The Thread for Mind Expansion on LDS and Agnostic Thoughts

[Misshalfway]

You know the thing we do have in common......is that we see truth in both realms. Yes....perhaps both are "guesses" but I have evidence that confirms my position and so do you. The only difference between you and I is I see the evidence in both realms. And I want to know what is blocking you from seeing and experiencing the evidence too. I hear from you that you are open......but I see that openness in a very narrow space. Not that this is bad. Not one bit! You want evidence.....but you close the door every time answers don't fit the scientific mold. Something like that is fine. I respect this position and have learned much from your perspectives. You are wise beyond your years and keep your scientific feet on the ground and you are knowledgeable and articulate and respectful in your approach. I wonder sometimes if it is the skeptic in you that is your biggest asset and your biggest stumbling block. I wonder if there is a way, in all respect, to take that skeptics hat off for a time. Not throw it away, ( I like my own skeptics cap and I use it frequently. :) ), just suspend it and try on a new hat.....the hat of faith. The question of whether or not religion....this religion is true....really isn't important right now. You gotta set up the experiment the right way in order to get to the truth and truthfully, my friend, you haven't taken your science kit out of the box yet.

I can see that my own scientific attitudes need amending. I forget the objectivity of science sometimes. I suppose I have been 'spun' one to many times. :) But you are helping me find a new balanced perspective and that is grounding me a little more.

I wonder if you would consider suspending the skeptics voice in your own mind.....and then see what happens. You are avoiding the pond. Perhaps you are busy.....aren't we all. But you can't know the wetness of the water until you get in! I am learning that as I listen to you and move to your side of the scientific perspective pool. My toes are in and I am learning.......even though most of the above detailed arguments go right over my head! :)

I am being direct, I know.....and you can tell me I am out of line any time. But know it comes from a good place inside me....... What do you really have to lose??? Perhaps the safety of your overcoat and shoes? Put on the dang swimsuit....be a little naked and enjoy the swim.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Misshalfway

[Vort]

In short, ad hominem attacks on "evolutionists" are innappropriate. I think the conversation up to this point has been pleasant and reasonable though, so I respectfully ask that you retract the "pigheaded" part of that statement.

By "pigheaded evolutionists", I was not referring to any and all who believe in the idea of evolution. Rather, I was referring to the pigheaded ones. :) More specifically, I was referring to the academics who, when teaching the principles of evolution, always stress the abiogenetic origin of life. There was no ad hominem attack, though I'm sorry you perceived one.

[DigitalShadow]

By "pigheaded evolutionists", I was not referring to any and all who believe in the idea of evolution. Rather, I was referring to the pigheaded ones. :) More specifically, I was referring to the academics who, when teaching the principles of evolution, always stress the abiogenetic origin of life. There was no ad hominem attack, though I'm sorry you perceived one.

I could make a reference to pigheaded creationists who misinterpret things. While I may only be referring to the pigheaded ones, the implication is still there and "pigheaded" doesn't really add anything to any argument, since it is a personal insult. Unless you are implying that there are some people who literally have the head of a pig.

I agree that it is inappropriate to teach evolution as inherently linked to abiogenesis and I wish they would not do that, but I don't see any reason to personally insult people who do.

[Vort]

I could make a reference to pigheaded creationists who misinterpret things.

And I might agree with you. I have little patience with "creationists", and next to none at all with "scientific creationists".

Edited August 7, 2008 by Vort

[rameumptom]

The theory of evolution says nothing about inorganic material becoming organic material. That would be abiogenesis which is a completely different topic with no bearing on the validity of evolution. I seriously do not understand why so many people seem unable to seperate these two concepts. As far as the theory of evolution is concerned, God could have said "Let there be the first single celled organism!" and then it appeared out of nowhere. If we could somehow go back in time and witness that, it would not change one thing about the theory of evolution.

.

I understand that abiogenesis is a different story. But given that even many scientists lump them together, as the beginning of organic material denotes some form of evolution occurring.

The problem, for me, isn't evolution so much, as it is with the concept of abiogenesis. I am not convinced that life can start as easily as is suggested by those who support that theory. Otherwise, we would continue to see the beginnings of new organic organisms coming out of inorganic material. And so far, they haven't been able to reproduce that in the lab, nor find it occurring naturally.

[DigitalShadow]

I understand that abiogenesis is a different story. But given that even many scientists lump them together, as the beginning of organic material denotes some form of evolution occurring.

The problem, for me, isn't evolution so much, as it is with the concept of abiogenesis. I am not convinced that life can start as easily as is suggested by those who support that theory. Otherwise, we would continue to see the beginnings of new organic organisms coming out of inorganic material. And so far, they haven't been able to reproduce that in the lab, nor find it occurring naturally.

I see your point and agree with you to some extent, but I urge you to consider this: There are roughly 100 billion stars in our galaxy and about 200 billion galaxies that we can see in the universe around us. Even if there is only a one in a billion chance that life could arise from random conditions over 4 billion years on a planet, the universe would be full of life and it would not necessarily arise twice on the same planet.

Again, not that I completely buy in to abiogenesis, but I can see how it is possible that over billions of years with different conditions on many trillions of planets that one of them could "randomly" produce the first life, and if that is the case, who is to say that is not us?

[rameumptom]

I see your point and agree with you to some extent, but I urge you to consider this: There are roughly 100 billion stars in our galaxy and about 200 billion galaxies that we can see in the universe around us. Even if there is only a one in a billion chance that life could arise from random conditions over 4 billion years on a planet, the universe would be full of life and it would not necessarily arise twice on the same planet.

Again, not that I completely buy in to abiogenesis, but I can see how it is possible that over billions of years with different conditions on many trillions of planets that one of them could "randomly" produce the first life, and if that is the case, who is to say that is not us?

But the statistics I've seen, and it was in the mid 1990s, so it's been a while, suggest that given the number of stars in our universe, it should take about 20 billion years to begin life on a planet. Most views now put our universe at 12-14 billion years old, so we're a long way off from when life should begin without something helping it get a jump start.

[DigitalShadow]

But the statistics I've seen, and it was in the mid 1990s, so it's been a while, suggest that given the number of stars in our universe, it should take about 20 billion years to begin life on a planet. Most views now put our universe at 12-14 billion years old, so we're a long way off from when life should begin without something helping it get a jump start.

If you play roulette, there is a one in 38 chance it will land any any given number. By your logic, it should take 38 rolls to get the number you want. Does that mean it is impossible or even highly unlikely that you could get the number you want before then?

Also, I have no idea how anyone could even attemt to measure the probability that unknown conditions across the entire universe could produce a yet unkown form of life (for all we know, our carbon based DNA containing life could be one of many ways life can occur). Furthermore, even if you could get a reasonable probability of such an event, there is no way to extract an exact or even much of an approximate estimate of when life should arise.

[rameumptom]

An example of something that can be used in statistics, is how easy/hard it is to form an environment in which life can be sustained. Today's science news suggests that creating an Earth like our own is a very difficult thing.

While not impossible, and I never said it was impossible, as statistics do not deal with what is impossible. The statistics deal with the probability or improbability of something occurring.

[DigitalShadow]

An example of something that can be used in statistics, is how easy/hard it is to form an environment in which life can be sustained. Today's science news suggests that creating an Earth like our own is a very difficult thing.

While not impossible, and I never said it was impossible, as statistics do not deal with what is impossible. The statistics deal with the probability or improbability of something occurring.

If I understand what you are saying correctly, you are basically saying you are incredulous of abiogenesis (and therefore evolution) because you believe it is highly improbable that any form of life can "randomly" arise anywhere in the trillions of solar systems over many billions of years on planets with conditions we have never seen.

I am aware that current scientific models have predicted that planets like earth are a fairly rare occurance, but even the scientists who work in this area would say that it is not much more than a guess since we haven't really gotten a chance to examine any planets outside our solar system. The stars they orbit are so bright in comparison that we have to infer their existence from the gravitational tug on the star. Here is what the article ends with:

But planet formation consists of many different processes that leave many uncertainties in the theoretical modeling of these events, says Ida, who was not involved in the new research. Therefore, “it is too early to draw a statement such as ‘the solar system is special,’ ” he says.

I would also like to point out that there is no reason a planet like ours is necessary for any form of life. There could very well be many other forms of life that don't share much in common at all with life as we know it on this planet.

In short, I find it an incredibly unfounded statement to firmly declare it as improbable for life to occur anywhere else in the universe. Not to say that it is correct to firmly declare it is probable either, but the sheer amount of uknowns that go in to the entire rest of the universe make it impossible to say with much certainty either way.

[rameumptom]

How about advanced life? Perhaps minimal levels of life could be possible on a Mars or moon of Saturn, but to develop beyond anything else requires perfect atmosphere, temperature, amount of sunlight, stable circular orbit, etc.

[Misshalfway]

I was just watching this little thing today....

Murray Gell-Mann on beauty and truth in physics | Video on TED.com

.... and he said something that I hadn't really clearly thought of before. He said that the history of the universe came together by all of these fundamental laws...but also by a series of accidents or chance outcomes.

I was wondering what you thought about that, DS.

[Gomezy3k]

When I talk to religious people they say that in order to receive these reaffirming spiritual experiences, you must believe and have faith in their Gospel. But by doing that you are essentially telling your mind to look for confirmation that this is true, rather than try to determine whether it is true. If you believe anything strongly enough, your mind will look for evidence to confirm it and ignore the rest. That is why people who strongly believe a place is haunted will come back with incidents confirming just how haunted the place is, even if you just made up the story that it was haunted. To me, this explains why there are multiple religions which are successful and have faithful followers.

I find that principles which are true, can generally be independently verified and don't require closing your mind off to other possibilities.

P.S. It would be a miracle for anyone to see a subatomic particle with an electron microscope, since they don't even come close to being able to see them :)

Very true...in order to have faith, you need something to base it on, other than reading it in a book which is of questionable origin or being told something is true by another person. You have to experience it yourself. I have spent 50 of my 57 years looking for a god and wishing that the things that I was told was true, but so far, cannot say if god exists or doesn't exist. I have experienced NOTHING to show me either way...