|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If so, then that is a strawman since no one has claimed that they are creating the "Legos". molbiogirl writes: We did create the legos. Hrm.
If that is what he is trying to say, then it is an even greater misrepresentation of what folk have said. Is it possible that you are trying to see misrepresentation and are suffering from Confirmation Bias? Maybe you should concentrate more on what people are trying to say rather than just looking for misrepresentations. No offense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I happen to agree with molbiogirl, she simply did a better job than I. However that was only part of my post anyway. The key point was that nowhere in the quote rat provided was cosmology implied or stated.
Maybe you should concentrate more on what people are trying to say rather than just looking for misrepresentations. I cannot tell what people are "trying to say", I can only go by what "they do say." Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS. Even if what you say is true, rat is still wrong. We did create the legos. I think he's sorta jumping back and forth between ex nihilo and not, and within the same post sometimes. Some posts, he just doesn't seem to be saying anything at all. IMHO, he should think more and type less, then read what he wrote and see if he actually said anything.
Rat seems to think that we need to create the atoms that create the legos. I'm not sure he understands that you're actually creating the legos. And if he is replying that you're not creating the stuff that the legos are made of, then he is just moving the goalposts and going back to the ex nihilo. Now I'm confused at what he's trying to say because he's too inconsistant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
It might be more helpful CS if you pointed out that people are being careless with the definition of the "leggos".
I think some mean the atoms and some mean the molecules involved. Using those two different levels both "we did not create the leggos" and "we did create the leggos" can be correct. ABEActually, on reading more carefully, I think you are making that point. Edited by NosyNed, : clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I cannot tell what people are "trying to say", I can only go by what "they do say." Bullshit. With all the analogies and metphors that get tossed around, I don't believe that you read everyone's post literally. Man, I've really got a stick up my ass today. What am I trying to say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
With all the analogies and metphors that get tossed around, I don't believe that you read everyone's post literally. Of course. I did not say that I read anyone or anything literally. However, all I have to base any interpretation on is what they say. I can then "Try to figure out what it is they are trying to say" but in the end it comes back to what they did and do say. I cannot know that my interpretation is correct unless they later say, "Yes, that is what I was trying to say."
What am I trying to say? I'm not sure. BUT...the topic involves creating life from non-living things. That will certainly happen, likely in the not too distant future, perhaps within my lifetime. In addition, the most likely means right this minute is not through design, but rather simply letting things evolve, by trying to mimic what seems to happen naturally. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
However, all I have to base any interpretation on is what they say. I can then "Try to figure out what it is they are trying to say" but in the end it comes back to what they did and do say. Yes, but if your interpretations always come back as them misrepresenting, then maybe you should try again and look harder rather than just shouting: MORE MISREPRESENTATIONS! Which you seem to be doing a lot lately. That's why I think you're looking for it and seeing what you're looking for. I'm just saying that you could be trying to read them better.
I cannot know that my interpretation is correct unless they later say, "Yes, that is what I was trying to say." Well then why don't you ask them "Did you mean...." questions rather than just accusing them of misrepresentation?
What am I trying to say? I'm not sure.
I'm pissy, crabby, bitchy...whatever you want to call it. Kind of the way you would feel if there really was a stick in your ass.
BUT... the topic involves creating life from non-living things. That will certainly happen, likely in the not too distant future, perhaps within my lifetime. I dunno, you're pretty old.... just kidding. But yeah, I think it will happen too but I don't know how close we really are. I assume pretty close.
In addition, the most likely means right this minute is not through design, but rather simply letting things evolve, by trying to mimic what seems to happen naturally. Again true. Its exciting, I can't wait. Sorry to jump on you, it just rubbed me the wrong way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, but if your interpretations always come back as them misrepresenting, then maybe you should try again and look harder rather than just shouting: MORE MISREPRESENTATIONS! Which you seem to be doing a lot lately. That's why I think you're looking for it and seeing what you're looking for. I'm just saying that you could be trying to read them better. However if you will look, I believe you will find that I quote the passage and in many cases when I claim misrepresentation, that is exactly what it is. If I can actually post quotes and show where misrepresentation is happening, it is not a matter of seeing what I am looking for but rather seeing what is actually there. Sorry if you are feeling crabby. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
However if you will look, I believe you will find that I quote the passage and in many cases when I claim misrepresentation, that is exactly what it is But that was my point, was that they weren't misrepresentations, you just read it wrong.
If I can actually post quotes and show where misrepresentation is happening, it is not a matter of seeing what I am looking for but rather seeing what is actually there. But if you're misreading and they aren't misrepresentations, then maybe you are misreading because you're looking for misrepresentation. Like in Message 89, where you say that nobody is claiming to have created the legos when MBG has implied that they have and then even directly said it after that. You were just wrong about the misrepresentation and it looked like you were jumping to that conclusion.
Sorry if you are feeling crabby. I'm sorry too. We really should just drop it. This is way off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to nator:
quote:quote: Of course. But look who figured out where the errors were and proposed a method to fix them? That's right, scientists! Science, by its very nature, is a self-correcting system. It sometimes takes a while, but science is always willing to reject everything that it thinks it understands about everything when the evidence indicates that it is wrong. When was the last time the Bible was re-written to accomodate new evidence that showed that it was wrong? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote: But everything is an individual event. If the process works in one case, why wouldn't it work in the same case a second time? If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?
quote: Incorrect. I have not said a single word about what you think science is "doing." I have taken issue with your denials of science's conclusions.
quote: Nowhere can I find a single reference anywhere in the literature that begins, "Because god does not exist," or concludes, "Thus, god does not exist." If you could please indicate where, I would be most grateful.
quote: Nobody said otherwise. The problem is, there are some people who claim that only god can create life. Some of them use tortured and twisted definitions of life such that it would be impossible for a human to do it. Sometimes, that definition is so vapid as to simply come up with a term, oh, say, "biological machine," that is applied to anything a human does and "life" to anything god does.
quote: I never said otherwise. I simply pointed out that it appears that if we "could" (and you do know what that word means) create a human being in a test tube, you wouldn't be satisfied.
quote: Could you be specific? I have yet to find anything in the literature that starts with biology and makes a conclusion about, say, the cosmic background radiation. And we've already established that all of science, and thus biology, says nothing about god, thus biology says nothing about god. Just what is it you think that the science of biology has overreached on?
quote: Huh? A "right"? That's a question of philosophy, not science.
quote: Are you saying that if I go into the Louvre and make a copy of the Mona Lisa, I haven't made a painting? How is my work anything less than a painting?
quote: If the claim is that only god can give a house air conditioning, then you've shown that no, air conditioning can be accomplished through mundane means. What you've created is the same thing god created: An air-conditioned house out of things that were not an air-conditioned house.
quote: Why? Why does it matter if humans create life through chemical means?
quote:quote: Huh? You mean you don't know? Gravity is really tiny little angels who personally, consciously, and deliberately pull your heels down toward the ground? Gravity has consciousness?
quote: No, I'm asking you how your brain works and how your method of inquiry works. Science is the study of things that happen on their own. Do you allow that there are things that happen on their own? Or does everything happen at the conscious, personal, and deliberate whim of an external intelligence forcing things? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT and I have the following exchange:
quote: I fail to see how this proves that I know where life comes from. What I did was state, accurately, that the Bible claims that life came from constituents present on the earth. Do you deny the existence of Genesis 1:11, 20, 24, 2:7, 22, and 3:19? What I then did was ask you why it would be problematic for humans to take constituents present on earth and do the same thing? There are two points here: One, according to the Bible, god did not clap his hands, delcaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear ex nihilo. Instead, it came from the earth. And yet you say that you will not be satisfied to call it "life" if a human does it unless he can clap his hands, declaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear. Two, you seem to be putting an artificial barrier up to the definition of "life" that requires it to be made by god and that if humans create something that anybody else would declare to be "life," you would balk and call it a "biological machine." Try again. Where did I ever say that we [I][B]KNOW[/i][/b] where life came from? If I recall correctly, I have directly and specifically stated my personal feelings on the subject previously. Let me refresh your memory: I don't think we'll ever know. We may be able to come up with a process that results in life as we currently see it, but that doesn't tell us how life actually started here on this planet. In order to do that, we'll need to find evidence in the geologic record that reveals the remnants of the process. But considering that the first life was most likely on the molecular level, came into being so long ago, and did so on a geologically active planet, I seriously doubt we'll ever find the evidence. And if life came to this planet extraterrestrially, how on earth can you trace that back? Yes, there's a pun there. But that is neither here nor there. The question is not how the specific life that we see today first arose on this planet. The question is whether or not life can arise chemically and if so, how might it happen? That doesn't mean there is only one way nor does it mean that the way we find is what happened four billion years ago. So please, riVeRraT, try again. Where have I said that we [I][B]KNOW[/i][/b] where life came from? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:quote: I warned you, riVeRraT: riVeRraT says that Jews are fools for not following Jesus:
Message 172 of "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" thread The Jews need Jesus to complete their own prophecies. riVeRraT says that Jews refuse to accept the divinity of Jesus out of fear:
Message 241 of "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" thread:
No they do it out of fear. The Jews I have spoken with are forbidden to even talk about Jesus. This order comes from their rabbi. They never discuss him, ever. Message 260 of "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" thread :
I have experienced this lie from a few Jews first hand. I have worked for Moses, I have sipped whiskey from a silver cup in the cadilac of suka's, and told Jacob about Jesus, whoile his wife was sweating bullets, because of what we were talking about. In fact, when directly asked about it, you admitted it straight up:
Message 264 of "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" thread :
You claim that Jews reject Jesus because they are afraid and you have the gall to sit there and say you do not "pre-judge"? You have the unmitigated arrogance to claim that you tell the truth? That is what I see with my eyes. Have you had a change of heart, riVeRraT? I've been away for a while so I don't know if you've had an epiphany and thus have renounced your previous claims. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote: Then you take back your claim? If what I said was obvious, and since it pointed out the fallacies of your argument, that must mean you agree that your own argument was fallacious. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:quote: Why? Are you saying god cannot create life that evolves? Evolution doesn't care where life came from. It could have arisen chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any number of other methods I haven't mentioned. So long as that life did not reproduce perfectly from generation to generation, evolution is satisfied. Does the vending machine care if the quarter came from the Philly mint as opposed to the Denver mint?
quote:quote: But your other statements belie that. You say that you won't accept the idea that humans can create life. Instead, humans can only create "biological machines."
quote: ...until the conclusions of science conflict with it. Then you'll reject science for your faith. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024