huckelberry wrote: Themis, sorry but I am not seeing what your "it" is referring to so am having difficulty following your comment.
The it is your assertion about God. The it can also be other religious claims or beliefs that are only assertions. I am not saying they are wrong, only that all we get is assertion.
In the preface to his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein said :
What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.
I agree 1000%
Chap wrote:
mikwut wrote:Chap, Sure, W's admirable dictum was used in his writings to illustrate what is the purpose of philosophy - and his dictum was phrased in context to partially answer that - science would be in need of philosophy to clarify meaningfully the set of data - Ludwig pursued that. ...
"Ludwig"? You and he were buddies? Wow.
It is not me... There are Ludwigs - outside of me and Wittgenstein - who are rating.
Ludwig is sometimes also called "Mad King Ludwig", though the accuracy of that label has been disputed. His younger brother, Otto, was considered insane, thus the claim of hereditary madness was convenient. Because Ludwig was deposed on grounds of mental incapacity without any medical examination, questions about the medical "diagnosis" remain controversial. Adding to the controversy are the mysterious circumstances under which he died. King Ludwig and the doctor assigned to him in captivity at Castle Berg on Lake Starnberg were both found dead in the lake in waist-high water, the doctor with unexplained injuries to the head and shoulders, the morning after the day Ludwig was deposed. One of Ludwig's most quoted sayings was "I wish to remain an eternal enigma to myself and to others."
The palace was commissioned by Ludwig II of Bavaria as a retreat and as an homage to Richard Wagner. Ludwig paid for the palace out of his personal fortune and extensive borrowing, not with Bavarian public funds.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
Themis wrote:The problem I see is it still does not go beyond assertion. Also the ID problem really is religion of YEC's who don't like science saying anything that differs from how they want to view the world.
Themis, the point I was considering in my comment was a criticism of YEC, I think it garbles some basic theology. I was not viewing an attempt to prove Gods existence. If you consider God as simply an assertion you might consider why the assertion has enough meaning that people not only make the assertion but hear it. If it lacked meaning then nobody would speak of it. If it lacked meaning then nobody would hear the assertion. I do not think people can construct meaning without having the ideas and forms of the ideas grow out of the experience we live. I do not think we have any concepts which arise from any other ground but experience. Now that hardly means that all of our concepts correctly understand experience. Instead they are all involved in a process of clarification.
That people continue to speak of God shows that the idea relates to a body of experience that people find valuable. Of course the images and concepts we have about that word may be inadequate or mistaken. Perhaps in time a clearer understanding will replace the idea of God. You will know when that happens. God talk and assertions will fade away. I am not holding my breath for such a time. It is possible that it may never happen.
Just to add to the first post something (and give this a little bumpity) while lipids likely enclosed the first life forms they are ORGANIC compounds and how they formed is another discussion, since they encase micrscopic life today and likely the first ones as well. Lipids include oils, fats and the like, they as a rule group together in water and form microscopic bubbles spontaneously that will enclose whatever is in them.
Just to make things interesting organic compounds can't be created from inorganic in today's open atmosphere. But under laboratory conditions similar to what the primordial earth (and other YOUNG planets in "Goldilocks zones") we've been able to create organic compounds from inorganic for closer to 50 years. So how those lipids got there is a little less of a mystery just because of what has been done in labs already. Just five minutes reading up on lipid bilayers can help people visualize how lipids form bubbles purely spontaneously because they hate water. Think of it like cats- they heads love water but their bodies do not. They headbump each other to stay away from the water and form layers until it's a complete bubble. This is what all microscopic life's "walls" are made of.
Come to think of it there was a guy named George Miller on another mormon-ish forum similar to this one that was fantastic (a research biologist at a Tier 1 university and I mean Ivy in many regards). Doing fantastic research on a subject many of us would be interested in (without giving away too much, he prefers his anonymity). He was always engaging and gracious enough to go into detail on these, and able to dumb things down enough to be easily understood. If you want to search the other forums you can find some of his comments. He should come on here. :)
Bump. CeeBoo said he's discussed this topic more than anyone on this forum. I think what he meant to say is that many people have been trying to educate him on the subject more than anyone else. Look through the thread and see who has been doing most of the "discussing" and who has been simply making assertive quips.
Kevin Graham wrote:Bump. CeeBoo said he's discussed this topic more than anyone on this forum. I think what he meant to say is that many people have been trying to educate him on the subject more than anyone else. Look through the thread and see who has been doing most of the "discussing" and who has been simply making assertive quips.
He has referred to it and commented on it. I think he's already reached his conclusions but has his thoughts about how others express and defend their views on evolution.
This thread in response to our friend Ceeboo was started six years ago in 2012. Since then a great deal of progress has been made in the understanding of how the molecules required for abiogenesis could have come about by abiotic means.
One such paper in Nature Chemistry is entitled, "Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism". The Abstract from this paper can be found at https://www.nature.com/articles/nchem.2202
This article in Science provides an good overview of what these researchers accomplished and what it means to the overall understanding of abiogenesis.
The question of abiogenesis has never been "if". It has only been "how".
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Thanks for this! I was just telling Physics Guy I wasn't ignorant on this topic. I'm reading your links time now.
- DOCTOR CAM "ALL CAPS NC 4 ME
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.