PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
Your signature tells me more about the eventual outcome of this exercise than all the fine responses to your questions that have been generated. Have you reread it since 9/11/07? None of your subsequent posts have acknowledged any change in opinion, attitude or belief, other than to state that you're not good at 'science stuff'. And your chosen signature says that win, lose or draw we will not sway you from your beliefs and that somehow, in the face of all the fine and labored arguments here, you harbor the hope that you will sway the rational mind. I have to ask, are you being honest with us? Are you being honest with yourself? Did all the knowledgable responders waste their time? Other than using this as a clever way to introduce myself to these forums, am I wasting mine?
Undoubtedly, all theories about the origin of the universe and the things in it are, to some extent or another, wrong. That is the beauty of the human mind's creation - Science (Yes, with a leading cap.) Science is self-correcting. Scientists labor every day to prove themselves and other scientists wrong. Sometimes they succeed. This is called advancement. That's because scientists don't believe in their theories. They accept probabilities - this theory or that one provides the best picture of reality. Are scientists human? Yes. Do they carry the full compliment of human emotional values? Very yes!
I use the word 'belief' very rarely and usually the context is derogatory. I accept my picture of reality as being the best I know how to produce and live by. Is faith involved in this decision? Yes. It's my hypothsis that faith is part of our nature - that religion is an extension of this form of intelligent evolution. If you weren't smart enough to get the 'story' of your tribe then your breeding choices were very limited. I suspect the religious mechanism is closely associated with the speech mechanisms in our brains. They reinforced one another in our recent evolutionary past. Religion, in a way, is another proof of evolution.
Let's see, I've covered 2 through 5 and that leaves me with number 1.
To me, you're all mystics. Mystics want something for nothing. They want everlasting life when the available evidence says there is no such thing. They want me to live by a set of rules that they fail to live by themselves.
As an aside on that 'Rapture' thingy, there are 10,000 religions/sects and 6.5 billion souls in this world. Each one believes their sect is the one true path to the afterlife and all the others are, to some extent or other, varying from wrong to evil. Are we really going to miss the 650 souls that qualify for the rapture?
Amen to that !
Welcome to the forum.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
I have no idea. Hell, for all I know, the universe never really started, or otherwise 'isn't'. Perhaps it may never be, perhaps it's yet to be, perhaps it's already over. All I know is that I exist (since I must), and that my fallible sense (or what I know and assume to be my fallible senses) have provided evidence that there is a universe around my that also exists, and according to the data and definitions made available by qualifying testing, that universe is governed by and was created by quantifiable, measurable laws and rules. Frustratingly, however, because I must only assume that what I know as reality exists, I cannot state what created it without assumption entering the picture.
That said, assuming the universe does exist, the big bang is the only model for it's creation that fits within it's laws.
The big bang complies perfectly with known physics laws, actually. But this has already been pointed-out.
...You know, is there another term for the big bang theory, other than 'big bang'? Every time I say it, the term seems to just drip with baggage. It's like it was coined by someone trying to make it sound fanciful rather than factual.
See my reply to your first question. Simply 'believing' in evolution creates far too many assumptions for my taste. However, giving those assumptions the benefit of the doubt, yes - evolution fits the known laws of our reality.
Creationism does not.
There weren't any gasses involved in the assumed formation of our assumed universe. This has already been addressed, so no sense in beating a dead horse.
Fellow human being. Best of luck to them (Or, rather, us).
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
The term Bing Bang was coined by the well respected cosmologist Fred Hoyle as a joke to qualify what he thought was a stupid theory, the name stayed. If I remember correctly, he never accepted this theory and went trough a lot of pain in trying to cleverly make the steady state work... Obviously without success.
The only term that I'm aware of that came before the term big bang is the Primeval Atom. This was the first expanding model of the universe proposed by the Belgian cosmologist and clergyman George Lemaître shortly before Edwin Hubble observed the expansion in 1929. Lemaître supposed that if the universe is expanding then the early universe must have looked like a giant atom thus the name : The Primeval Atom.
As the story tells it, when Einstein went to a conference that Lemaître was giving he stood up and said : "This is the best creation story I ever eared in my life". Since Lemaître was an active member of the Catholic Church the pope told him "That's fantastic, it's the proof of divine creation" but since Lemaître was an real and good scientist as well he told the pope (maybe not in those words) "Dont fucking say that since we don't know that this is the moment of the creation."
Alright... I'll shut up now... I'm getting off topic.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
Not sure how you got your end figure, 6.5 bil/10,000=650? But that doesn't really matter because the rapture is specific to Christianity, 2.1 billion. Anyway, I know that you're just poking fun but I just didn't get the punch line, did you really mean 650?
Don't forget Eve, very important part of the equation.
'Primeval Atom', eh? Man, that has a kickass ring to it. I'm going to use that term all of the time!
I wonder why it didn't stick?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Oops. I forgot the times ten to the three. I guess we're all lucky I used to design small things and not bridges. Of course, it is funnier if you don't do the calculation.
My point of course, is that I don't think all Christians would agree with you. Their congregation will hear the call but you won't even hear the whistle. Do you think that most evangelicals expect the Rapture to include Catholics and Mormons? Will the Baptists wait for the Presbo-Unitarians? Besides, the Catholics won't be packed in time because they're not expecting it yet. To evangelicals those sects are probably only a little less evil than Islam and Hindi. And I don't suppose God will be calling them.
Not all Christians seem to be as inclusive as you are.
The scientist says : "We don't know... That's fucking great ! Let's investigate ! Let's find out !:
The creationist says : "We don't know... Fuck it... Let's not investigate ! Let's say : God did it !
Ok,
You are absolutely right when you say : "A wrong idea about a theory can mean your entire idea of the flaws or good things about that theory are entirely WRONG."
So here are some elementary queues about the Big Bang :
This is something that we have to get into our heads, atheists and theists alike :
The Big Bang is not the moment of creation of the universe, Period !
The big bang is nothing else than a model of the universe that postulates that the universe was denser and hotter in the past and it does not make any claims about the origin of it's roots.
The big bang theory is incomplete, no surprise there. We always come up to a point in science where we just don't understand anything anymore. For the BB, that point is called the Plank epoch and that point is located at 13.7 billions years ago every where in the universe (observable universe should I say). When we get to this point, modern physics fucks up and breaks down.
Quantum mechanics and general relativity are the 2 theories that dramatically changed our way of life in the 20th century (say goodbye to the microprocessor and the GPS without them). But as successful as they are independently, they don't work together, and this is exactly what we have to do with them when we reach the Planck epoch.
So unless we find a way to make QM and GR fit together (or miraculously find a new theory), we can't say shit about what happened before that point.
Not knowing what happened does not equate with "God did it !".
Tell me that's a joke please !
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
Interesting quote. So what it is saying is, because God exists, I don't believe He exists. Nice logic there.
Food for thought.
It could be argued that DNA is a "language" that scientists are trying to understand or translate. For example, a specific section of DNA, a gene, can be attributed to a certain quality of the organism which contains the DNA. In essence, the organisms is "reading" the DNA and responding to it, or otherwise being controlled by DNA.
I love analogies, and it made me think of computers. HTML is an example of a language that makes the internet work. Computers read and obey the commands that are given and respond accordingly. The thing that strikes me is that first the HTML language had to be written, before we could use it and apply it.
This means that the "language" of DNA, had to have existed, before and independently of the first organism that existed. How so? If so and so and gene is present, it will do this or that. This is what scientists are in the process of discovering at the moment. The fact that we don't or didn't know the "language" of DNA before life began then doesn't mean that the "language" didn't exist.
Ok with that said, HTML language had an origin. Someone had to think it up and apply it for us to see it work. Why does DNA work? Why does it matter that nucleotides bond together in certain sequences at all. If the "language" of DNA didn't exist, it would just be another useless mish-mash of molecules. So where then I ask did the "language" of DNA come from. And please do not say evolution, I've already established that the "language" of DNA existed prior to, and independantly of life.
I know that this is not the right place in the forum t say this but
If you can't see this quote is a joke, even if you dont thihnk its a good one......... You are a moron !
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
Luckily I can see that the quote is a joke, saving me from being a moron, but I was just pointing out the irony in it.
It's something that atheists have helped me develop from all the badgering I get on here. Everything you say has to follow logic and science or it doesn't count.
Like you saying that if I can't see the quote was a joke, the logical conclusion being "I'm a moron." Really that is not a logical statement so it doesn't really count anyway. So whether or not I understood the quote has nothing to do with me being a moron. Maybe I'm just a moron for the fun of it
PS. Since this is the kill 'em with kindness forum. Thanks for responding to my post, I really liked your response and had fun writing this response. I hope you have a wonderful day
I'm not over the fact that you said that Eve was an important part of the equation when it comes to the creation of the universe... (was that a joke?)... So that's what really drove me to assume that you were a moron.
Just for the record, don't see the word "moron" here as an insult, it's not, like birds fly, young earth creationists are morons (they reserve the right to call me an Abomination and I reserve the right to call them Morons, it's fair game), somethings are just the way they are. No offence.
(and before a mod comes in here and tells me to shut the fuck up, just know that I will try to stay away from this part of the forum, I just can't be kind about a lot of things and young earth creationists are one of them, so this kill em with kindness thing is obviously not for me)
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
If you are poking fun, you might as well do it correctly. What do you want Adam to do, he looked at all the animals and couldn't find a mate. Did you want him to wait for one to evolve? maybe from a nice primate family? After all, he hadn't sinned yet so he had some time.
Offence? are you British? No, no offense taken.
Define "language" as you use it here. Be careful to make the definition specific enough so that it excludes interpretations such as there being a language in which holes tell puddles what shape to take and a language by which river rocks tell rivers what ripples to form.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
So I take that you were not joking and that you actually think that Adam and Eve were fundamental ingredients in the creation of the whole 26 billion light-years across observable universe.
Which confirms my first assumption about you.
***
Am I British... no... It's much more worse... I'm a French Canadian.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com
I'll let deludedgod's essay speak for itself on this one.
DNA is not a language
No. HTML has nothing to do with the internet. HTML would work just fine on your computer, as can be seen by saving a page locally and viewing it. HTML happens to be able to be transmitted over TCP/IP between computers over the internet.
How's your chemistry? Do you remember stuff about charges, covalent bonding, that sort of thing? If not, go take a quick scan of some chemistry sites and come back. If you do, you can understand then how elements can form compounds; compounds can then interact to form more complex molecules, and so on. You can do this yourself at home by mixing baking soda and vinegar.
So, a new compound can form by existing compounds interacting with each other, no designer required. Given the volume of the ocean and the conditions on the planet of several billion years ago, it doesn't seem hard to understand how a few simple molecules can eventually combine into larger ones, which can do more complex things than be jostled about by ocean currents.
You have not established this; you have established that your understanding of biology and chemistry is inadequate to answer the question you have asked: how did DNA come about?
My opinion: DNA came about via natural physical and chemical processes over a long span of time, no designer required. We exist today because of the chemical reactions possible in the oceans of the planet billions of years ago. I understand the concepts of how it happened (if not the specifics; I'm not a chemist or biologist), and understand roughly how they work, so this explanation makes sense to me.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
I think you are trying to make a distinction that isn't there, DNA is DNA, no code, it is just "DNA". I think the essay makes this clear, but maybe I should reread it.
You are missing his point. Think of the internet as a cola dispenser and the HTML as the cola beverage. The cola knows absolutely nothing about the dispenser, and you don't need a dispenser to have a cola beverage, you can have it in a can, or a bottle. However like you said its irrelevant to the actually discussion. We should probably keep the relentless attacks that are of no point of discussion out of the killing em with kindness forums.
I don't see how anyone can have a discussion with you if you state you are unwilling to learn more about the topics of discussion.
Like I have said there is no code, you are trying to add something that just isn't there. Hydrogen Dioxide = Water, not because its coded to be water, but because it is water. The molecules that comprise DNA are the things that they make. If you have further questions regarding DNA, ask Deludedgod.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
As explained in the article, DNA is also not a code in the way you are using the word.
To call DNA a language or a code would be similar to saying that the laws of physics are a language or code. A rock does not fall because it knows that f=ma and then looks up the gravitational constant for the earth, and then figures out how fast it should go. In the same way, cells do not "read" DNA and use that information to figure out how to build proteins. There is no processing of information. The "reading" of DNA to construct a protein is a purely mechanical process, in the sense that it is as inevitable as a ball rolling down a hill (although rather more complex).
edit: a better example, i think, would be the water cycle, which is a complex series of interactions resulting in a process that may appear to be directed, but is not.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen