and not planar. We entertain debate on the basis of the strength of the arguments, not on the content of the subject matter. If someone argues that outside of Euclidian geometry, 1 + 1 is not equal to 2, we consider it. If someone says, "you dumbass, 1 + 1 is obviously equal to 4" because his momma says so, we don't consider it.

And DT, evolution, or any other scientific theory, is NOT beyond debate, even amongst scientists. Evolution is a "theory" which means it is the best model we have to explain the data we have. But it is not "Truth." Microevolution is a very reproducible fact, but macroevolution is little more than elaborate speculation. It is speculation I happen to agree with, but let's not make it more than what it really is.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CAUSAL

Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I'm with you, Causal. Not just on the principle of freedom of thought either. How many times in our history has the consensus of authorities decided that X was absolutely true beyond debate, only to be turned on its ear later?

For the sake of advancement, we have to allow debate on even ideas that we KNOW to be true, such as 1 + 1 = 2, or the earth is spherical and not planar. We entertain debate on the basis of the strength of the arguments, not on the content of the subject matter. If someone argues that outside of Euclidian geometry, 1 + 1 is not equal to 2, we consider it. If someone says, "you dumbass, 1 + 1 is obviously equal to 4" because his momma says so, we don't consider it.

And DT, evolution, or any other scientific theory, is NOT beyond debate, even amongst scientists. Evolution is a "theory" which means it is the best model we have to explain the data we have. But it is not "Truth." Microevolution is a very reproducible fact, but macroevolution is little more than elaborate speculation. It is speculation I happen to agree with, but let's not make it more than what it really is.

[ sincerity ]Wow. Good post, CTS! [ /sincerity ]

I was hoping someone would pick this strand up and run with it. I felt that I was being challenging enough just saying, "Whoa, hold on a moment"--and the fact that I was accused of supporting various crack-pot theories is plenty of evidence that I was not totally listened-to!

In all seriousness, though, I have to agree with respect to the notion that no scientific theory can ever be called true and declared as being beyond debate. Hubble was mocked for proposing his expanding universe--the static-eternal model eventually lost out, though, thanks to his red-shifted galaxies. And where is the plum-pudding model of the atom? These scientific theories were ultimately shown to be incompatible with the data, and were rejected in favor of theories that more closely conformed to the data.

Take for instance the theory the the solar system formed when a massive gas cloud collapsed in on itself. This certainly fits much of the data--for instance, why most planetary motion is counter-clockwise (including rotation and orbit of the planets): the cloud began spinning that way as it collapsed. It also explains the planets rotate in roughly the same orbital plane. But that doesn't mean that the scientific community has accepted it as beyond disputation. Certain data (like the axial tilt of Neptune or the backward rotation of Venus) doesn't fit that model. So the scientific community goes looking for data to explain these facts. Ultimately, they'll either find data to explain these anomalies within the current model, or they'll have to abandon the current model in favor of one that better fits the data.

The real strength of science (and, I would argue, all reasonable thinking) is that it holds it theories loosely, ready to modify or even abandon them if necessary. It is not scientific to say, "This is fact, and it is beyond debate." It could always be the case that the theories will have to change. To cling dogmatically to theories and to admit no debate or disputation is no better than the dogmatism of the religious believer; both believe they have arrived at objective truth (though by different means) and neither will brook any disagreement to that "truth". I suggest that responsible thinkers--the scientists and the faithful alike--would do well to hold their beliefs loosely, carefully considering all evidence so as not to play the fool if they are contradicted.

************************************************************************
Edited to add: I do agree with CTS and others on this board--if you're going to engage in debate, you'd better bring data--or at the very least, good arguments--to the table. Ad hominem attacks and genetic fallacies are no good way to argue, on either side.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Myth

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:21 PM

Quote:
granted, not any real close to us

I don't see why not. I nominate all four gas giants for starters.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:30 PM

SignyM,

didn't you see the sign?

:)

I know it might break my own rule, but this was humoroys.

Quote:
How on earth do molecules reproduce? Sexually or Asexually?

Sexuality is a highly advanced form of life. Even simple lifeforms don't have it. We're all sure that we don't know, but it's very unlikely that there was/is a major differentiation mechanism in proto-life or pseudo-life.

Kaneman isn't just a troll, he's not very bright. It's like sometimes when you argue the bible with christians and then realize they haven't even read the book.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:32 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Sig, allow me to think about that for a bit.

7%:

Why start now?

ROFL

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE