A story easy enough to tell - where creationists and atheists can agree

[SkyWriting]

Looking for an example of a "story easy enough to tell" that everyone will agree "is just a story".

Atoms have unique characteristics. Because of these unusual properties, not only does life form, but it continues to adapt to the changing aspects of the environment.

I know it's missing the essential element of God being in the middle of the story....but it's the best I could do for now.

 

[BobRyan]

Atoms have unique characteristics. Because of these unusual properties, not only does life form, but it continues to adapt to the changing aspects of the environment.

I know it's missing the essential element of God being in the middle of the story....but it's the best I could do for now.

good point!

If there is a property about a neutron or electron or proton or electron shell that dictates that life must form - then all planets would have life -- even the moon - and even passing rocks (if they are large enough) would have life. What is more we could evaluate that "self-organizes-to-produce-life" property in the lab.

Computers are made from basic earth elements - but there is no "property" of matter that dictates that basic elements will self-organize into a computer over time.

But if such a property existed then all the planets would have computers.

So then - I fully agree with you that you are giving a perfect example of a "story easy enough to tell" but it is not science.

 

[VirOptimus]

good point!

If there is a property about a neutron or electron or proton or electron shell that dictates that life must form - then all planets would have life -- even the moon - and even passing rocks (if they are large enough) would have life. What is more we could evaluate that "self-organizes-to-produce-life" property in the lab.

Computers are made from basic earth elements - but there is no "property" of matter that dictates that basic elements will self-organize into a computer over time.

But if such a property existed then all the planets would have computers.

So then - I fully agree with you that you are giving a perfect example of a "story easy enough to tell" but it is not science.

No, that would not at all follow.

 

[BobRyan]

No, that would not at all follow.

It does once you can admit that all the planets have atoms.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If there is a property about a neutron or electron or proton or electron shell that dictates that life must form - then all planets would have life -- even the moon - and passing rocks if they are large enough.

This is where the concept of emergence is relevant, and suitable conditions for particular types of emergence.

Simplistic all-or-nothing thinking doesn't take you very far when dealing with the emergence of complexity.

If you really want to understand the processes involved, then once you're familiar with the concept of emergence, you should learn about self-assembly. It is helpful to have some basic understanding of physics and chemistry, to provide some context. The ideas aren't that difficult, it just helps to have some background understanding.

 

[VirOptimus]

It does once you can admit that all the planets have atoms.

....

No, but it do show that you dont understand physics, biology or chemistry (or even basic logic).

 

[BobRyan]

....
No, but it do show that you dont understand physics, biology or chemistry (or even basic logic).

another false claim??

Simply piling them up like that is not a funny kind of "proof" supporting a false accusation. You knew that right?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
If there is a property about a neutron or electron or proton or electron shell that dictates that life must form - then all planets would have life -- even the moon - and passing rocks if they are large enough.

This is where the concept of emergence is relevant, and suitable conditions for particular types of emergence.

That would be "a story easy enough to tell". The claim that an electron "has a property in it" that determines that a rock will turn into a rabbit over time (given an earth sized rock and a lot of time) is a "story". And if you want to call it "a story named emergence" I am fine with that.

The Earth elements contained in my car are arranged to produce a function that the elements themselves do not have - which is why I do not argue that there is some property in sulfur, or carbon, or sand that dictates that it will self assemble into a car or a car engine or cd player.

To argue that carbon has a property for doing that on its own over time given enough carbon or ?? -- is simply "a story easy enough to tell".

you should learn about self-assembly.

We have all already learned that a rock will not self-assemble into a rabbit.

Where is the hard part of this concept?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That would be "a story easy enough to tell". The claim that an electron "has a property in it" that determines that a rock will turn into a rabbit over time (given an earth sized rock and a lot of time) is a "story". And if you want to call it "a story named emergence" I am fine with that.



We have all already learned that a rock will not self-assemble into a rabbit.

Where is the hard part of this concept?

This gets to a common fundamental bias in our perception I think...

We are born into a world where 'self assembly' goes on all around us in nature, including ourselves.
And in being recognized as 'natural' this then tends to become perceived as 'ordinary', 'unremarkable', 'inevitable'- and so in a sense 'simple'

It takes some digging to appreciate the sophistication of the assembly instructions required to produce this illusion of natural simplicity

 

[VirOptimus]

another false claim??

Simply piling them up like that is not a funny kind of "proof" supporting a false accusation. You knew that right?

I can only judge you on your posts.

My points stand.

 

[Speedwell]

good point!

If there is a property about a neutron or electron or proton or electron shell that dictates that life must form - then all planets would have life -- even the moon - and even passing rocks (if they are large enough) would have life. What is more we could evaluate that "self-organizes-to-produce-life" property in the lab.

Computers are made from basic earth elements - but there is no "property" of matter that dictates that basic elements will self-organize into a computer over time.

But if such a property existed then all the planets would have computers.

So then - I fully agree with you that you are giving a perfect example of a "story easy enough to tell" but it is not science.

By saying life "must" form, you are telling a different story than science tells. This is the same rhetorical strategy you employed in mischaracterizing the Lenski experiment. It won't work this time, either.

 

[BobRyan]

I can only judge you on your posts.

My points stand.

Not until you provide an actual fact to support your false accusation

 

[BobRyan]

good point!

If there is a property about a neutron or electron or proton or electron shell that dictates that life must form - then all planets would have life -- even the moon - and even passing rocks (if they are large enough) would have life. What is more we could evaluate that "self-organizes-to-produce-life" property in the lab.

Computers are made from basic earth elements - but there is no "property" of matter that dictates that basic elements will self-organize into a computer over time.

But if such a property existed then all the planets would have computers.

So then - I fully agree with you that you are giving a perfect example of a "story easy enough to tell" but it is not science.

By saying life "must" form, you are telling a different story than science tells. .

I don't actually claim "life must form" -- I am a creationist.

My argument is that if the issue is "the property" in the electron that then determines that life forms - then the fact that all planets have electrons means that all planets would have life. Obviously that is not the case when we make those "observations in nature" - but it makes for a "story" all the same.

Can you think of any actual property that electrons have and then show that planets do not have it?? A statement of the form "Electrons have this certain property except on Mars where we do not see that at all"??

details.

 

[VirOptimus]

Not until you provide an actual fact to support your false accusation

There is ample support, one just need to read your posts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That would be "a story easy enough to tell". The claim that an electron "has a property in it" that determines that a rock will turn into a rabbit over time (given an earth sized rock and a lot of time) is a "story". And if you want to call it "a story named emergence" I am fine with that.

Well, no. That's not how emergence works - in fact, it's the opposite. As the very first line of the article I linked makes clear.

he Earth elements contained in my car are arranged to produce a function that the elements themselves do not have - which is why I do not argue that there is some property in sulfur, or carbon, or sand that dictates that it will self assemble into a car or a car engine or cd player.

To argue that carbon has a property for doing that on its own over time given enough carbon or ?? -- is simply "a story easy enough to tell".

But it's a story that no-one's telling.

We have all already learned that a rock will not self-assemble into a rabbit.

Indeed, and no-one has claimed that it will.

Where is the hard part of this concept?

You tell me - as I said, it's not difficult - I don't know why you have such trouble with it; unless, of course, you're just trolling.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't actually claim "life must form" -- I am a creationist.

And neither does anyone else.

My argument is that if the issue is "the property" in the electron that then determines that life forms - then the fact that all planets have electrons means that all planets would have life. Obviously that is not the case when we make those "observations in nature" - but it makes for a "story" all the same.

Non sequitur. Why should the emergence of life depend on something you are calling the "property" of electrons? And if electrons have this "property" why should that require that life emerge anywhere there are electrons?

Can you think of any actual property that electrons have and then show that planets do not have it?? A statement of the form "Electrons have this certain property except on Mars where we do not see that at all"??

details.

Now you're just being silly.

 

[pitabread]

My argument is that if the issue is "the property" in the electron that then determines that life forms

What property is that?

(Spoiler alert: there isn't one.)

 

[BobRyan]

What property is that?

(Spoiler alert: there isn't one.)

Hey we agree - there is no such "property" in matter in the basic elements of the lifeless rock that determines that the rock will produce rabbits or a horse given enough time and chance "stories" all the way up "mount improbable" to use some of Dawkins terms.

 

[BobRyan]

good point!

If there is a property about a neutron or electron or proton or electron shell that dictates that life must form - then all planets would have life -- even the moon - and even passing rocks (if they are large enough) would have life. What is more we could evaluate that "self-organizes-to-produce-life" property in the lab.

Computers are made from basic earth elements - but there is no "property" of matter that dictates that basic elements will self-organize into a computer over time.

But if such a property existed then all the planets would have computers.

So then - I fully agree with you that you are giving a perfect example of a "story easy enough to tell" but it is not science.

By saying life "must" form, you are telling a different story than science tells. .

I don't actually claim "life must form" -- I am a creationist.

And neither does anyone else.

I don't mind having agreement on that point ... in fact I prefer it.

My argument is that if the issue is "the property" in the electron/quark/proton/neutron... that then determines that life forms - then the fact that all planets have electrons means that all planets would have life.

Obviously that is not the case when we make those "observations in nature" - but it makes for a "story" all the same.

Can you think of any actual property that electrons have and then show that planets do not have it?? A statement of the form "Electrons have this certain property except on Mars where we do not see that at all"??

details.

Non sequitur.

especially if it does not "fit" the story one is trying to tell.

Why should the emergence of life depend on something you are calling the "property"

Because when starting with the "lifeless rock" (to use the phrase in that interview with Miller) - all you have to work with are the properties of the lifeless rock.

Obviously.

Now you're just being silly.

Logic and reason might look silly to a POV bias that is in favor of a "story" that cannot be supported

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-


Logic and reason might look silly to a POV bias that is in favor of a "story" that cannot be supported

How would you know as you demonstrably dont understand logic nor reason?