Leonardo Posted April 13, 2012 #101 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Nice answer. Copa always has good answers. The only problem is that that Propensity to error is preciesly what makes life so succesful... On earth at least. Would that be right copa? Not answering for Copa, but you would not be right. Life on Earth is successful not because of a "propensity to error", but because of the mechanism which has arisen naturally to compensate for errors - Evolution. Edited April 13, 2012 by Leonardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted April 13, 2012 #102 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Not answering for Copa, but you would not be right. Life on Earth is successful not because of a "propensity to error", but because of the mechanism which has arisen naturally to compensate for errors - Evolution. Ah Then he IS right Without a propensity to error, no mechanism to compensate for them (errors) would be required, or have naturally arisen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Crane Feather Posted April 13, 2012 #103 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Not answering for Copa, but you would not be right. Life on Earth is successful not because of a "propensity to error", but because of the mechanism which has arisen naturally to compensate for errors - Evolution. Naaaa, my friend, I don't think it works like that. Mutations (errors) are what's responsible for evolution. Evolution is not what's responsible for mutation. A mutation can be helpful or not. But in the greater context, i would have to disagree with copa that it's "sloppy". Infact its fairly well suited to make life successful. But I do see his point. The fork is actually a simple design suited to the task it was created for. But the same thing can be said for life. It might just have to be "sloppy" to be effective. If we were going to design something like DNA to survive as long as possible on a changing planet, it would be stroke of genius to come up with life the way it is. As far as we know, nothing else is capable. Edited April 13, 2012 by Seeker79 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Crane Feather Posted April 13, 2012 #104 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I understood what you meant, but how do we know that this is a great way to reproduce? It's pretty messy and dangerous. As I had said before, there are naturally forked looking objects, and it depends on the design and condition of the fork. If there are obvious decorations or tooling marks, then of course we'd be looking for a designer. In my description I was assuming that the "basic metabolic processes" that started way earlier than recognizable life would have just appeared to us as a jumble of molecules or matter. It wouldn't have had much organization yet, just enough to perform a repeated function long enough to cause different chemical reactions, and so on. All of those very basic beginnings of life are not necessarily non-existent now. There are very complex molecules, very basic and simple microbial life, and self assembling molecules. Because of these things we can imagine what early life would have been like and how it would have formed. It is messy and dangerouse. That's the very trait that gets the job done. Mabey there is a better way for evolution to proceed, but it seems to me that what we have is fairly successful if not amazingly so. Life certainly amazes me. I understand the draw to say something has ( without guidence) arisen because we can recreate it. But honestly this logic bewilders me time and again. If we recreate something dosnt that only proove that it can be created? If I poor a bunch of chemicals together and walla life emerges, was it not I who was doing the aquisition, the chemistry and the pooring? I know what's comeing next, but the fact remaines that on this Rock we call earth, we have found life. If a silicon based alien civilization had created carbon based life in their labs.... And were exploring the universe and happened on earth. They would consider us designed. Likewise, if we manage to explore space, and happen upon a race of robotic life, we would consider that life designed by a preexisting life. I don't buy that "messiness" rules out a design things can be designed messy especially if it serves a purpose. I don't buy for obviouse reasons that our ability to recreat life ( which we don't have yet) rules out design. Obviously we only proove that it can be created. If we never do create life, then at least the question remaines open. I also don't buy that a man in the sky zapped life into existence. Life seems to be a syncronistic colliding of events. I happen to not beleive in accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted April 13, 2012 Author #105 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Really? in your OP, Carl Sagan referred to Big Bang theory as See the difference? The figure of speech Sagan used, "scientific myth," is called an oxymoron, a contradiciton in terms. Grammatically, it is a noun phrase. Any noun phrase's meaning can be different from the meanings of its constituent words. The meaning of an oxymoronic noun phrase must be different, because the words in that combination have no meaning of their own. So, there you have it, Ben. Sagan didn't say Big Bang theory was a myth, he said it was a "scientific myth." We have to read the rest of his presentation to see what Sagan intended his oxymoronic figureof speech to mean. Let's do that right now. Here's a longer quote, placing Sagan's remarks in context, with your extract bolded: It is perfectly clear that Sagan used the oxymoronic noun phrase sceintific myth to make the Big Bang an instance of a creation story distinct from other instances, which belong to category myth. Maybe your very own personal Cosmos flies at all those other forums you've posted this thing on. Maybe first selectively quoting, then outrightly misquoting Sagan is acceptable elsewhere. Welcome to UM, Ben. IMHO, you have complicated things over. By referring to the big bang as "our scientific myth," Carl Sagan rather called it a myth considered so by scientists. That rather makes things much more serious than if a common theist should acclaim the big bang to be a myth. Thanks for rather ehancing my views about Carl Sagan's quote. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted April 13, 2012 Author #106 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Sorry dude, that fails. I am as much an atheist concerning Sihkism, Hinduism, Christianity, and whatever particular faith or permutation of the above you wish to choose. My post was tongue in cheek, but if you argue for a maltheistic interpretation of god at least it'd be different. If however you want to try to quote a dead man I admire out of context, you can continue on your merry way. Dead men do not exist. How can I quote what does not exist? But I understand you. You think you are discussing this issue with a Christian. Your mistake dude. I am Jewish. The God I believe, albeit on the basis of probability, is a God of the living and not of the dead. Saw what I said? "On the basis of probability" and not by faith as the common theists believe, as well as atheists. Ben Edited April 13, 2012 by Ben Masada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted April 13, 2012 Author #107 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Who's discarding anything? I'm Catholic. I also believe that what science is describing is the mechanism God used to create the universe. What's time to an omniscient being? There are innumerable times in the Bible where God said "don't you worry about that darling, everything'll be right on the night", how did he know this? Because he knows this, he's God. Scientists have discovered mesons and particles from a massive x-ray burst in the past and nothing from earlier then that, now either the x-ray burst was so great it's blotted out what happened before it or it was "Event One". Then, they conventionalized to call that x-burst the big bang, right? Now, all atheists believe by faith as a result of the fallacy to appeal to authorities. And for your telling me that you are rather a Catholic, you didn't have to if you had a mind to appease me. I am not of that kind of theists. And for the little story to lullaby children, you might want to start it by saying, it is a metaphor or simile. Christians thend to anthropomorphize God by comparing Him to a man. Ben Edited April 13, 2012 by Ben Masada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emma_Acid Posted April 13, 2012 #108 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Naaaa, my friend, I don't think it works like that. Mutations (errors) are what's responsible for evolution. Evolution is not what's responsible for mutation. A mutation can be helpful or not. But in the greater context, i would have to disagree with copa that it's "sloppy". Infact its fairly well suited to make life successful. I think your main problem here is your use of words. Complex. Error. Successful. You're looking at things purely from the point of design, from the point of an "end goal" - when you do this, all you will see are things that looked designed. If you look at the world in terms of its end goal being the proliferation of human life, then yes, its been damn successful. But to start with a conclusion and work backwards is not scientific, and will lead us nowhere. This is not how nature works, and this becomes painfully evident if you'd just learn the science. But it sounds as if your conclusion has already been made. Life seems to be a syncronistic colliding of events. I happen to not beleive in accidents. Consider my case well and truly rested. Edited April 13, 2012 by Emma_Acid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emma_Acid Posted April 13, 2012 #109 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Then, they conventionalized to call that x-burst the big bang, right? Now, all atheists believe by faith as a result of the fallacy to appeal to authorities. Understanding the big bang (I say "understanding" rather than "believing in", as that is the case with most misrepresented sciences - it is not a case of belief) has nothing to do with your religious orientation. It is what the evidence points towards. Nothing more. Edited April 13, 2012 by Emma_Acid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted April 13, 2012 Author #110 Share Posted April 13, 2012 It's a bit misleading of Carl and others to suggest the big bang is a myth or creation myth of a creative mind! The big bang has never been proposed as the reason behind creation the big bang is simply the empirical data pointing us towards the beginning of our universe, it does not answer how it came in to being which is what creation myth and the atheist version which are the self create myths! Carl was a great scientist and thinker and I have upmost respect for him, but he was not always right. He leaned towards an infinite universe if I remember right, but modern data and past empirical data clearly point towards a beginning. Hi Lion, I would like to let you know that many an atheist have asserted that the universe started with the big bang; although they can't say how and why. That's what I see as the bottom line of belief by faith. No different from the common theist who believes by faith. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted April 13, 2012 #111 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Understanding the big bang (I say "understanding" rather than "believing in", as that is the case with most misrepresented sciences - it is not a case of belief) has nothing to do with your religious orientation. It is what the evidence points towards. Nothing more. And what are the evidences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted April 13, 2012 #112 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Why don't you share with me what you teach your daughter about the big bang? I do have also a few questions. And if you sigh about it being a myth, you must not believe that Carl Sagan was a famous astrophysicist to refer to the big bang as a myth. You are right, let's take every word literally.. We'll be in for some fun: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted April 13, 2012 Author #113 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Do you know what quote mining is? Yes, "quote mining" is what it is supposed to be according to one's pre-conceived notions; be he a theist or atheist. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted April 13, 2012 #114 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Edited April 13, 2012 by Melo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted April 13, 2012 Author #115 Share Posted April 13, 2012 If you are ignorant about these things, be quiet. I prefer the opinions of those who are not ignorant, but you just admitted you are ignorant towards these things. If you are not, what is taking you so long to tell me what you know that I don't? Let us start with the universe. How did it come about and what was there before the big bang, if you believe that it came from it? Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted April 13, 2012 Author #116 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Unfortunately for the op, the BB theory makes predictions about what the cosmos should look like, then those predictions can be tested. So far they it's fairly acurate. The theme of creation however is not inconsistent with the BB theory. Only inconsistent with literalist interpretations. I'm not a creationist, but genisus is a pretty acurate poetic summary of the BB when view from unbiased eyes. My own personal experience with altered state symbolism lends me to beleive like most spiritual revelations, the original story came from someone witnessing the BB In a vision and trying to describe it in the language available. Why "unfortunately?" I am not of the literal interpretation club. It is very probable that the theory of the big bang goes hand-in-hand with the Genesis allegory of creation. You are not a creationist; neither am I. Besides, I am neither a believer by faith. To me, every thing is possible. How about telling me a bit about your finding that creation is not inconsistent with the big bang? Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted April 13, 2012 Author #117 Share Posted April 13, 2012 My post was not made to agree with your OP in the specifics of it. I was pointing out that people, who generally have an imperfect understanding of something, tend to create their own mythology built on that imperfect understanding. In the case of the BBT, it is not that the theory itself describes a myth, but that lay-people have made claims regarding what BBT states which amount to myth. You are somewhat correct when you refer to "the myth of the Big Bang" (although your referencing of Sagan to make this point was not), but it is what people claim the theory states that is the myth - not the theory itself. Carl Sagan was not of the lay-people kind. He was rather a famous Astrophysicist. He referred to the big bang as "our modern scientific myth" and there is no other angle to look at his quote from. (Cosmos p. 258) Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted April 13, 2012 #118 Share Posted April 13, 2012 More evidence exists to support the big bang theory than the idea of a god. Just because science can't fully explain something, that doesn't mean that religion can. What are those evidence? Science and religion dont even trys to answer same questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted April 13, 2012 #119 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Intelligent design is based on belief... There is no evidence for intelligent design... It is creationism in disguise.. Im intelligent. Is that belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted April 13, 2012 #120 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) The main difference between science and religion is this: science tries to explain how we got here, religion tries to explain why we got here. You can find out about the 'how', but never about the 'why'. . Wow. We are starting to agreed now and then. Only I think that you are wrong that we dont know answer on why? You cant aswered on some questions How too... Science is self corecting. And religion too. Edited April 13, 2012 by Melo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted April 13, 2012 #121 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Perhaps an intelligent sadist then. Aquinas perfectly explain it. You cant have natural order without pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted April 13, 2012 #122 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Carl Sagan was not of the lay-people kind. He was rather a famous Astrophysicist. He referred to the big bang as "our modern scientific myth" and there is no other angle to look at his quote from. (Cosmos p. 258) Ben Who is the audience of Cosmos that Sagan is addressing when he says "our modern scientific myth"? Is it the scientific community, or is it the lay-community? Edited April 13, 2012 by Leonardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted April 13, 2012 Author #123 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Well for a start..... I will teach her not to pay attention to spamming posts on multi forums by the same perosn Ben Masdas .... If I teach her anything about the Big Bang, it will be my OWN choice of science books... ....And what I teach her is is my own business I am not putting down Carl Sagan ....What I am going to do here is point out the differences between - Myth and Theory Theory An idea or hypothesis that is tested through scientific methods, conclusions drawn, presenting an outcome OR facts ....Example - Often so many creationists will mix up the words - Theory and Hypothesis . Myth Are made up tales about super humans or fictional events even tale tales ...Myths have absolutely no evidence to back them.. so they remain a collection of tall tales AKA myths Well, for a start, you are telling me that you can't stand the heat. You must have someone else to cook for you the games you bring from your hunting sprees with this arrow of yours. Just don't shoot it at me. And for theory, I thought it would be so, till it has been proved as a fact. When it dies or it is changed according to new discoveries or research, it becomes a myth if it is still appealed to as a possibility. Then, if you did not mean to put Carl Sagan down for referring to the big bang as a myth, you have contradicted yourself by referring to him as a tell-taler. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted April 13, 2012 Author #124 Share Posted April 13, 2012 So this guy BEN is spamming the internet to call the big bang a myth? My word talk about obsession lol.. that is just plain sad I am not the one who said that the big bang is "our modern myth" but Carl Sagan. Would you please give me a break? Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted April 13, 2012 Author #125 Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Isn't the Big Bang a theory based on a hypothesis that seeing as we are expanding, if you rewind the timeline then there comes a point when the expansion must have started..its not a myth its an explanation based on science, science is still debating this event...even using the religious explanation god created everything...so there must have been an time when there was nothing and then suddenly everything...a big bang event ! Yes, probably a big bang of nothing. That's what I would like to know from the faithfuls of the big bang what was there to cause the big bang. IMHO, that's what Carl Sagan meant by "our modern myth of the big bang." But it seems to me, atheists don't like these kind of questions which they have to think to answer. Ben Edited April 13, 2012 by Ben Masada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts