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
486337	2006-11-03 21:54:00	We were not created to die... Excuse me. How do you get this idea? Do you personally know anyone born before 1900 whom is still alive? People are all going to die eventually. Some do it early and on purpose. This is called suicide. Others die through disease, substance abuse or accident. Murder, Manslauter etc. Unless someone invents an immortality pill with self healing properties then people will continue to die.	Sweep (90)
486338	2006-11-03 22:24:00	Excuse me. How do you get this idea? Do you personally know anyone born before 1900 whom is still alive? People are all going to die eventually. Some do it early and on purpose. This is called suicide. Others die through disease, substance abuse or accident. Murder, Manslauter etc. Unless someone invents an immortality pill with self healing properties then people will continue to die. I think the point he's trying to make is that when we were created we were immortal as described in the Bible but then man sinned and this lead to him being under a curse. From that curse we get death, and since we all inherit this curse kind of like spiritual genetics we all inherit mortality. I'm pretty sure that we all know that we will die someday.	pico (4752)
486339	2006-11-03 23:12:00	How do chaperone proteins fit into this? Do they alter the tendency towards which way the molecule folds? I'm not sure what the term "chaperone proteins" means but I can guess that there structure causes molecules to bind in a certain orientation . Mutations are for the large part harmful . . . . . . . cells will even commit 'suicide' (apoptosis) if too much damage is done to the DNA in order to prevent themselves from becoming cancerous . I agree that error-correcting codes are not infallible, they reduce the chances for mistakes but they cannot eliminate them . The presence of genetic diseases show that it doesn't always work . But an error-correcting code cannot create itself was my point . 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 . If evoution is true then where did morals come from? Morals are completely opposite to what evolution teaches about the origin and meaning of life . It teaches that the strong or more fit survive better at the expense of less strong or fit beings . If we are the product of millions of years of evolution then how come we more intelligent beings developed them? Most people would argue that laws, written and unwritten, are necessary for modern society to function . Most people would agree that murder is wrong and we rightly punish people in our society for it but how do you justify it . It is actually natural selection in action . So how can you say murder is wrong? 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 . To answer the first question . Suppose creation is the way that everything came to be . At some point there has to be some being which wasn't created ie which always was/is, without a beginning . Otherwise we end up with an infinite loop of creators in the past who created the next creator . This would be obsurd . Whereas the Bible describes God in exactly this way, that He always was . Also the assumptions on which evolution lies . As with any argument there are assumptions on which to base further assertations . And similarly if you can prove any of the assumptions false then the argument is reduced to nothing . The first assumption, that copying mistakes are propagated . You already said that most mutations are harmful and so the mutated cell is less fit to survive by the selection mechanisms . I know that there are supposed to be some mutations that are beneficial but if most are not then we need to find out the stats on the chances for one to occur . 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 hear what you are saying, that there is little point saying how large the odds are if that's the way it happened . My point is if we determine the chances/odds of evolution occuring then we are better informed to decide whether it is a plausible explanation . And then we can compare it with other explanations to see how it compares . Shall we make a little challenge, lets calculate the chances of one aspect of evolution occuring . Let me know what you think we should do . I was thinking of tackling the chances for the transition from a single celled organism to a multi-celled organism . Then we can create a formula we both agree on and then fill in the data and calculate it . Game?	pico (4752)
486340	2006-11-04 02:51:00	Woah how did I miss this topic . I like your thoughts SurferJoe, they seem to be along the same lines as I have always thought, I have just never spent the time to reason it all out as it seems you have . They seem far more structured than mine . I have a theory that says ignorance is fine, as long as you are ignorantly right! Flawed I know, but it has worked a treat so far . :p . . . Quite the opposite of God creating evil is evident; rebellion took place in heaven and even a perfect man and woman made a bad choice telling their creator that he was withholding something good from them at the goading of the evil one . . . I don't quite agree with this however . I don't think something can be created out of nothing without God . Therefore I reason that if everything was created by God, then as well as creating good, God created evil . This can be hard to stomach and brings a lot of, "So if God created evil then . . . " assumptions, but I think ultimately it is the truth .	pine-o-cleen (2955)
486341	2006-11-04 03:13:00	There's a lot of funny ideas comming forward in this thread. Here's mine. LIfe has no meaning. No one want's to believe this so they invent a god to cover what they can't understand. This is hard to believe, but think of the alternative. God sitting in heaven surrounded by every person, animal and vegetable that ever lived. Must be a big place. And how boreing.	JJJJJ (528)
486342	2006-11-04 03:42:00	Excuse me . How do you get this idea? Do you personally know anyone born before 1900 whom is still alive? People are all going to die eventually . Some do it early and on purpose . This is called suicide . Others die through disease, substance abuse or accident . Murder, Manslauter etc . Unless someone invents an immortality pill with self healing properties then people will continue to die . This is what I meant: Immortality or life everlasting is in the minds of man . . . animals do not have these ideas . . . and don't tell me that animals have anything more than instinct . There is no promise of immortality for animals . . ever in the scriptures . The very thought of a pill to cure the curse of death is interesting and indicates to me that you have dwelt on this premise . There is a certain eventuality that meets all persons, and that is the finality of life via death . God’s purpose was, in the course of time, to have the entire earth brought under the control of a righteous human family all living together in peace and happiness . Death is not what the promise to the first human was . . . do you remember the part in scripture that says: (Genesis 1:28) . . . "Further, God blessed them and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth . ' ” One cannot add to that: "then die and let it go on" . This command and prophecy was never fully completed . . . evil got into the mix and caused a fall from the Edenic condition . In the beginning it was not God’s purpose to resurrect anyone, because if Adam and Eve had remained faithful no one would have had to die . But then Adam’s sin brought imperfection and death upon everyone . It is in our best interest to not die . . . . . spiritually that is . . . . and out of the remembrance of our creator . To illustrate the paradox of how evil comes to be, consider: A thief is not born a thief . He may have come from a good family, having honest parents and law-abiding brothers and sisters, but his own desire for what money can buy is what may have caused him to become a thief . Since humans are secured a special position in creation, it is small thinking indeed to minimize that concept by banal thoughts of being space junk or without a purpose to life . Do you know that there is a special dispensation to humans to be higher than angels? (1 Corinthians 6:3) 3 Do YOU not know that we shall judge angels? Why, then, not matters of this life? (From Paul's letter to the congregation in Corynth, where there was a lot os disent and mixed emotions about the finality of man and his position in the great picture . If we have the scriptures as common ground, then this is very easy to understand .	SurferJoe46 (51)
486343	2006-11-04 09:37:00	I'm not sure what the term "chaperone proteins" means but I can guess that there structure causes molecules to bind in a certain orientation. Yes, they are proteins that aid the folding of other proteins. I agree that error-correcting codes are not infallible, they reduce the chances for mistakes but they cannot eliminate them. The presence of genetic diseases show that it doesn't always work. But an error-correcting code cannot create itself was my point. A major property of any self replicating entity is fidelity - how accurate the copies are. A replicator simple enough to be spontaneously generated from chemical processes would almost certainly have very low fidelity. Most copies made would probably die off but as long as the replicator creates good copies faster than it is destroyed then it will spread. Increasing fidelity is itself a target of selection especially at such an early stage - an easily or more reliably copied replicator will have more success. Error correcting mechanisms are created by this pressure. If evolution is true then where did morals come from? Morals are completely opposite to what evolution teaches about the origin and meaning of life. It teaches that the strong or more fit survive better at the expense of less strong or fit beings. If we are the product of millions of years of evolution then how come we more intelligent beings developed them? Most people would argue that laws, written and unwritten, are necessary for modern society to function. Most people would agree that murder is wrong and we rightly punish people in our society for it but how do you justify it. It is actually natural selection in action. So how can you say murder is wrong? Morals are not opposite to natural selection - natural selection is a science, not a philosophy. Philosophies based on similar ideas have been used to justify horrendous acts in the past but this is quite independent of the science of natural selection. Natural selection is simply the process where pressures act on organisms which favour certain heritable characteristics either by granting a reproductive benefit to individuals with a particular phenotype or by harming the reproductive potential of others. A gene that makes a creature resistant to a disease will be selected for by the actions of the disease itself as long as the cost of gaining resistance is outweighed by the benefits. A gene that makes a bird's song more attractive to the opposite sex will spread. Natural selection is not linked to morals or the lack of them in any way at all. I view morals as emerging from a combination of human culture and instinct. We view it as morally wrong to eat another human (incidentally, this has really good biological grounds) but other cultures in the past had different views on this. Morals are not absolute. To a certain extent most morals are founded to some extent in instinct. Some morals like the concept of Murder when you kill a member of your own society or the concept of incest seem to be universal - these are most likely to have a strong foundation in human instinct. Instinct itself can be shaped by natural selection - to some extent our morals are produced by evolution itself. Right and wrong themselves are human concepts. The blind forces of nature observe no morals. Many creatures eat their prey alive. Some even keep their prey alive to keep it fresh. Next time you see a native robin, remember that there may be severely damaged but living insects that it has secreted in nearby trees, kept fresh until it has an appetite to eat them. These forces are not immoral, only amoral - human morals simply don't apply. To answer the first question. Suppose creation is the way that everything came to be. At some point there has to be some being which wasn't created ie which always was/is, without a beginning. Otherwise we end up with an infinite loop of creators in the past who created the next creator. This would be obsurd. Whereas the Bible describes God in exactly this way, that He always was. This is exactly what I meant. I assume that the universe was simply 'created' somehow and don't pretend to have any idea how it happened. Hypothesising creation by a deity only removes this a further level without actually answering the question of how everything got started. This gets really interesting since time has no meaning without matter - there was no time before the universe came into existence. Also the assumptions on which evolution lies. As with any argument there are assumptions on which to base further assertations. And similarly if you can prove any of the assumptions false then the argument is reduced to nothing. The first assumption, that copying mistakes are propagated. You already said that most mutations are harmful and so the mutated cell is less fit to survive by the selection mechanisms. I know that there are supposed to be some mutations that are beneficial but if most are not then we need to find out the stats on the chances for one to occur. Most mutations are either neutral if they don't lie on coding DNA or make no change to the proteins produced or are damaging if they occur in the middle of an essential gene. Beneficial genes are most often in the form of changes in continuous variables. If we were to live in a world of low flying birds with sharp feathers, shorter people would be more likely to survive than taller ones. Mutations introduce genetic variation into the population, which may have either an immediate effect or be neutral at first and spread later when the selective conditions are altered. As an example, the introduction of Cane toads in Australia has caused the gape size of several snake species to shrink. The gape size varied already as a result of genetic variance and mutation but the cane toads then poisoned most of the snakes big enough to swallow them so the average gape size decreased. Mutations constantly increase the genetic diversity of a population while selective pressures decrease that diversity by favouring certain genes. I hear what you are saying, that there is little point saying how large the odds are if that's the way it happened. My point is if we determine the chances/odds of evolution occurring then we are better informed to decide whether it is a plausible explanation. And then we can compare it with other explanations to see how it compares. Shall we make a little challenge, lets calculate the chances of one aspect of evolution occurring. Let me know what you think we should do. I was thinking of tackling the chances for the transition from a single celled organism to a multi-celled organism. Then we can create a formula we both agree on and then fill in the data and calculate it. Game? Without being able to observe the steps in any complicated process there is no way that we can calculate the odds accurately. Actually the transition from single celled to multicellular is really easy to look at though. You only need to look at simple 'colonies' like Volvox to see the early stages of this process. The first multicellular organisms were most likely to have been rather like blue-green algae. Spirulina forms chains of cells which divide individually but remain connected in a chain. Potential benefits include the ability to avoid sinking more easily. It's fairly easy to visualise a continuum from cells that always separate after division to those that grow in long chains. At a more advanced level you have sponges, which are technically colonies of millions of genetically similar organisms.	TGoddard (7263)
486344	2006-11-04 09:57:00	A quick clarification since the editing period is up: I assume that the universe was simply 'created' somehow and don't pretend to have any idea how it happened. "Created" here is used to imply that it came into existence - not that any conscious agent or intent was in any way involved.	TGoddard (7263)
486345	2006-11-04 10:09:00	So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure, How amazingly unlikely is your birth, And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth'.	zqwerty (97)
486346	2006-11-04 10:24:00	This is exactly what I meant. I assume that the universe was simply 'created' somehow and don't pretend to have any idea how it happened. Hypothesising creation by a deity only removes this a further level without actually answering the question of how everything got started. This gets really interesting since time has no meaning without matter - there was no time before the universe came into existence. Can you clarify what exactly you mean by "Hypothesising creation by a deity only removes this a further level without actually answering the question of how everything got started"? I think its straight forward that a creator making everything answers that question. Unless you are implying that the creator must exist in this space-time universe which is not what I'm saying.	pico (4752)
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