Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[VirOptimus]

Interesting .. (thanks) .. got me thinking! (Oh no! )

There's another kind of belief, IMHO .. an undistinguished one, where the belief isn't actually known consciously, (or distinguished), by someone. Its sort of like an undistinguished assumption which has been acquired over years of living experiences, (eg: automatic bigotry or unreasoned predjudice, sexism, etc), but that person is completely unware of its influence over the choices they make in life(?) Perhaps it was a hand-me-down acquired from parenting(?)

In fact, your base assumption of: 'free will existing' there, could be taken as being an assumed belief(?) Ie: the concept of free will, is a concept of an individual's mind .. and can't really be shown (ie: objectively demonstrated), as 'existing', (physically) outside of it .. can it?

The concept of knowledge is very, very complicated if you start to think about it, and even more complicated if you start reading philosophy.

 

[SelfSim]

The concept of knowledge is very, very complicated if you start to think about it, and even more complicated if you start reading philosophy.

So, one could try and come up with an operational definition of knowledge to get some useful work done there then, no(?)

 

[chad kincham]

Why didn't you just admit that you have no clue what the purpose of the experiment was.


By the way, it was highly successful.

And just because you do not understand the mechanism, heck you could not even understand the Miller-Urey experiment, does not mean that there was not a mechanism for abiogenesis.

It was not highly successful. It was greatly exaggerated, and the lay public wasn’t told that mostly asphaltic tar was produced, that they had to put a filter to trap the molecules they were seeking, so they were removed from the tar that would destroy them, then had to remove them from the trap quickly before they deteriorated completely.

.

 

[Bradskii]

Interesting .. (thanks) .. got me thinking! (Oh no! )

There's another kind of belief, IMHO .. an undistinguished one, where the belief isn't actually known consciously, (or distinguished), by someone. Its sort of like an undistinguished assumption which has been acquired over years of living experiences, (eg: automatic bigotry or unreasoned predjudice, sexism, etc), but that person is completely unware of its influence over the choices they make in life(?) Perhaps it was a hand-me-down acquired from parenting(?)

In fact, your base assumption of: 'free will existing' there, could be taken as being an assumed belief(?) Ie: the concept of free will, is a concept of an individual's mind .. and can't really be shown (ie: objectively demonstrated), as 'existing', (physically) outside of it .. can it?

I'd say the type of belief you noted is one not based on evidence. Like learned prejudice etc as you mentioned. I'm talking more of belief in a proposal. Which would mean someone proposing to you that Canadians are lazy. You'd then want evidence which you would rate as to it's validity and then believe the proposal or not.

As to whether free will exists...I'm struggling with this. And have been for a very long time. But I tend to it not existing as it's often described. And the reason I do is because of the way I see it being defined. Which is: the ability to choose a different option should all circumstances be exactly the same. Surely if we had it then we could. But any decision we make must be based on the circumstances pertaining else it would be arbitrary. And hence not a free will decision. There must always be a reason for the choice. So...if the circumstances were exactly the same, why would you make a different choice to the original? Nothing has changed to prompt a different choice.

The problem that I have with that is that it appears to absolve us of personal responsibility. Which, in some cases, is acceptable. Genes, upbringing, circumstances beyond our control can lead us to decisions that we might not make if circumstances were different. Courts allow for this in sentencing. But no free will can lead to an argument that none of us are responsible at all.

As I said, I'm working on this...

 

[SelfSim]

It was not highly successful. It was greatly exaggerated, and the lay public wasn’t told that mostly asphaltic tar was produced, that they had to put a filter to trap the molecules they were seeking, so they were removed from the tar that would destroy them, then had to remove them from the trap quickly before they deteriorated completely.

The Miller-Urey experiment actually reproduces the conditions in which amino acids nucleotides and other key molecules, first formed in the early universe.
Life on Earth took about another 8-9 billion years after that to emerge.

 

[SelfSim]

I'd say the type of belief you noted is one not based on evidence. Like learned prejudice etc as you mentioned. I'm talking more of belief in a proposal. Which would mean someone proposing to you that Canadians are lazy. You'd then want evidence which you would rate as to it's validity and then believe the proposal or not.

As to whether free will exists...I'm struggling with this. And have been for a very long time. But I tend to it not existing as it's often described. And the reason I do is because of the way I see it being defined. Which is: the ability to choose a different option should all circumstances be exactly the same. Surely if we had it then we could. But any decision we make must be based on the circumstances pertaining else it would be arbitrary. And hence not a free will decision. There must always be a reason for the choice. So...if the circumstances were exactly the same, why would you make a different choice to the original? Nothing has changed to prompt a different choice.

The problem that I have with that is that it appears to absolve us of personal responsibility. Which, in some cases, is acceptable. Genes, upbringing, circumstances beyond our control can lead us to decisions that we might not make if circumstances were different. Courts allow for this in sentencing. But no free will can lead to an argument that none of us are responsible at all.

As I said, I'm working on this...

Its more a discussion topic for another thread, (there have been many on free will and determinism), but I will offer my thoughts on this, from a scientific viewpoint, as follows:

The whole issue of determinism to me, is a red herring. All physically useful definitions of determinism boil down to saying that all the information contained in a time series is also contained in any individual "frame" of that time series. Therefore, all that means is, if you want to have free will and determinism, then all the information required to understand free will must also be encompassed in that single frame.
Although that is perfectly possible, it is also perfectly irrelevant .. we already know (from physics) that not all the information is encompassed in that single frame (unless one attaches nonobservable 'other worlds', expressly to encompass that information like the proverbial angels dancing on the pin, but it is a very transparent ploy/gambit).

Note also that attaching some fundamental randomness to the picture, and call that the source of new information, is equally erroneous, because although technically random digits do contain new information, that's not the kind of information that people are interested in when they talk about free will.
So, the actual free will that philosophers have been agonizing about over the eons, when projected onto physics, would have to look like some new source of information that is either contained in the present, but does not appear in the quantities physics has thought how to measure or perceive, or else appears with time in a way that is not fundamentally random (if indeed there is any such thing as fundamentally random, which one may side with Einstein in doubting, though his particular approach to the alternative was fruitless).
If the latter, then free will involves the creation of information, (perhaps similar to how Hoyle imagined that matter could be created).
Now, it would be pseudoscience for anyone to claim they have a theory of how this new information is created by the application of free will, I say only that if this picture is completely compatible with all physics we know (which it is .. as we still have no knowledge of many of the processes we choose to treat as random), then what are compatibilists and libertarians really arguing about, when they go at it? Physicists simply have no idea, so for philosophers, citing physics, to argue about it, (for example), is just foolishness, no?

 

[Astrid]

The nature of reality is that it is and that it is governed by laws. Reality doesn't care about what you choose to believe, it carries forward oblivious.

God, on the other hand, does care about what you believe. He wants you to believe in Him and to trust His word. If He says that Heⁿ created the world in seven days, He meant it. If He set forth laws to govern the universe, they aren't meant to be broken. If He set forth laws for man, they aren't meant to be broken.

Now, you can choose not to believe in God, but God believes in you regardless. He is and His will carries forward. At some point, reality will be remade, without sin. The knowledge of man will cease to exist and the knowledge of God will carry forward in eternity, as it was meant to be.

The only disagreement is rejection of God, but that's between you and Him, not you and I.

"IF He says" is operative there. As is IF a person
happens to have the inerrant ability to know exactly
what is meant by every word, and is likewise also
Intimately familiar with what this God wants. If, that is,
He exists.
A lot of IFS there, none of which are subject to actual
verification. Not singly or in combination.

You do not know those things, nobody does. Hence,
faith. Now, faith may well be a fine thing, we all have
some faith in this, or that. But it's well to think if one
might have a little too much faith, in himself.

A smug or self-satisfied certainty has led to many a disaster.
Terrible things.
Satisfaction that the Bible condoned slavery or war or torture
or or or.
You know all of that, I trust we've no disagreement.

I am offering no disagreement but rather thoughts
for possible consideration.

I was struck by your statement on seven (literal) days
of creation and God wanting us to trust his word.

See, the earth itself tells us with unmistakable
clarity that it did not form in seven days, and is
far far older than indicated by literal reading.

One who does not know how to read could imagine the
Bible saying anything, one who does not know what he
is seeing can misread the earth. But not if you have
understanding. A sailor won't misread the waves,
or the clouds, a geologist can say "drill here" where you
or I havent a clue. It's learning to read the earth.

And as you note, wind and water and everything else carries on,
it will rain or the volcano will blow regardless of what a person
understands or chooses to believe.

So I am struck by an irrevocable paradox in literal
reading- God wants trust in His word, yet says one
thing and does another.

How might one deal with this?

 

[Speedwell]

It was not highly successful. It was greatly exaggerated, and the lay public wasn’t told that mostly asphaltic tar was produced, that they had to put a filter to trap the molecules they were seeking, so they were removed from the tar that would destroy them, then had to remove them from the trap quickly before they deteriorated completely.

.

The opinions of the "lay public" are not of direct importance to science. The "lay public" had every bit as much opportunity to read Miller and Urey's paper for themselves as anybody else. The experiment was designed to determine of amino acids could spontaneously form under certain circumstances. It was a success according to the standards established by the researchers.

But there is a more important issue at hand. You have accused Drs. Miller and Urey of misrepresenting their findings. This is a serious accusation, so producing actual evidence or retracting it is your only possible next step.

 

[AV1611VET]

See, the earth itself tells us with unmistakable clarity that it did not form in seven days, and is far far older than indicated by literal reading.

Does it also tell you this:

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

 

[Speedwell]

"IF He says" is operative there. As is IF a person
happens to have the inerrant ability to know exactly
what is meant by every word, and is likewise also
Intimately familiar with what this God wants. If, that is,
He exists.
A lot of IFS there, none of which are subject to actual
verification. Not singly or in combination.

You do not know those things, nobody does. Hence,
faith. Now, faith may well be a fine thing, we all have
some faith in this, or that. But it's well to think if one
might have a little too much faith, in himself.

A smug or self-satisfied certainty has led to many a disaster.
Terrible things.
Satisfaction that the Bible condoned slavery or war or torture
or or or.
You know all of that, I trust we've no disagreement.

I am offering no disagreement but rather thoughts
for possible consideration.

I was struck by your statement on seven (literal) days
of creation and God wanting us to trust his word.

See, the earth itself tells us with unmistakable
clarity that it did not form in seven days, and is
far far older than indicated by literal reading.

One who does not know how to read could imagine the
Bible saying anything, one who does not know what he
is seeing can misread the earth. But not if you have
understanding. A sailor won't misread the waves,
or the clouds, a geologist can say "drill here" where you
or I havent a clue. It's learning to read the earth.


So I am struck by an irrevocable paradox in literal
reading- God wants trust in His word, yet says one
thing and does another.

How might one deal with this?

God may want us to trust his word, but He has not required us to trust the opinions of creationists about what He has to say.

 

[Astrid]

The Miller-Urey experiment actually reproduces the conditions in which amino acids nucleotides and other key molecules, first formed in the early universe.
Life on Earth took about another 8-9 billion years after that to emerge.

It shows that amino acids can fotm under water wide variety of
conditions,

 

[Astrid]

God may want us to trust his word, but He has not required us to trust the opinions of creationists about what He has to say.

Hey!! That is what I said but I used a lot more words!

 

[Bradskii]

Its more a discussion topic for another thread, (there have been many on free will and determinism), but I will offer my thoughts on this, from a scientific viewpoint, as follows:

The whole issue of determinism to me, is a red herring. All physically useful definitions of determinism boil down to saying that all the information contained in a time series is also contained in any individual "frame" of that time series. Therefore, all that means is, if you want to have free will and determinism, then all the information required to understand free will must also be encompassed in that single frame.
Although that is perfectly possible, it is also perfectly irrelevant .. we already know (from physics) that not all the information is encompassed in that single frame (unless one attaches nonobservable 'other worlds', expressly to encompass that information like the proverbial angels dancing on the pin, but it is a very transparent ploy/gambit).

Note also that attaching some fundamental randomness to the picture, and call that the source of new information, is equally erroneous, because although technically random digits do contain new information, that's not the kind of information that people are interested in when they talk about free will.
So, the actual free will that philosophers have been agonizing about over the eons, when projected onto physics, would have to look like some new source of information that is either contained in the present, but does not appear in the quantities physics has thought how to measure or perceive, or else appears with time in a way that is not fundamentally random (if indeed there is any such thing as fundamentally random, which one may side with Einstein in doubting, though his particular approach to the alternative was fruitless).
If the latter, then free will involves the creation of information, (perhaps similar to how Hoyle imagined that matter could be created).
Now, it would be pseudoscience for anyone to claim they have a theory of how this new information is created by the application of free will, I say only that if this picture is completely compatible with all physics we know (which it is .. as we still have no knowledge of many of the processes we choose to treat as random), then what are compatibilists and libertarians really arguing about, when they go at it? Physicists simply have no idea, so for philosophers, citing physics, to argue about it, (for example), is just foolishness, no?

I see that any decision you make is a process. The process doesn't exist in any given time frame. But it has the potential in each. Consider a decision to be the black ball moving in a particular direction on a snooker table. It could go this way or that. That black ball exists in the time series but it's movement will be determined by the movement of other balls. And the movement will only exist in some time frames.

So no new information has been added. It's always existed as a potential.

And if the process is repeated and the movement of the other balls are exactly the same then the black ball moves in exactly the same way.

The only way for free will to exist is for some way for our mind to be distinct from the rest of existence. Christians will point to the soul as the answer. That makes as much sense to me as having some homunculus pulling levers and adjusting dials as it sees fit.

 

[chad kincham]

The opinions of the "lay public" are not of direct importance to science. The "lay public" had every bit as much opportunity to read Miller and Urey's paper for themselves as anybody else. The experiment was designed to determine of amino acids could spontaneously form under certain circumstances. It was a success according to the standards established by the researchers.

But there is a more important issue at hand. You have accused Drs. Miller and Urey of misrepresenting their findings. This is a serious accusation, so producing actual evidence or retracting it is your only possible next step.

I don’t have to prove any such thing.

The hype and exaggeration given it by the evangelists for evolution in the media is very evident to all.

All it proved was that an intelligent mind can manipulate chemicals in an artificial and controlled element that doesn’t in any way resemble a prebiotic environment, to glean a very weak mixture of amino acids of both left and right handed amino acids - whereas it requires all L handed molecules to assemble a functional protein chain from amino acids.

The experiment was hailed as proving abiogenesis can occur, when in actuality it proves nothing of the sort - the experiment was like combining water and dirt, then claiming that the resulting mud proves that water and dirt can become mud brick huts through a natural process.

 

[Speedwell]

I don’t have to prove any such thing.

The hype and exaggeration given it by the evangelists for evolution in the media is very evident to all.

So what? You accused Miller and Urey of misrepresenting their work, a serious accusation to make against a scientist. Do you have any evidence of it?

The experiment was hailed as proving abiogenesis can occur

Not by Miller or Urey or any of the scientists who understood their work. You may see this issue from your side as nothing but a public relations contest, but I can assure you that from their side scientists do not. All they want to do is find out what happened.

 

[Frank Robert]

It was not highly successful. It was greatly exaggerated, and the lay public wasn’t told that mostly asphaltic tar was produced, that they had to put a filter to trap the molecules they were seeking, so they were removed from the tar that would destroy them, then had to remove them from the trap quickly before they deteriorated completely.

.

Isn't the value of a scientific experiment determined by peers? The Miller-Urey experiment was immediately recognised as an important breakthrough in the study of the origin of life.

The Miller-Urey experiment provided the first evidence that organic molecules needed for life could be formed from inorganic components. Isn't that alone a significant breakthrough?

The experiment was a success in that amino acids, the building blocks of life, were produced during the simulation. The finding was so significant that it kick-started an entirely new field of study: Prebiotic Chemistry. Do you think that is trivial?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Does it also tell you this:

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

It does not.

 

[AV1611VET]

It does not.

Here's one for the geologists:

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Here's one for the geologists:

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

So more nonsense them.
What is your point with these blue blocks of jibberish?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is your point with these blue blocks of jibberish?

That scientists are spiritually deaf.