Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 72662	2006-09-21 10:05:00	What's the meaning of life?	Renmoo (66)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
486317	2006-11-03 00:45:00	I certainly don't want to be divisive, as I feel there might be a 50:50 split of those who believe in evolution verses divine creation. As positive as I am of divine creation, I am as sure there are those who find the opposite not only acceptable, but inviolate and answers all their questions as to why they are here and where they are going...or not. Leave it to say that I figure there is to be no capitulation or ground-given by either camp...and that's all well and good. Commonality indicates (to all those who only lurk and don't actually proffer opinions), they they are indeed possessed of free will and moral values that are so inclined. All's well with that, as everyone must find an area of comfort with their convictions and be true to them. I totally believe in divine creation as I see no other reason or purpose for life without it. Ending as the progeny of a cosmic joke is not the epitaph I want on my tombstone; not the way I want to be remembered. It's OK with me if there are others who are less inclined...that's why they make different colors of paint. Let me digress a little here: Orson Wells, on his deathbed, uttered, as most dying people tend to do, the famous line: "Ah! Now begins the great mystery!"	SurferJoe46 (51)
486318	2006-11-03 01:44:00	I certainly don't want to be divisive, as I feel there might be a 50:50 split of those who believe in evolution verses divine creation. It would be interesting to see some local NZ statistics on this but Statistics New Zealand don't seem to have publicly available data on religions. I think we're still slightly over 50% Christian here but I have no idea about belief in literal divine creation (i.e. as we see it now). I know it's much higher in the USA though. Incidentally, the difference between evolution and speciation is quite significant here. We can see evolution with our own eyes all the time, only speciation and evolution as the agent that created complex life are actually debated. As positive as I am of divine creation, I am as sure there are those who find the opposite not only acceptable, but inviolate and answers all their questions as to why they are here and where they are going...or not. I view nothing as completely inviolable, although I am more certain of some things than others. I would encourage questioning, division and debate as I view these as essential for the discovery of real, reliable information. Leave it to say that I figure there is to be no capitulation or ground-given by either camp...and that's all well and good. Commonality indicates (to all those who only lurk and don't actually proffer opinions), they they are indeed possessed of free will and moral values that are so inclined. All's well with that, as everyone must find an area of comfort with their convictions and be true to them. I really hate the term 'being true to your convictions'. I'm happy to be true to moral values or expectations of society but I would be unable to justify standing up for any other conviction unless I had some sort of supporting evidence. This shapes the nature of many of my views. I totally believe in divine creation as I see no other reason or purpose for life without it. Ending as the progeny of a cosmic joke is not the epitaph I want on my tombstone; not the way I want to be remembered. Evolution is no joke. I see majesty and beauty in nature and the evolutionary processes going on around us that no divine explanation could hope to match. I get the same sense of peace from understanding the natural processes that shaped us as a religious person would get from the feeling of a relationship with a divine entity. At the same time, this does not prevent me from questioning my own views constantly. I don't require that life have a 'purpose', simply that it exists and is beautiful. It's OK with me if there are others who are less inclined...that's why they make different colors of paint. Let me digress a little here: Orson Wells, on his deathbed, uttered, as most dying people tend to do, the famous line: "Ah! Now begins the great mystery!" I tend to regard the existence of anything beyond the world we see as being something that I would require some form of evidence to believe in. I regard the statement that there is nothing beyond the world we see as a null hypothesis. I don't actively believe it, there could be things that we simply can't interact with, but until I have cause to disbelieve it it remains the simplest solution. I appreciate that there are a large number of alternative memeplexes in existence and always enjoy arguing about it. What I can't stand is when people attempt to avoid rational debate or retreat to an argument from personal incredulity. I regard creation as improbable and the correctness of any particular religion as next to impossible but am always keen to debate these issues.	TGoddard (7263)
486319	2006-11-03 02:21:00	Did I say/do this to you: "I appreciate that there are a large number of alternative memeplexes in existence and always enjoy arguing about it . What I can't stand is when people attempt to avoid rational debate or retreat to an argument from personal incredulity . I regard creation as improbable and the correctness of any particular religion as next to impossible but am always keen to debate these issues . " . . . if so I humbly apologize . It is not my intent to force feed any of the beliefs I have upon others . My job, as I see it, is to cause thought and introspection, and certainly not offer knee-jerk rational . I try to present what I believe as just what I believe, and the offer to persuade is still open . . . . . I remain your humble servant .	SurferJoe46 (51)
486320	2006-11-03 02:40:00	[QUOTE=rob_on_guitar;495874]The meaning of life: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentation of their woman." Conan. I feel sorry for that poor woman among those enemies - with no other women to talk to.	Laura (43)
486321	2006-11-03 05:33:00	I feel sorry for that poor woman among those enemies - with no other women to talk to. Well, at least with that quote, there's only one of 'em lamenting, if it said "women", the misery would be multiplied. Mind you, that's bloke-think so may be a bit skewed from a woman's point of view.	R2x1 (4628)
486322	2006-11-03 05:34:00	I feel sorry for that poor woman among those enemies - with no other women to talk to. Well, at least with that quote, there's only one of 'em lamenting, if it said "women", the misery would be multiplied. Mind you, that's bloke-think so may be a bit skewed from a woman's point of view. :waughh:	R2x1 (4628)
486323	2006-11-03 06:10:00	You assume that early life came from the same chemicals that are 'used' today . . . All we know is that there existed a type of self-replicating molecule (many alternatives have been proposed) . Thats a pretty decisive claim to make . There is no evidence for that and although there may be many propositions for self-replicating molecules we don't know whether any of these will support life as for sure that we know that protein etc type chemistry does . I'm a biology student, not a chemist so I can't answer this one . However, if there is any tendency for left handed amino acids to join together or for right handed amino acids to join together more than there is for joins to occur between them and if this joining can provide any protection against the dissolution mentioned above then we would expect that a slight majority in the abundance of one type would tend to increase the rate at which that type accumulated until one type remained . The left-handedness or right-handedness of a molecule can be understood much the same way as we understand our own reflection . When we look in the mirror we see something that at first glance appears to be identical to ourselves but we all know that our mirror image is inverted . What was on the left is now on the right . Only if we were completely symmetrical would our reflection be the same . The same is true for complex molecules that are not symmetrical . When making these molecules there is no chemical tendancy to form a left-handed molecule over a right-handed molecule, in most cases its 50:50 . Only if the shape of the molecules that are being joined blocks one direction over the other do we get a different ratio . However we find that for molecules found in nature which are predominantly one direction (I think left-handed, can't recall) the opposite handed molecule is usually toxic to life . I think there have been cases where some medicines synthesised in the lab with a mixture of both kinds led to deaths and/or developmental problems . The numbers are well outside the realm of human comprehension . You forget that when you talk about odds of things occurring we have a whole universe to play with . If we assume that life is so unlikely to spontaneously form that it has only occurred on a single one of the billions of billions of suitable planets available then by definition it is ours since we are standing here . We must always remember that there may be billions or billions of planets where the process failed . All it takes is one success which subsequently evolves to form sufficiently intelligent life forms and you have a bunch of creatures laughing at how unlikely it was that the process happened on their particular planet, wherever that may be . Statistics in hindsight are rather unintuitive . Ok fair enough, evolution is a numbers game but have you ever done them? You have a finite universe in terms of space and everything it contains and a finite amount of time for evolution to occur . Sure it may seem like a long time the 6 . 5 billion years that is claimed but we also have to look at the massive changes that have to occur in that time . Also saying that our presence is proof enough that the numbers "worked" is flawed in that I take the same fact, our existence and argue that we were created . Ie God's real because we are here to show for it . The argument already assumes that evolution is true and so is circular . Which leads us to the real issue . Experimental science cannot tell us how we got here (although the Discovery Channel will tell you otherwise) it falls into what I heard defined as historical science . Its much like forensics where we have a whole lot of evidence/clues from which we have to put together what happened . I tend to regard the existence of anything beyond the world we see as being something that I would require some form of evidence to believe in . I regard the statement that there is nothing beyond the world we see as a null hypothesis . I don't actively believe it, there could be things that we simply can't interact with, but until I have cause to disbelieve it it remains the simplest solution . I understand where you are coming from . And I don't know how to explain what I want to say . But since you are leaving the door open for there being something outside of the things you can see in this world I'll try . If the universe happened by itself randomly and we came to be here by some form of evolutionary process then everyone here on this forum is right about the meaning of life . Because whatever you want to believe as the meaning of life is OK because no one can prove you wrong . But if we are created by something or someone then they would be the ones who define the meaning of the life they created (agree?) . I am a Christian and believe in God and the Bible being the book He wrote . And if God is real then the consequences of life are explained in it . . . . I regard creation as improbable and the correctness of any particular religion as next to impossible but am always keen to debate these issues . I would like to know on what facts you are convinced that creation is improbable as it is a much simpler explanation for our existence than evolution/big bang etc . And probably you imagine that people who believe in creation are taking the easy intellectual road out . But creation can explain the evidence for the universe around us satisfactorily . And not only scientific evidence but also gives a framework that explains life, death, society and probably many more things . Also just one last thought for you since you are a biologist . How did we evolve an error-correcting code in our genetic makeup? (ask a information technologist)	pico (4752)
486324	2006-11-03 06:22:00	May have been used in Conan the Barbarian but the correct quote is something like this: "The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him, to ride their horses and take away their possessions, to see the faces of those dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in their arms" Ghengis Khan I think the "their" at the end is a mistake and should be "his". The "creator" made some evil people, ask yourself how can a "perfect" being create or allow evil?	zqwerty (97)
486325	2006-11-03 11:43:00	Thats a pretty decisive claim to make . There is no evidence for that and although there may be many propositions for self-replicating molecules we don't know whether any of these will support life as for sure that we know that protein etc type chemistry does . You're correct that we have no evidence here . It's an assumption that there once were replicating entities . My mistake . The left-handedness or right-handedness of a molecule can be understood much the same way as we understand our own reflection . When we look in the mirror we see something that at first glance appears to be identical to ourselves but we all know that our mirror image is inverted . What was on the left is now on the right . Only if we were completely symmetrical would our reflection be the same . The same is true for complex molecules that are not symmetrical . Cool, thanks for explaining that :) When making these molecules there is no chemical tendancy to form a left-handed molecule over a right-handed molecule, in most cases its 50:50 . Only if the shape of the molecules that are being joined blocks one direction over the other do we get a different ratio . However we find that for molecules found in nature which are predominantly one direction (I think left-handed, can't recall) the opposite handed molecule is usually toxic to life . I think there have been cases where some medicines synthesised in the lab with a mixture of both kinds led to deaths and/or developmental problems . How do chaperone proteins fit into this? Do they alter the tendency towards which way the molecule folds? Ok fair enough, evolution is a numbers game but have you ever done them? You have a finite universe in terms of space and everything it contains and a finite amount of time for evolution to occur . Sure it may seem like a long time the 6 . 5 billion years that is claimed but we also have to look at the massive changes that have to occur in that time . The changes aren't really that massive . Once natural selection gets on track we would predict changes start occurring on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years based on current evolutionary theory . We have billions to work with . Also saying that our presence is proof enough that the numbers "worked" is flawed in that I take the same fact, our existence and argue that we were created . Ie God's real because we are here to show for it . The argument already assumes that evolution is true and so is circular . Which leads us to the real issue . Experimental science cannot tell us how we got here (although the Discovery Channel will tell you otherwise) it falls into what I heard defined as historical science . Its much like forensics where we have a whole lot of evidence/clues from which we have to put together what happened . I'm not saying that evolution is proven by our existence . I said that even if it is sufficiently improbable that it is only likely to occur on a single planet of the many available, we cannot look in hindsight and consider the chances of it arising as being the chance of it happening on our particular planet . If I were to deal a hand of seven cards and look at my cards then I could exclaim that the chance of my drawing that exact hand was only about 1 in a trillion! We have the same sort of thing with the formation of life on planets . Even if the chance of it happening on any particular planet is very small, the number of worlds 'in the hand' may be reasonably large . The argument that the formation of life on one planet is unlikely is the same as arguing that my drawing that hand was unlikely and calling it a miracle as a result . It is in fact equivalent to arguing that the chance of the creator choosing Earth to create life on is negligible due to the large number available . I understand where you are coming from . And I don't know how to explain what I want to say . But since you are leaving the door open for there being something outside of the things you can see in this world I'll try . If the universe happened by itself randomly and we came to be here by some form of evolutionary process then everyone here on this forum is right about the meaning of life . Because whatever you want to believe as the meaning of life is OK because no one can prove you wrong . But if we are created by something or someone then they would be the ones who define the meaning of the life they created (agree?) . I am a Christian and believe in God and the Bible being the book He wrote . And if God is real then the consequences of life are explained in it . [ . quote] I can see what you mean . Religion provides definite answers . As I mentioned in my earlier post, I believe that the meaning of life is what you choose to make it - the meaning of an individual life is based on your values . [quote]I would like to know on what facts you are convinced that creation is improbable as it is a much simpler explanation for our existence than evolution/big bang etc . And probably you imagine that people who believe in creation are taking the easy intellectual road out . But creation can explain the evidence for the universe around us satisfactorily . And not only scientific evidence but also gives a framework that explains life, death, society and probably many more things . If the universe was created then where did the creator come from? I see more questions and assumptions in religion than explanations . The reason why the origin of complex life through evolution is so plausible is that it makes few assumptions . The only assumptions necessary are the propagation of copying mistakes, the presence of selective forces and enough time to get a result . Also just one last thought for you since you are a biologist . How did we evolve an error-correcting code in our genetic makeup? (ask a information technologist) Mutations are for the large part harmful . Decreasing the rate of mutation will increase the average reproductive success of an organism (or gene, whichever perspective you prefer) . A molecule that has even a slight impact on this will spread, followed by a slightly more successful variant and so forth . This is not enough to completely remove errors as there is a cost to error correction, just as there is in IT systems, but it removes much of the day-to-day mutation and has a significant role in preventing cancers . Incidentally, cells will even commit 'suicide' (apoptosis) if too much damage is done to the DNA in order to prevent themselves from becoming cancerous .	TGoddard (7263)
486326	2006-11-03 11:52:00	Did I say/do this to you: "I appreciate that there are a large number of alternative memeplexes in existence and always enjoy arguing about it . What I can't stand is when people attempt to avoid rational debate or retreat to an argument from personal incredulity . I regard creation as improbable and the correctness of any particular religion as next to impossible but am always keen to debate these issues . " . . . if so I humbly apologize . It is not my intent to force feed any of the beliefs I have upon others . My job, as I see it, is to cause thought and introspection, and certainly not offer knee-jerk rational . I try to present what I believe as just what I believe, and the offer to persuade is still open . . . . . I remain your humble servant . I'm sorry if you read that as a personal attack - it was meant as completely the opposite . Your arguments so far have been very sensible, even if I disagree with most of them :) . I've just seen too many arguments over the same topic dissolve into chaos . This statement was a rather badly worded attempt to set the stage for thought out reasoning as much as is possible . It was also intended to let everyone know that I have a weakness - I am completely incapable of understanding irrational belief .	TGoddard (7263)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25