Scientists Create RNA From Primordial Soup

Kristina at Science News writes "The RNA world hypothesis proposed 40 years ago suggested that life on Earth started not with DNA but with RNA. Now a team of scientists bolsters this hypothesis, having assembled RNA in the lab from a mixture that resembles what was likely the primordial soup. 'Until now,' Science News reports, 'scientists couldn't figure out the chemical reactions that created the earliest RNA molecules.' The new work started the RNA assembly chemistry from a different angle than what earlier work had tried."

Comments

I thought...

[vrmlguy]

I thought that the headline was "Scientists Create RNA From Primordial Soap", which would have been interesting in a completely different way.

Re:I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

Creating life from Alphabet Soup would have been even more interesting.

Re:I thought...

[something_wicked_thi]

GAA TAC ATC GCA CAT TAG TAT ATT GAG ACT

(Yes, I know that's DNA and not RNA, but it's really hard to make words with a U and no T).

Re:I thought...

[master5o1]

At least with RNA you can make that annoying thing on Vista... UAC.

Re:I thought...

[interkin3tic]

EYIAH*YIET? I don't get it. Anyway, there was no start codon there.

Re:I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

grep -v [^gauc] /usr/share/dict/words

Re:I thought...

[clayski]

You must think that the coding strand of a start codon is "ATG,", When of course it has to be TAC in order to code for "AUG" (a start codon)in the message.

Re:I thought...

[Zencyde]

Wait, what's this about the AT&T gag act!? Did you come from the future? You know you're not allowed to break the rules like that! I'm telling our supreme leader, Bob Dole. All hail Bob Dole. He likes your style

Re:I thought...

[Cassius Corodes]

Yes I see how the notion of putting together what happened in the past from present evidence can be difficult to understand. I suggest you steer clear of forensics, it could blow your mind...

Re:I thought...

[yndrd1984]

Let's apply that logic to the first sighting of sperm fertilizing an egg.

1. Laboratory conditions. Check.
2. "The new findings suggest a possible method for traits to be passed from both mother and father to child..." Check.
3. Proof that babies come from sex. Not a chance.
4. Someone with a time machine that can verify that my mother would degrade herself like that? Nope.

Fertilization still remains philosophical at best, NOT science.

Re:I thought...

[FiloEleven]

The fact that we have shown that it can happen tends to support the hypothesis that it did happen, because we know that RNA is a part of all living things on Earth and we know that it had to come from somewhere.

Unless you have a better explanation, one that fits into a naturalistic framework as that is the framework within which science exists.

Re:I thought...

[SleepingWaterBear]

Keep in mind that the people you're arguing with are the same people who, despite countless examples that sex can lead to pregnancy, and zero examples of virgins getting pregnant, still believe Mary was a virgin.

It's quite clear that these are not people who believe in evidence supporting hypotheses.

Re:I thought...

[uberjack]

Well, it could work, if you replace Soap with SOAP, and Ribonucleic Acid with Robo-DNA

Re:I thought...

[interkin3tic]

The convention is to write in the 5' to 3' direction and usually the sense strand. Unless I'm getting things backwards again (and I often am, can't keep left and right straight either) 3-TAC-5 in the antisense strand is what is actually used to copy the mRNA transcript, which is 5-AUG-3, the same as the sense strand 5-ATG-3. The t-RNA has UAC which corresponds to it.

So, unless I'm once again confused, that would be two types of backward.

Anyway, there is no message in any frame, nor on the complementary strand.

http://www.expasy.ch/tools/dna.html

5'3' Frame 1

EYIAH-YIET

5'3' Frame 2

NTSHISILR

5'3' Frame 3

IHRTLVY-D

3'5' Frame 1

SLNILMCDVF

3'5' Frame 2

VSIY-CAMY

3'5' Frame 3

SQYTNVRCI

and reversing the sequence, in case it was written 3-5 also had nothing

TCA GAG TTA TAT GAT TAC ACG CTA CAT AAG

5'3' Frame 1

SELYDYTLHK

5'3' Frame 2

QSYMITRYI

5'3' Frame 3

RVI-LHAT-

3'5' Frame 1

LM-RVII-L-

3'5' Frame 2

LCSV-SYNS

3'5' Frame 3

YVACNHITL

I also did a quick blast search of the human genome and came up with no hits. I started trying to set the parameters to allow for mismatches (I don't use it all that often) when I realized that I'm probably completely missing the joke.

...The joke is on me, isn't it?

Re:I thought...

[emlyncorrin]

The t-RNA has UAC which corresponds to it.

"You are about to transcribe a gene."
[Continue] [Cancel]

Re:I thought...

[corsec67]

Wouldn't a virgin that was artificially inseminated still be a virgin?

Or what about a fertilized egg that is implanted into a virgin?

Re:I thought...

[cp.tar]

Keep in mind that the people you're arguing with are the same people who, despite countless examples that sex can lead to pregnancy, and zero examples of virgins getting pregnant, still believe Mary was a virgin.

It's quite clear that these are not people who believe in evidence supporting hypotheses.

Actually, there have been examples of virgins getting pregnant, but not without exposure to sperm.

</nitpick>

Re:I thought...

[CarpetShark]

it's really hard to make words with a U and no T

This is the internet. You must be nu here.

Re:I thought...

[Ginger Unicorn]

You're conflating an event with a process. The process of abiogenesis (generating life from non-living matter) is a perfectly valid scientific field, of which this experiment was a part.

The event(s) in the past that are hypothesised to be the initiation of life on the planet are a related, but ultimately independent claim that despite your objection can also be investigated scientifically. Learning about the processes of generating life from non living matter are simply a necessary precursor to investigating the actual event of the origin of life on the earth.

You don't need a time machine to scientifically establish past events. You simply need to be able to investigate the evidence that exists today. Applying your rationale to your own beliefs about the origin of life: presumably you have none since you don't have a time machine to travel back and see it for yourself. Presumably you believe that the claims of creationists are inherently empty, since they don't have a time machine to travel back and view the garden of eden for themselves.

Re:I thought...

[Nerdposeur]

Keep in mind that the people you're arguing with are the same people who, despite countless examples that sex can lead to pregnancy, and zero examples of virgins getting pregnant, still believe Mary was a virgin.

It's quite clear that these are not people who believe in evidence supporting hypotheses.

You're knocking down a straw man. If religious people didn't understand that pregnancy requires sex, they wouldn't call the virgin birth "a miracle." This cause-and-effect was well known in Christ's day, too. When Mary said she was pregnant, Joseph's first reaction was to divorce her quietly. He knew what pregnancy required.

If you don't believe in God, of course you won't believe in miracles. But clearly a being who can create the laws of physics from scratch would not be bound by them. The code YOU write doesn't control YOUR life, you control IT. If you want it to do something different today, by golly it will. Why would God be unable to do the same?

Re:I thought...

[SleepingWaterBear]

This is quite precisely my point. Belief in miracles isn't consistent with an evidence based approach to understanding the world.

Unless you've experienced a direct, personal revelation (and most Christians I've met don't claim to have), the only reason you have to believe Mary was a virgin is either that you read it in a book, or that all your friends and family believe it. These are not good reasons for believing something.

Re:I thought...

[Beat The Odds]

Unless you have a better explanation, one that fits into a naturalistic framework as that is the framework within which science exists.

That is not a statement of fact or science. That is you trying to force your philosophical world view on the rest of us. There is absolutely no reason to believe that science must be practiced in a "naturalistic" context. That is simply your presupposition applied before you enter the ring.

The word science simply means knowledge. So quit trying to force your beliefs onto the pursuit of knowledge.

P.S. I know that slashdot is a hotbed of atheistic naturalists, but I spend time here anyway.

Re:I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, you got pwned. Repeatedly.

Re:I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Spelling movie names is the true original purpose for the base pairs. Let me beging with the GATTACA and continue with the UGA UGA.

Re:I thought...

[interkin3tic]

The t-RNA has UAC which corresponds to it.

"You are about to transcribe a gene."
[Continue] [Cancel]

Whole bunch of people not earning biology nerd badges today: t-RNAs are involved in TRANSLATION, not transcription!

Re:I thought...

[FiloEleven]

You've got it all wrong.

First of all, I am not an atheistic naturalist. I do, however, understand the limits of scientific inquiry, and my statements about those limits haven't made me very popular - see this recent thread for evidence (though you'll have to crank down your threshold - someone went back yesterday and unjustly modded most of my posts flamebait). It should be noted that one need not be a theist to recognize that science has limits, either.

Second, and related to the above, while science is a pursuit of knowledge the two terms are not at all synonymous. Otherwise the fields of history, literature, ethics, etc. would have disappeared long ago. There are great depths of meaning that cannot be gained scientifically to be found in Rabelais, Milton, Thoreau, and countless others. Can the words of Jesus be understood through science? Then do not tell me that science has exclusive rights to knowledge.

Third, there is no context other than naturalism in which science can be pursued. How do you propose to experiment with magic or miracles? A miracle is by its definition something that does not happen in the natural order of things. Science is powerless to make a statement about such an occurrence unless it is able to determine a cause and effect relationship. If it is able to determine a cause and effect relationship, then the event becomes part of the natural order of things, hence naturalism.

Don't accuse me of pushing my beliefs on you (as if you were forced to read this in the first place) when you are working from false premises in the first place. Once you get rid of those, you'll see that what I am saying supports your worldview better than an improper modification of science, and it causes less unhelpful friction (though still a considerable amount in some cases) with the "purely scientific" mindset. Virtually any atheistic naturalist on this board will agree fully with my third point, and any theistic supernaturalist (or whatever) who has seriously looked into the epistemology of science instead of simply trying to shoehorn it into their worldview will also. It is the second point that you should be fighting for, as that is the one under serious contention in this age, and you've gone and bulldozed it in favor of putting up a flimsy squatter's shack around a shabby definition that deserves to die of exposure.

Now THAT'S flamebait! =)

Re:I thought...

[Jerry]

There is absolutely no reason to believe that science must be practiced in a "naturalistic" context. That is simply your presupposition applied before you enter the ring.

Indeed. And presupposition and personal bias in science is a practice with a long history. A practice which is now enforced with all the austerity of the Inquisition.

When Hubble first measured redshifts he noticed, and wrote, that every galaxy or object red-shifted away from Earth, no matter which direction he looked. His first thought was that the Earth was, or was near, the center of the observable Universe. He later rejected his own conclusion stating "Such conditions would imply that we occupy a unique position in the Universe... But the unwelcomed supposition of a favoured position must be avoided at all costs..... Such a favoured position is intolerable, more over, it represents a discrepancy with theory because the theory postulates homogeneity. Hubble went on to say "Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity and escape the horror of a unique position the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors (the redshifts), must be compensated by the second term representing the effects of spacial curvature.". Edward Hubble, "The Observational Approach to Cosmology", pg 50-59.

Why introduce spacial curvature sustain homogeneity? Hubble made these assumptions to avoid the unwelcome conclusion that the Earth is near the center of the universe, and thus is special. The maps created by the 2dF Galactic Redshift Survey, and by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey do not show homogeneity. The maps, with dots representing galaxies, appear to form gigantic concentric structures centered on the point of observation. To say that any other observer, in any other galaxy, would generate the same map centered on their galaxy would be to use the assumptions of homogeneity to prove homogeneity.

The mantra is that conclusions which contradict theory must be avoided at "all costs", rather than change the theory. THAT is bias, not evidence, not fact.

Re:I thought...

[stim]

that buzzing sound is the point of faith flying above your head.

Re:I thought...

[natedubbya]

Actually your complaint is misguided. You are arguing that there must be evidence to believe something. People who believe in a virgin birth do so without what you would call evidence.

That's fine, but it is entirely different from someone who sees evidence and rejects its implication. "Believing without evidence" and "seeing evidence and believing" are two completely separatable beliefs.

Your linking of virgin-birth-believers to those that reject RNA evidence is totally distinct. Sure, they may be the same class of people, but using one belief to slam the other makes no sense.

Re:I thought...

[deets101]

the only reason you have to believe Mary was a virgin is either that you read it in a book, or that all your friends and family believe it

Well, using this logic.... the only reason you have to believe that life was created out of simple chemicals is pretty much the same. I mean, you (to date) have not proven this. So I guess you just read it in a book and all your friends and family believe it, so you do too.

Re:I thought...

[ultranova]

This is quite precisely my point. Belief in miracles isn't consistent with an evidence based approach to understanding the world.

Belief in miracles isn't consistent with naturalistic approach to understanding the world. It's quite compatible to evidence-based approach; in fact the whole point of miracles and why they keep on getting mentioned is that they serve as evidence of the existence of supernatural (whether you consider there to be enough evidence to support the believe that they actually happened is another matter).

Besides, the naturalistic assumption itself - the assumption that there is nothing supernatural - isn't really inherent or necessary for science. All you have to assume to conduct an experiment is that nothing is interfering with that particular experiment. That's all. Fields like mathematics or logic aren't at all affected by even that weak form of naturalistic assumption.

Unless you've experienced a direct, personal revelation (and most Christians I've met don't claim to have), the only reason you have to believe Mary was a virgin is either that you read it in a book, or that all your friends and family believe it. These are not good reasons for believing something.

I would like to point out that peer pressure and appeals to authority ("reading it in a book") are the main reasons people believe anything, including scientific theories. This is only natural, since it is simply impossible to personally verify all or even any significant fraction of your knowledge.

Your original comment was a combination of ad hominem and circular reasoning - there is no supernatural, therefore reports of supernatural activity shouldn't be believed, therefore there is no evidence of supernatural, therefore there is no supernatural. Couldn't the discussion inspired by these articles on Slashdot even once not degenerate into name-calling and logical errors galore?

Re:I thought...

[Ginger Unicorn]

1. The word science simply means knowledge.
   False. The word science comes from the word "scientia" which is Latin for "Knowledge". It is a derivation, not a synonym. Science is a process, not an attribute.
2. There is absolutely no reason to believe that science must be practiced in a "naturalistic" context
   False. It is a process that is inherently naturalistic by it's very definition. The scientific method precludes the supernatural as an hypothesis, since it is untestable, and therefore non-scientific. It logically cannot be investigated using a method that requires, at its very fundamental core, the ability to test.
3. That is simply your presupposition applied before you enter the ring.
   False. You are the one bringing a presupposition to the ring. You false presupposition is that "Science" is just a technical term for "knowledge". It is far more specific than that. These are matters of fact that you simply fail to recognise.

Science has nothing in its toolkit to deny any supernatural claims you might have, so by that token, science cannot disprove the supernatural. However, by the same token, Science cannot be used to back up claims of the supernatural. The scientific method is totally divorced from the supernatural ("agnostic" if you will), by necessity of its design.

Re:I thought...

[SleepingWaterBear]

Well, there is a great deal of consistent evidence that supports the theory that life had a chemical origin, and as of yet only one piece of evidence in favor of Mary being a virgin. I'll grant that the current theory about the origin of life is not rock solid and could conceivably be wrong, though I find it very unlikely, and am willing to act on the assumption that it's most likely true. The idea that Mary was a virgin has so little evidence for it, and so much evidence against it, that I feel confident in taking all my actions based on the assumption that it is false.

I don't know that I can explain the concept of inductive reasoning any better. I feel at a bit of a loss here.

Re:I thought...

[SleepingWaterBear]

The key concept of evidence based, inductive reasoning is that as evidence accumulates for a given theory, it becomes progressively more probable that it will continue to provide correct predictions. If you have a great deal of evidence against a given theory, and none in favor of it, it seems unlikely that the theory will provide good predictions. You're right that miracles aren't in principle inconsistent with evidence. Find me a solid evidence of a miracle, and I'll change my beliefs in a second.

You're right that peer pressure and appeals to authority are the main reason most people believe science. That doesn't however make it correct, and there's a lot of misunderstanding of science out there as a result. It is in fact possible to personally verify a great deal more than you apparently realize, at least in terms of the basic tenets and core ideas of the major scientific theories. Obviously the details need to be taken on faith for practical reasons, but the confidence in a relatively small set of core ideas allows you to deduce a great deal with a good degree of confidence.

I can understand deciding to believe in miracles. It's a very appealing idea, and certainly I won't make any attempt to argue with someone who claims you just have to take it on faith. But do you really believe that an impartial examination of the facts supports any of the miracles described in the Bible?

Re:I thought...

[SleepingWaterBear]

Well, it's not as distinct as all that. The belief in the virgin birth implies a disbelief in the theory that virgins don't get pregnant. There is a vast amount of evidence that virgins don't get pregnant, but these people choose to reject that evidence. Probably I didn't express that very well above.

Well, ok, it's possible that they reject the idea that believing in a virgin birth implies accepting that virgins can get pregnant, but I choose to ascribe greater reasoning ability than that to them.

Re:I thought...

[yndrd1984]

that buzzing sound is the point of faith flying above your head.

Choosing to believe what you want to believe?

Re:I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

that buzzing sound is the point of faith flying above your head.

"Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie." -Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

Faith = trust in hearsay.

Abiogenesis....

[jawtheshark]

Abiogenesis.... Take that ID-iots!

Re:Abiogenesis....

[Captain Splendid]

Shoulda used your troll account, the creationists are going to modbomb you for sure.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[jawtheshark]

I was on my netbook... I'm usually logged into my Troll account on that one. Should have checked. Oh, well, got plenty of Karma...

Re:Abiogenesis....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, "informative." And my failed "Primordial Post" was offtopic? You mods are tetched in the head.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[jawtheshark]

They're just trying to correct injust mods... While I'm there and I'll risk some Karma....The origin of life by cdk007. Abiogenesis illustrated.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[CorporateSuit]

Abiogenesis.... Take that ID-iots!

Scientists stitching together molecules like a chemical zipper to recreate a simple RNA sounds a lot more like "Design" and a lot less like "abiogenesis" to me, actually...

Quoting Sutherland's team from TFA:

It's not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. It's a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didn't happen in the ancient world.

Seriously, watching Abiogenesis fiends bickering with "Intelligent Design" supporters over who is more wrong makes me think I'm back on Digg when it was used as Richard Dawkin's RSS feed.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[rezalas]

So after reading the article, here is what I gathered:

1) A bunch of scientists who know what RNA looks like found a complex way or mixing and meshing chemicals together and purifying the process then repeating until they artificially created RNA.
2) They admit it wouldn't have worked in nature on its own...
3) People suddenly claim it disproves ID. Hell, all they DID was PROVE ID. The whole fucking article says "we, a bunch of intelligent people, used advanced chemistry to make something that we admit wouldn't have occurred on its own." That IS ID.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[hahn]

Abiogenesis.... Take that ID-iots!

I'm not an ID proponent at all and I realize you're at least half-joking, but this research finding doesn't do anything to disprove ID. In fact, if anything it somewhat favors it. ID asserts that there are certain aspects of the universe and life forms that require a directed force by an intelligent being. IOW, it requires planning. This research demonstrates that a lot of steps and manipulation that are NOT present in nature, were required to end up with RNA. It didn't happen "naturally". Ergo, "intelligent design" was required to create it.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[AK Marc]

Only if they are God.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[rezalas]

No, intelligent design does not require god. ID requires that an intelligent being of some kind, even a giant spaghetti monster if it could, designed everything. ID does not equate to God, God equates to ID. Big difference.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[Ninja Programmer]

Absolutely, cdk007's video explaining the Dr. Szostak sequence is really excellent. It gives you a real sense for how non-random and almost inevitable it was.

Lipids + ameno acids -> self replicator, the rest is an exercise left for the reader that this recent result helps fill in. Its awesome.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[AK Marc]

ID requires God because ID requires not just ID in abiogenisis, but in creation of the materials present and creation of the laws of physics. Anyone that can design laws of physics is God. And ID (the ID, not some "intelligent design" spinoff) requires that it be God that did it. Anything else is a redefinition of ID to suit the needs of the argument, but then that is a pillar of ID anyway...

Re:Abiogenesis....

[LingNoi]

I'm sure aliens can design laws of physics just as well. Before you reply back you should realise my argument holds as much weight as yours.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[the_bard17]

Only for sufficient values of omnipotence.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[ceoyoyo]

Scientists stitching together molecules like a chemical zipper to recreate a simple RNA sounds a lot more like "Design" and a lot less like "abiogenesis" to me, actually...

He he, I love to suggest just that to creationists and watch them turn purple. Soon we'll be able to create life from inorganic matter ourselves. Since that's the trick that is usually advanced as most requiring a god, we'll be well on our way. Muahaha!

Re:Abiogenesis....

[glitch23]

Just because it *may* be possible does not guarantee that it happened that way and there is no proof that it did. Yes, we are here but there is a huge leap between being here and *suggesting* the way it occurred. Without someone being present to witness the actual method used we can't say it was this method. It could have been any number of things from a scientist's perspective and no proof of any of them actually being used long, long time ago. I'm surprised this would be taken as sufficient proof given that there is none. It is the same thing as a Creationist saying how things were created with the evolutionist saying there is no proof for that particular method. I guess faith exists on both sides but only one is willing to admit it while the other ridicules them for it.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[Zencyde]

CREATIONISTS!? In MY Slashdot?


It's more likely than you think

Re:Abiogenesis....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not advanced chemistry. I think the point is that the reactions were not that tricky, just a matter of throwing the right building blocks together at the right times and they linked up. Such building blocks very likely did exist in the primordial goo. "Hey look, we can create RNA in the lab with building blocks present in primordial Earth." means just that: They've found a series of chemical reactions that cause RNA to basically self-assemble out of simpler pieces. Now mind you they haven't shown it happened, or even that it COULD have happened, but it shows that you don't need fancy cellular machinery (proteins) to assemble genetic material, by demonstrating a possible mechanism by which RNA can self-assemble. Previously, nobody had gotten the parts of RNA to come together by themselves. Just because it was an experiment performed in a laboratory under controlled conditions doesn't rule out that it occurred in the primordial soup. Think of this as a proof of concept.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[Unipuma]

Hmm, if this describes the reasoning behind ID, then it is inherently flawed. Since it says that to have something exist, something more complicated needs to design it, thus we fall into an endless loop.

Because who designed the aliens who designed us? And who designed those aliens? Ad infinitum.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[Unipuma]

Actually, what this research demonstrates is that with the basic components, it IS possible to create RNA.
The research in no way proclaims to have found the way in which RNA was created in nature. It only proves that, without making any claims as to method, it is possible.
I do not believe that they claim that they have found the -ONLY- way in which RNA can be created based on the raw components.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for posting this, I was just about to say the same thing.

âoeBut while this is a step forward, itâ(TM)s not the whole picture,â Ferris points out. âoeItâ(TM)s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. Itâ(TM)s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didnâ(TM)t happen in the ancient world.â

Re:Abiogenesis....

[earthcreed]

Isn't this support of the ID crowd? The experiment was intelligently designed, yielding a possibly self replicating string of information (I don't know if I can describe RNA as living) that was intelligently designed. To me this is proof that the building blocks life can be created by conscious beings. I don't know the creationists theory very well, but doesn't it boil down to life being created by a superior being? I think that is what has happened here.

Re:Abiogenesis....

[hitnrunrambler]

Think of this as a proof of concept.

and the concept still seems to be:

conditions represent theoretical conditions
materials represent theoretical materials
reactions represent one possible mechanism
the scientists represent..........???

Re:Abiogenesis....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...read all the way to the end:

"But while this is a step forward, it's not the whole picture," Ferris points out. "It's not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. It's a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didn't happen in the ancient world."

So, what was done in the lab probably didn't happen in the "primordial soup." Yeah, so this research is interesting but doesn't really prove anything...

Keep working though, surely the proof will come eventually by indeterminate chance...

Primordial Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Primordial Post!!!11!one!one

Re:Primordial Post!

[Anonymous Coward]

You failed. Try again in another 3.8 billion years.

mmmmm

[nih]

with extra croutons!

Clearly...

[MachDelta]

A wizard did it.

Re:Clearly...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was the Q.

Re:Clearly...

[zulater]

oblig "I put on my robe and wizzard hat..."

Re:One word....

[Jugalator]

That they accidentally got RNA and thought they created it themselves? Did you read the article?

âoeBut while this is a step forward, itâ(TM)s not the whole picture,â Ferris points out. âoeItâ(TM)s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. Itâ(TM)s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didnâ(TM)t happen in the ancient world.â

Sutherland and his team can so far make RNA molecules with two different bases, and there are still another two bases to figure out.

not that big of a deal

[anticlone]

they found a reaction pathway - that does not prove it happened that way - I too thought the article title indicated spontaneous generation of RNA from primordial soup.

Re:not that big of a deal

[iamhigh]

they found a reaction pathway - that does not prove it happened that way - I too thought the article title indicated spontaneous generation of RNA from primordial soup.

I have always thought that spontaneous was the wrong word for this theory. Spontaneous implies *NO* external force. There could have been (I think there probably was) forces such as comets, lava, boiling water, glass, wind, fire, water, and mixture of those or just about anything else. To show that it is possible, with what was known to exist at that time is not proof that it happened exactly that way, but it could have. And I highly doubt we will ever figure out how it actually happened.

Re:not that big of a deal

[anticlone]

I disagree - spontaneous in this sense would indicate self-assembly of RNA - under the right conditions. All the other things you mention is simply part of the "pot" - be it a very large and chaotic pot.... I would think no human chemist was around to play with the soup to nudge things in the right direction. That is what is happening here.

Re:not that big of a deal

[iamhigh]

I disagree - spontaneous in this sense would indicate self-assembly of RNA - under the right conditions. All the other things you mention is simply part of the "pot" - be it a very large and chaotic pot.... I would think no human chemist was around to play with the soup to nudge things in the right direction. That is what is happening here.

Oh I see... for you to believe in this theory we can't try to speed along the process with all these scientist and chemist doing things with things and stuff, right? Just wait a few billion years to study the next go-round?

Re:not that big of a deal

[Deosyne]

Possibly not, but it is still nice to see a proof of concept actually carried out for a theory. Now if only the detractors would do the same.

Re:not that big of a deal

[virmaior]

in chemistry at least, you can modify the thermokinetics without having the reaction fail to be spontaneous. but to call a complex reaction system spontaneous seems contrived.

Re:not that big of a deal

[anticlone]

why yes! if it worked once it should work again. no, you misunderstand - the original conditions DID spontaneously develop life.. unless you are a figment of my imagination.... and no I don't think the reactions required billions of years (once again you'd probably not be here). the key to this experiment imho is finding the right conditions/mixture. and that IS difficult.

Re:not that big of a deal

[anticlone]

I don't know how much reading you've done on this... industrial chemistry is in general very simple using, in general, pretty pure components. However, there are systems, such as catalytic reforming of petroleum that does use complex mixtures. - For this theory to be correct (and belief doesn't have -anything- to do with it) the synthesis has to occur in a very complex mixture with nothing more than energy input and available building blocks. Nothing else was there - right? Unless you want to bring down God to the soup with a labcoat, safety glasses and a fleaker of pixie dust... (my favorite God is George Burns...)

Re:not that big of a deal

[Guido von Guido]

I suspect that whatever happened, happened pretty quickly. The thing is, "pretty quickly" might mean "tens of thousands of years."

Re:not that big of a deal

[Seraphim_72]

I guarantee that any road kill will develop maggots. Therefor life spontaneously arises.

This isn't science, this is fixing a horse race.

Re:not that big of a deal

[Anonymous Coward]

There could have been (I think there probably was) forces such as comets, lava, boiling water, glass, wind, fire, water, and mixture of those or just about anything else.

Don't forget lightning! There is a long standing tradition of accompanying the creation of life with lightning!

Re:One word....

[Jugalator]

... and holy Unicode-less Slashdot, Batman. :-(

Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Demonstrating that another link in the evolutionary chain can happen without conscious intervention (spontaneously and mechanically) does not demonstrate the non-existence of an intelligent designer.

It, at best, removes a point that was previously used to defend ID.

But, logically, the inability to prove something does not constitute a disproof (that would be the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantium).

Disclaimer: I am not an ID proponent. I am just a logician.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[retchdog]

Demonstrating (something) does not demonstrate the non-existence of an intelligent designer.

Indeed; nothing can.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Man On Pink Corner]

Demonstrating that another link in the evolutionary chain can happen without conscious intervention (spontaneously and mechanically) does not demonstrate the non-existence of an intelligent designer.

As a logician, what are your thoughts on the minimum description-length principle? The MDL principle suggests that it's a mistake to add a God to the equation if there's no specific need for one.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Original poster here... (Anonymous because I know I'm going to get a beating) I did not want to disprove the existence of God, but one of the typical arguments for Intelligent Design is the fact that "this could not have happened by accident". Frankly, nobody can prove of disprove God.... I tell you that as a Computer Scientist who had plenty of exposure to Logic. (Mandatory philosophy class for CS people.... At least where I did my studies)

That said, if you add in probabilities, God (the Chistian one) gets a tough beating... but that has nothing to do with your post.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[digitalunity]

God crushing you nonbelievers with rain of sulfur and fire would settle the matter nicely.

I'm not holding my breath though.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Why are you not holding your breath?

Exactly. No god.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[jawtheshark]

God crushing you nonbelievers with rain of sulfur and fire would settle the matter nicely.

I'm waiting....

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[spun]

No, it wouldn't settle anything. Any being sufficiently more powerful than you can convince you that it is omnipotent. Any being sufficiently more clever than you could convince you that it is omniscient. An advanced alien race, claiming to be God, could determine who believes in God and who doesn't, and rain sulfur and fire on the nonbelievers, so a rain of fire and sulfur from something claiming to be God would not prove God exists, sorry.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

"does not demonstrate the non-existence of an intelligent designer."

Of course. That's because nothing can prove the non-existence of a sufficiently powerful intelligent designer. When Newton proposed that universal gravitation could predict the motion of the planets, did that prevent the Hand of God itself, or some other immensely powerful intelligent designer, from actively guiding the planets around in their orbits in accordance with what we perceive as gravitation?

No. But that's because it is not really a scientific question in the first place.

And that's the whole problem with "intelligent design". There's really no scientific observation that can negate it if that is how broadly it is defined. Even if you try to appeal to "incompetent design", like some of the crazy, Rube Goldberg-like features of living systems, such that it looks like life was tweaked and tinkered with by re-using old designs for new purposes rather than inventing something brand new, you could still claim that a "designer" meant to do all that for some arcane reason. They could "coincidentally" make it look like the product of biological evolution. An "intelligent designer" of that class (i.e. not bound by the same sort of physical laws as us) is practically impossible to scientifically test.

So, yeah, it "does not demonstrate the non-existence of an intelligent designer", but so what? Nothing ever will. It's always possible to imagine a designer powerful enough to explain absolutely anything, which is why it is so useless as a scientific explanation in its generic form. If you can place some practical limits on what the designer can or can not do (e.g., if you're stuck with only a human designer), then maybe you might be able to start doing something scientific (e.g., differentiating stone tools from ordinary rocks), but you can't scientifically test "intelligent designer" in some general fashion. If you allow "snap their fingers to do anything", then all bets are off, and you aren't operating in a scientific realm of study anymore.

And you call yourself a logician?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[FudRucker]

if the ID/Creationists claim there is a god then the burden of proof is on the ID/Creationists to prove god exists, until then i remain a devout atheist...

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[retchdog]

No it wouldn't. It certainly doesn't disprove an intelligent designer. One could argue that it would prove the existence of an IDer, however it does not.

It's eminently possible, even under these circumstances, that the universe evolved atheistically, until some asshole god/demiurge decided to take credit for it and toast Sol III.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[caluml]

I can't do it right now - I've got a Hyper-V problem to be sorting.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an empirical question, like: does Occam's Razor shave closer than Remington Microscreen?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were truly a logician, you would know that we abandoned that line of thinking a long time ago, bringing in prior plausibility as a major factor. You can prove a negative in essence (i.e. disprove something) by showing a complete lack of evidence plus extremely low prior plausibility.

Logically the god hypothesis fails.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Polumna]

Come on, man, this is slashdot. You could have made your whole point with just the words: "Star Trek V" ;D

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[doti]

Voce me prometeu!
Voce me prometeu!
Uma chuva de fogo, mas ainda nao choveu!

Voce me prometeu!
Voce me prometeu!
Escuridao eterna, e nada ainda escureceu.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[corbettw]

If God exists, and if he's omniscient and omnipotent, he could design an event guaranteed to convince every non-believer in the world of his existence. The fact that he doesn't means either:

a) he doesn't care, so why bother worshiping him?
b) he doesn't exist, so why bother worshiping him?
c) he likes to play mind games, so why bother worshiping him?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is a superior being, wouldn't logic dictate that there would also be a supreme being?

I'm asking because I honestly believe most people to be inferior to myself; with a select few living and deceased to be and have been superior.

I'm also completely comfortable using the word "God" as the name and/or description of the supreme being, regardless of its capability to be omnipresent, omniscient, or omnipotent.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[iggymanz]

a believer, as God's servant, shall smite thee by launching and lighting a beer-fart onto you

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[snuf23]

Hmmmm couldn't convince Kirk:

"What does God need with a starship?"

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

d) YOU like to play mind games by laying out ridiculously narrow terms for god to demonstrate his existence.

Thinking that there is no possible evidence for god's existence is retarded and only demonstrates how little ability the person saying it has for stepping back and looking at the situation. Life is complex and it works well. It's not proof, it's evidence. The laws of physics yield a consistent universe. It's not proof, it's evidence.

The ability of otherwise intelligent people to skew this issue by calling the other side stupid and saying PROVE this (which is impossible for both sides) never ceases to annoy and amuse the hell out of me.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion relies on faith. If God somehow proved he exists, then faith would be irrelevant.
The greatest gift Humanity has is the ability to choose its own destiny, i.e. the concept of Free Will.

If God were to be in residence, it would diminish Free Will.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[dsinc]

What about Occam's Razor? what would be the logical choice between ID and a now proven scientific hypothesis?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

how about:

d) he did, but people say it never happened.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[atraintocry]

Capital-I-capital-D Intelligent Design is a political movement based on getting anti-evolution viewpoints brought into science curricula.

The mere belief in a God who created and designed the universe is not what this is about. If it were, then every religious scientist would call themselves IDers. It's not, and they don't.

These people are not interested in logic. If they were, they would know that the burden of proof was on them and not the other way around.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[AmberBlackCat]

A false... trilemma...

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Dragonslicer]

What you've said is that the existence of a deity isn't a scientific question, which is true. Science doesn't deal with proving anything, though. Science deals with observation, experimentation, and ultimately devising a theory that can predict future observations. Mathematics deals with proofs. Proving that a deity exists is orthogonal to science.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

so why bother worshiping him?

I thought this was obvious. He's the baddest mother %$@#er on the block. He'll smack you down if you don't do ____, ____, and _____. (insert for any given religion).

An all-good, omniscient, and omnipotent cannot coexist with suffering (aka problem of evil).

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Your idea of religion relies on faith, but the higher goal of saving people has nothing to do with faith.

God revealing himself in an indisputable manner probably would end religion, and millions more people would be saved in return. Why would that be a bad thing?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it doesn't happen.

God exists, he just doesnt give to what we do or say.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[somersault]

Damnit, I hope my house never catches on fire. The fact that I know the fire service exists means that I can no longer have any faith in them to come to my aid.

Oh wait, this whole "you can only have faith in something you don't know to exist" thing I keep hearing is a load of bollocks, phew. Notice even the bible says that demons can believe in god existing but not be saved. Faith is separate from knowledge of existence. I think you need some more plausible reasons for why your god doesn't make it apparent that he exists.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Fallen Seraph]

Demonstrating that another link in the evolutionary chain...

Stop right there. You couldn't even make it half-way through the first sentence without being wrong about something, impressive...

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution is the concept that organisms change over time due to external forces/stimuli (be they natural or artificial). It has nothing to do with the origin of life whatsoever, period, end of story.

Evolution is about the origin of species (an apt name for a book might I add :P) and the diversity of life, not where life itself comes from.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[cmarkn]

I am not an ID proponent. I am just a logician.

But then you repeat yourself.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[pyrrhonist]

But, Remington Microscreen shaves as close as a blade or your money back. How can Occam compete with that?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Or d) God gives us free will so we can make our own decision on whether or not he exists.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

But if God is omnipotent and omniscient then this argument makes no sense. He knows exactly how each of his creations will use said "free will" even before he creates them, therefore he must deliberately create certain people with the intention of them being fuck-ups, sinning against him, etc. This isn't a loving god, no matter how you look at it.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[HTH NE1]

d)it's a test of faith.

I'll be dead before I take that final exam.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[spun]

How do you know it doesn't happen? Sadistic aliens could have been behind any so-called miracle from any or all of the holy books. Maybe Sodom and Gomorrah were just aliens on a bender, and all that fire and brimstone was merely the rocket exhaust from an ET driving drunk. You don't know and neither do I.

I don't know whether God exists or not, and I don't care. His existence or lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on me or my life, I will live my life as I 'choose,' and I don't know or care whether choice exists, either. I'm me, I do what I want, if God has a problem with that, God can get in line to talk to me about it like everyone else.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the description of God, (a being of unlimited energy, due to his/her unlimited powers), and the simple equasion of Einstien's relativity, "God" would destroy our universe simply by existing here. This is because he would have an unlimited impact on the curvature of spacetime, collapsing the whole thing into a singularity point. What fun!

So, the whole "Go find me God, and I'll believe in him!" argument is a loaded question, since God cannot exist within our universe.

This is further illustrated by God's omiprecient nature, suggesting at the very least that he is a greater than 4 dimensional being. (which would, again, place him outside of our 4 dimensional universe.)

In much the same way that string theory is not-provable, it would seem that the features which define God would make it fundementally impossible to prove (or disprove) his existence. The best you could do would be to derive a hypothesis to detect a disruption that such a being would cause within our 4D universe. (Much the same way that string theorists are looking at "Graviton" as a multi-dimensional particle that weakly interacts with our universe to help validate string theory.)

When will both sides of this argument just shut the hell up and admit that the real answer to that question is "Undefined", like REAL rationally minded people should?

It's like listening to two greek philosophers bicker over the nature of 1/0! Seriously, get a life already.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[JesseMcDonald]

It's only "false" if there are actually other possibilities. Feel free to name one.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[fyngyrz]

Frankly, nobody can prove of disprove God.

The mistake people typically make is to stop here and imagine that the odds of existence of a god or gods are therefore equal with the non-existence of same.

The fact is, nobody can prove or disprove that the earth is filled with magical pink unicorns that simply move, scale back in size a little, and make some dirt for us to play in when we dig or deploy sensors. If you dig or scan for them, you won't find them. They're magical. You can't disprove them, and you can't prove them, either.

So now, is there a reasonable place to stand to trumpet that you have faith that these magical pink unicorns exist?

No.

And that is precisely the reason that the argument about proof or disproof of God(s) brings absolutely no validity to any religious claim.

We have, for various reasons, developed a tool called "science" that allows us to determine some general behaviors about the universe. We can apply the resulting tests and rules to ideas (yes, even ideas about Gods) in order to see if they are rational ideas.

When we do this to the magical unicorns, they rather quickly fail the test and we will immediately discard the idea.

A mentally healthy human being, not injured by lack of data, and/or gullibility, and/or fear of the unknown, will apply these same tests and rules to God(s), and discard the idea(s) just as quickly, and for precisely the same reasons as the idea of the magical pink unicorns.

...and hopefully proceed from there to develop a moral and ethical basis for their lives that isn't based upon an old storybook of magical tales written about, and probably by, peasants being oppressed by those higher up the social ladder than they.

Vulnerability to religion (diagram)

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[empiricistrob]

By this logic we can't prove anything -- EVER. I'm not saying it's a completely unreasonable argument, but I prefer to have beliefs justified with evidence.

If some being claiming to be god did things that I couldn't remotely understand I would start to consider the possibility of god's existence to be pretty good. Of course I would also consider the advanced alien options -- but in the end, is a sufficiently advanced alien race really that different than god?

This is why the reasonable option is to justify beliefs with evidence, and never hold anything to be 100% true. My beliefs change whenever I receive new evidence.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[ozbird]

God crushing you nonbelievers with rain of sulfur and fire would settle the matter nicely.

I'm not holding my breath though.

I would - burning sulphur is not good for your lungs.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Inverted Intellect]

This sort of scenario presents itself in any situation where proof is desired. It's called the brain-in-a-vat syndrome.

This is why proof often isn't a very good standard of what to believe. You can't really have definite answers without axioms, whether your answer is in itself an axiom or is based on such. Math is an example of this, the most complicated such system I can think of, yet interestingly the most useful as well. But I digress.

The reasoned conclusion that your deceitful "sufficiently powerful/clever" alien(s) are in fact godly would be quite reasonable under the circumstances, in my view. As well as very practical, most likely. :P

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

you missed

D) He is a total dick.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Cstryon]

d) What's the point of faith if he just proves to everyone he exists? God is not something that can be proven. Sure, he may reveal things to you, through prayer. But even that needs to start with faith. So...COOL, Science is so awesome, thank you God for our awesome brains that we can figure out the secrets of the universe. Thank you God for possibly setting evolution in motion, so that we could evolve into humans, with these brains. Faith.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree which is why I always state I'm agnostic instead of an athiest and calling people stupid for beliving one way or another is a waste of time. That's the classic school yard argument of my dad's better than yours and multiply that by what ever you say next times two.

That said one side clearly on average is a lot more sain in their point of view and refuse to take at face value any traditional religion's stories and explination of creation or even recent events (I'm looking at you Noah!!!).

I'm also not impressed we can find complex order or chaos in nature nad call that evidence in anyway either.

I know and with my simple mind i can drop a coin and have a 50/50 chance of hitting heads or tails. It is also not a far stretch for me to imagine doing that uncountable times and that eventually changing the shape by chipping and binding it so it becomes much more predictable.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[A.Gideon]

I think the point is that you're taking the exam all your life, but you only get to see the grade after you're dead.

That seems ridiculously unfair to me, so add this to the list of reasons why - even if there is a God - he or she or it is on his/her/its own.

Of course, if there are make-up exams I might change my mind *laugh*.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[BollocksToThis]

Yes, Star Trek V is definitive proof that there is no God :(

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[cinderblock]

I'm not holding my breath though.

What about the flood?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[unMasqre]

Stop right there. You couldn't even make it half-way through the first sentence without being wrong about something, impressive... Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution is the concept that organisms change over time due to external forces/stimuli (be they natural or artificial). It has nothing to do with the origin of life whatsoever, period, end of story.

I'll say you're wrong.

Evolution comes into play even before there are biological organisms. Galaxies evolve, solar systems evolve, the chemical composition of the primordial soup evolves. At some point, that soup evolved complex molecules, which in turn gave rise to the single-celled organisms from which we all evolved. The evolution of long molecules in the soup allows for some molecules to endure their environment while others fall apart too rapidly. When some molecules are able to self-replicate, they endure even better. That's all evolution, in the general sense, and fitness-based evolution in the specific sense.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[shermo]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then why is their evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God

~Epicurus

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[djKing]

"Feel free to name one." You have no idea how ironic your statement is.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously creating life, the universe and everything was still insufficient for some

-Please excuse the Unintentional reference to HHGTTG

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Demonstrating that another link in the evolutionary chain can happen without conscious intervention (spontaneously and mechanically) does not demonstrate the non-existence of an intelligent designer.

Are you familiar with the scientific process? This was yet another falsifiable test for the currently best supported version of the theory of abiogenesis. It was a test the theory passed, adding more support for said theory in that it made a useful prediction.

It, at best, removes a point that was previously used to defend ID.

ID is not logically defensible. It is not science. There is no hypothesis of intelligent design that I've ever been able to find.

But, logically, the inability to prove something does not constitute a disproof (that would be the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantium).

The logical structure of the scientific method is well known. We even covered it in my intro to logic class and in numerous books I've read since. This research s deductive logic supporting an inductive conclusion. The more of the former, the stronger the premise supported by the latter.

You probably know all this, but we don't want to give the impression that the scientific method is not logically supported, nor its conclusions not logically supported by this particular experiment.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

If God created people and knew exactly what would follow suite from each of his creations, and created them anyway...sounds like Free Will to me. They weren't intended to be 'fuck-ups, sinners, etc' but they ended up that way nonetheless, that implies they are free to do so.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[MojoRilla]

Neither the laws of physics nor the complexity of life in any way provide objective evidence that there is an omnipotent, supernatural god. They can also be evidence that complexity can arise from simplicity, and that the universe happens to have hospitable conditions for life.

Only someone who believes in god would see those as evidence of god. Don't feel bad though. Your ape hierarchical mind is probably hardwired to believe in god. Believing in hierarchy is good for the group.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[spun]

Beliefs justified by evidence that can change if evidence dictates they change? Don't mind if I do!

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[BrokenHalo]

A false... trilemma...

No. A trilemma can have several definitions, depending on who you talk to. Sometimes it's applied as "out of [A B C] you can have two, but not all three" (e.g. [A + B] but not C).

In this case, it's obviously applied as "take your pick": you can have A or B or C.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Alinabi]

If God exists, and if he's omniscient and omnipotent, he could...

...come up with something he could not do, which would make Him less than omnipotent. Hence the original hypothesis must be wrong. QED.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[spun]

The holistic, emotional circuitry isn't bad if it's kept tuned right by a logical side.

The logical side works pretty well if it has a solid holistic base to build from.

Fortunately or unfortunately, we are social animals each born into a social situation unique to us and yet to the most part, shared by billions substantially like us. And they all, every billion one of them over the age of two, have beliefs they are all too happy to share with us. Unsuspecting, we were all thrust into a veritable cesspit of strongly held bad ideas, with a few shit covered diamonds floating here and there, indistinguishable from the fetid mass until you find them and polish them off.

This is the point in the cartoon where I emerge from the cesspit, shrug my shoulders, and say, "Eh? It's a living."

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[BrokenHalo]

it's a test of faith.

This is such a cop-out, it makes me tired. You could substitute "wilful stupidity", and it would mean the same thing. A god that demands that you suspend your capability to reason when it suits him is not much of a god.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Entropy2016]

Evolution comes into play even before there are biological organisms. Galaxies evolve, solar systems evolve

Sorry, but galaxies and solar systems don't evolve because they aren't adapting to anything nor do they self replicate.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[clockwise_music]

d) He gives you the choice, doesn't force you to believe, and respects your decision. Same way your parents can't force you to love them.

If you're genuinely asking this question and want some answers send me a msg : )

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Darby]

d)it's a test of faith.

No, that's not d), that's just c)he likes to play mind games, so why bother worshiping him?

"tests of faith" are idiotic mind games. What sort of a worthwhile supreme beings gives us good brains with the ability to reason and only rewards the people who are complete failures?

Obviously a only sleazebag beneath our contempt.

The OP covered all possible possibilities.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

DEMONstrate ....bewaaaaare. If you demonstrate this you prove the existence of demons, hence...oh heck, where was I going.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Darby]

d) What's the point of faith if he just proves to everyone he exists?

No, the question is what's the point of faith. The only point in it is for the benefit of the scumbags telling the idiots that there really are magical invisible fairies. That's the only reason religion requires faith. Were there actually a god, he'd never have been so fucking stupid as to utterly fail to ever provide a single scrap of evidence for his existence which he clearly has never done....well, unless it amuses him to see so many tortured and murdered by the weak willed cowards and fools who follow delusional people. If that's the case, then I'm still far too good for such a whiny little shitbag.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[MobyDisk]

Just to add: this is called a non-falsifiable theory.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[ceoyoyo]

It makes the gap a lot smaller though.

Of course, as a logician, be careful not to look at the Christian "proofs" of god's existence. Your head might explode.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[ceoyoyo]

Evidently you completely misunderstood his post.

1. He stated that an omnipotent god could demonstrate his existence to the satisfaction of all.

I assume you don't disagree with 1. The terms are not at all narrow. It should be child's play for an omnipotent being to do ANYTHING, including demonstrating his own existence. That's kind of what "omnipotent" means.

The poster then suggested three options for what it means that (1) has not occurred:

a) he doesn't care, so why bother worshiping him?
b) he doesn't exist, so why bother worshiping him?
c) he likes to play mind games, so why bother worshiping him?

You're free to argue that there are more than these three options, but I expect most of them are going to fit pretty nicely into (c).

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Fallen Seraph]

Entropy is correct. You're using a colloquial definition of evolution of "change over time." This is not what we're talking about. The original poster is referring to the biological theory evolution, which is NOT the same thing. The biological theory of evolution depends on reproduction and adaptation. The theory of evolution is a very specific theory and applying it colloquially to other events and claiming that it's the same thing is disingenuous to science and to anyone who listens to you and thinks you're correct, as well as undermining the case for evolution.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[sxltrex]

You completely missed the point. The parent's comment wasn't debating the existence of God. The post covered why worshiping said God was irrelevant and a waste of time.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[whong09]

The inability to disprove something that also can not be proven is a moot argument and holds no merit.

And what happens when all these points previously used to defend ID start to disappear one by one, where eventually the entire evolutionary chain is complete without conscious intervention?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Seraphim_72]

A quote form a Greek, that believed in the predestination of Hellenic Gods. A 300 BCE quote really?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[SleepingWaterBear]

Well, I'm an Atheist, but I'd like to point out that if God did exist, and liked to play mind games (option c), the obvious rational response is to play the damned mind games. Doing anything else would be bloody stupid!

Which is why, if I believed in God, I would without hesitation donate all my worldly goods to charity, and join a monastery. I have never heard anyone come up with an explanation that held any water as to how an actual Christian believer could do anything else. Are 80 odd years doing what you like on this planet really worth risking losing eternal bliss?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

He respects your decision?

Assuming you're talking about God, of the Nazareth family, if you decide you don't believe in him, you burn in hell. For ever and ever.

If respecting your decision is giving you eternal torture, that's a god I really don't want to have much to do with.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[dafdaf]

But more important is the question: Can god microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[AliasMarlowe]

But, Remington Microscreen shaves as close as a blade or your money back. How can Occam compete with that?

I have a beard, you insensitive clod!
Occam appears clean shaven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_of_Ockham.png, despite the scarcity of Remington shavers.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Damnit, I hope my house never catches on fire. The fact that I know the fire service exists means that I can no longer have any faith in them to come to my aid.

Actually, you mix up the fact: Fire service exists with the hypothesis: In the future, if my house is on fire, they will come.
The faith you have is not in whether the Fire service exists, but in the event that when your house is on fire, they will come.

Please note there is a difference between believing and knowing, and between objects and events.
The fact that the fire service exists does not mean that they will go to your house should it be on fire. Although based on previous observations, you have made a hypothesis that in case of a house on fire, the most likely outcome is that the fire service will move there in response to the distress call.
And as long as they do not suddenly start roasting marshmallows whenever a house is on fire, your hypothesis holds.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

> Any being sufficiently more powerful than you can convince you that it is omnipotent.

Resurrection of the truly dead is impossible, no matter how advanced and high-tech you are. Resurrection requires a miracle (i.e. a direct violation of natural principles by an entity who is outside of the bounds of natural laws). Resurrection of all humans in body and soul is the central promise of Christianity and the Catholic Church actually has proof of it having happened! You may visit the city of Turin in Italy.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

ID is about removing evolution from curriculum?

I guess it's easy to debase your opponents argument when you make their assertions for them...

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[somersault]

Yes, I didn't say that I know 100% would get there, but I do have faith that they would try their best as generally only a certain type of person becomes a fireman (added to the fact that they have a good record in the past like you say).

I know that faith is simply a belief, but most non religious types seem to think faith is entirely to do with existence. Even if people knew for sure that some kind of god existed, it would still be possible to choose to worship him and place your faith in him (presumably for getting to heaven or whatever, that seems to be the usual type of reward). Even if we knew that many gods existed you could still choose to put faith in one to the exclusion of others, or mix and match, etc

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[dword]

What about the Asgards?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally OT:
It really does! I got the cheapest remington rechargeable I could find three days ago (about £45, $60) and it shaves closer than the more expensive (nearly twice as much) Brauns I've been using for years. And it has a much better long hair trimmer and a more grippable body. I guess I'll have to save up and buy the company...

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

I would seriously like some answers. However, I do not want to PM you (I'm too lazy to log in). I would rather all of our discussion be out in the open, in public, for everybody to ridicule you and me for our silly beliefs (or lack of beliefs on my part).

If you want to genuinely answer this question (and more), simply post the answer, in full, in full view of everybody on Slashdot. If you don't, I will simply assume that you have something to hide and therefore have an agenda that does not include proclaiming your opinion of truth for the rest of the world.

Your choice. I respect you either way.

-- God

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[noundi]

Sure, very elaborate theory. Don't forget the simple more obvious resons. It's a test. Why would an omnipotent being need to perform a test? It's kind of supposed to already know everything.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[sFurbo]

And doens't in any way tell you what his wishes are (or, doesn't give you any way to tell apart his lessons and the lessons of charlatans), but punishes you for not obeying them. That is a form of c)

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

That is included in c). If he wants me to follow his wishes but doesn't tell me his wishes than that could easily considered a mind game. Sure there are enough people claiming to know his wishes. But they contradict each other and there is no evidence that one of them is more legitimated than any other.

Also if he is that respectful I don't really see a need to worship him either. You say it doesn't make a difference for me, because he respects my decision. Respecting someones decision means to not discriminate against him, so he doesn't treat me any different than his followers. And I bet god has enough self-esteem that it doesn't make a difference to him.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[addsalt]

Are you familiar with the scientific process? This was yet another falsifiable test for the currently best supported version of the theory of abiogenesis. It was a test the theory passed

None of this is science - let's stop using that word. Everyone here is making conjectures about a certain something that happened in a point of time. That isn't science, that is history. Proving that life can be created spontaneously does not infer that it did. In the negative, not having a method to have it happen today does not mean that it didn't happen in the past.

Science tells us what is most likely to happen in the future. It isn't a great historian because history isn't subject to testing (today only happens once).

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[bitsmith]

Is that you, Mr. Spock?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Spatial]

A quote form a Greek, that believed in the predestination of Hellenic Gods. A 300 BCE quote really?

Damn, I can't think of anything to refute this. I know, I'll use an ad hominem and mouth off some horseshit about how old the quote is to serve as a distraction. A 'really' at the end for blasé and I'm on the way to a winning argument for sure!

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[noidentity]

It, at best, removes a point that was previously used to defend ID.

A point that was used to attack evolution. It does nothing to make ID into even as much as a theory.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Fujisawa Sensei]

No, it wouldn't settle anything. Any being sufficiently more powerful than you can convince you that it is omnipotent. Any being sufficiently more clever than you could convince you that it is omniscient. An advanced alien race, claiming to be God, could determine who believes in God and who doesn't, and rain sulfur and fire on the nonbelievers, so a rain of fire and sulfur from something claiming to be God would not prove God exists, sorry.

A truly omnipotent being does not have to try convince anyone of its omnipotent. The very act of trying to convince me simply proves that the being is not omnipotent.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[pwfffff]

How does an omnipotent being not achieve what he 'intends'?

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Fujisawa Sensei]

d)it's a test of faith.

In what, some all powerful jerk who preaches love while threatening to burn people for eternity.

The teacher fails.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[pwfffff]

Exactly! Once the heart is stopped you're dead for sure. No technology, no matter how advanced, can restart the human he--

Oh, wait, nevermind, somebody went and invented the defibrillator.

Saying the 'truly dead' cannot be resurrected is semantics. The definition of 'truly dead' includes the inability to resurrect.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

None of this is science - let's stop using that word.

Yes, this is. You just don't seem to know what science is.

Everyone here is making conjectures about a certain something that happened in a point of time.

It's called a hypothesis.

. That isn't science, that is history.

The scientific method can be applied to historical events and often has been.

Proving that life can be created spontaneously does not infer that it did.

Actually it does. It provides support for the theory that it did. It doesn't prove that it did, but that's not what science is about. Science is about making useful predictions and testing those predictions to provide support for a theory. The theory with the most support is the one logical, rational people believe. It's a formal process for determining belief, rather than supporting them.

In the negative, not having a method to have it happen today does not mean that it didn't happen in the past.

No, but demonstrating there is no method by which the molecules could have combined given what we know about the past state of the earth in the past does disprove the specific theory. This is the RNA world theory of abiogenesis. Disproving it lends support to other abiogenesis theories.

cience tells us what is most likely to happen in the future. It isn't a great historian because history isn't subject to testing (today only happens once).

Nonsense. Science has predicted observations about the past over and over again. Everything from "my theory predicts the gold has dissolved into the solution" to "we should find those intermediate skeletons in layers of rock 16 feet down".

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me how do you burn a non-corporeal spirit/soul? See the flame is figurative. You are separated from God, just as you wished. And the state of mind you'll be in, of your own choosing, will be far less than ideal.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[ukyoCE]

calling people stupid for beliving one way or another is a waste of time

Definitely.

I always state I'm agnostic instead of an athiest

This is the same sort of nonsense as prefixing every single sentence with "I think" or "Most likely". Overqualification dilutes the point.

There no reason to believe there is an omnipotent deity, let alone one specific deity (and corresponding set of rules) out of the dozens popular this particular century.

Agnosticism implies you believe in mythology and mysticism.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not holding my breath..

.. crushing you nonbelievers with rain of sulfur and fire ..

We are doomed!

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[sorak]

d) He gives you the choice, doesn't force you to believe, and respects your decision. Same way your parents can't force you to love them.

But is it a choice if you have no way of knowing what you're choosing? For example, I can choose to play the lottery, but I cannot choose to win the lottery. The same goes with a diety. I can choose to believe some guy, or some book, but I cannot choose to believe in a god that exists, because there is no way of discerning a "true" belief from a made-up one.

To reiterate, I can choose to gamble, but I cannot choose to win.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so you're going to be pretend that god is real, but also nothing more than a metaphor for self-fulfillment. Cute.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[g_rampage]

Agnosticism implies you believe in mythology and mysticism.

It implies you don't believe one way or another. It implies you accept the possibility of, yes, but it doesn't imply belief.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[sorak]

The OP covered all possible possibilities.

How about "d." he is a god, from a race of supergods, but is in hiding, because he saw a member of the god mafia "cap" Buddha, and then he snitched. So, the diety protection program sent him to Utah, where he must keep a low profile, while trying to maintain his follower base. Thus, the mind games...

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[vertinox]

An advanced alien race, claiming to be God, could determine who believes in God and who doesn't, and rain sulfur and fire on the nonbelievers, so a rain of fire and sulfur from something claiming to be God would not prove God exists, sorry.

I mean what is the difference if the definition of a God is subjective?

Come to think of it Pharaohs and some Roman Emperors were considered living gods but weren't really all that powerful other than they ruled the land.

If say, a super intelligent being or machine could control space and time, who is to argue if they are god because by default they are since they control life and death?

You could make the argument that the current god did not create the universe but you still could not prove it because you were not around to witness it, but if the current "god" has the power to make its views believed as to be fact, who is to argue.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

d) he loves you and gave you free will

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Seraphim_72]

Are you always this dumb?

My response was about predestination. It is hardly argumentum ad hominem if the person doesn't occupy the same space that is being discussed. Does saying "she is only a child" count as argumentum ad hominem for you when a 5 year old says "balloons fly because they are full of love"?

Read the great-grandparent and it's siblings. All of the arguments fall flat because they *all* assume man has no free will and assume predestination.

Using a 300 BCE quote from someone that also didn't believe in free will is bullshit too. That the grandparent reached back that far is crap. I can quote Aristotle about creatio ex nihilo, does that make it right somehow?

Damn, I can't think of anything to refute this. I know, I'll use an ad hominem and mouth off

Next time try to add something to the conversation. I asked if a 2300 year old quote was relevant, not to "win".

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[mattwarden]

Uh, except the ID people do not see them as two separate things.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[ukyoCE]

This is creating a (false) triple-value option.

1) I believe in religion
2) I don't know
3) I don't believe in religion

Atheism is lack of belief in a god, not refusal that a god could possibly exist. The existence of a God is not falsifiable. Therefore your only options are

1) Theism (belief in religion)
2) Atheism (lack of belief in religion)

It seems from googling a bit that it's become commonplace use Agnostic as a modifier for Theist and Atheist. Perhaps what you really mean is that you're an Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic Atheist? In this framework your options are:

1. Theism (belief in a specific mystical deity or dieties)
2. Agnostic Theism (belief in the general concept of mystical dieties)
3. Agnostic Atheism (lack of belief in the concept of mystical deities)

Or as Richard Dawkins put it,
"I am only agnostic in the sense I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden"

It's quite meaningless to go around modifying every single decision and concept with "MAYBE..."

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

ID is about removing evolution from curriculum? I guess it's easy to debase your opponents argument when you make their assertions for them...

That would be a straw man argument, but that's not the case here. It is fairly well established at this point, including in the courts, that the intelligent design movement was just that based upon their internal documents and statements made by the originators.

That doesn't mean people couldn't take the idea and change it though. If you're up to the task, present us with a hypothesis of intelligent design and propose a scientific experiment. It's that easy. We're all waiting.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[g_rampage]

You've locked your terminology down to the point that there's no 3rd option. I agree with that. I don't agree with your terminolgy.

Atheism is not the lack of a belief in god, it's the belief in the lack of god.

"It's quite meaningless to go around modifying every single decision and concept with "MAYBE..."

I absolutely agree with this. Unfortunately it's such a prevalent debate that someone created a term for just this issue. That doesn't make the term invalid.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Fallen Seraph]

That's why they're wrong ;)

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[ingenuus]

The only meaningful act of an omnipotent and omniscient being is to limit its own power and knowledge. In essence, to create separate entities of free will and abide by rules for its existence.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

What, "free will" where one choice is rewarded with eternal love, life, and happiness and the other is rewarded with eternal punishment?

What the hell kind of choice is that? (pardon the expression)

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

If he knew what would follow suite from them and created them anyway, then yes, he intended for them to be fuck-ups and sinners. What you just said is about on par with "Water is wet, but water isn't wet."

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[atraintocry]

I said it was about getting anti-evolution viewpoints brought into science class. Which is not the same thing as removing evolution, but I'm sure they'd do that as well if they could.

It's just stupid that you'd attack a straw man while accusing me of the same.

Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. (footnote 7 on page 46)

ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

I'd invite everyone that hasn't done so and cares about such things to read through the entire thing. At the very least, the cross-examinations are eye-opening. This is black and white and it really is no secret what these people are about. But if you need it spelled out for you: indoctrinating children .

I can understand why you are confused. The term Intelligent Design was chosen *because* of its ambiguity. The original name, Creationism, did a better job of declaring intent. Calling it ID (and there is plenty of hard evidence that it was a considered, wholesale, PR-style name change) lets you pick up the support of people who (a) believe in a creator and (b) are confused about what ID is all about.

"My opponents" do not need to have their words twisted in order to be debased. They do it to themselves when they put *fucking saddles* on *fucking dinosaurs.*

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[corbettw]

"Respects your decision"? Seriously? Is that why so many religions teach that if you worship the wrong god you'll burn in hell?

There is no choice. Your scenario is simply a variant of c) likes to play mind games. After all, I have no way of knowing which god is the real god out of the multitude of religions available, few of which agree on anything of substance. Sure, they might all have something like "be nice to each other" (for different values of "each other", of course). But they don't agree on the nature of god. Some say there's just one being (Judaism and Islam), others that there are thousands of beings (pagan religions), and still others that it's one being composed of multiple beings (Christianity and Hinduism).

Picking the wrong one could result in fire and brimstone for all eternity; even hedging your bets and worshiping all of them is no good as that still counts as worshiping other gods.

So yeah, that's all summed up in option c).

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[corbettw]

Religion relies on faith.

So do conmen, what's your point? That religions the world over are run by a bunch of charlatans out to fleece simple people? I couldn't agree more.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Psyborgue]

The theologans would argue god gave us free choice. God supposedly already knows what we're going to do but gives us the chance to do it anyway. Of course to a being that exists supposedly outside of time, it's a non issue.

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Tubal-Cain]

Ancients/Ori

Re:Ignoratio Elenchi

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you blasphemy the magical pink unicorns!!!

Mmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Soup...

Re:One word....

[pugdk]

So in other words: Even more chance of contamination.

Re:One word....

[eln]

Contamination.

'Nuff said.

Obviously. I'm sure they never accounted and corrected for that possibility. After all, it's not like these people are the type who would know anything about basic experimental science or anything.

Deja vu

[SnarfQuest]

a mixture that resembles what was likely the primordial soup.

Deja vu: I just had primordial soup for lunch.

Re:Deja vu

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope it was low-sodium primordial soup.

Re:Deja vu

[drinkypoo]

Deja vu: I just had primordial soup for lunch.

Great, just great. Do you know how many potential species you just wiped out? The right to lifers are going to have you up against the wall in a nanosecond.

Re:Deja vu

[John Hasler]

> I just had primordial soup for lunch.

Isn't that what was in that fridge in San Jose?

Re:Deja vu

[BotnetZombie]

I just had primordial soup for lunch.

That's what she said.

That's Nothing!

[serutan]

I've assembled a Windows XP kernel from Campbell's cream of leek soup.

Re:That's Nothing!

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Would that be "cream of memory leek", "cream of resource leek", or "cream of taking a leek" soup?

Re:One word....

[pugdk]

From what I know plenty of previous attempts or rather "succesful" attemps have been shown to be due to contamination.

Now, I'm not saying these people don't know what they are doing, I'm saying the chance of contamination with discrete amounts of RNA / RNA bases / whatever in my eyes are probably far greater than the chance of actually making RNA.

(and no, I'm not some sort of creationist bastard heh)

Witchdoctor

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news :
Witchdoctor creates soup from scientists who were studying primordials .

Man you scared me there

[gringofrijolero]

I thought the headline said that scientists create RIAA ...see, being from primordial soup...oh nevermind. No soup for you!

Misleading Article Title

[ThistleForce]

Anyone that only scans the synopsis is going to get the wrong idea. Read the article...it's more than likely that this never occurred in nature. Since when do organisms add material and cleanse and add and cleanse? Who threw the sugar in the first primordial soup? Where would RNA get it's instructions? There are too many holes... this isn't a breakthrough in science, It's an episode of "The Frugal Gourmet"

Re:Misleading Article Title

[ceoyoyo]

It is science, specifically chemistry. It's not the whole story, but this experiment demonstrates that it is POSSIBLE to form RNA from simple precursors. Now that someone has demonstrated how it can be done, showing how it might have happened in nature is only a matter of showing how it can be done better.

Re:Misleading Article Title

[MichaelSmith]

On the other hand there is that natural fission reactor in (I think) Africa. Nuclear reactors are normally quite difficult to construct.

If you have a whole planet and billions of years quite a few low probability things can be expected to happen by accident.

Re:Misleading Article Title

[MightyDrunken]

While I agree with your first two sentences, I think you go wrong from there. The article explicitly states that the process they used could not have happened as they did it. But all the ingredients were likely to be around before life began on Earth.

Since when do organisms add material and cleanse and add and cleanse?

Hey, I bathe atleast once a year!
Assuming you mean naturally occurring process, rather than organism. How about a tidal pool where the chemistry is likely to change every day. Or near a periodic geyser, or a volcanic plume under the sea.

Who threw the sugar in the first primordial soup?

The sugar was already there.

Where would RNA get it's instructions?

Why would the RNA need "instructions"? We are simply trying to make some.

There are too many holes... this isn't a breakthrough in science, It's an episode of "The Frugal Gourmet"

How so? They are proving that from simple precursors which would have been on early Earth that RNA can be made. True they are not showing the exact way life started, just that it is plausible with relatively simple natural like chemistry. I think it is a worthy scientific piece of knowledge.

A flowchart might be helpful

[reverseengineer]

This is the reaction sequence that's being proposed here: link.

Previously, the sticking point was that there was no logical way for the sugar (ribose) to spontaneously attach to the base. Organisms use enzymes to transfer a ribose phosphate group to a base, but of course, in the time before enzymes could be coded for, that wouldn't be possible. This sequence neatly sidesteps that, and also provides a more logical reason for phosphate to be involved; it is the reagent that attacks that tricyclic pyrimidosugar, breaking the bond to form ribocytidine phosphate.

Coincidentally, UV light deaminates cytosine to form uracil, which is where that second base comes from. This is why DNA uses thymine instead of uracil, by the way- as the archival storage medium for our genetic information, it would be unwise to have one base easily interconvert into another. The shorter expected lifetime of RNA means the interconversion is not a concern, though.

Re:A flowchart might be helpful

[ColdWetDog]

Nice summary. Better than the summary. More interesting stuff on RNA as the precursor to life here.

Re:One word....

[spun]

What are your credentials, and why should we believe your arbitrary assertion? Could you give examples of past failures due to contamination? Could you tell us, given the particular set up of this experiment, what the possible vector of contamination is? Could you tell us why you think this particular experiment could not have created RNA? What are the difficulties that this set up does not address?

Or maybe you could just admit that 'contamination' is a total shot in the dark with no evidence to back it up.

THIS JUST IN:

[mikek2]

Flying Spaghetti Monster unimpressed.

Re:One word....

[pugdk]

I earn a living (well, if you can call it that) doing biochemical research, but frankly I don't care if you believe me (RTFA, it pretty much speaks for itself).

Sorry, not bored enough to give examples, but using google scholar will most definitely help you (if you are that bored ;-).

Possible vector of contamination? Are you serious? Try just about everything they may have come into contact with.... removal of "all things resembling RNA" is much easier than it sounds... destruction of RNA strands, yes... quite easy (however that may introduce yet more contamination ;-). Removal of all nucleotides... good luck.

Contamination is actally quite a good shot as to what may have brought on at least the start of the process...

Did I mention I'm not that worried if you don't believe me? :-)

Re:One word....

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words: Even more chance of contamination.

No. Even less chance of contamination, because until you reach the final step ANY contamination would cause an immediate failure of the process.

Godless Science loses *another* battle!

[Dystopian Rebel]

"Sutherland says [...] 'The key turned out to be the order that the ingredients are added and the way you put them together -- like making a soufflé.'"

How much clearer does it need to be made to you amoral materialists that cooking dinner needs *a Chef*?

The only thing I regret is that Sutherland compared God's Work to making a "soufflé". Couldn't he have used a good Christian American recipe?

Like omelette!

Re:Godless Science loses *another* battle!

[jawtheshark]

a) A soufflé isn't an omelette....
b) Most hilarious comment I ever read....

Re:Godless Science loses *another* battle!

[onkelonkel]

"Those Frenchmen don't even have a word for entrepreneur"

Re:Godless Science loses *another* battle!

[Dystopian Rebel]

Hmm, -1 Troll. Must be a lot of religious nuts with Mod points this evening. (o:

Re:Godless Science loses *another* battle!

[Ifandbut]

On the off chance you were not going for the funny mod.

Just because it was order dependent does not mean that order could not have occurred after a number of iterations.

Re:One word....

[panthroman]

Contamination. 'Nuff said.

Obviously. I'm sure they never accounted and corrected for that possibility. After all, it's not like these people are the type who would know anything about basic experimental science or anything.

Sometimes even the researchers think it's contamination, but the story's too good for journalists to pass up. A memorable example:

"Scientists at University of Alabama sequenced a 130-nucleotide long mitochondrial DNA sequence from dinosaur vertebrae, and found that it was 100% homologous to mitochondrial DNA from turkeys. However, the scientists themselves 'remain quite sceptical of our own work' and noted that they had been consuming turkey sandwiches in the laboratory."

Even though the triceratops-turkey 'finding' was never published and eventually dismissed by the researchers, the false result was leaked onto the internet, where it can still be found today.

This RNA synthesis paper, however, has no such caveats.

Is this Nobel worthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the flow chart I get the idea that these folks have done a good job of showing succinctly their novel idea. It doesn't look so terribly difficult or different. But nobody else seems to have come up with it in forty years. And even if it does not truly represent what happened it is a big step towards and inspiration for those who would propose a better idea. It also provides an opportunity to research many other of life's puzzles.

Well done!

A still-unanswered question

[93 Escort Wagon]

Was it Campbell's or Progresso?

Re:One word....

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Frank N. Furter: It was an ACCIDENT!

Do you know what that word means?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really see the point of this in the argument. We already know that there must be SOME way to form all the biochemicals, or they wouldn't exist to begin with, whether there's a Designer or not.

Then again, I don't waste my time arguing about ID to begin with...

Also: abiogenesis refers to life coming from nothing. This is RNA, not a living organism. It's one step closer, but it is not, in fact, a demonstration of abiogenesis.

rna vs dna

[Anonymous Coward]

can someone give a quick explanation on how RNA is different from DNA? why is it relevant?

Re:rna vs dna

[Anonymous Coward]

DNA ? well the answer is obviously 42

Re:rna vs dna

[JoshuaZ]

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is generally double stranded (classic double helix) and is more robust than RNA (ribonucleic acid) which is generally single stranded. Both use a base 4 code of triplets of certain additions to contain information (normally denoted C,G,A and T). However, RNA has a slightly different set of bases (having uracil in the place of thymine so U instead of T). Almost all life on earth uses DNA to store information in its long-term form and makes RNA when it needs to make proteins. This is a process known as transcription http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_(genetics).

The primary reason why this discovery is a big deal is that there is a hypothesis that all life started out as using RNA and only later evolved to use DNA. This is known as the RNA world hypothesis- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis This is a very popular idea in abiogenesis research. There are number of avenues of evidence for thinking this: Essentially, the major problem with a DNA first model of abiogenesis is that DNA cannot normally reproduce itself without proteins. Moreover, DNA cannot produce proteins without the aid of RNA. However, properly chosen RNA strands can reproduce themselves without protein assistance. Moreover, RNA can directly mediate the synthesis of proteins. So if one can find a procedure that can plausibly produced RNA then one can handle most of the problems of abiogenesis in one fell swoop.

Re:rna vs dna

[SpinyNorman]

RNA, being simpler, surely came before DNA, but before RNA there'd have been much simpler self-replicators:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

The precursors to life would have been nothing more than chemical chain reactions that consumed other chemicals in the environment. Separate a number of these reactions from each other (all consuming the same chemicals - i.e. competing - in the environment) and you've got the beginnings of evolution. Anything as complex as RNA may have taken millions of years, or more, to evolve from these simple beginnings.

You forgot...

[tool462]

d) God is actually a woman. Powerful, but insecure, and she needs you to show her how much you love her all the time. If you don't, she'll get depressed and eat her weight in mint-chocolate chip ice cream, in which case she'll end up omnipresent in more ways than one.

Re:You forgot...

[iggymanz]

and with the world situation, I note She's on the rag

Re:You forgot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yaaaaaaaaay stereotypes. :/

Re:You forgot...

[Anonymous Coward]

In all fairness he's right. This doesn't only apply to women. It applies to girls, ladies, chicks, babes, hoes and bitches as well.

Yet again, with the shitty article names

[rezalas]

This is like saying "Scientists find a way of creating diamonds from carbon." Its easy to say you figured out how to do something when you get to guess what the materials really are in the first place. They don't really know what "primordial soup" would have been. They just said "hey, we can make RNA out of this random shit we figured would be laying around... using this expensive equipment and a method that requires accurate timing and purification and controls."

don't get me wrong, I'm willing to look at "random accident" as a method for the creation of life, but this article is bullshit. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go write an article showing that a copper mine with sand in it can evolve into a circuit board for a car stereo with a few simple steps and a bunch of human intervention...

Re:Yet again, with the shitty article names

[SpinyNorman]

Actually, if you RTFA, the Scientist who discovered this did it by trying all possible combinations - an effort that took him about 10 years. It doesn't seem in the least bit implausible, rather the opposite, that nature would have also tried all combinations given a few million rock pools and few million years of random change.

Re:Yet again, with the shitty article names

[rezalas]

nature would have tried it egh? Like, purposely? Sounds like planning to me... However since you mentioned reading the article, you seem to have glazed over this little comment the man seem to know so well made.

Its not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. Its a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didnt happen in the ancient world.

Re:Yet again, with the shitty article names

[ceoyoyo]

Actually, we know a reasonable amount about what was probably in the primordial soup. Through various means we know something about what the air was like and what inorganic materials were likely to be in the water. Plus UV and lightning.

Then there was at least one guy who spent his life zapping those materials to see what he got.

Re:Yet again, with the shitty article names

[ErikZ]

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that God created circuit boards. Do you really believe humans could possibly come up with something so elegant and complex on their own?

If scientists are successful...

[Anonymous Coward]

Will that prove abiogenesis or ID? ;-)

He didn't forget

[spun]

'Likes to play mind games' was option c)

You may be looking for this quote.

[copponex]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

-Epicurus, 300 BCE

The refrain from fundamentalists, Christian and Muslim and Jew alike, is because he is God, and he said so, according to this really old book. Which is usually the inerrant word of God - they just can't agree on which version is the "perfect" word. Once you try to engage someone who firmly believes that they know what God thinks, there's no use in trying to apply logic.

One of my favorite David Cross bits is where he's asking out loud for the name of the television show where there's this guy on stage, and everyone in the television audience believes he can talk to the dead. The crowd in front of David keeps shouting out "Crossing Over!"

And then David says, "Oh no, it was church, it was church."

Re:You may be looking for this quote.

[someonehasmyname]

Great joke. Too bad the mods are going to kill you for it. If I ever got any mods points I'd spend em here.

Trifecta!

[spun]

You just made three unsupported and ridiculous assertions as if they were a logical argument. Nice hat trick.

Religion does not need to rely on faith. Buddhism certainly doesn't, but I know some consider that a philosophy, not a religion. Still, it is listed as a major world religion, and it requires no one to take anything on faith.

Predestination and free will are both pointless human speculations unsupported by any human experiences, and if free will were real, it would be a curse, not a gift, especially considering your God's planned punishments for going against arbitrary rules that you have no way of knowing came from Him.

If God were to be in residence and free will were real, God's presence would not diminish free will. So what? At most, nobody would choose to sin anymore. I don't choose to froom, either, and my not being able to choose to froom does not diminish any free will I may have.

But people could still choose to sin knowing God existed, I know I would, just to register my disapproval of God's arbitrary and unjust actions. Infinite punishment for finite transgressions, my ass. Fuck you, God, I'm going out to fuck a guy JUST TO PISS YOU OFF, YOU SHIT! I'm not even gay, I'll probably hate it, but I'm going to do it just because you said you'd torture me forever if I did. I don't negotiate with terrorists.

Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU just made a number of logical errors, posing them as some sort of truth.

Buddhism certainly relies on faith. One has to have faith that the rewards of the philosophy will work as advertised. Depending on the flavor of Buddhism, there are indeed some things that need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Evidence that the Buddha existed is surely in abundance, but what about Brahma or the devas? Certainly some faith is required to accept that they are real.

That you would state "..your God's.." is pure opinion. A belief in God (of any flavor) was not pronounced.

Free Will is apparent. Predestination is implied and neither Free Will nor Predestination are pointless. You didn't sufficiently explain why Free Will would be a curse.

The reason Free Will and the manifestation of God in our world are not compatible is because of the idea that God cannot force humanity to respect the Divinity or to follow God's wishes. People must freely choose to do that. God in residence would really remove the faith aspect of Free Will. I choose to follow a certain path because I am free to do so...not because God, who somehow ended up living in Ohio, is going to baste my testicles in brimstone and fire AND I KNOW he will BECAUSE he's fricken' RIGHT THERE in Ohio. Faith and Free Will aren't quite the same with God in residence.

Re:Trifecta!

[spun]

Brahma and the Divas are Hinduism, not Buddhism. Buddha explicitly said, "Don't believe anything anyone tells you, even me, unless it agrees with your logic and understanding of the world."

Capitalizing 'Free Will' does not make it apparent. Free will (if it exists) is a curse, because we have no way of distinguishing God's will from that of a charlatan posing as the voice of God, be that voice internal or external. Supposedly, God judges us by these rules that we have no way of verifying. Punishes us infinitely, according to some faiths. We have to 'take it on faith' but we could be taking the word of an impostor, a false God, and thus doomed by the real God's rules.

Look, I understand what you've been taught. You don't need to explain it to me, it isn't as though I haven't given it serious consideration. I'm just not buying that the world works in any way remotely related to the way you think it does.
Don't take it as an insult, in my way of looking at things, being deluded is just another state of mind. It isn't good or bad, it just is.

You don't even acknowledge or respond to my arguments, I don't know why I bother. Oh yes, because I like doing this. I have no way of knowing for sure that I am not the deluded one, so I always listen. But to believe in God, I would have to rearrange so many of my ideas, I don't even know where I would begin at this point.

Re:Trifecta!

[ignavus]

I thought Buddhists believed in reincarnation.

Re:Trifecta!

[spun]

Buddhists often adopt the beliefs of other cultures. Hinduism developed the belief in karma and reincarnation. Buddhism reinterpreted that belief to refer to the individual moments of our lives.

A sense impression arrives at the 'sense gates,' an abstract way of looking at a part of pre-consciousness. Notable sense impressions, as determined by 'previous life karma,' otherwise known as the value judgments we have placed on previous moments, are promoted towards consciousness.

The sense impression (including sensation of thought forms, such as 'self,' 'other,' and 'banana split.') begins to become a conscious moment. Value judgments, if any, are applied and the moment is quickly reinterpreted in light of those judgments. The reinterpreted moment is then presented to the consciousness construct, which usually judges it according to a sort of mental virus comprised of a series of rules, a judge, and a criminal/victim. This is the generation of 'current life karma.'

Placing a value judgment of 'Unimportant' at this point is just harmful as placing a 'Good' or 'Bad' value judgment on the moment, because it essentially erases the moment from consciousness, and the presumptions that underlie thinking this moment was important enough to raise to consciousness in the first place, and then NOT important, essentially cancel out.

The judge reads from the book of the rules, sentences, and punishes the victim (i.e. a part of you.) The punishment you choose to keep inflicting on yourself because a mental virus told you to is 'future life karma.'

You are free to stop participating in this cycle during the 'present life karma' part of it, instead of creating more karma: positive, negative, or neutral; but that is really hard to do and takes lots of practice to do continually.

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

You misunderstand. The infinite "punishment" is entirely your choice. Not what God wants at all. God is not a terrorist. He simply is consistent enough to follow all his own rules. If you chose the red door, he will let you walk through it. Why hate him for being consistent even though he'd like for hell not to exist? Or the fact that you'll be "punished" for your own actions? Come on. The picture of Hell is a trash heap. In fact many go a step further and say its a place full of highly successful rebels. The gates are barred from the inside..

GP makes a good point, but I disagree with him. God must prove his existence or it is not logical to believe in him. But that proof is not what you think it is and is not a scientific thing and thus not relevant to the discussion.

I am not asking you to believe. Just do me a favour, and know what you're talking about before attacking other people's beliefs. Show a bit of respect. Or if you don't want to understand(that is fine too), just let it be.

I don't really care about Karma - I'm here for the technical discussions, so I won't post anon.

Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience (fwiw) those who don't believe in "God the Creator" choose that course b/c the teachings of religion, and not science.

    Being thoroughly disgusted with hypocritical "Christians," Muslims, Jews, others, and their hypocritical teachings of "God," they turn away from that idea. Your post is a poster child for that vitriol.

And belief in a Loving God that tortures people forever is pretty hypocritical. Not Justice. Take that conclusion with the realization that the idea of eternal torture in the afterlife is a pagan idea, from Babylon and Egypt and Greek religion (Epic of Gilgamesh, Hades)

It's interesting to me that of all the pagan (christmas anyone) ideas that "Christianity" could co-opt, Eternal Hellfire is one of the worst. But it isn't really taught in the Bible. It is taught by "Christianity" though.

If you are curious, I can provide citations.

Re:Trifecta!

[boombaard]

But that proof is not what you think it is

convenient negative definition.

Re:Trifecta!

[noundi]

Silly man. Free will and omnipotency don't mix. If omnipotency exists thus the power to control time also exists. If you can control time you can manipulate, but even more importantly, observe the future and past. If you can observe the future it creates a milestone of that exact moment, thus any action will automatically lead to this exact milestone. This shatters the very existance of free will. So you have to choose, either you're free or your god is weak.

From another point of view, the sane scientifical point of view, free will cannot coexist with physical laws either. Any physical law binds events together forcing an outcome. If the grand unification theory is unveiled it will bind all events occurring in the universe together. Thus any action has an expected reaction. This of course means that everything we humans do would be mere reactions to ourselves and our surroundings. Thus with enough information I would be able to "force" any human into doing whatever I please. And the fact that I "chose" to do so would be a mere reaction to another input forged by someone/something else. The controversy of this is of course that if proven it means that no human is liable for any action and that destiny does infact exist. The cool part is that this would render timetraveling into the future no longer impossible due to the uncertainty of the future, however other laws might still kill the theory.

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

That is not relevant to this discussion, but if you want to know, message me.

Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, God, I'm going out to fuck a guy JUST TO PISS YOU OFF

Waitwut. I can think of plenty of ways to rebel. THIS.. would not be my first choice.

Re:Trifecta!

[pwfffff]

He'd like for hell not to exist? Really?

Is this in the same way that I'd 'like' to send all my money to poor children in developing countries? 'Cause I can-- but I don't. But yeah, those kids should worship me. I might feed one or two of them if they do everything I say.

---

        Matthew 19:26
        But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

        Job 42:2
        I know that thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

        Jeremiah 32:17,27
        Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:
        Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

        Luke 1:37
        For with God nothing shall be impossible.

        Revelation 19:6
        And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Re:Trifecta!

[AkiraRoberts]

And regarding reincarnation: in my own personal view, you can exclude it from the picture and Buddhism, as a system of thought, still works just fine. Personally, having an understanding of reincarnation along the same lines as the above, I don't choose to exclude it. But it's not 100% vital, and certainly isn't something that is taken on faith.

Point being a) reincarnation isn't ecessarily an example of Buddhism relying on faith and b) it's not central to Buddhism the way, for example, someone rising from the dead is central to Christianity.

Re:Trifecta!

[AkiraRoberts]

Take what you say at face value, God not 'wanting' infinite punishment and all, and that he is simply being consistent enough to follow his own rules (ignoring, for the moment, the notion that God's rules constraining God probably leads to a nasty little infinite regression) and that it's not God's 'fault' that you're being punished infinitely for finite crimes. My response there, and I suspect the reponse of others, is to say fine and that I refuse to participate in a universe is constructed along those lines. Personally, I believe that it isn't (one thing that I do have faith in), but if I'm wrong, and that's the universe we live in, I don't want to play. Childish, sure, but a universe run along those rules isn't one I really want to have anything to do with.

Re:Trifecta!

[spun]

I do know what I'm talking about. I know what YOUR beliefs are, and I know those aren't the beliefs I'm attacking. But if you try to pretend for one second that the beliefs I AM attacking are not incredibly popular, I'm going to have to laugh at you.

I know your proof, I tried it, and it didn't work for me. Sorry, been there, done that, bought the T shirt and moved on.

Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

ye and he said behold the fire and brimstone that shall be cast down upon you the king of the closet homos.

Re:Trifecta!

[hwsb]

i wish i could get you to +6

well said

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

Fair enough. I am not trying to convert anyone, merely clarify. You are free to disagree with me.

For your infinite regression, note that it is not the rules that restrain God, it is that his character restrains him from breaking them. If he broke the rules, people could claim "unfair! Why should we have to follow rules you don't!". As it is, they can't. Which is moot anyway, since you don't believe in God - again your choice. As long as you don't attack me for my choices, its fine. Heck I don't even mind reasonable debate.

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

Sorry to hear it didn't work out. I live my proof. But you'll chalk that up to insanity or something.

I guess I misunderstood your post. I react when I see Christianity misrepresented, which is not always a good thing to do. Sorry.

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

Uhuh. And the ability and desire to do something implies it must be done even if it goes against a greater desire? "I want to spend my money on sweets, but if I don't I can buy that video game which will give me hours of fun..."

I don't know anyone who believes in God that thinks he is a 10 year old kid who can't make hard choices or abide by rules, even if they are of his own making.

The concept of God which you attack is illogical and untrue. The accurate concept is much harder to attack. That being said, a fair number of people who profess belief in God have this concept of him, so fair enough.

Re:Trifecta!

[AkiraRoberts]

In that case, if God is constrained by his character, than, again, you've got that infinite regression (rules, character, no difference really). But I'm sure there's a way out of that, and it's not really the point. For the record, it's not so much that I don't believe in God as I fins the standard definition of the guy really unpleasant. What I do believe in is a) pretty much a big old tautology and b) my own business.

But hey, you believe what you want; I believe what I want and we can have a reasonable debate. But if what you believe (or what I believe) causes us to take actions that start to impact other people? That's when we start to have some problems. But I don't think either of us are at that stage (the Buddhist jihad is a long way off, I wager).

Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to think of an eternal hell as God whipping you and torturing you for eternity, when in reality from what is mentioned in the bible it is just the condition you'll be in when separated from God's love--by your own will. Do you choose to reside in love, or not-love. He will not force you either way.

Re:Trifecta!

[spun]

No, I will not chalk it up to insanity! I absolutely LOVE Good Christians, are you kidding? You guys are awesome!

However. I am willing to bet that you would still be a good person even if you hadn't found Christianity. You would have found something, or invented something, that helped you be a good person, because that is what you wanted, before you'd even heard about Christ.

Re:Trifecta!

[spun]

Then hell can't be forever. I could go to hell for a day, decide I'd rather have God's love, wave buh-bye to the Devil, and settle in for an eternity of snuggling with God. Right?

Re:Trifecta!

[steelfood]

As so often echoed here, having freedom is a responsibility. Having free will is no different. Most people can barely grasp its concept, despite them brandishing it around like some shiny bat with which they can club others.

Free will is absolute power over oneself and one's own actions. It is not only being able to make choices, but to recognize all the choices possible and choose among them. And it is to not only make a choice among the myriad of options, but make a choice without unconscious bias (conscious bias is freely embraced, and thus is a part of free will). It is a task that is recognized as impossible only by the greatest thinkers and probably the most rabid skeptics among them (Decartes being the most famous of such skeptics). Most people would just think that they have free will and move on. But without any amount of introspection, and without thought, only the most natural of choices are even brought to consideration, and the most natural of choices is but a subset of all of the choices possible.

The frightening thing is, the people who exhibit the most degrees of freedom in their thinking are the psychopaths and sociopaths. That is because they lack any restraints, any inhibitions. Every act involves a choice. Every decision is consciously made. To say that free will promotes relative morality is an understatement; the very start of free will is the complete and utter loss of morality. One can build a set of rules for survival on top of that, but it's only for survival. Or perhaps it is the other way around, that those who exhibit free can and likely will become psycopaths and sociopaths.

Either way, you're absolutely correct that it's more likely a curse than a blessing. People like their social restrictions. People like adhering to traditions and rules passed down since the dawn of civilization. They might not like all of them, but there's certainly a large number that they commonly like. It sort of reminds me of the features in MS Office; 80% of the users use 20% of the program, but they all use a different 20%. But I digress.

Re:Trifecta!

[pwfffff]

Exactly, one does what one most greatly desires. Ergo, what god desires most is for a large portion of his personal, 'beloved' creations to burn in fire for an eternity.

What a guy.

"I don't know anyone who believes in God that thinks he is a 10 year old kid who can't make hard choices or abide by rules, even if they are of his own making."

You must not know many people who read the Bible.

Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, God, I'm going out to fuck a guy JUST TO PISS YOU OFF

Waitwut. I can think of plenty of ways to rebel. THIS.. would not be my first choice.

Just proves he is an American. I wonder what "sin" would a Spaniard or a Frenchman choose? Culture based rebellion rocks!

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

Perhaps what he most greatly desires is to save at least some of them? Breaking his own rules would be a form of self inconsistency for any "god" you care to dream up, and by the generally accepted Christian rules, the wages of "sin" is "death". No exceptions. No excuses.

Actually, I know a great number of people who read the bible. And very few of them believe God is a 10 year old kid. But then we are most likely in different parts of the world, so YMMV.

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

Thanks. Though, speaking honestly, I find my Christianity a very real and practical experience. I have an idea you would've lost that bet, but then, I am speaking from within Christianity, and you from outside. We just have to agree to disagree, which is fine.

Cheers

Re:Trifecta!

[Have Brain Will Rent]

You seem to be arguing that things are deterministic. The response to that is "Quantum Mechanics."

And "If omnipotency exists thus the power to control time also exists" only makes sense if there is such a thing as time, rather than, say, time being an illusion.

Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

From another point of view, the sane scientifical point of view, free will cannot coexist with physical laws either

Nah, that's only on a large scale. To understand a human thought in any particular moment you'd need to capture the state of all the atoms in their brain and be able to predict the next state based on the previous state.

"Heisenberg uncertainty principle"

Says that you can't do that.

Free will lives on.

Re:Trifecta!

[pwfffff]

Why are you so focused on god's consistency with his 'rules' when the rules themselves are what's ridiculous about the whole thing? Are you really, truly content with the fact that such a god knowingly created creatures he inevitably would damn to hell?

Re:Trifecta!

[spun]

That's what Christianity, or any spiritual path, should be. Real and practical.

I knew I might lose that bet, I have met a few really good Christians who were really kinda bad until they found Christ. But you know, although you can't control grace, you do have to be open to it for it to work. Right?

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

And so, our convoluted path brings us right back to where we started. To answer; the gates of Hell are barred from the inside. Those who rebel against God are, alas, successful rebels to the end. There is no love without free will. Free will without consequences is not free. If God desires his creation to truly love him, with all that that implies, he must allow them to choose other paths that end badly. Otherwise we are just robots acting out a program. And yes, an all powerful God (as you pointed out earlier) can create true free will - and he may choose not to violate it. Are the rules that give you the freedom to call the rules unfair unfair? That was a poorly constructed sentence, but I'm too lazy to think of another way to say it... :)

Anyhow, I am not trying to convert you here. I do not believe I can. This is all moot anyway since you do not(?) believe in God. However perhaps you understand that my perspective is both logical and rational? As, I'm sure, is yours. Perhaps on that basis, we can respect each others differences?

Re:Trifecta!

[vell0cet]

I'm going to go eat 5 pounds of bacon!

Re:Trifecta!

[Jason Briceno]

The cool part is that this would render timetraveling into the future no longer impossible due to the uncertainty of the future, however other laws might still kill the theory.

Time-traveling to the future is not impossible. You are doing it right now. Getting back is the hard part.

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

Perhaps you misunderstand me. Its not that I was a particularly bad person(as people judge), but more that I live in a particularly dangerous environment. I can be detained, tortured, beaten or killed without consequences for the police/thugs who would do such to me. I have escaped riots and thieves. I can easily run out of money and go hungry and any number of real dangers you may or may not have encountered. Such circumstances combined with my faith have changed me into something I never saw myself becoming - and I believe I am a better person for it. And yes, I had to be open to it.

I find myself at the conclusion that either it is true and prayers are answered, or I have been incredibly lucky and have lead a "charmed" life. Heck I even have internet - even if it is slow. If you were to look at my life, you would probably find random chance an acceptable explanation, but having lived my life, I do not. I trust God with my life in a very real and practical way. And yet, here in Zimbabwe, my story is a minor one amoung thousands.

This being said, I accept your view as valid even if I disagree. As I say, perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.

Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

> There is no love without free will. Free will without consequences is not free.

Actually, I completely disagree with that! Love is fate.

Coming only from my own experience in life, I don't think you can choose to love, or to fall in love. It just happens.

Which is one reason I am not inclined toward marriage: you can promise to love someone forever, but you don't get to choose whether you do or not. That makes the vow a sham.

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

You're welcome to disagree. Personally, I'd say yeah, you don't choose to fall in love. But you do choose to remain that way. At least in the Christian domain, the ultimate demonstration of love is considered Christ choosing to love enough to be killed.

In any case, I can agree to disagree.

Re:Trifecta!

[spun]

Wow, that is an interesting life story. I thought I had it weird, being abandoned in Greece at age 16. I too have led a charmed life in some ways.

I would say that it is not so much that prayers are answered. Rather, the prayers you would have made had you known enough to pray for that, are what is answered. I don't always get what I want, but I always get what I need.

I don't need to explain it. I don't need to say, definitively, this was God, that was coincidence. In the end, those are just stories we tell ourselves. The events themselves are their own meaning, there is nothing beyond that except what we tell ourselves. Or maybe there is something beyond that, but if there is, that is the point: it is beyond that, and can not be discerned from that.

Re:Trifecta!

[pwfffff]

I'm always perplexed as to why people will run so readily from an irrational fear of a lack of free will directly into the equally irrational yet commanded fear of a jealous, angry, vengeful, and frankly nonsensical god.

Today I 'chose' to eat lunch. When exactly did this 'choice' occur? Was it when my stomach emptied, and released a chemical cocktail of hormones etc. that flooded my brain, causing it to be preoccupied with food?

Some people 'choose' not to eat. But each of their choices has a cause, be it an eating disorder or a suggestion from a peer that going hungry would bring religious enlightment.

In short: every effect has a cause. Find me an effect without a cause and I'll believe in free will. In the meantime, I'll continue to believe that us humans, like the rest of everything else ever, follow Newton's Third Law of Motion.

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

Fear? I don't fear lack of free will - hence as a Christian I don't fear to give it up.

Now you ask me to prove free will and I never even offered to prove God. This is becoming interesting. But alas, there is as much proof for free will as there is for your worldview. Is the universe completely deterministic? Ask a quantum physicist. Or rather don't go to the quantum physicists for advice, for they will tell you both yes and no. Here is a challenge to match the one you gave me: Explain to me the complete workings of the universe down to the smallest particle/energy unit and present a set of laws that will unify it all. Now test this theory in the case of a simple human decision, and thus prove or disprove it. No, I am not shifting the burden of proof - it is right where it belongs; on both sides.

Basically the difference between you and I, is when confronted with the question "Is there more than this*", you say no, I say yes. Both believe we have evidence. Does this make either of us irrational? Not really.

By the way, your concept of the Christian God seems to be rather one sided and frankly nonsensical.

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

You probably had it harder than I do, I still have family and friends. I have to worry about their safety sometimes, but the moral support is nice.

In any case, you are right. Often I get exactly what I need, though at times thats what I pray for - things like a place to stay or food. Though recently things have been going better.

In any case, you just see events, I see cause and effect. I guess we just see the world differently.

Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

> You're welcome to disagree. Personally, I'd say yeah, you don't choose to fall in love. But you do choose to remain that way.

Tell that to the millions of divorcees who fell out of love, despite their best efforts to stay in love.

It's simply not a choice; I'd hate to say you're flat-out wrong, but the evidence is there for you to see if you aren't in denial.

Re:Trifecta!

[spun]

No, I don't just see events. Based on my life experiences, it would be VERY EASY for me to believe that God talks to me, gives me signs, answers my prayers, and generally looks out for me. The thing is, I don't need to make up that kind of story in order to feel special. If it's true, it's true whether I believe it or not. If he exists, God does not need me thanking Him for the favors He is doing me. I doubt God subsists on 'attaboys' from his creations.

I neither believe in God, nor disbelieve in God.

Re:Trifecta!

[Psyborgue]

Knowing what a person will do is not the same thing as controlling what a person will do. A person still has the ability to make choices. You might be able to argue that you could influence me some way to jump out the window right here and now, but honestly, I don't think there is any possibility of that happening, even with unlimited chances.

Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Knowing what a person will do is not the same thing as controlling what a person will do.

It is when you're creating the person.

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

OK. I'm pretty sure I see your point of view now. Took me a while. :) I won't try and change your mind about the existence of God. Though, I suspect we disagree on his character and goals. To be honest, I have not met many people like you. But you've probably met people like me, so I won't bore you with a retelling of what you've probably heard many times before.

Quite an interesting conversation though.

Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, isn't it kind of cruel to tell a person that salvation is within his reach, when you know he won't choose it..?

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

No, not in denial. And I do know quite a few people who have been divorced. I simply don't agree with you (or them) about the nature of love. I also know many happily married couples, some of whom are pushing 50years, as I'm sure you do. Why not ask them what love is? Look for the answer from the people that succeeded, not the ones that failed.

Feelings change quite rapidly - we are people after all. Who loves more? The person who does things for their spouse only when they feel like it, or the one who does things even when they don't feel like it. You tell me.

Re:Trifecta!

[noundi]

That principle is merely bound to human observance. The fact that it can be done in theory renders free will impossible. Free will would only reside inside us as an illusion.

Re:Trifecta!

[noundi]

You don't get the point. If I know the exact state of you and your surroundings, and the gran unification theory I would be able to calculate every output from any input. Thus I would be able to control you. Some things are still impossible. Perhaps your particles aren't alligned to allow the possibility of suicide. I might not be able to do everything, but I will surely have a smÃrgÃ¥sbord of options for you. The bottom line is that I know your reaction to whatever action commit, thus you have no choice but to follow my predictions. Free will dies.

Re:Trifecta!

[noundi]

Quantum mechanics is the very catalyst of my theory. To be able to quantify everything means that you can separate everything. If you can separate everything you can very simply calculate the particles interactions if put together. There are many effects in the world of physics, in particular quantum mechanics, that we don't quite understand. However my argument is only valid when we've fully understood them. That's why I say "if the grand unification theory is unveiled...", until then it's just speculation.

Re:Trifecta!

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I sense a lot of bafflegab. I don't think you know what Quantum mechanics is. For one thing QM says things are not purely deterministic which is the opposite of what you claim.

Re:Trifecta!

[Have Brain Will Rent]

The very sad thing is that he was modded insightful 3.

Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

> You seem to be arguing that things are deterministic. The response to that is "Quantum Mechanics."

Not really. The theory just says we can't *predict* the outcome of a given interaction, it says nothing about whether that outcome was inevitable or not.

Re:Trifecta!

[spun]

I don't think either of us have any way of knowing his character and goals. :) In fact, the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent being that exists outside of time having 'goals' in any meaningful sense is just silly. The idea of an infinite being having 'character' is also silly. I mean, what could you say about an infinite being's character that would not be true for some finite part of that being?

Re:Trifecta!

[mfnickster]

In fact, the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent being that exists outside of time having 'goals' in any meaningful sense is just silly.

Not to mention the absurdity of telling me "what God wants." Pretty much by definition, an omniscient and omnipotent being gets exactly what he wants, period.

It makes no sense to say he doesn't want sin in the world, if 'sin' is defined as something contrary to God's will. - either there is a God and no sin, or sin and no God.

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

I just sat and argued this one out with another poster. I'll refer you there, for my answer. The long thread starts here. But to say "sin" implies the non existence of God, is, well, interesting logic.

This discussion is getting absurdly long..

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

That is where we disagree. I have referred sibling poster to my answer to the concern of the omnipotence of God, which you are welcome to read or ignore, but which I will not repeat here in full. Basically it boils down to, "do you have free will or not?". This is not a provable science question (practically, so far if ever) and is therefore deep in the realms of philosophy.

Could an infinite being temporarily limit himself to gain what he wanted? The Christian God is considered good which implies that while all knowing and all powerful, there are things he can but will not do. Which leads to more philosophy; is there such a thing as "good" and "evil"? Interesting questions, but when you get to this sort of question, all answers start with "I think". I am certain of what I think, but I can't prove it. As is someone who'll say there is no good or evil. You will have as much trouble with that one as proving or disproving God. So where does that leave the discussion?

Re:Trifecta!

[mfnickster]

> to say "sin" implies the non existence of God, is, well, interesting logic.

It does hinge on the condition that God is omnipotent and omniscient. I can't see any logical way that such a creator could have a thing in his world that he did not want to be there.

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

It depends if the logical God is Good and Fair or not. If you read the link, you may come to understand my point of view, though I don't expect you to agree with it. It is however logical and rational. The existence of "sin" hinges on the existence of free will - which you are free to reject. But it is a logical, rational and valid viewpoint, as is yours. Who is right? I believe I am, and you believe you are. Proof? There is none for either of us. Can we agree to disagree? I think so.

Re:Trifecta!

[mfnickster]

> The existence of "sin" hinges on the existence of free will - which you are free to reject.

The very notion of 'sin' is contradictory if God is the omniscient and omnipotent creator, that's my point.

To say God created the world, *knowing* that people would choose sin, implies that He wanted there to be sin in the world.

To be fair, the story in Genesis does not support an omniscient and omnipotent God - in the story, He is described as literally surprised by what Adam and Eve have done. He doesn't know where they are in the Garden, and has to go looking for them. He doesn't fix the problem once it's discovered.

If you believe that God could be such a colossal fuckup, that's your business, but don't try to tell me it's logical! :)

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

Oh, but it is logical (when arguing these things, you must realise that there is an answer for everything...:) ). To repeat summarized from the link you haven't yet read, Love requires free will or it is not love. Free will without consequences is not free. If God desires his creation to love him, he must give them the ability to not love him(i.e. sin). Since God is Love, he may not change love to make it possible without choice - or he would not be self consistent.

Further, and more controversial, if God desires a relationship with people, he must limit himself to facilitate a relationship. If he knows what you are going to say before you say it, that is not much of a conversation is it? Therefore an infinite being limits himself for love because that is what he is. Can God do anything? Yup. Will God do anything? No.

Again, I am not trying to convert anyone. You are free to disagree if you will. The fact that your view is logical does not imply all other views are illogical. We have an untestable(from either side), unprovable philosophical difference of opinions.

Re:Trifecta!

[mfnickster]

> Oh, but it is logical (when arguing these things, you must realise that there is an answer for everything...:) ).
> To repeat summarized from the link you haven't yet read

You know, it would be nice if you would re-insert the link you're talking about, rather than making me trudge backwards up the thread trying to guess which one you mean.

> Love requires free will or it is not love.

I disagree. I think love is not a choice. Acceptance, submission, obedience - those things are choices. Interestingly enough, those are the things the Old Testament God demands.

> Free will without consequences is not free.

Leaving aside whether we actually have free will or are just fated to believe we do, I don't think the God described in the bible wants us to have free will. He demands worship, and "surrender or die" is not truly giving someone a choice.

> If God desires his creation to love him, he must give them the ability to not love him(i.e. sin).

Disagree. It seems unfair to me to create a world in which some people won't love him, and then punish them for it. "You have a choice between A and B, but you're supposed to choose A." Is love without choice impossible? Is it a "square circle," a logical impossibility? Perhaps, but then the consequences of creating such a world must be acceptable to God or he would not have created it. It's hardly humanity's fault if he did.

Personally, I believe if there is a God, he is completely indifferent to what we do or want. At least a universe with such a God is completely consistent with a godless universe, which looks a lot like the one we see.

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

Though we have now covered most of this ground (again), here is that link. You may feel like reading it to better understand my point of view. But I feel you still don't see what I am saying, so:

Defining love is difficult - everyone has a different answer. But talk to some old people who have been married for years and are still in love. They will tell you, the truest act of love is love even when you don't feel like it. That is a choice. And this is only the mere love between a man and a woman. Not even the love a mother can have for her child which is far stronger. Why do you think society hates mothers who slap around their kids when they feel like it, but is OK with those who can restrain themselves, even if they feel like beating(as opposed to discipline) the kid? This is a choice again, not blindly doing whatever you feel like. True love is always about choice. "If you love someone, set them free" comes to mind.

If you want to talk about the old and new testament differences, you have to realise, the old testament is man at war with God(remember, I believe God can limit himself), yet God making a plan to end the war peacefully in the future(without violating free will). The new is about man reconciled to God. Thus both God's and our attitude must change. This should hardly be surprising.

Now to get on to Hell, which most people don't really understand. Hell is described as a garbage heap, which like most garbage heaps (including some modern ones), was on fire. And stank. A lot of people, myself included, will go further and say, to paraphrase old Lewis, the gates of Hell are barred from the inside. Those who rebel against God are, alas, successful rebels to the end. Hell is also described as eternal separation from God, which is exactly what a rebel wants. It is a bad place because those there will have nothing to do with God, the source of good.

Love is not possible without a choice. If there is no choice, you are just a robot acting out a play. In which case, why bother at all? What a complete waste of time for God. No sane logical God would create robots. But if we have free will, it now has meaning. You have a choice between A and B. There is no "correct" answer, only consequences of your choices. You are not "supposed" to choose any particular one, but that choice can be an act of love or hate.

Look, you're looking quite deep into Christian theology. If you don't believe, that is fine, but you can't apply your philosophy to an opposed philosophy. You'll see inconsistencies where there are none simply because it is inconsistent with your view. Most systems are self-consistent - as far as that is possible, but only from the inside. I see the universe as consistent with the existence of God, you don't seem to. We both sit inside systems and it takes great effort to see beyond that. You and I have fundamental philosophical assumptions(which are mostly unprovable and untestable on both sides) about the nature of things which make it hard for us to understand each other. It is on these assumptions we build our beliefs. If you and I can see that and agree to disagree, then all is well. :)

Re:Trifecta!

[mfnickster]

> Though we have now covered most of this ground (again), here is that link. You may feel like reading it to better understand my point of view.

Ah, that thread. Yes, I read it-- and I found your reasoning unconvincing.

> They will tell you, the truest act of love is love even when you don't feel like it. That is a choice.

Then I don't think you're talking about love, I think you're talking about commitment - especially emotional commitment. It happens all the time in love and politics. I think it has more to do with fear of the consequences of being wrong than with any actual philosophical position.

> Why do you think society hates mothers who slap around their kids when they feel like it, but is OK with those who can restrain themselves

Why do you think society loves a god who allows bad things to happen to good people, and is okay with him letting good things happen to bad people?

The usual response is "we can't understand God's reasons for these things," but when something good happens to good people or bad happens to bad people, they seem to have no problem understanding "God's reasons."

> If you want to talk about the old and new testament differences, you have to realise, the old testament is man at war with God

I know a number of Jews who would dispute that point.

> Thus both God's and our attitude must change. This should hardly be surprising.

"I the Lord do not change." - Malachi 3:6

> A lot of people, myself included, will go further and say, to paraphrase old Lewis, the gates of Hell are barred from the inside.

Ah yes, blaming the victim. It's an old story - especially for those who never had the chance to be saved and are thus condemned.

> Love is not possible without a choice. If there is no choice, you are just a robot acting out a play.

Again, I disagree. Love is something you discover, not something you choose. Who knows the ultimate cause?

> No sane logical God would create robots.

Interesting, because how could you tell the difference between a complex robot and a "free agent"? What if God himself is a robot?

> But if we have free will, it now has meaning. You have a choice between A and B.
> There is no "correct" answer, only consequences of your choices.

This is disingenuous - if choosing NOT to love God is permitted, and the consequence is eternal suffering, how is that not "incorrect?"

> If you don't believe, that is fine, but you can't apply your philosophy to an opposed philosophy.
> You'll see inconsistencies where there are none simply because it is inconsistent with your view.

No, I'm arguing that it is internally inconsistent. That's why I can't accept it.

> If you and I can see that and agree to disagree, then all is well.

Differences of opinion are fine-- I have a disagreement with you on matters of FACT, and as far as I can see, you have provided no factual basis for what you believe. Make no mistake, religion is an argument about TRUTH. We can agree to disagree, but in the end, that has absolutely zero effect on the universe! :)

Re:Trifecta!

[inasity_rules]

> They will tell you, the truest act of love is love even when you don't feel like it. That is a choice.

Then I don't think you're talking about love, I think you're talking about commitment - especially emotional commitment. It happens all the time in love and politics. I think it has more to do with fear of the consequences of being wrong than with any actual philosophical position.

This is the problem. We will probably not agree on this. We could go on to talk about Greek words for love and the fact that they had five of them and in English we have one. I doubt I would convince you though. But the truth is, if you go and ask an old couple, they will tell you why they are old and happy and love each other. However as a matter of curiosity, since you reject my definition (which is biblical and thus part of my world view), please provide yours.

> Why do you think society hates mothers who slap around their kids when they feel like it, but is OK with those who can restrain themselves

Why do you think society loves a god who allows bad things to happen to good people, and is okay with him letting good things happen to bad people?

The usual response is "we can't understand God's reasons for these things," but when something good happens to good people or bad happens to bad people, they seem to have no problem understanding "God's reasons."

You are correct; that is a large portion of people's answer. Mine is not God allows bad things to happen to good people. It is people allow bad things to happen to people or worse, are often the cause. Don't forget I have believe in free will. If God were to remove the consequences of my decisions, what would be the point in me making them? Again, you look at what I believe through the glasses of what you believe. The difference is, for some years, I have been able to see your point of view, even if I disagree.

At this point you will, quite predictably bring up natural disasters. The Christian view is these are the consequence of man moving away from God's protection. You may argue that this is unfair, but that becomes opinion.

> If you want to talk about the old and new testament differences, you have to realise, the old testament is man at war with God

I know a number of Jews who would dispute that point.

Which is fine. Jews and Christians have never really agreed on all theological matters. This should be obvious since they do not accept Christ as the messiah.

> Thus both God's and our attitude must change. This should hardly be surprising.

"I the Lord do not change." - Malachi 3:6

Indeed, he does not. If you find your room full of stinking trash, you'd be disgusted and possibly angry. If you find it clean and tidy, you'd be happy to go into it. Have you changed? Really? :)

> A lot of people, myself included, will go further and say, to paraphrase old Lewis, the gates of Hell are barred from the inside.

Ah yes, blaming the victim. It's an old story - especially for those who never had the chance to be saved and are thus condemned.

The story is different for those who never had the chance. Paul writes about things "so that they may have no excuse", which implies there is an excuse. God states he will "have mercy on whom he will have mercy." Jesus is the only way to God, but how many ways can there be to Jesus?

But if you actively reject God's love, you are no victim. All God does is allow you to go your own way and face the consequences of your own actions. What could be fairer than that?

> Love is not possible without a choice. If there is no choice, you are just a robot acting out a play.

Again, I disagree. Love is something you discover, not something you choose. Who knows the ultimate cause?

Well, would you agree it is possible to accept or rejec

Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

"From another point of view, the sane scientifical point of view, free will cannot coexist with physical laws either."

It depends on what you mean by free will. The superstitious variant is clearly incoherent, I agree. However, compatibilists define free will in terms of determinism, and think determinism is a requirement for the statement "I choose" to have meaning.

The reason is that a choice is either deterministic or random. If it is random, the choice is independent of any "I" that supposedly was making the choice. However, if it is deterministic, it will depend on some deterministic mechanism for choice that we can call "I".

Of course, I could be at the mercy of a determinism in the universe, but that isn't really a major issue. I still have the subjective experience of existing, I can't change that I'm born with the restrictions of being a human - but - the decision machinery I call "I", will still make "my" choices and affect the deterministic system as well as it can.

Just as what happens with the superstitious version of "free will". The magical free will is just needed to somehow not make a god responsible for burning you in hell.(Of course, it doesn't matter if the god placed you in a situation where you have to choose between submitting to his will or burn in hell. It's still highly immoral for him to do that)

You're wrong in saying that no human is liable for any action in a deterministic system. Regardless of determinism, the other automatons will react to anything you do that hurts them, and they will probably band together and stomp out danger. That is... "responsibility" is primarily something that's assigned to you by others. The rationale that justifies this is that your decision-making machinery dictates your actions, and terminating the last step in the causal chain may in fact make life better for them.(Or they could punish another part of the chain if they think it apparent that you were making decisions based on some abnormal pressure, like a terrorist holding your daughter).

Much in the same way you'd shut down a robot that shot you with a soft-airgun from time to time, say whenever the sun hit it from a specific angle. You'd not have any reason to refrain from doing so, or somehow "blame the earth for rotating him into position" or "the sun for shining" and follow the infinite chain when simply pulling the plug on the offending robot solves the problem.

Have you noticed...

[Anonymous Coward]

That when it's a team of AMERICAN scientists doing anything the heading says "American Scientists...", but when it's any other country it's just "Scientists..."?

Confirmation of ID?

[iconic999]

Looks like an intelligently designed process to me.

Would the Primordial Soup Let This Stick Around?

[geoffrobinson]

So let's assume this pathway occurred in the primordial soup.

How long would ancient conditions let it stick around to advance to more steps?

Lay off the drugs

[spun]

Reading what you wrote is like reading something written by the crack-addled, bastard love child of R. Buckminster Fuller and Emily Dickinson.

The sides aren't what you think they are. There are more than two sides. Most people are on more than one side. I'm not on a side at all. Seriously, lay off the drugs or I will be forced to blow your mind some more, man.

Evidence of what?

[interactive_civilian]

Life is complex and it works well. It's not proof, it's evidence. The laws of physics yield a consistent universe. It's not proof, it's evidence.

Both of these things are only evidence of themselves. Nothing more. You cannot logically extrapolate these things into anything more than they are without direct evidence of something more. No matter how much evidence the universe gives of its own existence, it does not point to anything beyond that, be it God or invisible unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, sauce be upon him, or anything else. The current body of evidence points only to its own existence.

If you want to posit the existence of God, based on the evidence provided by the universe, then you need direct evidence of God (well, you also need a clear, falsifiable definition of God). Otherwise, Occam's Razor gives us the more likely conclusion. Given the same body of evidence, the simpler explanation tends to be the correct explanation, unless more evidence appears to show otherwise.

In this case, the body of evidence: The universe.

- H0.) The universe just exists.

- H1.) The universe exists because God created it. God just exists.

Given the same body of evidence, H0 is the more likely explanation, and there is no REASON to assume H1 without further evidence.

While you cannot prove a negative, in science, lack of evidence for H1 is provisional evidence for H0. Also, any scientist knows that you can NEVER prove anything based on observation. You can only disprove it OR decrease the likelihood of its falseness.

NB: Most of the "you" in this post is the general "you" not a specific "you" to the parent post.

Re:Evidence of what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't mean to mod offtopic, even though it is offtopic.

Re:Evidence of what?

[im_thatoneguy]

Careful any scientist would actually know you can neither prove nor disprove anything based on observation. Not simply disprove.

All empirical data is suspect. All data can be forged. All data can be tricked. All data could be an illusion. Therefore there is no certainty.

But that's all very impractical. Therefore in order to live we must be pragmatists and attempt to divine the most 'probable' explanation. This can become more probable or less probable but never proved or disproved. The deciding factor of truth is a personal burden of proof line. (Which is not to say that there isn't a truth that is one way and not another, just that all attempts to discern it inevitably come down to probability and pragmatism and not actual knowledge.) I think therefore something thought (not necessarily 'me') is the only conclusion that can be reached. There is something at this instantaneous moment in time which exists somewhere.

Your H0/H1 explanation is true. In all likelihood H0 is MORE LIKELY to be true than H1. But it's not necessarily true. After all Ockham's razor was created in order to defend religion and the bible was originally cited as a source which was 'infaliable'.

---

Personally I think the burden of proof demarkation line is the greatest weakness of organized religions today. They encourage their members to arbitrarily move the line for one subject in one specific instance but none others. Faith is good... but only for our religion. And only interpreted this way.

If I found an alternate bible which was identical in every way but had no God. If it was just as old. And was kept on an alternate universe religious leaders would insist that theirs is better. With absolutly no distinction between the two.

This tactic can back fire of course from time to time. By forcing your congregation to move their line burden of proof line outside of reason into unfounded speculation you get into trouble with other unfounded speculations. Harry Potter suddenly is no longer a charming work of fiction but actually an opposing world view which is equally plausible to christianity and is a threat.

Instead of a consistent approach it's more like a peninsula into absurdity which you are supposed to have faith in. Faith in God: Good. Faith in Evolution and reason: "Well you can't prove that." It's fun that Christians who have next to no more empirical evidence for their cause than Unicorns can go on TV and so passionately argue against Evolution or Global Warming as being on shaky empirical ground.

A healthy and consistent respect of empiricism as the 'most likely description of reality' on all sides of the debate would be far more productive than the little pockets of ideology that we all sit in today.

"Global Warming is dangerous to society." Great. How so? Lay out your case.
"Gay Marriage will destroy our country." Great. How so? Lay out your case.
"Terrorists are only a marginal threat that should be largely ignored." Great. How so? Lay out your case.

The Gay Marriage 'debate' has spun around for years now and I've never heard anyone on the Religious right explain in tangible, empirical ways why they're right. They don't even try. It's just "You're a bigot!" "They're destroying marriage!".

Re:Evidence of what?

[p!ngu]

I don't mean to insult you (but I will):

psst 'you cant prove a negative' is a negative, dont spread it around mmk

Re:Evidence of what?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the absence of other evidence, the universe by itself is not evidence for anything other than itself. However, Christians would suggest that if indeed God existed, he would want to make himself known to us. They suggest that that this he did this through a small desert tribe, culminating in the person of Jesus. The evidence for this claim can be evaluated by the historical method. An example of the interpretation of this evidence is Lewis's Liar/Lunatic/Lord trilemma.

Other evidence might include the supposedly "miraculous" but each claim would have to be judged on its own merit.

Of course, since most of the evidence is no longer available to be judged firsthand, you would have to decide whether the evidence is enough to tip you over the edge to accept God's existence or whether it is more parsimonious to conclude that a man lied, which I suppose is where the faith component comes into it.

Re:Evidence of what?

[SlideRuleGuy]

Technically, Occam's Razor is not a rule of deductive reasoning, nor does it even allow one to assess probabilities. It's just a guideline for which explanation to prefer in the absence of any additional information.

Re:Evidence of what?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You cannot logically extrapolate these things into anything more than they are without direct evidence of something more. No matter how much evidence the universe gives of its own existence, it does not point to anything beyond that, be it God or invisible unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, sauce be upon him, or anything else.

This isn't technically true. By studying the universe and laws of physics we can create theories as to how the universe came into existence. Then, we can perform experiments to determine if those theories are likely to be correct. For example, some scientific theories predict that many multidimensional universes exist within a "hyperspace" but that they tend to collapse into universes with stable numbers of dimensions, one type being our own. As we learn more about the physics of our universe, we can provide more support for these theories or we can falsify them by disproving the predictions predicated upon such a model. Thus the universe can provide evidence via the scientific method about things beyond itself (note evidence not proof, this is science not math).

Thus by studying the universe we could provide evidence to support a scientific theory of the existence of a flying spaghetti monster or christian god. The only issue is any such test performed to date has been unable to support the existence of either.

Re:Evidence of what?

[Psyborgue]

Occam's razor is flawed because "simpler" is relative.

Re:Evidence of what?

[JesseMcDonald]

Luckily the vague concept of "simplicity" isn't part of the formal definition of Occam's Razor. The actual principle is that given two or more hypothesis, each consistent with all the known evidence, one should prefer the hypothesis which makes the fewest assumptions and posits the fewest entities. This has nothing to do with whether "simpler" explanations are more likely to be true; Occam's Razor has nothing at all to do with the concepts of truth and falsehood. Rather, it is merely the formalization of the common-sense principle that it is irrational to make assumptions or posit the existence of entities which are not required to explain the evidence.

Occam's Razor is often misapplied, but the GP is using it correctly. Given two viable hypotheses, one of which posits only the universe vs. another which posits both the universe and God, the former is the rational choice.

P.S. Simplicity can be defined objectively in terms of the minimum number of symbols required to express a concept in a given universal description language. See also Occam's Razor: Objective razor and Kolmogorov complexity.

Re:Would the Primordial Soup Let This Stick Around

[John Hasler]

Well, lets say you have a few billion gallons of "soup" and you let it stew for a few hundred million years...

With enough trials low probability events become near certainties.

I refuse to prove that I exist

[Anonymous Coward]

Poof!!!

- Anonymous God

Intelligent Design

[Anonymous Coward]

And then... when those organisms evolute a bit... they will conclude by their arrogance that they were made by... coincidence.

Makes sense

[Laxori666]

I believe it. Cells make proteins from RNA, so it makes sense that that mechanism evolved first. Then, DNA later evolved as storage, to keep the useful genes and let them replicate.

Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio

[Capsaicin]

[quote]Demonstrating (something) does not demonstrate the non-existence of an intelligent designer.[/quote]

Indeed; nothing can.

Nor indeed is there any requirement or reason to "demonstrate the non-existence of X," where there is no evidence for the putative existence of X.

On a side not, this discovery doesn't demonstrate the non-existence of the tooth fairy either.

These are like roaches in a grungy apartment!

[GameboyRMH]

While you cannot prove a negative

Even if you squash every one you see they keep coming back!

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=can't+prove+a+negative

Maybe I'll put some links in my sig...that'd be like strapping always-spraying cans of Raid to my belt.

Re:I thought... *WHACK*

[Wicked Zen]

No primordial soup for you!

Impressive, but not complete just yet

[pegasustonans]

Far be it from me to minimize such a significant accomplishment, but, as the article points out, two base RNA molecules have been created so far. So, there are still two more that need to be created in order to make the 'lucky' four.

I imagine it will only take a bit of time to figure out the last two now that the recipe to create things in the first place is known. Nevertheless, there is still a bit more to the puzzle at this point. In any event, this team deserves a Nobel Prize.

Re:Would the Primordial Soup Let This Stick Around

[geoffrobinson]

Eh.

The more time that goes on the less likely RNA is able to stay intact for the next phase of the RNA world.

And the fossil record looks like the Earth cools and almost immediately (geologically speaking) you get bacteria around 3.85 billion years ago.

Ladies and Gentlemen

[Anonymous Coward]

We have just proven that God exists, and She's a Woman. As evidence, I present The World Around You. Look at it. Think about it. C'mon.

Dinosaur bones. Buried in the ground. Makes it look like She isn't there. So we say, 'Okay, I get it. You aren't there,' and She gets all pouty and says, "What about all that majestic crap that some dude told you I did but you never saw me do? THEY WROTE BOOKS ABOUT IT!"

YOU don't have any books written about you, I'd know it if you did, I'M OMNISCIENT! Your greatest achievement is a fricken +5 on some blog no one important even reads."

What about that, huh, Mr. About-to-get-his-ass-thrown-in-a-lake-of-fire? Did you stop to consider ANY of that shit when you saw those dinosaur bones WELL DID YOU?"

Why won't you talk to me? Don't you know I love you? C'mere, let's snuggle forever. Just say you were sorry. Just admit you were wrong, and we'll snuggle wuggle forever and I'll make you so happy! My love is the best thing you've ever had."

WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER ME? IT'S LIKE YOU AREN'T EVEN LISTENING! FUCK YOU! I DON'T LOVE YOU AND I NEVER DID! DIE IN A FIRE!"

A Woman. No doubt in my mind now. My humblest apologies if any of this offends you, my Lady.

i only meant it as a joke...

Re:One word....

[ceoyoyo]

Actually, they've recently synthesized DNA from another fossil of another dinosaur, which, upon comparison, supports the T-Rex DNA. It's in one of the semi-recent Nature podcasts.

Your point is good, but some days the universe kicks you in the head especially hard when it comes time to choose an example.

Bender!!!

[supernova_hq]

Looks like they finally have the blueprints to build Bender.

Short Form Re:Trifecta!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't negotiate with terrorists.

It's your religion. He's your god. You go to hell.

Re:Short Form Re:Trifecta!

[spun]

It isn't my religion, doofus. He's not my God, I don't go to hell. I bought a 'get out of hell free' card from God's sister, who runs a pawn shop in Satan's garage.

Panspermia

[mfnickster]

There's another theory, one that says life came from other planets - it's called panspermia

(Yes, yes, I know... don't bother trying to make a joke out of it, it always turns out clumsy)

To quote Sir Frederick Hoyle: "There are those who believe... that life here began out there!"

Re:Panspermia

[mfnickster]

Redundant, my ass! Who else on this article has mentioned the term "panspermia," or linked to anything substantial about it?

Fuckin' mods on crack once again....

Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought of it as weird, the whole ID - Evolution debate , I mean think of it, on evolution side you have people that use intelligence ,science and logic to search for answers and create models that describe the natural world. ID proponents believe in God and that God created all (ie. Some sort of intelligence was needed to create something, exactly what these guys just "proved".)

So as much as evolutionist is trying to use science to "prove" evolution , the more they have to believe that what they are saying happened.

Evolutionist = believe in random actions != science.
ID != believe in random actions == science

Re:I thought... *WHACK*

[orangesquid]

Scientist finds bug in soup
from the that's-no-tasty-soup-for-you dept.

"The RNH (Random gNat Hypothesis) proposed 40 years ago
suggested that somewhere, some scientist is definitely finding a
bug in his/her soup. Now a team of scientists bolsters this
hypothesis, having assembled soups in the lab from a mixture
that resembles what gnats like to eat in the wild. 'Until now,'
Science News reports, 'scientists couldn't figure
out the necessary ingredients that created the probabilities
necessary to support RNH.' The new work started the RNH
soup development from a different angle than what earlier
luncheons, err, work had tried."

Cough syrup!

[whatever3003]

Cough syrup! Nothing but plain, ordinary, over-the-counter children's cough syrup!

I misread RNA....

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought that the damn scientists had created another RIAA. They never think of the consequences!

Re:Would the Primordial Soup Let This Stick Around

[CmdrGravy]

Almost immediately, only 200 million years.

The third quality of God

[mangu]

If God exists, and if he's omniscient and omnipotent

You forgot a third quality without which God is not God: He should also be infinitely good, he does not like us to suffer.

That goes against (a) and (c) in your argument, leaving only (b) he does not exist, at least not with those three qualities.

Raymond Chandler had one of his characters in his 1958 novel "Playback" say: "If God were omnipotent and omniscient in any literal sense, he wouldn't have bothered to make the Universe at all."

I think the simple fact that we exist shows that God, if he does exist, is not omniscient and omnipotent. Why create the Universe if you already know exactly how everything will happen?

Re:The third quality of God

[IndustrialComplex]

I think the simple fact that we exist shows that God, if he does exist, is not omniscient and omnipotent. Why create the Universe if you already know exactly how everything will happen?

I'll ponder that question on my way to go watch my favorite movie again.

Re:The third quality of God

[corbettw]

You forgot a third quality without which God is not God: He should also be infinitely good, he does not like us to suffer.

That goes against (a) and (c) in your argument, leaving only (b) he does not exist, at least not with those three qualities.

Well put. Although I didn't want to assume that god is infinitely good, because if he is that introduces even more problems. After all, an infinitely good entity with omniscience and omnipotence would not allow people to torture other people in his name. Leave aside other tragedies and evil acts for the moment, since someone could argue that stopping those people prevents their free will. But no god did anything to stop the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Islamic conquest of North Africa, the Darfur genocide, the Armenian genocide, 9/11, Jonestown, or countless other cases of humans being inhuman towards one another in the name of their god.

Think of it this way: if my son were to punch a fellow student at school and say he did so because the other student didn't respect me the "right way", I would be livid. I'd ground my son and have him apologize to the other student. I'd be upset not just because my son hit someone, but because he did so "in my name".

If I, a mere mortal, can understand enough that that sort of behavior is not acceptable, then why wouldn't an omniscient being? Claiming that an infinitely good god would not step in to stop atrocities from being committed in his name is absurd. Since there have been atrocities committed in the past in the name of god/s, then he/she/it/they must not be good at all, let alone infinitely so.

Or...

[spectecjr]

Or, like another scientist did recently, you can just take all of the component bits and pieces, freeze it in ice, and leave it for 15 years.

At the end of it, you will have RNA and a bunch of amino acids.

This is why I read New Scientist magazine religiously.

Next Gen Episode

[LanMan04]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Due_(TNG_episode)

"Devil's Due" is an episode of the science fiction television series Star Trek: The Next Generation. In this episode, the people of Ventax II believed in a devil-woman named Ardra (played by Marta DuBois). A thousand years before the episode, Ardra promised to solve all the world's problems. In return, the planet would become hers in a thousand years.

*************

The USS Enterprise receives a distress call from a Federation delegation on Ventax II, where the population is in a state of panic because they are convinced that their world will soon end. A thousand years ago, according to Ventaxian history, the population entered a Faustian deal with Ardra, their mythology's devil, in exchange for helping to clean and improve their heavily polluted planet. As the millennium is about to come to a close, the planet has recently begun experiencing earthquakes that were said to precede Ardra's arrival, fueling the fears of the Ventaxian people. As Captian Picard and Data discuss the matter with the Ventaxian leader, a sultry brunette appears in the chamber, announcing herself as Ardra. She proves her identity by seemingly starting an earthquake at will, and changing her form into that of both the Christian and then the Klingon devil. Ardra states that the thousand years are over and that she has come to claim the planet, including anything in orbit--that is, including the Enterprise. When Picard and Data attempt to return to the Enterprise to contemplate this development, the Enterprise disappears before their eyes.

Picard, believing Ardra to be a fraud, calls for a Ventaxian arbitration hearing, which Ardra agrees to as long as Data acts as the arbitor, due to his ability to be completely impartial despite his Starfleet position. Picard agrees to the choice of Data, knowing that he also cannot feel pressed by Ardra. The hearing reveals that Ardra never assisted the planet in cleaning up their pollution; the people improved their planet gradually after the deal was made. Despite his claims, Picard cannot convince the Ventaxian leader that Ardra is playing a con game. As the hearing continues, La Forge analyzes Ardra's power and discovers two cloaked ships in orbit: the Enterprise and another ship. La Forge relays this information to Picard, who, after a short recess, performs the some of Ardra's "tricks" for the Ventaxian leader and for Data. Picard reveals that a team from the Enterprise was able to seize Ardra's cloaked ship, and used the technology aboard it to create the same effects. Picard further explains that "Ardra" and her conspirators were simply trying to take advantage of the Ventaxian mythology. With the hearing closed, "Ardra" attempts to simply abrogate the contract but finds herself detained for her fraud by the Ventaxian government.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

a thought ... what if ...

[Anonymous Coward]

CREATION == DISCOVERY ?

You spoiled rotten kids!

[CaspianHiro]

Back in the day, we didn't have all these fancy RNA and DNA strands. If we wanted some damn primordial soup for dinner, we made it ourselves...from scratch!

DNA! HA! I *wish* we had DNA. We had to make our own proteins from just G! And for RNA we only had U! I still remember when Chuck Norris and I made our first cat. Hooey! What a mess! It was just GGG GGG GGG GGG strung together, but Chuck, he got it to work somehow...I wonder what ever happened to that cat?

Oh boy! Time to get my diaper changed!

bricks in the wall

[Anonymous Coward]

Bunch of people make a RNA making soup in experiment and they claim that it proves "evolutionary chain can happen without conscious intervention"

hahaha
Funy!!! Slashdot is great place to observe young minds... and how they fit in the wall as bricks.

My slow net connection ate this part of my post.

[inasity_rules]

* "this" being what we can see/measure and determine with repeatable experiments about the universe.