Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

[Paul Leblanc]

Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist

Dilip, are you still living in BC?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist

No...over 5000 kms. away...

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

Well, of course introducing the bacteria is a shortcut. I don't know about your second point. Or if my comment is about the first or the second point. With you, the reasoning is always a little bit fuzzy, to say the least.

But anyways, that doesn't disprove Hawkins' overall point. Life did appear out of lifelessness. You should read more about RNA and how these very simple molecules can self-replicate and eventually form complex structures such as ribozomes, which lead to more complex structures and so on....

The fact that we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle doesn't mean a superior entity designed the whole thing. It just means we're gonna keep digging until we figure out everything. We always did and it's not gonna change, regardless of what some fundamentalists think.

Hawking's overall point can be neither proven nor disproven. It is conjecture. But he passes it off on this PBS show as scientific fact, and for someone as smart as him, that is a major mistake. He, like so many others, lets his bias overcome his scientific objectivity.

I'm not going to say there has to be a creator, although that is my bias. The very process of RNA replication that you mention, and the intracacies of DNA sequencing, are so complex that to believe that that those processes would not only arise from randomness , but would become the exclusive properties of those molecules as if they were 'programmed' to do it, is akin to believing that a trillion monkeys typing away on a trillion keyboards would eventually evolve to the point where they would be all creating Shakespearean sonnets, continuously, each different from the next and each making logical sense. Well, you can believe that if you like, it can't be disproven...

My point is that it is definitely not smart to put forward unproven (and unprovable) theory as scientific fact. Which is what Hawking did, and what you did in your last paragraph, disqualifying you (to my great surprise!) from being Canada's smartest person.

Oh, the second point. Hawking doesn't even discuss where the magnets (i.e. chemical elements) came from. To do that would be to get into the Big Bang theory, which again is just a theory and one which results in the complete breakdown of all known physics and mathematics. Exactly what existed just before the Big Bang is unknowable, and what triggered the Big Bang is also unknowable.

For that matter, we can't even explain WHY the laws of physics (which dictate chemical reactions) behave as they do. We can't even figure out whether there really is "solid matter" at all. The mathematics all points to the existence of.... NOTHING! We avoid that by theorizing vibrating strings existing in 11 dimensions, but there is no proof and there never will be. So much for "we're gonna keep digging until we figure out everything". LOL

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

Hawking's overall point can be neither proven nor disproven. It is conjecture. But he passes it off on this PBS show as scientific fact, and for someone as smart as him, that is a major mistake. He, like so many others, lets his bias overcome his scientific objectivity.

I'm not going to say there has to be a creator, although that is my bias. The very process of RNA replication that you mention, and the intracacies of DNA sequencing, are so complex that to believe that that those processes would not only arise from randomness , but would become the exclusive properties of those molecules as if they were 'programmed' to do it, is akin to believing that a trillion monkeys typing away on a trillion keyboards would eventually evolve to the point where they would be all creating Shakespearean sonnets, continuously, each different from the next and each making logical sense. Well, you can believe that if you like, it can't be disproven...

And yet, here we are arguing about it. So at some point, you have to reasonably assume that these things did happen.

5 billions years is a freaking long time. Way enough for random stuff to get organized just by sheer luck. Especially when there's a continuous energy source beaming on the whole thing.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

And eh... sorry guys.

A thread on chesstalk about Canada's smartest person... and here I am arguing with Paul Bonham and his religious views... My bad.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

So here comes a little bit about me and myself ... because this is a subject matter near and dear to my heart. Doesn't quite run to the soul of me but it comes very very close. As a someone who has creativity running thru their viens and has the means to bring ideas to physical form, I have a lot of experience in arena of Evolution vs Creation.

So as part of all of that, over the last 7 years or so I've have been working on my first shorty film called ... Lords of Graphite.

Beneath its theatrical production its core is about free will and about how ideas come to be. Lords of Graphite explores the 'Idea' that we don't have, and never have had, free will! Rather, we are forced on a chemical and biological level to have ideas regardless of our will!

With Lords of Graphite I use the fundamental element that is primal to us all ... Carbon. The elemnet Carbon (and Silicon which is a member of the Carbon family) is what drives us! It is what moves us. It is what provokes to act, to think, and to have an Idea!!!

There's no such thing as free will. It is the fundamental element Carbon which is that 'selfish gene' (borrow from Richard Dawkins) for its own survival, for own creativity, and for its very own evolution, for its own sake!!!

OK?

For the film I created some character props which have been developed as a animation segemnts of my film. Oh BTW, I have to mention the film is shot in stop motion! To see some of the early props I created for the film simply ask the Googe ... Lords of Graphite.

Here's a couple of sites that featured my character props:

https://bizarrebeyondbelief.com/2012...s-of-graphite/
http://www.junk-culture.com/2012/01/...-graphite.html


.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

And eh... sorry guys.

A thread on chesstalk about Canada's smartest person... and here I am arguing with Paul Bonham and his religious views... My bad.

You argue, and then can't even get the argument right. I made it very clear, my point isn't to push any spiritual (much better word than 'religious') views. My point was that Hawking, supposedly extremely smart, presented a view as scientific fact that is actually nothing more than conjecture and theory. And to 'prove' his point, he had his guests introduce live bacteria which he stated represented the sudden appearance of molecules that did nothing but endlessly produce copies of themselves. His is a circular argument, a huge faux pas for someone with his reputation. This is something that any 'smartest person' candidate should avoid.

If you want to argue that, then argue it. But if you want to argue evolution as a fact that accounts for all life on Earth, with no creation involved at all, start another thread.

Maybe in 5 billion years, you could actually start making sense, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

And to 'prove' his point, he had his guests introduce live bacteria which he stated represented the sudden appearance of molecules that did nothing but endlessly produce copies of themselves. His is a circular argument, a huge faux pas for someone with his reputation. This is something that any 'smartest person' candidate should avoid.

If you want to argue that, then argue it. But if you want to argue evolution as a fact that accounts for all life on Earth, with no creation involved at all, start another thread.

RNA are simple, self-replicating molecules that can assemble spontaneously from more elemental (and non replicating) molecules. No need for a 'creator' there.

Look, if you had an ounce of smarts, you'd argue that your creator did kick off the big bang. Like, he did the cosmoligical finger snap that started the whole thing. No one can argue against that.

But down here on earth? It is totally possible to obtain self-replicating molecules out of very simple elements and pure randomness. You should look it up, it's call the RNA world.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

RNA are simple, self-replicating molecules that can assemble spontaneously from more elemental (and non replicating) molecules. No need for a 'creator' there.

Look, if you had an ounce of smarts, you'd argue that your creator did kick off the big bang. Like, he did the cosmoligical finger snap that started the whole thing. No one can argue against that.

But down here on earth? It is totally possible to obtain self-replicating molecules out of very simple elements and pure randomness. You should look it up, it's call the RNA world.

You still don't get it. I'm not trying to turn this thread into an evolution vs creation debate.

I said, if you would take the time to read, that Hawking tried to prove his own evolutionary beliefs as scientific fact, and he did it by INTRODUCING LIFE into a chemical soup. And I am stating that that is a huge faux pas, a circular argument, and if you want to debate THAT, then stick to the point.

I don't give a shit about whether RNA can self-assemble or not. Fire can also self-replicate, but fire doesn't turn into life. And by the way, if Hawking wanted to prove that point about RNA and it's so common, he should have shown a setup in which RNA self-assembles from simpler molecules.

But even if he did, it doesn't prove his point about life arising from this process, because no one has yet created LIFE out of pure lifelessness. Hawking had to introduce live bacteria, and the dumbed-down TV audience is supposed to buy that. No one can objectively prove that life will arise out of pure lifelessness, even if given 5 billion years. You can only HYPOTHESIZE it.

Your opening statement is fine, but you still have to make a giant leap to prove that self-replicating RNA inevitably leads to single-celled life which reproduces, which ultimately leads to multi-celled life in myriad forms as we see today. That giant leap is so far non-demonstratable.

And incldentally, you are talking to me as if I know nothing about RNA / DNA and molecular genetics in general. Assuming that an audience is totally ignorant is another faux pas that many 'smart' people make.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

But even if he did, it doesn't prove his point about life arising from this process, because no one has yet created LIFE out of pure lifelessness. Hawking had to introduce live bacteria, and the dumbed-down TV audience is supposed to buy that. No one can objectively prove that life will arise out of pure lifelessness, even if given 5 billion years. You can only HYPOTHESIZE it.

Well said Paul. When I read your post earlier, I thought "What???, that doesn't prove anything"
Don't buy it just because some smart guys says its so.
Same with the Big Bang Theory. I'm not buying it. It could be true!
And I'm not buying the creationist theory either.
We just don't know, and probably never will.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

You still don't get it. I'm not trying to turn this thread into an evolution vs creation debate.

I said, if you would take the time to read, that Hawking tried to prove his own evolutionary beliefs as scientific fact, and he did it by INTRODUCING LIFE into a chemical soup. And I am stating that that is a huge faux pas, a circular argument, and if you want to debate THAT, then stick to the point.

Well, don't worry then. Hawkins knows about all of that.

It was for a TV show and they couldn't afford to create a primeval soup and wait 4 billions years.

Jesus, you are reading way too much into this. But maybe it's comforting for you to think that you found a flaw in one of Hawkins reasoning.

As for the gaps you see in the RNA world hypothesis, well, they're all closing and will keep closing as we learn more. Simple structures such as ribozymes have been shown to be made of RNAs that assembled together. DNA is a relatively simple variation on RNA, making the structure longer and more stable. A lot of the most primitive enzymes have been shown to be made mostly of RNA strands. Lipid vesicules can form spontaneously so that's most probably where the first cellular structures came from. And the list goes on and on and on.

4 billions years is a lot of time. Our lack of knowledge about the whole process doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means we don't have all the details yet.

You can't use ignorance to prove a point, however hard you try.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

It was for a TV show and they couldn't afford to create a primeval soup and wait 4 billions years.

BINGO! The need to wait 4 billion years is EXACTLY why evolution vs. creation debates will NEVER end.

Jesus, you are reading way too much into this. But maybe it's comforting for you to think that you found a flaw in one of Hawkins reasoning.

It's hilarious that you bring up the name of Jesus.

I posted in a thread about finding Canada's smartest person. I don't think, I KNOW, that Hawking, because of his sheer reputation, got to put a 1-hour show on a public television network in which he put forth something as scientific fact which in actually nothing more than theory. I did this for the benefit of anyone who wants to prove themselves Canada's smartest person: don't do what Hawking did.

How exactly is that "reading too much into this"? Should none of us ever dare speak up when we see someone trying to brainwash others with faulty logic? When they try to present theory as fact?

As for the gaps you see in the RNA world hypothesis, well, they're all closing and will keep closing as we learn more. Simple structures such as ribozymes have been shown to be made of RNAs that assembled together. DNA is a relatively simple variation on RNA, making the structure longer and more stable. A lot of the most primitive enzymes have been shown to be made mostly of RNA strands. Lipid vesicules can form spontaneously so that's most probably where the first cellular structures came from. And the list goes on and on and on.

You keep talking about structures forming, structures forming, structures forming.... it doesn't mean anything! Life is about a LOT more than molecular structures forming. And additionally, why would a universe that sprang into existence out of sheer chance turn out to beat quadrillion-to-one odds and form all the chemical elements and electrical charges necessary to eventually (like a machine) produce life? That only makes sense if this universe is but one of an infinite number of universes constantly springing into existence, each different from the other, thus giving at least a sense of mathematical inevitability to it all. But that's just another thing we can hypothesize but never prove.

But now that I've gone and written that because of all your meaningless drivel about RNA, you're probably going to keep trying to push your evolutionist agenda using RNA as some kind of a proving ground. You can fool some of the people some of the time....

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

BINGO! The need to wait 4 billion years is EXACTLY why evolution vs. creation debates will NEVER end.

Wait a minute. Evolution and Big Bang Theory are 2 different things. Evolution is the gradual changing of species over long periods of time by natural selection. Lots of evidence to support this theory by Darwin. Regarded by many (including myself) that the theory has been proven.

Your argument against Hawkins experiment was his faulty proof that life was created in a lifeless environment. That theory along with the Big Bang Theory and Creationist theory are all, IMHO, unproven theory.

Just like the dangers of manmade Climate Change, IMHO, is a proven theory, whereas the theory that it is all an elaborate hoax by thousands of climate scientists, IMHO, is a unproven theory.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

You keep talking about structures forming, structures forming, structures forming.... it doesn't mean anything! Life is about a LOT more than molecular structures forming. And additionally, why would a universe that sprang into existence out of sheer chance turn out to beat quadrillion-to-one odds and form all the chemical elements and electrical charges necessary to eventually (like a machine) produce life? That only makes sense if this universe is but one of an infinite number of universes constantly springing into existence, each different from the other, thus giving at least a sense of mathematical inevitability to it all. But that's just another thing we can hypothesize but never prove.

As I said, 4 billions years is a lot of time.

The fact that you don't understand every little detail that happened during these 4 billion year means absolutely nothing.

[Kevin Me]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

Is there any interest in organizing a Chesstalk's Smartest Person? I think it would be a popular and well-received event.