A question for rotorhead...et al

Why didnt I think of this? It's a gold mine. *-)

I think that Native Son has been Raptured!

http://www.aftertherapturepetcare.com/

LOL!!

Not at all...I've been away on business. Glad to see that the topic was kept alive.

We can all agree that there are certain laws of physics, etc., that cause things to happen.

I also think that it is the height of hubris to insist that our limited knowledge of the universe (that we can perceive with our senses) is enough for us to explain away everything.

I think that there is a disconnect between what is perceived as "God" and what is raw Nature.

I think that something may have put things into motion, but assuming that the 'something' cares about what happened next leads to an attempt to explain by using religion. Nothing out there cares about what happens to us.

None of you have managed to properly explain where the 'spark of awareness' comes from that allows, for example, a virus to decide that "hey, I need to adapt so that I can conquer this new antibiotic"...that is a form of intelligence, right? Or is it just a dumb chemical reaction?

In any event, what propels the dumb chemical reaction to occur, and if it is not just a chemical reaction, what provides the spark?

...and I'm NOT saying "well, it's GOD"...you assume that I do.

We can all agree that there are certain laws of physics, etc., that cause things to happen.

I also think that it is the height of hubris to insist that our limited knowledge of the universe (that we can perceive with our senses) is enough for us to explain away everything.

These "laws of physics" are man made laws. They have been developed over time to explain natural phenomena. Man does not always get things right. Many of the laws have changed over time as our understanding of nature has increased. I would expect this to continue.

You are correct that it would be very arrogant for us to think that we understand the universe. That is why I think that science is the right approach for us to take. Science is a way of thinking that allows for change, and in fact expects our understanding to change. Look at the move from Newtonian physics to relativity. As for our senses not being enough to perceive everything, that is why science has added things like x-ray telescopes, radio telescopes, electron microscopes, etc. to our toolbox.

Science starts off with a lot of questions and attempts to find answers. Religion starts off with the answers and attempts to make all of the facts fit the answers.

I think that there is a disconnect between what is perceived as "God" and what is raw Nature.

I think that something may have put things into motion, but assuming that the 'something' cares about what happened next leads to an attempt to explain by using religion. Nothing out there cares about what happens to us.

I agree with your statement that something MAY have put things into motion. But what that something was is something that we may never know. However just because we don't know something doesn't automatically mean that god did it. I can accept that there are things that we don't know and may never know, I cannot accept making up answers and calling it TRUTH. Call it what it is, a hypothesis. The god hypothesis. Not yet even a theory since there is no supporting evidence.

I also agree that nothing out there cares about what happens to us. There certainly is no evidence to support the notion that your chances of success are better if you believe in a god or pray to one. Bad things happen to believers just as frequently as they do to non-believers.

None of you have managed to properly explain where the 'spark of awareness' comes from that allows, for example, a virus to decide that "hey, I need to adapt so that I can conquer this new antibiotic"...that is a form of intelligence, right? Or is it just a dumb chemical reaction?

In any event, what propels the dumb chemical reaction to occur, and if it is not just a chemical reaction, what provides the spark?

First of all, Viruses are not affected by antibiotics. Bacteria are. That is why viral infections are much harder to treat.

Secondly, it is not clear that all living organisms have awareness. They certainly don't all have consciousness or self-awareness. If your question is, what is the origin of life? My answer would be, we don't know. We can speculate, but no one knows for sure.

As for the formation of antibiotic resistant bacteria, the answer is evolution driven by mutation. I do not think that there is a little bacterial doctor examining the antibiotic and coming up with a resistance to it. I do not believe that bacteria are consciously changing to become resistant to antibiotics.

I think that there were probably some bacteria that mutated to be resistant and they reproduced and increased in numbers. So yes this is probably a dumb chemical reaction, not driven by any intelligence.

Evolution occurs. I look at evolution this way. We all know that animals and plants can change their characteristics. Just look at what humans have done over a very short period of time. Look at all of the dog breeds. All dogs are descended from wolves. Humans have selectively bred dogs for thousands of years. Humans have selectively bred livestock for thousands of years. Humans have selectively bred crops for thousands of years. The purpose for this selective breeding is to produce traits that are advantageous to humans.

Evolution is nothing more than breeding by nature through natural selection. The purpose of natural selection is to produce a new offspring that has a better chance of survival. In nature this is often triggered by a change in climate or a change in the availability of food or something else which threatens the survival of a species. Changes in nature can happen very quickly or very slowly. Quick changes often result in the extinction of species. Gradual changes give species a chance to adapt through natural selection. The need to adapt to changes in the environment produces some winners and some losers. The losers die off but the winners reproduce and become new species. This is often a very time consuming process because the numbers involved are relatively small.

Bacteria occur in very, very large numbers. Therefore more natural experiments are occurring simultaneously. Therefore change can occur quicker.

Nature is constantly experimenting with living organisms. Mutations are constantly occurring. Most of these mutations do not produce organisms which are more successful or organisms which are able to reproduce so they die out.

Successful natural selection usually requires a relatively small number of organisms and a very long time frame, or a very, very large number of organisms and a shorter time frame.

This is my understanding, but I am not a biologist. I am an electrical engineer/computer scientist.

...and I'm NOT saying "well, it's GOD"...you assume that I do.

What are you saying?

I think that Native Son has been Raptured!

http://www.aftertherapturepetcare.com/

LOL!!

Not at all...I've been away on business. Glad to see that the topic was kept alive.

We can all agree that there are certain laws of physics, etc., that cause things to happen.

I also think that it is the height of hubris to insist that our limited knowledge of the universe (that we can perceive with our senses) is enough for us to explain away everything.

I think that there is a disconnect between what is perceived as "God" and what is raw Nature.

I think that something may have put things into motion, but assuming that the 'something' cares about what happened next leads to an attempt to explain by using religion. Nothing out there cares about what happens to us.

None of you have managed to properly explain where the 'spark of awareness' comes from that allows, for example, a virus to decide that "hey, I need to adapt so that I can conquer this new antibiotic"...that is a form of intelligence, right? Or is it just a dumb chemical reaction?

In any event, what propels the dumb chemical reaction to occur, and if it is not just a chemical reaction, what provides the spark?

...and I'm NOT saying "well, it's GOD"...you assume that I do.

Did you not read my earlier response?

Anywho, I think you're very confused about how evolution works. Organisms don't choose to evolve, just as water does not choose to boil. Surely you accept that mutations happen randomly, I'm truly lost as to where you're confused.

Regarding antibiotic resistance, the bacteria doesn't know it needs to evolves, or what specific mutation will confer resistance. The change is usually something small, i.e. a mutation or two in what is essentially a cell docking mechanism, and the bacteria is no longer vulnerable to the virus.

Even if the odds of that happening was 1/1000000000000000000, you have trillions upon trillions of bacteria replicating every minute. Do the math for hours, days, years, and you'll discover something that solidifies evolution: its not only probable, its a statistical certainty.

Would you care for real life, well documented examples of this happening?

We can all agree that there are certain laws of physics, etc., that cause things to happen.

I also think that it is the height of hubris to insist that our limited knowledge of the universe (that we can perceive with our senses) is enough for us to explain away everything.

These "laws of physics" are man made laws. They have been developed over time to explain natural phenomena. Man does not always get things right. Many of the laws have changed over time as our understanding of nature has increased. I would expect this to continue.

You are correct that it would be very arrogant for us to think that we understand the universe. That is why I think that science is the right approach for us to take. Science is a way of thinking that allows for change, and in fact expects our understanding to change. Look at the move from Newtonian physics to relativity. As for our senses not being enough to perceive everything, that is why science has added things like x-ray telescopes, radio telescopes, electron microscopes, etc. to our toolbox.

Science starts off with a lot of questions and attempts to find answers. Religion starts off with the answers and attempts to make all of the facts fit the answers.

I think that there is a disconnect between what is perceived as "God" and what is raw Nature.

I think that something may have put things into motion, but assuming that the 'something' cares about what happened next leads to an attempt to explain by using religion. Nothing out there cares about what happens to us.

I agree with your statement that something MAY have put things into motion. But what that something was is something that we may never know. However just because we don't know something doesn't automatically mean that god did it. I can accept that there are things that we don't know and may never know, I cannot accept making up answers and calling it TRUTH. Call it what it is, a hypothesis. The god hypothesis. Not yet even a theory since there is no supporting evidence.

I also agree that nothing out there cares about what happens to us. There certainly is no evidence to support the notion that your chances of success are better if you believe in a god or pray to one. Bad things happen to believers just as frequently as they do to non-believers.

None of you have managed to properly explain where the 'spark of awareness' comes from that allows, for example, a virus to decide that "hey, I need to adapt so that I can conquer this new antibiotic"...that is a form of intelligence, right? Or is it just a dumb chemical reaction?

In any event, what propels the dumb chemical reaction to occur, and if it is not just a chemical reaction, what provides the spark?

First of all, Viruses are not affected by antibiotics. Bacteria are. That is why viral infections are much harder to treat.

Secondly, it is not clear that all living organisms have awareness. They certainly don't all have consciousness or self-awareness. If your question is, what is the origin of life? My answer would be, we don't know. We can speculate, but no one knows for sure.

As for the formation of antibiotic resistant bacteria, the answer is evolution driven by mutation. I do not think that there is a little bacterial doctor examining the antibiotic and coming up with a resistance to it. I do not believe that bacteria are consciously changing to become resistant to antibiotics.

I think that there were probably some bacteria that mutated to be resistant and they reproduced and increased in numbers. So yes this is probably a dumb chemical reaction, not driven by any intelligence.

Evolution occurs. I look at evolution this way. We all know that animals and plants can change their characteristics. Just look at what humans have done over a very short period of time. Look at all of the dog breeds. All dogs are descended from wolves. Humans have selectively bred dogs for thousands of years. Humans have selectively bred livestock for thousands of years. Humans have selectively bred crops for thousands of years. The purpose for this selective breeding is to produce traits that are advantageous to humans.

Evolution is nothing more than breeding by nature through natural selection. The purpose of natural selection is to produce a new offspring that has a better chance of survival. In nature this is often triggered by a change in climate or a change in the availability of food or something else which threatens the survival of a species. Changes in nature can happen very quickly or very slowly. Quick changes often result in the extinction of species. Gradual changes give species a chance to adapt through natural selection. The need to adapt to changes in the environment produces some winners and some losers. The losers die off but the winners reproduce and become new species. This is often a very time consuming process because the numbers involved are relatively small.

Bacteria occur in very, very large numbers. Therefore more natural experiments are occurring simultaneously. Therefore change can occur quicker.

Nature is constantly experimenting with living organisms. Mutations are constantly occurring. Most of these mutations do not produce organisms which are more successful or organisms which are able to reproduce so they die out.

Successful natural selection usually requires a relatively small number of organisms and a very long time frame, or a very, very large number of organisms and a shorter time frame.

This is my understanding, but I am not a biologist. I am an electrical engineer/computer scientist.

...and I'm NOT saying "well, it's GOD"...you assume that I do.

What are you saying?

I am saying that I don't know. Science tells me a few things, but far too few.

For all I know, this guy could be closer to the truth:

"we have inter dimensional beings called demons and fallen angels, they manifested here....we ourselves tried to leave the boundaries of the planet and are stopped by radiation belts and lack of air...in all the worlds of crystalline formation these are universal laws...gravity, air radiation belts...and keeps creation in a 3 dimensional world...only those who identify with their 'spirit' are allowed to leave....everything that you find in ancient Egypt, we are finding again in 'modern' society, because there is nothing new under the sun...we can not leave here, we have tried for thousands and thousands of years..we've racked our brains to free ouselves from the confines of the third rock from the sun, in rebellion, we say 'aliens' brought us technology, when in fact we know it was the fallen angels who did....the Sphinx was built 26,000 years ago to counter balance the earth when it flipped the 'first' time...each time the earth flipped mankind worked together to stop the floods by creating megaliths that producted giant electromagnetic fields that kept the equator virually in place...the powers that be do not want people to know that the earth flips and all of creation is drowned out."

who is to say all those flood myths don't have a basis in truth? We have no idea what is buried in the crust of the earth or at the bottom of the oceans. Science does not explain everything, so we cannot claim to know everything. What we don't know may be far beyond what we do know.

I think that Native Son has been Raptured!

http://www.aftertherapturepetcare.com/

LOL!!

Not at all...I've been away on business. Glad to see that the topic was kept alive.

We can all agree that there are certain laws of physics, etc., that cause things to happen.

I also think that it is the height of hubris to insist that our limited knowledge of the universe (that we can perceive with our senses) is enough for us to explain away everything.

I think that there is a disconnect between what is perceived as "God" and what is raw Nature.

I think that something may have put things into motion, but assuming that the 'something' cares about what happened next leads to an attempt to explain by using religion. Nothing out there cares about what happens to us.

None of you have managed to properly explain where the 'spark of awareness' comes from that allows, for example, a virus to decide that "hey, I need to adapt so that I can conquer this new antibiotic"...that is a form of intelligence, right? Or is it just a dumb chemical reaction?

In any event, what propels the dumb chemical reaction to occur, and if it is not just a chemical reaction, what provides the spark?

...and I'm NOT saying "well, it's GOD"...you assume that I do.

Did you not read my earlier response?

Anywho, I think you're very confused about how evolution works. Organisms don't choose to evolve, just as water does not choose to boil. Surely you accept that mutations happen randomly, I'm truly lost as to where you're confused.

Regarding antibiotic resistance, the bacteria doesn't know it needs to evolves, or what specific mutation will confer resistance. The change is usually something small, i.e. a mutation or two in what is essentially a cell docking mechanism, and the bacteria is no longer vulnerable to the virus.

Even if the odds of that happening was 1/1000000000000000000, you have trillions upon trillions of bacteria replicating every minute. Do the math for hours, days, years, and you'll discover something that solidifies evolution: its not only probable, its a statistical certainty.

Would you care for real life, well documented examples of this happening?

Thanks for the condescencion, but no thanks...I'm really not as confused as you think. It's nice to get people talking and discussing things.

Water does not choose to boil, true...something gets the process going, i.e. an intelligence great enough to start a heat source. If a simple bucket of water cannot boil itself without some spark of intelligence starting the process, how come complex chemical changes can be effected randomly with no source of impetus whatsoever?

What gives the bacteria the spark to start replicating?

That is my question, and it cannot be answered with straw-man arguments or ad hominem attacks. All of mankind's technology and scientiric knowledge cannot replicate the processes found in a simple blade of grass. We have to create behemoth machines just to replicate the simplest things found in nature, and some of them we cannot replicate at all...like a machine that mimics a hummingbird's flight, for example. We make crude attempts at replicating the marvelous functions of your amazing human body...with things like artificial hearts which cannot begin to approach the complexity of the real organ.

How many trillions of times did the human heart have to try before it "got it right"...or is it not right yet, and still evolving incrementally? Let us know when we find someone with an incrementally evolving heart.

I know...I just don't understand, right?

Now don't jump on the old "he thinks that nature proves that god exists" bandwagon. Just answer the question: did the hummingbird evolve into a superb hovering creature over billions of years of small, incremental changes, or was it created just as it is today?

I don't know, and I daresay neither does science.

I am saying that I don't know. Science tells me a few things, but far too few.

For all I know, this guy could be closer to the truth:

"we have inter dimensional beings called demons and fallen angels, they manifested here....we ourselves tried to leave the boundaries of the planet and are stopped by radiation belts and lack of air...in all the worlds of crystalline formation these are universal laws...gravity, air radiation belts...and keeps creation in a 3 dimensional world...only those who identify with their 'spirit' are allowed to leave....everything that you find in ancient Egypt, we are finding again in 'modern' society, because there is nothing new under the sun...we can not leave here, we have tried for thousands and thousands of years..we've racked our brains to free ouselves from the confines of the third rock from the sun, in rebellion, we say 'aliens' brought us technology, when in fact we know it was the fallen angels who did....the Sphinx was built 26,000 years ago to counter balance the earth when it flipped the 'first' time...each time the earth flipped mankind worked together to stop the floods by creating megaliths that producted giant electromagnetic fields that kept the equator virually in place...the powers that be do not want people to know that the earth flips and all of creation is drowned out."

who is to say all those flood myths don't have a basis in truth? We have no idea what is buried in the crust of the earth or at the bottom of the oceans. Science does not explain everything, so we cannot claim to know everything. What we don't know may be far beyond what we do know.

Wow! The quoted paragraph above immediately brings to mind the quote, "Don't be so opened minded that your brains fall out!". There is a big difference between science and pseudo-science. Like the difference between the "Ancient Aliens" shows on TV and an archaeology documentary. A book that I enjoyed very much is The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. One chapter is called "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection". This lead Michael Shermer to produce this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccHnE3QMUbE

One of the first things that I look for when trying to separate science from pseudo-science is to look at the credentials of the author. Then look to see where the paper/theory was published and what the peer review looked like. Is this idea accepted by his peers? I don't know if you remember "cold fusion". Back in 1989, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced to the world that they had produced cold fusion in a glass jar on a desktop. Everyone was excited, but the peer review process soon shut down the excitement. Other scientists were unable to duplicate the results. Fleishmann and Pons were unable to reproduce the results. Science caught a mistake. That is the problem with pseudo-science, they do not prove anything, they speculate on inconclusive evidence and don't submit to peer review. For every real idea based on real science you are able to go and look at the research that lead up to the published results. In other words you can see all of the supporting evidence for the idea.

As for the flood myths. Many myths contain an element of truth. There could very well have been local floods in different areas, however the biblical flood myths falls apart on many levels. There is no evidence to support a global flood that covered the entire land area of the earth. And it is very unlikely that a ship the size of Noah's Ark could hold 2 of every animal species on earth. Not to mention the transportation problems of getting all of those animals from Australia and the Americas to the Middle East for loading onto the Ark. It is pretty obvious that the biblical flood myth was written by someone who had no concept of how big earth really is and how many animals inhabit it. In other word it is a MYTH written by a bronze-age man.

Science does not know everything! And no scientist that I know of is claiming to know everything. Every scientist that I know is amazed by how far we have come in just the last 150 years and awed by how much more we have to learn. Every time you discover something new you realize how much farther you have to go. I don't think that humans will ever know everything. As long as humans only live on this one small fragile planet it is unclear how long we will continue to exist. Either we wipe ourselves out or nature does it for us.

I do agree, we have a lot more to learn. But! Let's not make up answers and attribute them to the supernatural. That is not answering anything, that is avoiding looking for the answer.

What gives the bacteria the spark to start replicating?

The answer to that is WE DO NOT KNOW. That does not mean that god did it. There are scientists in labs working on the problem. So far they have not created life. Will they? I hope so. Look how far we have come in the last 150 years. Humans have only been able to write for the last 5000 years or so. We are virtual babies!

All of mankind's technology and scientiric knowledge cannot replicate the processes found in a simple blade of grass. We have to create behemoth machines just to replicate the simplest things found in nature, and some of them we cannot replicate at all...like a machine that mimics a hummingbird's flight, for example. We make crude attempts at replicating the marvelous functions of your amazing human body...with things like artificial hearts which cannot begin to approach the complexity of the real organ.

As I said earlier, there are very many things that we do not understand, we are learning. Attributing something that we do not understand to the supernatural does not help. That is not a real answer, it avoids looking for the real answer. We are working on artificial flying bugs.

How many trillions of times did the human heart have to try before it "got it right"...or is it not right yet, and still evolving incrementally? Let us know when we find someone with an incrementally evolving heart.

I know...I just don't understand, right?

Now don't jump on the old "he thinks that nature proves that god exists" bandwagon. Just answer the question: did the hummingbird evolve into a superb hovering creature over billions of years of small, incremental changes, or was it created just as it is today?

I don't know, and I daresay neither does science.

Evolution is a very slow process. Humans have existed in our modern form for about 200,000 years. Writing has only existed for about 5000 years. Birds have been around for about 100,000,000 years.

Saying that if we don't yet understand something proves that god exists and he created it. This is not an answer, there is no evidence to support this and it keeps people from looking for the real answers.

For all I know there are intelligent aliens running around the universe seeding planets with proto-life and waiting for it to evolve. But there is no evidence to support this theory. Are they god?

Thanks for the condescencion, but no thanks...I'm really not as confused as you think. It's nice to get people talking and discussing things.

Water does not choose to boil, true...something gets the process going, i.e. an intelligence great enough to start a heat source. If a simple bucket of water cannot boil itself without some spark of intelligence starting the process, how come complex chemical changes can be effected randomly with no source of impetus whatsoever?

What gives the bacteria the spark to start replicating?

That is my question, and it cannot be answered with straw-man arguments or ad hominem attacks. All of mankind's technology and scientiric knowledge cannot replicate the processes found in a simple blade of grass. We have to create behemoth machines just to replicate the simplest things found in nature, and some of them we cannot replicate at all...like a machine that mimics a hummingbird's flight, for example. We make crude attempts at replicating the marvelous functions of your amazing human body...with things like artificial hearts which cannot begin to approach the complexity of the real organ.

How many trillions of times did the human heart have to try before it "got it right"...or is it not right yet, and still evolving incrementally? Let us know when we find someone with an incrementally evolving heart.

I know...I just don't understand, right?

Now don't jump on the old "he thinks that nature proves that god exists" bandwagon. Just answer the question: did the hummingbird evolve into a superb hovering creature over billions of years of small, incremental changes, or was it created just as it is today?

I don't know, and I daresay neither does science.

No condescension intended, but from your posts it is rather apparent that you have a poor understanding of evolutionary biology, as evidenced by common misconceptions which are typically addressed in evolution 101. I don't say this to be rude, but as a biologist I'm simply being matter-of-fact.

No, intelligence is not needed to get water to boil. Water boils as a result of the laws of physics. The same can be said of bacteria replicating all the way back to hypercycles and protocells. This is observed in nature. Self replicating (even non-live) entities tend to propagate.

"how come complex chemical changes can be effected randomly with no source of impetus whatsoever?"

Its all a result of thermodynamics and the laws of physics. You will never find a chemical reaction violating either, regardless of how complex.

"How many trillions of times did the human heart have to try before it "got it right"...or is it not right yet, and still evolving incrementally? Let us know when we find someone with an incrementally evolving heart."

Gladly- you can look at a basic heart, as seen in a worm. Or a tube heart (two chambers), as seen in fish. Or a three chambered heart, as seen in reptiles, or a four chambered heart, as seen in mammals. The evolution of the heart is well documented, and ironically the minute changes are exactly what is predicted via the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology.... actually every field of science, which is why evolution is called the unifying theory of biology.

I've never understood why theists attack evolution. Its so silly, especially since its been proven mathematically well beyond all reasonable doubt many times over. Most Christian sects accept evolution, from the Pope to Mormons. If you wish to argue for the existence of god, attacking the foundation of modern biology is a rather silly way to go about it, and it never ends well.

I've never understood why theists attack evolution.

Because if the earth is more than 6000 years old and evolution brought us about, there would have been no Adam and Eve for Jesus to die for "original sin" thereby negating the center principal of Christianity.

People in this country are getting a bad education. This idea that we should respect ALL that religion teaches leads to this non-sense.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/sciencetest.asp

I have always heard that the best way to convert a theist to a non-theist is to educate them. That is of course unless they attend this school.

Did God create physics's, or did physics create God? ...

Non sequitur.

Physics is the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy.

God is imaginary.

Did God create physics's, or did physics create God? ...

I like phrasing it as "did god create man, or did man create god?".

Ironically, in his image too. Jealous, vengeful, murderous, wrathful, petty.