Origins of life

Medsen Fey said:

My apologies for the tangential discussion.

Medsen

Click to expand...

Hey! Let's not go down that path!

(I personally have no problem at all believing life could have arisen on it's own and evolved to our current state, it seems impossible in some ways, but when it's broken down step by step it all becomes very believable, in fact not just believable, but more likely than not - it'd actually be more surprising in my opinion to NOT see life arise out of the right conditions, you roll a dice enough times and once in a while they'll all line up in a way that freak you out!

I have no issue at all with people believing in a creator, I'm just saying that it's very much possible for life to have arisen through chance alone (which doesn't prove or disprove a higher power obviously).

If life arising on it's own seems insanely unlikely, what about the creator arising on it's own?!?!

Please don't flame me! ;D I mean well...)

A bit off-topic for a brewlog but I'll toss my dodecahedrons of chance in

hubble : deep field pictures were pointed at the deepest darkest point in the sky where we thought there was nothing at all (Hoping to glimpse the edge of the known universe ala the expanding edge of the big bang), instead we see this picture. As far as we can see, thousands of galaxies each with millions of stars and each star with multiple orbiting bodies.

With these approximately 10^12 some planets (Just in these remote galaxies!), it's not so surprising we could be a random chance, and it would be even more surprising if we were alone. It would be an awfully big(lonely) place for just us.

Loadnabox said:

A bit off-topic for a brewlog but I'll toss my dodecahedrons of chance in

hubble : deep field pictures were pointed at the deepest darkest point in the sky where we thought there was nothing at all (Hoping to glimpse the edge of the known universe ala the expanding edge of the big bang), instead we see this picture. As far as we can see, thousands of galaxies each with millions of stars and each star with multiple orbiting bodies.

With these approximately 10^12 some planets (Just in these remote galaxies!), it's not so surprising we could be a random chance, and it would be even more surprising if we were alone. It would be an awfully big(lonely) place for just us.

Click to expand...

Totally - the likelihood of us being alone in this galaxy (let alone the entire universe, containing around 170 billion galaxies, each with between several million and a hundred trillion stars of their own) is pretty slim. But, don't get me pegged as one of those alien-believing people. The likelihood that we ever have or ever will run into anyone else intelligent is close to non-existant. (Unless someone hits the jackpot and invents a working FTL drive, but that's another discussion entirely!).

I'd be surprised if the number of planets with life on them (either currently or in the past) is a small enough number for us to even comprehend it's hugeness.

Medsen Fey said:

It wouldn't shock me. K1V can go to 18% (and perhaps beyond) and coffee seems to stimulate yeast. Now that we know caffeine increases yeast viability, it might be just the thing to push that ABV higher!



That is exactly correct. The formation of Micelles (another fancy way of saying fat droplets) and larger lipid bilayers would be the first step in making a cell. That creates an inside and an outside in the liquid medium. This would allow the the machinery for a cell to be contained inside and would probably be the first step in the development of cellular "life" as we understand it. Of course this assumes one believes in evolution and the spontaneous development of life.

When you look at even the simplest cells, the complexity is enormous. To assume that it self-organized is a huge leap of faith. Even the simplest "life form" (if you want to call it that) that of a self replicating protein, being trapped inside a lipid bilayer would be a long way from a cell. Assuming that such an organization would occur through random association of materials sounds more outlandish than taking all the parts of a Boeing 747 and putting them in a big pot and expecting it to assemble if you just keep shaking it long enough.

I have seen nothing in my limited life experience that has ever convinced me that any system will spontaneously develop more complexity and organization - quite the opposite. Without specific plans being carried out and energy being input, everything becomes more disorganized. This is why it is very easy for me to believe in a creator (call it what you will).

My apologies for the tangential discussion.

Medsen

Click to expand...

Ah, the watchmaker's fallacy. You must be a fan of Michael Behe and his theory of Irreducible complexity.
I won't go there. I'll stick to mead discussions on this one sane board. ;D

I know, I have the same resistance to controversial discussions on this board, because it is the most on-topic and non-flamewar board I have ever seen!

I'm fine agreeing to dissagree with creationists. I don't have a problem with creationism, I have problems with specific details in specific versions of it (such as the whole fighting eachother business!) but not really with the whole idea. I obviously have a problem with the concept of creationism itself (or else I would be a believer myself), but not with it's believers.

AToE said:

I know, I have the same resistance to controversial discussions on this board, because it is the most on-topic and non-flamewar board I have ever seen!

I'm fine agreeing to dissagree with creationists. I don't have a problem with creationism, I have problems with specific details in specific versions of it (such as the whole fighting eachother business!) but not really with the whole idea. I obviously have a problem with the concept of creationism itself (or else I would be a believer myself), but not with it's believers.

Click to expand...

Why can't both be true. My view of God is that he is God because he created us, but he isn't truly all powerful. He simply knows more than we do such that he can follow procedures to create with semi predictable results. Kinda like mead making, you know you use X honey with Y yeast and brew at Z temp you'll get a brew with predictable results. Then again this view is rather heretical to most believers

Thanks for splitting this off Medsen!

Loadnabox said:

Why can't both be true. My view of God is that he is God because he created us, but he isn't truly all powerful. He simply knows more than we do such that he can follow procedures to create with semi predictable results. Kinda like mead making, you know you use X honey with Y yeast and brew at Z temp you'll get a brew with predictable results. Then again this view is rather heretical to most believers

Click to expand...

This is the aproach I usually take when talking with most believers (unless they're young-earth proponents, then I don't even try. Not trying to insult anyone here who may be a young-earth person, but the honest truth is that a discussion between a young-earth and old-earth person is not likely to go anywhere productive! It's best to just walk away!).

That said, I'm personally as Atheist as it gets (unless you count people who are jerks about it as "extra" atheist I don't though, they're just atheist and jerks!). I never decided to be atheist, it's just the way it worked out. I was raised agnostic with a slight lean towards Christian theology, but by the time I was probably 5 or 6 years old I was decidedly non-Christian agnostic, very close to atheist even at that age actually.

I think the last time I actually had even the slightest tinge of belief in a creator was probably my mid teens.

Like I said though, it wasn't my choice to be atheist - I could just as easily have been one of the agnostics who beleive in basically what you said (I couldn't have been any specific religion though, certainly not one of the big 3 western ones), but I ended up atheist. Just like I had no choice really with any of the other fundamental beliefs I have about the nature of reality, I think long and hard about reality all the time, and this is just how I've ended up based on the information that I've gathered combined with my own logic and gut reaction (I won't in any way deny that my atheism has a strong gut-aspect to it, much like believing in a higher power has a large basis in emotion, so does my disbelief).

EDIT: If that non-choice thing doesn't make sense, consider a non-religious belief you've come to based on data and logic, such as the beleif in a spherical Earth (note, I am NOT comparing believing in a higher power to believing in a flat earth here!). Even if you looked at all the oppositions arguments, at no point could you simply "chose" to believe what they believe, you're either convinced or aren't (or are hanging onto your old belief dispite the data/logic/gut reaction... that you would indeed have a choice in).

I avoid starting fights over the subject though, instead just encouraging honest conversation so that people can understand more about each other.

Loadnabox said:

Why can't both be true. My view of God is that he is God because he created us, but he isn't truly all powerful. He simply knows more than we do such that he can follow procedures to create with semi predictable results. Kinda like mead making, you know you use X honey with Y yeast and brew at Z temp you'll get a brew with predictable results. Then again this view is rather heretical to most believers

Click to expand...

Thanks, Medsen, I didn't want to get involved in anything this close to religion as long as this was on someone's brewlog But now that it's not... ;D

I have a friend who's got faith (I don't), who has a theory that God can either be all good or all powerful but not both, and honestly, that's the nicest rationalization I've ever heard for why some stuff happens the way it does.

Another friend who's got faith thinks similar to Loadnabox, that we're all part of a giant experiment someone's running up there. Which I think also rationalizes things nicely...

I always do my best to respect people's honest faith even though I admittedly have very little respect for organized religions, and I love it when people can discuss things like this without it turning into a screaming match where everyone's trying to ram their beliefs down everyone else's throats... I can even have discussions like this with my aunt, a Catholic Nun... Go, Gotmead! This community is the best!

The whole entropy argument doesn't really apply, it's hard to explain but we're in such a vast system post big-bang that entropy is indeed in effect, but while things are going towards chaos lots of interesting combinations can ensue in the meantime - the two happening are not mutually exclusive. I'll try to find and post a better explanation of why that whole entropy argument doesn't work, I'm not very good at explaining it!

Part of my problem with creationism is that it doesn't actually answer "origin" in any satisfying way. Atheism currently can't go back further than the big bang (rest assured that everything that's happened since then can have a non-supernatural explanation, even if we haven't figured it all out yet!), and religion can't explain where the heck this creator would have come from in the first place.

So both schools of thought hit a brick wall in the end (for now at least), I just believe in the one that sits better with my logic and gut. ;D

I'm all for that, the last thing I want to do here is to offend anyone.

AToE said:

I avoid starting fights over the subject though, instead just encouraging honest conversation so that people can understand more about each other.

Click to expand...

Exactly!!!

Similar story on my side, but more disillusionment, as I was raised in a practising Catholic household. I took everything literally as a child, so when I started realizing that what was said in church was not absolute truth (at least not how saw truth as an 8-year old who could understand a similie but not a metaphor), that was the beginning of the end of any faith I had in the Church, eventually I realized that the only thing I had any kind of faith in was myself (heh, sounds kind of conceited when I see it typed out )... I do believe there are things that happen that can't be explained by science so I don't disbelieve in a higher power, or at least SOMETHING that can't be quantified. But I'm always interested in hearing from people with strong convictions either way.

<passes the microphone on to the next contestant>

Medsen Fey said:

Just a word of caution, if anyone cannot maintain polite decorum, this thread will be locked down immediately.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Glad someone's around to mediate if required.

Medsen Fey said:

Indeed!

I realize I opened a potential can of worms with this topic, and it can touch some raw nerves and inflame some righteous indignation. I'd like to commend everyone for keeping it civil. Just a word of caution, if anyone cannot maintain polite decorum, this thread will be locked down immediately.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that Medsen. I've really enjoyed my time on this forum, and the people here, so with that in mind, I think I'll just remain an observer.
For the record, I'm an atheist, but I have several friends who are believers in different philosophies, and I've found it's quite easy to agree to disagree when folks are civil and adult.
I'm willing to change my mind given evidence. ;D

Cheers

Medsen Fey said:

Indeed!

I realize I opened a potential can of worms with this topic, and it can touch some raw nerves and inflame some righteous indignation. I'd like to commend everyone for keeping it civil. Just a word of caution, if anyone cannot maintain polite decorum, this thread will be locked down immediately.

Click to expand...

One could always hope that broader minds can be open to other points of view and find value in them. The areas of spirituality tend to explore and teach in the direction of morals (right and wrong) and science in the direction of true or false.
Both of these domains of thought have very real value in everyday life and need not be mutualy exclusive, the arguments seem to arise when one domain intrudes into the other (mostly by means of inappropriate rationale) and defensive mechanisims come into play. After all spirituality probably has little to say about physical reality ( faith not meaning much if it needs proof) and science little to say about the devine as it needs to be able to manipulate and experiment (finite actions and models) I like to think I have a fair grasp of things and while I see nothng that calls for the devine (pridictable if you really think about it) I also see nothing that precludes it.
I am a scientist by nature and can't bring myself to believe in magic......but life....that's about as close to magic as you can get and so a great source for debate.

Riverat said:

One could always hope that broader minds can be open to other points of view and find value in them. The areas of spirituality tend to explore and teach in the direction of morals (right and wrong) and science in the direction of true or false.
Both of these domains of thought have very real value in everyday life and need not be mutualy exclusive, the arguments seem to arise when one domain intrudes into the other (mostly by means of inappropriate rationale) and defensive mechanisims come into play. After all spirituality probably has little to say about physical reality ( faith not meaning much if it needs proof) and science little to say about the devine as it needs to be able to manipulate and experiment (finite actions and models) I like to think I have a fair grasp of things and while I see nothng that calls for the devine (pridictable if you really think about it) I also see nothing that precludes it.
I am a scientist by nature and can't bring myself to believe in magic......but life....that's about as close to magic as you can get and so a great source for debate.

Click to expand...

Well said. 8)

I believe life is a result of the world's desire to percieve itself. I don't think there's any plan, just a desire.