AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it

Hrm. 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.

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. I cannot tell what people are "trying to say", I can only go by what "they do say."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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. 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.

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.ABE
Actually, on reading more carefully, I think you are making that point.Edited by NosyNed, : clarification

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?

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." 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

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. Well then why don't you ask them "Did you mean...." questions rather than just accusing them of misrepresentation? 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. 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. Again true. Its exciting, I can't wait.Sorry to jump on you, it just rubbed me the wrong way.

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

But that was my point, was that they weren't misrepresentations, you just read it wrong. 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. I'm sorry too.We really should just drop it. This is way off topic.

riVeRraT responds to nator:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Excuse me, but science has an excellent track record of becoming righter and righter and righter about the nature of, well, nature.

---

​

Only after being wrong so many times.

---

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.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Listen, it doesn't matter when we are discussing about individual events

---

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:

---

You cat as if I have a problem with what science is doing, I do not, and I accept it.

---

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:

---

I will not accept that it is proof that God does not exist

---

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:

---

Plus if we can take what is already available, and create life from it, then so can God.

---

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:

---

WE didn't start with creating a human, and maybe God didn't either.

---

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:

---

I feel as though it is most of you, who are using what biology teaches to answer questions beyond what it teaches.

---

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:

---

So do we have a right to say we created life?

---

Huh? A "right"? That's a question of philosophy, not science.

quote:

---

When all we did was take what is there, and copy what already is?

---

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:

---

I can take a central air conditioning unit, and install it in a house, and give a house air conditioning, but I did not make the units, so what did I create?

---

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:

---

I see the usefulness in understanding how everything works, and that is important, but to say we created life, bothers me.

---

Why? Why does it matter if humans create life through chemical means?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is there anything that happens on its own? For example, does gravity happen on its own?

---

​

If I really knew the answer to that, I would be a Nobel prize winner.

---

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:

---

you are asking me how the universe works, when we can't see the smallest things, or the largest things.

---

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.

riVeRraT and I have the following exchange:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't need rrhain pretending to know where life came from

---

​

I never said I did and I demand that you show me the exact quote where I even hinted that I did.

​

It really is that important, riVeRraT.

​

Rrhain writes:

​

In fact, all life as described in Genesis 1 was created from constituents present on earth. The oceans and the land brought forth life.

​

Therefore, what's the problem with humans doing the same thing?

---

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.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Probably the same attitude that makes you think that your idea of god is so much mightier than everybody else's. If you want, I can drag up your quotes regarding Judaism.

---

​

I want you to know, that I do not think my idea of God is mightier than anyone else's, and that I do not have a problem with other religions, or atheists. God created it all, so there is a purpose for it.

---

I warned you, riVeRraT:riVeRraT says that Jews are fools for not following Jesus: Message 172 of "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" threadriVeRraT says that Jews refuse to accept the divinity of Jesus out of fear: Message 241 of "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" thread: Message 260 of "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" thread : In fact, when directly asked about it, you admitted it straight up: Message 264 of "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" thread : 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.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Really, this whole reply has pointed out the incredibly obvious

---

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.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

For the same reason that evolution isn't linked to the origin of life.

---

​

I am sorry, but that makes no sense to me. They have to be linked.

---

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:

---

And yet, you suddenly started rejecting the findings of science just because you found god.

---

​

I just said that I didn't.

---

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:

---

Science helps define my faith.

---

...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.