Predestination and Free Will

[ClintMemo]

That does not prove that ID is true, but ID is the only theory out there.  You have to pick between ID and "we don't know."  There is no competing naturalistic theory at this time.

Doing a quick search on "Origin of Life" on Wikipedia turned up a fairly lengthy article listing several theories.  I admit that I only skimmed through part of it and did not understand lots of it (not a chemistry guy) but to say that there is "no competing naturalistic theory" is simply not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

[ClintMemo]

Religion is not what is dangerous.
What is dangerous is blind loyalty.

...and before someone says "What about blind loyalty to science?".  Blind loyalty to science would be an oxymoron since science dictates that you question everything.

[slic]

Religion is not what is dangerous.
What is dangerous is blind loyalty.

Sure enough, but Religion by it's requirement of Faith (my old def'n not Mr. Tweedy's) engenders some blind loyalty, so ipso facto religion is dangerous.

Uranium is not what's dangerous, it the radioactive particles it gives off....

[Mr. Tweedy]

That does not prove that ID is true, but ID is the only theory out there.  You have to pick between ID and "we don't know."  There is no competing naturalistic theory at this time.

Doing a quick search on "Origin of Life" on Wikipedia turned up a fairly lengthy article listing several theories.  I admit that I only skimmed through part of it and did not understand lots of it (not a chemistry guy) but to say that there is "no competing naturalistic theory" is simply not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

I'm familiar with most of these.  None of them is a theory (or even a hypothesis) in the the technical sense.  They are speculative suggestions: They are not testable by the scientific method and none of them offers anything approaching a useful explanation.

I can make up anything.  Here: Life originated when a comet fell into a volcano.  The resulting steam bubbles trapped organic materials from the volcano and carried them into the stratosphere, where solar radiation zapped them.  Living cells rained down.  That doesn't qualify as a scientific theory.  It doesn't give a useful explanation and it cannot be tested.  None of the speculations out there is any more substantive.

A competing theory would have to actually demonstrate how an organism could be built by natural processes, and no one has come within a hundred miles of such a demonstration, much less proven that it actually occurred.

But if we're going to debate evolution, that would surely require its own thread, and I don't really feel like going there today.  I've made way too many posts today as it is.

[ClintMemo]

I'm familiar with most of these.  None of them is a theory (or even a hypothesis) in the the technical sense.  They are speculative suggestions: They are not testable by the scientific method and none of them offers anything approaching a useful explanation.

That was not at all the impression I got.
Did we skim the same article? 

I can make up anything.  Here: Life originated when a comet fell into a volcano.  The resulting steam bubbles trapped organic materials from the volcano and carried them into the stratosphere, where solar radiation zapped them.  Living cells rained down.  That doesn't qualify as a scientific theory.  It doesn't give a useful explanation and it cannot be tested.  None of the speculations out there is any more substantive.

which makes them no different than ID, so why would you consider ID a theory?

A competing theory would have to actually demonstrate how an organism could be built by natural processes, and no one has come within a hundred miles of such a demonstration, much less proven that it actually occurred.

My impression from the article was that several groups have tried experiments over the years to test various steps in various speculated processes with varying degrees of success.

But if we're going to debate evolution, that would surely require its own thread, and I don't really feel like going there today.  I've made way too many posts today as it is.

same here

[Heradel]

Mr. Tweedy, the problem with a real-world experiment for these conditions is that well, we don't have a test tube the size of the world's oceans, lighting bolts and acid rain, and several eons to let it fester. We don't know rightnow how life came to be, but that does not mean that a perfectly naturalistic explanation will not be found.

And what if the creator happened to be an alien that stopped by to shave and cut himself? A few drops in the ocean, and well, panspermia. There are, in all likelihood, a very large number of earth-like planets that could prove the starting ground for life in the universe, surely you don't dispute that given a few million years and even a one in a billion chance, well, life is going to happen.

And your argument breaks down once we abstract it one more level. Where did the creator come from? Do we have a Russian Doll of creators?

[Mr. Tweedy]

I can make up anything.  Here: Life originated when a comet fell into a volcano.  The resulting steam bubbles trapped organic materials from the volcano and carried them into the stratosphere, where solar radiation zapped them.  Living cells rained down.  That doesn't qualify as a scientific theory.  It doesn't give a useful explanation and it cannot be tested.  None of the speculations out there is any more substantive.

which makes them no different than ID, so why would you consider ID a theory?

Hmm...  I think I may have overstated my case.  How embarrassing.   :'(

[slic]

I can make up anything.  Here: Life originated when a comet fell into a volcano.  The resulting steam bubbles trapped organic materials from the volcano and carried them into the stratosphere, where solar radiation zapped them.  Living cells rained down.  That doesn't qualify as a scientific theory.  It doesn't give a useful explanation and it cannot be tested.  None of the speculations out there is any more substantive.

which makes them no different than ID, so why would you consider ID a theory?

Hmm...  I think I may have overstated my case.  How embarrassing.   :'(

But you get full credit for being being adult enough to reply and admit.  It's why I like "talking" with you.
And thank you for providing some insightful comments that have me seeing things differently.

[ClintMemo]

But you get full credit for being being adult enough to reply and admit.  It's why I like "talking" with you.

Ditto

[ClintMemo]

Just to nudge us back towards the topic....

[slic]

It depends on who killed Batman.

Sorry couldn't help myslef - major comic geek.

[ClintMemo]

It depends on who killed Batman.

Sorry couldn't help myslef - major comic geek.

My favorite Batman moment - from Justice League Unlimited
(Batman bails out of the batplane. His parachute is destroyed. He activates his com link.)
"Batman to all points. I need close air support.
Because I have no actual ability to fly.
At all."
(The ground approaches.)
"Now would be good."

[slic]

Not to take this thread too far off topic, but the whole JL/JLU series was some of the best TV out there.  Excellently written on different levels, great dynamic style - all round awesome!

To bring it back somewhat, I was listening to the CBC (simialr to NPR in the States) show called Ideas (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/), and they had a very enlightening show about René Girard.  He has written a number of books about how the Bible is the progenitor, the basis almost, for modern day civil society - in a way like LOTR is to modern day fantasy.

It talks about how Human Psyche needs a scapegoat, and this first was handled by human sacrifice, then "downgraded" to animal and then finally with the Final Sacrifice of Jesus.

It gave me a new respect on how the teachings of Jesus showed a way "out of the woods" for ancient civilization.  This doesn't change my feelings about God or following the Word of the Bible, but further cements my belief that Jesus was an exceptional man - especially for his time.  He's up there with Einstien, Ghandi, Newton and Martin Luther King Jr.