19
   

Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 03:16 pm
@Olivier5,
Ah-hahahahahahaha . . . i'm neither confused nor angry. I see you are defaulting to personal attacks, because you've got nothing else going for you, Mr. Scientific Culture.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Wed 28 May, 2014 03:29 pm
@Setanta,
If personal attacks are an indication of vacuity, you must be the most empty-headed person on earth...
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 03:32 pm
@Olivier5,
Straw man fallacy--i did not at any time state or suggest that personal attacks are an indication of vacuity. I made a claim, and i have provided abundant evidence for it. You have provided zero evidence for your position, and so now you default to personal attacks.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 03:36 pm
@Setanta,
Just returning the favor, set... if you don't like insults, don't dish them out.
neologist
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 03:37 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Yeah, no **** . . . and after years and years, i'm sick of you insisting on your erroneous claims.
You could always put me on ignore, if it suits you. I'll continue to scan your posts, though. You might say something.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 03:42 pm
@Olivier5,
I "dished out" insults after you started up your sneering machine, telling me i don't know anything about science, as though you do. You get out of this situation what you put into it.
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 03:49 pm
These are two of Mr. Scientific Culture's recent comments to me:

You would know that if you knew even the most basic biochemistry.

And . . .

You might wish to do that yourself so you can know what you're talking about... Oh, I forgot, you don't understand enough of chemistry to understand the corresponding wikipedia article.

Your scientific literacy is piss-poor, Set.

0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 03:59 pm
@Setanta,
You started it, including by using the term "piss-poor" about my english...
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 04:13 pm
@Olivier5,
But that's only because your English is piss-poor. You demonstrated that you could make no distinction between conscious and conscience. So that was simply descriptive.

You continue to display your ignorance, too. You wrote

Quote:
This said, other similar experiments have synthetised sugars that RNA is made of (among other things). But no experiment (to my knowledge) has ever produced RNA abiotically, nor shown how RNA could replicate itself without the assistance of fairly complex proteins, which have a snowball chance in hell of ever appearing by chance. If you know of one, pray tell.


That "among other things" includes amino acids. I suggest to you that you do a little research on RNA viruses, which among many other wonderful things, cause ebola and influenza. These viruses use RNA, and only RNA, to replicate their genomes. Tell us again about your superior knowledge of biochemistry, Mr. Scientific Culture.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 06:49 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

neologist wrote:
Did you find anything in my post that is scientifically invalid?
Brandon9000 wrote:
No, but you're summarizing Genesis, not providing evidence that it's true, which is what the thread title asks.
Do you define truth as epistemological certainty? Certainly, I believe what I posted was not false and provides a basis for the rest of the account. I claimed the first 2 chapters explained how we came to be and why we are here. I see no inaccuracy in the essential order of creation as provided in chapter 1. And I see no hardship in the commands to fill and subdue the earth while avoiding a certain fruit. As for filling the earth to overpopulation, consider what occurs when you ask the waiter to fill your water glass.

Let's take the first part:

Quote:
Ch 1: 1,2: The creation of the heavens and the earth takes place in an unspecified period of time. Could have been a kazillion years. Who cares? Humans can figure that out later. This time, however, is not included as one of the creative days.


Do you believe that there is anything in this quotation which provides evidence that a supernatural being created the universe?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 06:53 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I find it plausible that something like this would have occurred with sufficient time.

How it happened remains a mystery. You may have your own little theory, and others have another little theory which they call God... Nobody can tell for sure. There's also the idea of extra-terrestrial life landing on earth billions of years ago, which of course only pushes the mystery further back in time, but it's quite telling that scientists are considering this scenario: it tells how baffled they are by how life could possibly have appeared ex nihilo on our planet...

It is IMO important to recognize how little we actually know about some questions, and the emergence of life is one of them. Accepting that our knowledge has limits is a prerequisite to expand our knowledge. Hubris only leads to more ignorance.

In any case, you asked a question and I responded to the best of my ability: big questions remain about our origins, and the origin of the universe; these have not yet been satisfactorily answered by science; some people want easy answers and they go for the deity.

Other people who want easy answers find that a soup can plausibly create something as complex as life, given a few hundreds of millions of years... To each his own.

The theory, which I did not invent, by the way, that planetary oceans full of water and chemicals eventually gave rise to a chemical that could make copies of itself is much more plausible than to attribute it to magic. There is no magic. There had to be a first object that could copy itself and magic played no role in it.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 06:57 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
The theory is that it was "some molecule."

That's "some theory" you got there... very precise and evidence-based. Smile

They find people guilty in court all day long all over the country with no actual witnesses to the crime. It is becoming increasingly clear that you simply need the crutch of a magic buddy who will punish most of your enemies and give you a life after death. The history of science, not to mention jurisprudence, contradicts the idea that nothing can be concluded without an eyewitness. If we evolve by making duplicates of ourselves under the stress of natural selection, then it stands to reason that there must have been a first object which could duplicate itself and started the chain of events. It certainly wasn't a whole cell that came into existence by random chance. Unless you prefer the magic playmate theory, that is?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 06:59 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I doubt that computers such as we make them have this capability.

If you are right, and since computers as we build them have computation power, it follows that computation power is not sufficient to create consciousness... So you contradicted yourself....

My guess is that computational power is not in and of itself sufficient unless it is structured properly and that the function of computers such as we make is not structured properly. How does that contradict anything else I have said?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2014 05:11 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
But that's only because your English is piss-poor.

By the same token, I called your scientific literacy piss-poor because it IS so...

Quote:
That "among other things" includes amino acids.

Indeed, as I explained in that same message you quoted. But I also explained that RNA is NOT made of amino acids (proteins are), so what is your point?

Quote:
I suggest to you that you do a little research on RNA viruses, which among many other wonderful things, cause ebola and influenza. These viruses use RNA, and only RNA, to replicate their genomes. 

That is not true. They use their host's cellular enzyme machinery to replicate their RNA. You don't know what you're talking about.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2014 05:23 am
@Brandon9000,
You first stated that consciousness emerged from large enough computing power. Now you're saying something different, ie that one needs the right brain structure to create consciousness. I tend to agree with your latter statement.

Why did you say up-thread that "I imagine that someone will eventually prove it by demonstration, which is something I do not look forward to."? I am asking this because I suspect the answer has a lot in common with religious inclinations. We don't like to think of ourselves as random machines...
Olivier5
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2014 05:51 am
@Brandon9000,
I never said anything about a witness. I spoke of evidence, which is very different. We have plenty fossil and biochemical evidence for evolution, which is why it is considered a well-established scientific theory. Idle musing about SOME random molecule replicating itself is not science, not until it can be tested in a lab or against fossil, biochemical or other evidence.

In short, huge mysteries remain about our origin. Eg the random emergence of life seems utterly improbable, which I believe is one reason for folks - including many scientists - to consider the possibility of some supernatural explanations... That's all I wanted to say. And I honestly don't care too much if you happen to agree with my opinion or not about the status of our scientific knowledge. As I said many times, those mysteries will only be convincingly solved once we can create life or consciousness in a lab, as any scientist would agree. And unlike you, I look forward to that.

So let's leave it at that, unless you can address that psychological reason for mystical thinking, rather than invent or quote untested, idle speculations for life or consciousness... Without evidence, there are little more than your own magical thinking. You are, just like believers, in search for a cheap explanation for these mysteries.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2014 05:03 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

You first stated that consciousness emerged from large enough computing power. Now you're saying something different, ie that one needs the right brain structure to create consciousness. I tend to agree with your latter statement.

I meant large enough computing power structured properly.

Olivier5 wrote:

Why did you say up-thread that "I imagine that someone will eventually prove it by demonstration, which is something I do not look forward to."? I am asking this because I suspect the answer has a lot in common with religious inclinations. We don't like to think of ourselves as random machines...

That is not my reason, since I absolutely do think of us that way. I do not looking forward to it because once we can make conscious thinking machines, there will subsequently be a danger of the "Terminator" scenario - the inversion of the master/slave relationship between humanity and machines.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2014 05:11 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

I never said anything about a witness. I spoke of evidence, which is very different. We have plenty fossil and biochemical evidence for evolution, which is why it is considered a well-established scientific theory. Idle musing about SOME random molecule replicating itself is not science, not until it can be tested in a lab or against fossil, biochemical or other evidence.

In short, huge mysteries remain about our origin. Eg the random emergence of life seems utterly improbable, which I believe is one reason for folks - including many scientists - to consider the possibility of some supernatural explanations... That's all I wanted to say. And I honestly don't care too much if you happen to agree with my opinion or not about the status of our scientific knowledge. As I said many times, those mysteries will only be convincingly solved once we can create life or consciousness in a lab, as any scientist would agree. And unlike you, I look forward to that.

So let's leave it at that, unless you can address that psychological reason for mystical thinking, rather than invent or quote untested, idle speculations for life or consciousness... Without evidence, there are little more than your own magical thinking. You are, just like believers, in search for a cheap explanation for these mysteries.

Wrong. It is speculation on my part, but only in the sense of trying to think of a rational explanation for a known fact, not in the sense of contemplating magical forces as an explanation. If evolution is a byproduct of species making copies of themselves, which then improve gradually because of the survival of the fittest, and if the trend is to greater complexity, as is believed, then the first creature must have been simple enough to arise by chance, and a molecule that can replicate itself is one scenario that works. Certainly something as complex as a cell couldn't arise by chance. The odds are too low. Certainly magic played no role whatever, since magic doesn't exist. My point is that one can think of plausible explanations that are not magical. Your apparent need to think of the thing as very mysterious strikes me as religion.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2014 08:00 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
My point is that one can think of plausible explanations that are not magical. Your apparent need to think of the thing as very mysterious strikes me as religion.

Yes, one can think of natural explanations, and I suppose we need to keep doing that, if only because it served us well so far. E.g. it produced the theory of evolution, which is a humongous scientific achievement. But until we find plausible natural explanations supported by empirical facts, there is no reason to expect anyone to disbelieve their own magical explanations.

In fact, it would be unscientific to expect people to believe something without proof.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2014 08:07 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
I meant large enough computing power structured properly.

Ok, that clarifies.

Quote:
That is not my reason, since I absolutely do think of us that way. I do not looking forward to it because once we can make conscious thinking machines, there will subsequently be a danger of the "Terminator" scenario - the inversion of the master/slave relationship between humanity and machines.

I like sci-fi just as anybody else or more, but I can't see how machines could possibly take over us; we can always unplug them if they become too smart.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/01/2023 at 08:48:29