Is life so complex that it requires a designer?

[Cryozombie]

I really have to hand it to those so stuck on science. The need for proof/lack of faith mentality

I tend to think a lot of science IS taken on faith and disguised as fact.

"The Sun is a Mixture of Hydrogen and Helium" Really? Weve been there? Tested the mix? Its not possible its some completely different elements that behave in a similar manner? No... "We know its Hydrogen and Helium, because blah blah blah..."

My opinion is that A lot of it is scientific guesswork BASED on known fact... but presented as fact.

 

[mrhnau]

'Too afraid to step into the unknown'. Science?

If I understand his intent correctly, I don't think this is the point. There are alot of people who are afraid to really enjoy life for what it is. Take the wonder of a child riding a roller coaster. Its a pleasure for them (asuming the like it!), and they don't spend hours working on the physics, trying to understand the underlying concepts. Sometimes in life you need to simply enjoy. There is time for fine details, but sometimes you just need to relax, sit back, and enjoy life... step out of your lab, go do something entertaining, enjoy things. Science/work will be there when you are done. Its not going anywhere. Don't be so rigid.

Get your intent correct Mike?

MrH

 

[FearlessFreep]

There is very compelling evidence that supports the postulation that life may have existed on Mars. This "fact" has staggering potential in this debate.

Not really, it just pushes the same question(s) to a different place (ignoring religious beliefs that life had to originate on Earth)

 

[OUMoose]

I voted yes. If it were so simple, wouldn't there be life on every planet? I mean, all it would have to do is evolve...

I really have to hand it to those so stuck on science. The need for proof/lack of faith mentality. Oh how it must feel to go through life, needing to have that firm grip on "reality," unable to just sit back in wonder or amazement... And then to have the audacity to criticize followers of other faiths... I'm getting sick.

I wish I could have all the answers written down and proven in complex mathematical equations like they do. Oh the Joy! With my little black book, I could solve all the world's problems...Aren't we there yet??

It's evident right down to some of the martial styles they study. This foot here, that one there. This will happen if you do that. So controlling. No room for exploration. Total denial of the human spirit and that which they cannot control. It makes them feel safe, no matter what the situation. Too afraid to step into the unknown. Too much ego to lose. Too far up the black belt chain. Unwilling to step into the unknown, take risks, or let go of the hand that leads them. Like a child.

You call yourselves martial artists... Right. If that's the case we're at an all time low.

I don't quite understand the hostility here. Are you afraid to look outside your own little walled off utopia? The world is based on fact. Facts require extensive proof. How do we get to said proof? We discuss it, and possibly find new ideas that had not been conceived previously.

So I ask, who is more like a child? Someone striving to learn all they can about the world around them, or someone closing themselves off to other's ideas with the proverbial foot-stomping tantrum?

 

[MisterMike]

If I understand his intent correctly, I don't think this is the point. There are alot of people who are afraid to really enjoy life for what it is. Take the wonder of a child riding a roller coaster. Its a pleasure for them (asuming the like it!), and they don't spend hours working on the physics, trying to understand the underlying concepts. Sometimes in life you need to simply enjoy. There is time for fine details, but sometimes you just need to relax, sit back, and enjoy life... step out of your lab, go do something entertaining, enjoy things. Science/work will be there when you are done. Its not going anywhere. Don't be so rigid.

Get your intent correct Mike?

MrH

Eh, yea. I forgot what I was gettin at half way through myself...

I'm sure science can be inspired from faith. People digging in deeper into the creator's design, wanting to know more. That said, let's go clone something...

 

[MisterMike]

I don't quite understand the hostility here. Are you afraid to look outside your own little walled off utopia? The world is based on fact. Facts require extensive proof. How do we get to said proof? We discuss it, and possibly find new ideas that had not been conceived previously.

So I ask, who is more like a child? Someone striving to learn all they can about the world around them, or someone closing themselves off to other's ideas with the proverbial foot-stomping tantrum?

A^2 + B^2 = C^2

 

[mrhnau]

Ok, you know those little games with the tiny balls and the holes you got to get them into? Move it around randomly long enough and eventually they will all fall into place. Why? Well, once one gets to a more stable place it stays there.

Basically that is evolution, random changes occur, the good ones stay, the bad ones keep changing till they land somewhere nice that suits the environment better.

The force is random, but the changes are not.

Same as rivers, all the water flows over everything, the best path will get more water, which will cut it deeper and make it a even better path, which cuts it even deeper until eventually all the water fits in the one path.

Random in a sense, but the reason the changes occur and the river gets formed is not random.

Not quite correct. Energetically, a biologically relevant conformation of a protein (or other biochemical entity) is not necessarily in its minimum energy. Things can get captured in local minima or in a global minima, taking energy to get them out. So, the "ball rolling into a hole" is a bit inaccurate. Your "best path" analogy is a bit off track on this. Depends on what you mean by "best" here. Energetically? no. Biologically? perhaps. You don't simply seek a minima (like a river would). Biologically you need to go upstream sometimes.

The random occurences in evolution, with the bad dying out is more accurate.

MrH

 

[OUMoose]

A^2 + B^2 = C^2

Please explain how your response of the Pythagorean Theorem is relevant here?

 

[7starmantis]

2nd law has often been misused. Take two blocks, stick them on top of each other. you have just violated your perception of the 2nd law.

Pretty arrogant of you to assume you know my perception of anything, let alone my perception of the 2nd law.

What was trying to say is that infinite time does not negate said arguments. Take the 2nd law, regardless of time, infinite or not, it is still valid. I wasn't disputing either side of this argument with the 2nd law, I was showing an example (entropy) that is immune, if you will, to the infinite time argument.

7sm

 

[Andrew Green]

I voted yes. If it were so simple, wouldn't there be life on every planet? I mean, all it would have to do is evolve...

Considering he have very few planets to look at in relation to how many there are, that is a rather strange argument...

If I look at a apple, a steak, a cracker, a loaf of bread, A bag f potato chips a chocolate bar and a piece of cheese. I try to turn them all into juice and conclude that apples are the only object in the universe that can produce juice, because if others could do it, they would.

There may be millions of planets in the Universe with conditions that are suitable for life to develop, and billions that it can't.

 

[MisterMike]

Please explain how your response of the Pythagorean Theorem is relevant here?

First explain how you are relevent here.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Be nice, guys.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I remember hearing once that:

"Astronmer's think life is probably out there because there are so many stars out there. Biologists think life is probably not out there because life is so complex"

Don't know where I heard it but it was interesting in terms of different perspectives.

 

[7starmantis]

Random in a sense, but the reason the changes occur and the river gets formed is not random.

I'm confused, are you arguing for or against "intellegent design"?

7sm

 

[Andrew Green]

I'm confused, are you arguing for or against "intellegent design"?

7sm

Against, but it's not random, evolution is not "it happened by chance"

 

[mrhnau]

Pretty arrogant of you to assume you know my perception of anything, let alone my perception of the 2nd law.

What was trying to say is that infinite time does not negate said arguments. Take the 2nd law, regardless of time, infinite or not, it is still valid. I wasn't disputing either side of this argument with the 2nd law, I was showing an example (entropy) that is immune, if you will, to the infinite time argument.

7sm

is it really that unfathomable that over an infinite amount of time, that chance could have occurred?

Now your talking about infinite time....thats a different argument. The second Law of Thermodynamics would negate that arguemnt. Its called entropy.

Your arguement was that entropy would negate the chance of life randomly happening. The 2nd law is always valid. Thats why its a law. However, the terminology of the law deals specifically with closed systems.

With regard to infinite time, the 2nd law would dictate that life would not exist at the end point when the universe is reaching an enegetic equilibrium. Eventually, all things should become disordered. However, what the 2nd law would not dictate is the path along the way. Things do reach towards disorder, but local areas of increased order in open systems will occur. The 2nd law was not intended to be used that way.

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

Check out some of the external links at the bottom.

 

[7starmantis]

Against, but it's not random, evolution is not "it happened by chance"

I gotcha. I'm deffinitely a person who believes in evolution, maybe not to the extent that some do, but it deffinitely exists. However, without randomness, there must be purpose. Purpose hints at intellegence. Intellegence hints at design. What explains the change in urgency to mutate? All species are mutable, but what caused things to mutate? Why change from the way things were for millions of years (or infinite time)?

Your arguement was that entropy would negate the chance of life randomly happening. The 2nd law is always valid. Thats why its a law. However, the terminology of the law deals specifically with closed systems.

With regard to infinite time, the 2nd law would dictate that life would not exist at the end point when the universe is reaching an enegetic equilibrium. Eventually, all things should become disordered. However, what the 2nd law would not dictate is the path along the way. Things do reach towards disorder, but local areas of increased order in open systems will occur. The 2nd law was not intended to be used that way.

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

Check out some of the external links at the bottom.

Did you actually read my posts? :idunno:
Your now telling me what my arguemnt was?
OK ok ok, your a smart mamajama and everyone applauds you and is a taken back by your understanding of thermodynamics....now can we get back to the topic at hand?
You got so caught up in explaining to me, a poor uneducated waif, the 2nd law of thermodynamics that you missed my point. I wasn't using it to argue either side of this debate, but rather to show that life would not increase in its "order" but decrease. Said argument would have to say that before "evolution" "creation" or "life" things were in higher order than now....I dont agree. I said nothing about the path in which it would travel. My argument was about infinite time, not randomness "life happening".

7sm

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

What explains the change in urgency to mutate? All species are mutable, but what caused things to mutate? Why change from the way things were for millions of years (or infinite time)?

I say that most mutation occurs as a result of environmental changes; but, such changes occur slowly, don't you think? A sudden, cataclysmic change in environment is not something that mutation could speedily accomodate; though, a small number of a given species may survive.

egg

 

[Andrew Green]

I gotcha. I'm deffinitely a person who believes in evolution, maybe not to the extent that some do, but it deffinitely exists. However, without randomness, there must be purpose. Purpose hints at intellegence. Intellegence hints at design. What explains the change in urgency to mutate? All species are mutable, but what caused things to mutate? Why change from the way things were for millions of years (or infinite time)?

Purpose is natural selection, doesn't need a designer.

Within any species there is a good deal of natural variation. Looking at people, we got different heights, widths, skin color, hair color, IQ, physical ability, etc.

Those who's natural variation gives them an advantage survive better, mate with others who are at a natural advantage and produce offspring which got started based on genes that have an advantage.

Those who's natural variation puts them at a disadvantage don't survive as well, and there gene lines are eventually removed as they die out.

Mutation will be excellerated by a change in environment, which will make the variations more important. Or rather specific variations more important.

 

[arnisador]

Now your talking about infinite time....thats a different argument. The second Law of Thermodynamics would negate that arguemnt. Its called entropy.

Eh, I don't buy this. If you have infinite time, and just need to get lucky once, the fact that order decays on average doesn't change that fact.