It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Odds of Life Occurring by Random Chance and The Odds of Sexual Reproduction and Genetics

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Where have I said science and spirituality can not exist together? I repeatedly say on ATS I am (a) A scientist (I work in the industry of science) and (b) I am a person of deep spiritual faith, it just happens my faith is reconstructed preChristian polytheisim from Ireland.

I see no problems between (a) and (b) in my life.




posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


he has also referred to himself as agnostic and pantheist. so as you can see, he alludes to altruism and service to others but rejects theism. you must have overlooked that detail.


And just a few more quotes from the philosophy of Einstein:

Albert Einstein: God, Religion & Theology
Explaining Einstein's understanding of God as the Universe / Reality

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)



A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. ( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)

Quote source:
www.spaceandmotion.com...


Now, this is what I'm talking about when I refer to Intelligent Design and as quoted earlier Einstein appears to have had a similar view - Intelligent Design does not prove, or for that matter even indicate 'A Creator' in the religious sense that Thiests would like it to - But it could be used to indicate an inherent intelligence 'built in' to the universe and all that exists.
Notice I said 'could indicate' - and did not say it proves it.


So back to my original question on "The Odds of Life Occurring by Random Chance and The Odds of Sexual Reproduction and Genetics" - I say it is a valid question whose potential answer could tell us whether we are an accidental occurrence
in the scheme of things OR our existence is wrought with meaning - even if we are yet to understand the meaning





“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos











"ScienceFictionalism - the way of the Future"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...


edit on 22-7-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Evolution is not random blind chance or accidental.
You've only managed to attack your misrepresentations of evolution, not what evolution really says or how it works.
Your argument is a false dichotomy (AKA false dilemma), which is a logical fallacy and is a common means of deception and of demagoguery among creationists.

A dichotomy is where you prove something by eliminating all other possibilities. In order for a dichotomy to be valid All the alternatives must be considered and they must all be mutually exclusive. If either of those two conditions are not met, then you have a false dichotomy.

Would you not agree it would be far more effective and efficient for creationists to prove their "creation model" by simply presenting evidence for creation and therefore demonstrating that it's true?



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
Evolution is not random blind chance or accidental.
You've only managed to attack your misrepresentations of evolution, not what evolution really says or how it works.
Your argument is a false dichotomy (AKA false dilemma), which is a logical fallacy and is a common means of deception and of demagoguery among creationists.

A dichotomy is where you prove something by eliminating all other possibilities. In order for a dichotomy to be valid All the alternatives must be considered and they must all be mutually exclusive. If either of those two conditions are not met, then you have a false dichotomy.

Would you not agree it would be far more effective and efficient for creationists to prove their "creation model" by simply presenting evidence for creation and therefore demonstrating that it's true?


if it hasnt happened by now...



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
What are the odds that a universe generating at random could generate sentient beings that could calculate the probability of their own existence?


originally posted by: flyingfish
Evolution is not random blind chance or accidental.


So you are admitting that evolution is (theoretically) purposeful and orchestrated through intelligence?


edit on 22-7-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
What are the odds that a universe generating at random could generate sentient beings that could calculate the probability of their own existence?


originally posted by: flyingfish
Evolution is not random blind chance or accidental.


So you are admitting that evolution is (theoretically) purposeful and orchestrated through intelligence?



The Evolution of life is only one example of complex chemical systems or Systems Chemistry. These chemical systems are routinely observed and many of the mechanism in self-replicating molecules are being found and understood.

As for being "orchestrated through intelligence" there are many fields of research converging on the central topic of Systems Chemistry. Researchers from the mostly unconnected fields of the origin of life, supramolecular chemistry and researchers working on far-from-equilibrium systems are close to the creation of life from completely man-made components.

Humans have already created synthetic, self-replicating cells, it is just a matter of time till you get your purposeful, orchestrated through intelligence designs. But it's not going to your OZ pulling the strings, it will be human intelligence, not by magic, but by complex chemical reactions.



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
What are the odds that a universe generating at random could generate sentient beings that could calculate the probability of their own existence?


I'd imagine that the odds are just as bad, if not worse, for an always existing god generating at random out of nothing as you believe. Nobody knows what caused the universal expansion. They are working on it. Nobody says the universe just randomly and spontaneously appeared out of nowhere. That's what y'all believe about God. Stop projecting your beliefs onto unrelated concepts.
edit on 7 23 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish

The Evolution of life is only one example of complex chemical systems or Systems Chemistry. These chemical systems are routinely observed and many of the mechanism in self-replicating molecules are being found and understood.

As for being "orchestrated through intelligence" there are many fields of research converging on the central topic of Systems Chemistry. Researchers from the mostly unconnected fields of the origin of life, supramolecular chemistry and researchers working on far-from-equilibrium systems are close to the creation of life from completely man-made components.

Humans have already created synthetic, self-replicating cells, it is just a matter of time till you get your purposeful, orchestrated through intelligence designs. But it's not going to your OZ pulling the strings, it will be human intelligence, not by magic, but by complex chemical reactions.


Interesting post. But with human intelligence being at the core of such potential discovery, wouldn't this reinforce the notion of intelligence being a requirement for designed systems? Even the word "system" strongly implies a complex harmony of interrelated parts which could not have been generated in a piecewise manner (i.e. evolution) - because without the whole intact, the individual parts are worthless.


originally posted by: Barcs

I'd imagine that the odds are just as bad, if not worse, for an always existing god generating at random out of nothing as you believe. Nobody knows what caused the universal expansion. They are working on it. Nobody says the universe just randomly and spontaneously appeared out of nowhere. That's what y'all believe about God. Stop projecting your beliefs onto unrelated concepts.


You are pondering great mysteries. Plato concluded that since something cannot come from nothing, that "God" was always existent and always will be (Christians call this the Alpha-Omega). This may seem like a cop-out, but logically it makes sense - something cannot come from nothing, therefore there always was something (God).



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

"You are pondering great mysteries. Plato concluded that since something cannot come from nothing, that "God" was always existent and always will be (Christians call this the Alpha-Omega). This may seem like a cop-out, but logically it makes sense - something cannot come from nothing, therefore there always was something (God)."

But as you can see we are up against a mind set that does not allow for a spiritual dimension to reality - I quote them Einstein, Carl Sagan, and others who could hardly be considered Thiests and yet their myopic vision does not allow them to see anyghing that may be spiritual and mysterious - they want empirical science only and even when I quote a very religious antagonist such as Friedrich Nietzche saying: "It is clear that science too rests on a faith; there is no science ‘without presuppositions.’" they can't buy it.

Years ago I was a used book dealer and at least skimmed through thousands of books - The outside of one book on Nietzsche
made a promo statement of the book calling Nietzsche a 'Christian Atheist' - What??? - How can someone be called a 'Christian Atheist' - sounds like an automatic contradiction.

I run into a similar problem here - I keop advocating a belief in Intelligent Design withuout the need for a Creator
- saying there is an inherent intelligence buit in to existence itsself - So if you want to believe in a god - fine - but
this is faith - Intelligence and design on the other hand have nothing to do with faith - They are inherent properties of
the universe, of all that exists.


Back in 1984 I was listening to a broadcast from Radio Moscow on a shortwave radio I built in the 6th grade.
Coming through in the very strong signal they used and with announcers who spoke English so perfectly it did not sound
normal. Someone asked a question about religion in the Soviet Union.

What he said was all religions are allowed in the Soviet Union [?] but the position of them [the Communist Party]
was we are "ATHEIST MATERIALISTS"

And here you see the same mind set - If it sounds spiritual, religious, or in any way reflects even the possibility of a
God - they will fight you tooth and nail - no matter what you say




May favorite Nietzsche quote:

He who fights with monsters might take care
lest he thereby become a monster.
And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.


-Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
German philosopher (1844 - 1900)
edit on 23-7-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




Interesting post. But with human intelligence being at the core of such potential discovery, wouldn't this reinforce the notion of intelligence being a requirement for designed systems?


No.. There is no requirement for a intelligent being to be present while chemistry is happening, these systems evolved. We are trying to figure out the sequence of chemical events that lead to more complex molecules, but these "events" happen in nature all the time "without" invisible anthropomorphic friends involved.
Trying to shoe-horn your imaginary cash cow into complex chemical systems is just pure fantasy.

But, if you would like contribute some of that cash to the science of Systems Chemistry, you can donate to COST action CMI304. Or better yet, get involved and abandon the religious nonsense all together.


Scientific Objectives:
One of the Grandest Challenges in Science today is the creation of life from completely man-made components. This requires capturing the various aspects of life, such as its ability to reproduce, its compartmentalized nature (all life forms we know are surrounded by some form of membrane) its far-from-equilibrium character (all life forms we know need energy to maintain themselves). The central idea of this Action is that cross-fertilization between the communities working on supramolecular chemistry, the origin-of-life and far-from-equilibrium systems will boost the scientific development at the interfaces between these areas that is required for advancing towards the tantalizing goal of making life de-novo. Efforts will proceed targeting the following sub-objectives:

www.systemschemistry.com...


edit on fSunday1656711f563911 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: flyingfish

The Evolution of life is only one example of complex chemical systems or Systems Chemistry. These chemical systems are routinely observed and many of the mechanism in self-replicating molecules are being found and understood.

As for being "orchestrated through intelligence" there are many fields of research converging on the central topic of Systems Chemistry. Researchers from the mostly unconnected fields of the origin of life, supramolecular chemistry and researchers working on far-from-equilibrium systems are close to the creation of life from completely man-made components.

Humans have already created synthetic, self-replicating cells, it is just a matter of time till you get your purposeful, orchestrated through intelligence designs. But it's not going to your OZ pulling the strings, it will be human intelligence, not by magic, but by complex chemical reactions.


Interesting post. But with human intelligence being at the core of such potential discovery, wouldn't this reinforce the notion of intelligence being a requirement for designed systems? Even the word "system" strongly implies a complex harmony of interrelated parts which could not have been generated in a piecewise manner (i.e. evolution) - because without the whole intact, the individual parts are worthless.


originally posted by: Barcs

I'd imagine that the odds are just as bad, if not worse, for an always existing god generating at random out of nothing as you believe. Nobody knows what caused the universal expansion. They are working on it. Nobody says the universe just randomly and spontaneously appeared out of nowhere. That's what y'all believe about God. Stop projecting your beliefs onto unrelated concepts.



You are pondering great mysteries. Plato concluded that since something cannot come from nothing, that "God" was always existent and always will be (Christians call this the Alpha-Omega). This may seem like a cop-out, but logically it makes sense - something cannot come from nothing, therefore there always was something (God).


How is that logical? Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to say that a being always existed? If everything requires an origin, so does god. It's that simple, no matter how lazily you try to explain away the fact that something cannot create itself and cannot just happen to exist. There must be a cause. What are the chances that an always existing god just happens to exist. It is indeed a mystery, but appealing to magic doesn't solve it, it becomes an opinion, which is not logic, it is a guess.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

You can figure out the sequence of events that lead to more complex molecules but how do we figure out how consciousness and intelligence developed? I'm talking abstract thought, not animal instinct...self awareness and the ability to place one's self in the middle of a perceived reality.

I don't believe in a big guy sitting in the sky somewhere but I do believe in inelligence behind the methods of creating life and evolution within a biological system...one that could be peculiar to the Earth and may be totally different on another planet with a different eco system.

I apologise for not being well-versed in science and theology and not possessing the fancy terminologies required for a competent argument...but I have my own mind and my own concepts on life's origins which will not be swayed by the rigidities of science and theology.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish

No.. There is no requirement for a intelligent being to be present while chemistry is happening, these systems evolved. We are trying to figure out the sequence of chemical events that lead to more complex molecules, but these "events" happen in nature all the time "without" invisible anthropomorphic friends involved.
Trying to shoe-horn your imaginary cash cow into complex chemical systems is just pure fantasy.


If there is no intelligence involved with chemical interactions, why are there intelligible mathematical equations that can predict the way chemicals behave?

Mathematical equations - Chemical Kinetics

Chemical Law is inherently Intelligence.


originally posted by: Barcs

Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to say that a being always existed? If everything requires an origin, so does god.


This is like a 2-dimensional creature ranting that width is impossible. Just because said 2D creature has never experienced the 3rd dimension does not mean it is non-existent. So too with us - we are limited by time, but to think it is impossible for a Being to be transcendent of our current limitations would be naive.

"Before Abraham was born - I Am"
edit on 24-7-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
a reply to: flyingfish

You can figure out the sequence of events that lead to more complex molecules but how do we figure out how consciousness and intelligence developed? I'm talking abstract thought, not animal instinct...self awareness and the ability to place one's self in the middle of a perceived reality.

I don't believe in a big guy sitting in the sky somewhere but I do believe in inelligence behind the methods of creating life and evolution within a biological system...one that could be peculiar to the Earth and may be totally different on another planet with a different eco system.

I apologise for not being well-versed in science and theology and not possessing the fancy terminologies required for a competent argument...but I have my own mind and my own concepts on life's origins which will not be swayed by the rigidities of science and theology.


Excellent - A simple way of saying more or less exactly what I've been trying to convey to these orthodox scientists who are advocating a view, when your think about it, that is much more magical and fanciful than Theist's view of a creator.
For in this magical atheist universe all order and science occurs by magic - After all there is no a priori [preceeding] intelligence so what ever is happening is happening without any preceived order - But they will tell you the order was there
and we just came upon it. DUH!!! - What kind of crazy logic is that


And they forget somethiing else:


originally posted by: AlienView
I would wager that this idea probably dates back to one or more philosophers of Ancient Greece - though off hand I do not know who - Still it is one of my favoritc concepts.

How can you get a trully accurate observation of something you are a part of


One can make all types of observations of the Universe and existence - But the fact that you are a part of the universe and all that exists creates a problem - your views are limited by the fact that you are part of what you are viewing.

Same would hold for Evolution - You are part of Evolution and any view you might have of Evolution would automatically be
prejudiced by your being part of it


A hypothetically advanced species of being might find Man on a level that Man rates a monkey.


But, and at any rate, according to Evolution even monkeys got smart and evolved into Humans - so these later day
monkeys of science might still evolve and realize they not can not accurately see what they are part of and if they can not
step outside of the box they will find the Earth is flat after all and they are living in a square universe




“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.” ― Carl Sagan


“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark



“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” ― Carl Sagan, Cosmos









"ScienceFictionalism - the way of the Future"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...
edit on 24-7-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Wake me up when you start to post actual scientific evidence for your rambling claims.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: flyingfish

No.. There is no requirement for a intelligent being to be present while chemistry is happening, these systems evolved. We are trying to figure out the sequence of chemical events that lead to more complex molecules, but these "events" happen in nature all the time "without" invisible anthropomorphic friends involved.
Trying to shoe-horn your imaginary cash cow into complex chemical systems is just pure fantasy.


If there is no intelligence involved with chemical interactions, why are there intelligible mathematical equations that can predict the way chemicals behave?

Mathematical equations - Chemical Kinetics

Chemical Law is inherently Intelligence.


originally posted by: Barcs

Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to say that a being always existed? If everything requires an origin, so does god.


This is like a 2-dimensional creature ranting that width is impossible. Just because said 2D creature has never experienced the 3rd dimension does not mean it is non-existent. So too with us - we are limited by time, but to think it is impossible for a Being to be transcendent of our current limitations would be naive.

"Before Abraham was born - I Am"


its not that we think it is impossible. its that we feel the experts are better equipped to inform us.
edit on 24-7-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Ahhh kinetics, the bane of my existence (well behind thermodynamics). ]

If you look at something hard enough you can see all sorts of thing.s However, let me assure you, as a chemist, who has worked on large scale chemistry (1000s of liters) and this is where kinetics and thermodynamics matter, not labscale.

There are no intelligent creatures invovled in the chemistry, take that as you will


Seriously just because we can model something with an equation, it does not mean more than we can model with an equation. As any physical chemist can tell you, these equations are not perfect maps of what happens. Its why many reactions are more like first and a half order, than first or second order exactly.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

What I never understand, is why the lay public (for want of a better term) always seem to think that an equation is a perfect model of the thing it is describing. Chemical Kinetics can only really be reliably modeled to the secon, and beyond that, its so vastly complex as to be mind boggling.

But no, you put down an esoteric formula, and suddenly its a spell they can cling too, as "a model of reality" rather than "a decent guess".



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

What I never understand, is why the lay public (for want of a better term) always seem to think that an equation is a perfect model of the thing it is describing. Chemical Kinetics can only really be reliably modeled to the secon, and beyond that, its so vastly complex as to be mind boggling.

But no, you put down an esoteric formula, and suddenly its a spell they can cling too, as "a model of reality" rather than "a decent guess".


They cling to educated guesses, educated in the empirical evidence-based (define evidence) science of the day.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

I speak as a scientist here, do not believe that the general public, as a whole, understand what empirical evidence is. Now in terms of this thread, kinetics (which started this off) is pretty meaningless, when taken in isolationist. Kinetics and thermodynamics together are a better view, though the latter is full of calculus which scares a lot of the populace away







 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join