Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
why so many "Joe Rogan Experience" links?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
why so many "Joe Rogan Experience" links?
why else but to further show the difference between our two personalities and temperaments of course
Believe it or not, there is more to life than...
highly speculative "bloody edge" physics.
...
Switching subjects... have a good weekend.
:)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
There's more to life than Joe Rogan.
Fruitloops thinks --- There's no God but Joe Rogan and Sam Harris are God .... lol
Clueless people claim there is no God and immediately masquerade themselves as God ....
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
God is what one really wants to be, and is.
In an ultimate sense, there’s no masquerade.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2019 - 03:25pm PT
|
Just watched Black Mirror, Hated in the Nation, again. I had forgotten how good it was. The story concerned AI and ADIs (Autonomous Drone Insects) gone amuck and murdering people.
Love Britain side by side with America. It's English and yet Britain's got its own vernacular, idioms and such.
Not unlike liberal arts colleges vis a vis hard sciences, I imagine, and not unlike a few here. They have their own. "Truth" comes to mind. "Belief" comes to mind. "Law" too.
Many a lesson here. But what can you do?
Once again, kudos to the team of BM writers. They do know their science and technology cutting edge, that's for sure. Very realistic material.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2019 - 07:09pm PT
|
^^^^^Black Mirror is great!!!
I'm bored doing online trainings for work so I have question that you all can feel free to address or dismiss:
For those of you that see no possibility of a creator, or maybe that science leaves no room for creation, what are your thoughts on abiogenesis? Do you just ignore the problem, or maybe have faith that it happened in order to avoid considering alternatives? I guess I'm asking if you already made your decision and are awaiting evidence or if you came to your view based on evidence.
Honest question that I think about often.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 07:45am PT
|
I, too, have a question, for my science-type friends.
I’m re-designing and re-painting a 11’ mural, and in doing so I am trying slightly different colors. I’ve notice (right or wrong) that colors of the same hue go together, different hues don’t so much.
If we are to believe that developments of perception are the result of evolutionary theory, then what would be a reasonable explanation for why we find it more pleasing or proper to view images exhibiting the same relative hues? Dusty colors with dusty colors, bright colors with bright colors, and so forth. (I’m making some broad generalizations here, but I think my experience is consonant with others.)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 09:03am PT
|
Mike, wish I could help. I've been asking similar questions since puberty.
...
For those of you that see no possibility of a creator...
For the record, that's not me. I simply see extremely low to zero possibility (in possibility space) for God Jehovah or God Zeus or God Amon-Re as the creator in any for-real sense (like our ancestors believed). These are at best, as Paul would say, allegorical or metaphorical if not pure fiction... and entirely of human invention.
If memory serves, your background is biochemistry or biology?
what are your thoughts on abiogenesis?
What are yours? If your background is chem, do you find it hard - that hard - to see how a small group of molecules could, over vast time and numbers, self-organize into a crude replicator?
Do you just ignore the problem
Of course not. Curious as to your interest level. Has it been sufficent enough to compel you to read Dawkin's Selfish Gene.
I have no problem citing this work for the hundredth time because it serves wonderfully as a common ground for further discussion.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 10:25am PT
|
If we are to believe that developments of perception are the result of evolutionary theory, then what would be a reasonable explanation for why we find it more pleasing or proper to view images exhibiting the same relative hues? Dusty colors with dusty colors, bright colors with bright colors, and so forth. (I’m making some broad generalizations here, but I think my experience is consonant with others.) Evolutionary: My guess would be that we evolved strong color perception for survival and strong contrasts are often linked to things we shouldn't eat?
Other: Created with the same skill and the ability to appreciate beauty?
*first hypotheses that popped into my mind and came out my arse
What are yours? If your background is chem, do you find it hard - that hard - to see how a small group of molecules could, over vast time and numbers, self-organize into a crude replicator? Of course not. Curious as to your interest level. Has it been sufficent enough to compel you to read Dawkin's Selfish Gene. Thanks for taking the time to answer. My background is ecology (which is pretty much just a bunch of evolution and statistics). I do find it very hard to believe, and I've tried to believe it. Even the basic monomers of RNA each assemble naturally under very different conditions for each part, and the conditions are mutually exclusive, so something had to produce them. But how was there life, or even any sort of organization, before DNA/RNA? The steps of the origin of life from nothing to something, and then from something to the ability to replicate and pass on instructions for replicating is seems so unfathomable. Once you get to genetics as the basic mechanism for evolution, as Dawkins writes about (he sort of brushed of the details about a molecule forming and replicating itself), it becomes easier to extrapolate and assume time is all that's needed for diversity, but getting to that point is the issue.
Why do you think about it often? I'm somewhat fascinated by
a) the lack of, and contradictions within, the body of scientific knowledge on the subject, and
b) that it seems like so many people just take abiogensis for granted without really discussing the plausibility.
PS. I'm not here to try to change minds or anything, just to discuss the topic and learn how different people approach it.
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 10:50am PT
|

The earliest known life-forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 billion years ago, relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2]
*Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][note 1] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.
wiki
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 10:51am PT
|
Humans can't create God ever.
Yet humanity has the limited ability to create by manipulating only the inferior material energies of God.
The gross materialists are only mental speculators who are always in poor fund of knowledge.
Life always comes from life.
Abiogenesis is just another wild st00pid guess from mental speculators that live in a well that never have seen the ocean and lick the outside of the jar guessing what's inside .....
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 11:04am PT
|
Thanks for the reply. Do you ever also consider the plausibility of your own views on the subject? Serious question. Or does your fascination end with the implausibility of the views of which you don't agree?
Rephrased - do you question all views? I'd like to think that I question all of my beliefs equally, but I'm sure there is some subconscious bias between things I hope are true and things I hope are not true. Either way, in my opinion (that I try to form based on evidence) abiogenesis seems much less plausible than the historical accounts of the Bible. Maybe I just like that one of the options has a mechanism. Maybe it's also influenced by the fact that one of them also has a purpose, but I try to be objective.
Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.
Right?
This is the weird part.
Isn't assuming something happened, and then trying to figure out how, an odd way to approach science? Shouldn't the first step be trying to figure out if something can happen without assuming it can?
Life always comes from life. Funny that that's one of the main tenants of the widely accepted cell theory, yet it directly contradicts abiogenesis.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 01:02pm PT
|
Maybe I just like that one of the options has a mechanism.
Interesting to consider what we might like or dislike per stuff like fundamental forces, which don't arise by way of more basic mechanisms that "cause" them.
I remember when I first delved into objectless meditation how my mind kept scratching around trying to frame, label, get a rope around, and generally "know" (objectify) what the hell was going on, impossible as it was to think in terms of anything but linear time, causes and things.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 03:55pm PT
|
Nor is sexual misconduct limited to churches. Wherever there are humans, untoward stuff is going to happen. No exceptions.
Honesty, awareness and transparency remain the bedrock for any spiritual adventure. Without those, there is no foundation.
|
|
Hardly Visible
Social climber
Llatikcuf WA
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 04:54pm PT
|
Limpingcrab,
I don't mean to be a dick here, and I usually stay away from posting in this "heavy" discussion, but it's snowing and I'm cozy by the fire with time to ponder. I do have many questions about the historical accounts of the Bible which you seem to find so plausible, would you mind clearing some of these up for me?
For instance...
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9.
The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.
Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 05:05pm PT
|
Either way, in my opinion (that I try to form based on evidence) abiogenesis seems much less plausible than the historical accounts of the Bible.
yes, I could not agree more, especially using the bible as evidence
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 05:24pm PT
|
The challenge with abiogenesis is the probability of it happening. Not to say it didn't, but rather the odds are formidable. A few quotes to give some idea.
Clearly to get from the Miller-Urey experiment to a living cell by unguided materialistic processes requires that improbabilities be stacked upon improbabilities. For this reason, Dean Kenyon rightly concludes: “It (abiogenesis) is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established.”
Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-
10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551);.
A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.
Biologists are hypothesizing some RNA-based life form that might have had a smaller genome and might have given rise to a cell with about 256 genes. Until this is demonstrated, one would have to say that the problem of abiogenesis is very severe indeed for us in the field of evolution.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 05:37pm PT
|
Oh no, not the Baptists. There go all the theories about the quirks of the Catholic Church, particularly the idea that celibacy turns good men into pervs. Another idea might be that there is a secret chomo subculture that has developed, a vast conspiracy like something out of the Da Vinci Code. But now we have the Baptists to deal with.
If the phenomenon can be observed in protestant religions as well, then it may be like when people working in day care get caught doing it. Or the brain dead lady in the nursing home who somehow got pregnant. Maybe its just that there are lots of adults who can't be trusted taking care of children.
My theory at this point is that human nature isn't that bad, but anyone who claims to be an expert on God or the Bible is delusional, and arrogant to think they can preach to others. Televangelists are the worst-looking examples, but they're basically all scammers and con men. Why would any parent trust their children with them?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 05:59pm PT
|
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
How many religious individuals take these passages from the old testament as literal? Science is credited repeatedly here as the discipline that thrives on correcting its mistakes. Why can't you give religion credit for that as well? Nobody in their right mind sells their children into slavery based on passages from the old testament. And if they do they are the exception that proves the rule. Bringing up the horrors of the old testament is a tired and worthless argument.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2019 - 06:57pm PT
|
The challenge with abiogenesis is the probability of it happening. Not to say it didn't, but rather the odds are formidable.
it depends on how you define life, of course...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!