Doctor Who Club of Australia

[dave]

What I said simply relates back to the definition of species. Horses and donkeys, despite being similar, are different species and can't produce viable offspring.

If you're wondering what the point is - well, what was the point you were trying to make when you mentioned mules? Then I might know where this conversation can go...

[charlie]

I think Dave was making an argument in favour of evolution with the Salamanders and then baking it up with the definition of species and things and then SJ was responding to that point and countering it.

[dave]

Yeah, Charlie I think you're right. SJ, I misinterpreted what you were trying to say about mules - basically it was just an illustration of the fact that different species can't produce viable offspring; correct? If so, sorry I responded the way I did. I thought you were trying to give an example of 2 different species producing viable offspring. This kind of misconception is not unusual when conversing via the interweb.

Charlie, I think what you said about things getting simpler relates to the Third Law of Thermodynamics, which is basically, Entropy increases. Entropy is the tendency of ordered systmes to become less ordered. Hence, the pointlessness of tidy-ing one's bedroom Whilst this tendency is strong, it's not an absolute. It doesn't preclude the opposite from ever happening, but even those systems of order which do arise, eventually break down. One of my favourite examples is the snowflake: although coming about via random and chaotic processes, the end result is a crystal of beauty and obvious order. Once sufficient heat energy enters the system, however, this ordered system breaks down.

I've seen scientists argue that life is the universes' great anti-entropic mechanism. Maybe. Certainly, whatever processes gave rise to life are anti-entropic in the short-term. Ultimately, however, entropy wins and the organism dies. The tendency of life to get more complex, if it exists, most probably has to do with life trying to improve its chances of the survival of its offspring. Maybe. Maybe it's a purely random process relying on freak mutation within a given population of creatures. Maybe DNA was seeded here (panspermia theory), perhaps riding along in the ice which forms comets, and came pre-programmed with a tendency to developing more complex systems. This last theory doesn't really answer the question of where and how life developed, however, it just moves the genesis of life off Earth.

[dave]

I think everyone interested in ID, whether for or against, needs to look at this page:

http://www.venganza.org/

Now there's an ID theory I could agree with! And the part about global warming! It's so obvious now, I can't imagine why I hadn't thought of it previously!

Oh, yeah, bring your sense of humour with you

[dave]

Well, SJ, it seems you might have given up on having the last word here, hey? I mean, if you're not going to reply to anything I've posted anywhere anymore, then that'll make it difficult.

Oh yeah, I also found out last night that so far as Thermodynamics is concerned, the law states that Entropy increases unless there's an input of energy to 'liven things up' and get things going in the opposite direction. So far as life on Earth goes, we get plenty of energy input from the Sun. Most life on Earth - but not all - is dependant on the Sun in some way.

[SharazJek]

NUTS!

[SharazJek]

[dave]

Well, yeah, I think science does attribute all that to chance. We're only here to observe it, from the scientific point of view, because of that chance. If the Earth wasn't in the right orbit, you wouldn't be asking this question, because none of us would be here.

But, we are here, and plenty of people tend to think along the lines of "Wow! How unlikely is that!?" Very unlikely. But as I said in another thread, in an infinite universe, given enough time, anything, regardless of how unlikely (so long as it's not actually impossible) can be expected to happen.

I've recently seen it argued on another MB that, if one has absolute faith, one doesn't have to take responsibility for their actions. I think the argument was being made my a believer, too. I disagreed with them, and I'll disagree with you. We, unlike all other animals (to the best of our current knowledge) are self-aware. We have the capacity to imagine future events, like, say, our own deaths. We have the capacity to imagine what pain we might cause another person if, say, we chopped their arm off. We can comprehend the consequences of our actions, before we act, if we take the time to ponder it. Therefore, if we wish to live happily with those around us (and most of us do, we're social animals), then we have to take responsibility for what we do. Acting otherwise leads to chaos. I find this sort of responsibility more 'honest' than "on Judgement Day all my sins will be revealed before God so I better not do x", which seems self-serving to me.

Do you believe the Earth will be renewed by God after the end times? I'm betting you do. So why worry about the environmental damage humanity is inflicting on this planet if God can, and eventually will, just fix it up >BING!< like that? Do you, and others who believe these things, need to take responsibility for this, need to be concerned about it? Probably not as concerned as those who don't believe such a miraculous healing is going to take place, and think this planet is the only one we've got to make a go of. I don't see large groups of Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Anglicans or any other 'flavour' of 'Christianity' acting on these issues. I mean, yeah they all believe we're caretakers of this planet and should be responsible for it, but none of them believe, so far as I know, that we'll reach a point where human life here won't be viable, so the sense of urgency isn't there. In this regard, the 'unbelievers' strike me as more responsible.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and I want you to take a look at the humorous link up there, and without requiring me to agree that the Bible is the TRUTH, explain to me how their argument is substantially different from yours. And I mean the argument itself, not the particulars ("well, I believe in Jehovah, they believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster" is not what I'm after).

[SharazJek]

[dave]

Well, I mentioned that person's point of view briefly, here is what they said pretty much entirely:

[SharazJek]

[dave]

I guess you're right, and we're probably about to hit a point of major divergence here, because I don't believe there is a single, real 'truth' to be found. All truths seem, to me, to be personal. I'm of the opinion that there are as many 'truths' as there are people, but you might as well just replace the word 'truth' there with opinion. And then there are numerous large conglomerations of people who purport to believe the same thing en masse, which reduces the number of 'truths' even more.

So am I interested in answers? I don't believe there are any definitive answers to be had. I'm interested in the answers others find satisfying. I once believed there was a single, real 'truth' and that, obviously, I knew it. I'm no longer nearly so conceited.

[SharazJek]

[dave]

Well, SJ, I'm of the opinion that despite thinking otherwise, and regardless of personal certainty, all a person can ever have are opinions. I just think it's slightly conceited to attribute absolute reality to one's own opinions, that's all. But Faith requires this, so I think I have an understanding of it.

[SharazJek]

It's not my opinion that I look out of my window in the morning and the sun is rising in the east.

It's a fact. It just is, whether I think so or not, the TRUTH.

(Just getting my last word in. I will have it I tell you!!!)

[dave]

Actually, the sun isn't rising at all. The Earth is turning which makes the sun appear to rise. So, what you said remains an opinion.

Sometimes you give me such good material to work with, SJ.

NUTS!

[SharazJek]

Dave, you'll be inventing the infinite improbability drive next. And you know what happened to the original inventor of that, and why??? HUH!!!!!???

Next you'll be telling me that a day = 24 hours!!

[dave]

That last post of yours had me in stitches, SJ. Anyone reading just this thread would have no idea about our discourse on the subject of 'days' in Genesis, and you might seem, to them, a little unhinged.

Not to me of course. And the prospect of being lynched by a group of scientists doesn't faze me too much because I'm not likely to invent anything, ever. Or maybe I should just say it's a finite improbability?

[SharazJek]

NUTS!!

[Wester]