5 Questions for an athiest

Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
5 Questions for an athiest

NO DEBATEING GOING ON (unless the athiests have differing views on some ones answer)

I have 5 questions for you athiests. This isn't a debate, and don't think I intend to debate you. I just want to know more about what you believe.

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

 

As I think of more questions I will post them. If I have any questions as to what you are talking about, I will either post them or message you.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


OccamsChainsaw
Posts: 27
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Your signature tells me

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?


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
OccamsChainsaw wrote: Your

OccamsChainsaw wrote:

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 ! Eye-wink

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


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote: 5. Big Bang versus

Quote:
5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

 

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.

 

Quote:
4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

 

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. 

 

Quote:
3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

 

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.

 

Quote:
2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

 

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.

 

Quote:
1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

 

Fellow human being. Best of luck to them (Or, rather, us).

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...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.

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


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
OccamsChainsaw wrote: As

OccamsChainsaw wrote:

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?

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?   


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote: Crossover

shikko wrote:
Crossover wrote:

THANK YOU SO MUCH! Thank you for all of your answers. ou have been helpful.

This next question is for you science guys!!!! I heard a Christian scientist (not the religion, but a guy who is a scientist and a Christian) argue that the big bang was proof of God. This is basically what he said, though not an exact quote:

The fact that we know there was on moment where the universe was created tells us that the Biblical story of creation might be true, because it also has the universe being created all at once. How are we to know that God din't actually use the "big bang" to create the universe.

What is your response to that? To me, logically it makes sense, but I have a limited knowlege of the "big bang" theory and as I have seen on this board, a wrong idea about a theory can mean your entire idea of the flaws or good things about that theory are entirely WRONG.

My response would be that any Christian who thinks the universe was created "all at once" never read Genesis:

Day 1: light --> day/night (not that you'd get night without anything to put between an observer and a light source. Not that any light source currently exists in this narrative, just the light itself...).

Day 2: firmament (not that there'd be anything for this stuff to exist around). Oh, and it looks like water got created somewhere in there, too, maybe as a firmamential byproduct.

Day 3: Earth and sea.

Day 4: Stars, moon and sun. Sort of wondering how day and night were divided in day 1 with no sun...

Day 5: Non-human living things.

Day 6: Adam.

Day 7: Rest day.

 Don't forget Eve, very important part of the equation.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote: *Snip the very

Quote:
*Snip the very interesting background information - and many thanks for it* ...Primeval Atom... *Snip*

 

'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?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


OccamsChainsaw
Posts: 27
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: OccamsChainsaw

seth wrote:
OccamsChainsaw wrote:

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?

 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?   

 

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.


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote:

Crossover wrote:

THANK YOU SO MUCH! Thank you for all of your answers. ou have been helpful.

This next question is for you science guys!!!! I heard a Christian scientist (not the religion, but a guy who is a scientist and a Christian) argue that the big bang was proof of God. This is basically what he said, though not an exact quote:

The fact that we know there was on moment where the universe was created tells us that the Biblical story of creation might be true, because it also has the universe being created all at once. How are we to know that God din't actually use the "big bang" to create the universe.

What is your response to that? To me, logically it makes sense, but I have a limited knowlege of the "big bang" theory and as I have seen on this board, a wrong idea about a theory can mean your entire idea of the flaws or good things about that theory are entirely WRONG.

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 !".

seth wrote:
Don't forget Eve, very important part of the equation.

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


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
Girl Dancing In Orbit

Girl Dancing In Orbit wrote:
Because of God, I am an atheist!--Luis Buñuel

Interesting quote. So what it is saying is, because God exists, I don't believe He exists.  Nice logic there.


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
food for thought

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.


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: Girl Dancing

seth wrote:

Girl Dancing In Orbit wrote:
Because of God, I am an atheist!--Luis Buñuel

Interesting quote. So what it is saying is, because God exists, I don't believe He exists. Nice logic there.

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


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
Girl Dancing In Orbit

Girl Dancing In Orbit wrote:

If you can't see this quote is a joke, even if you dont thihnk its a good one......... You are a moron !

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 Eye-wink

 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 Smiling


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
I'm not over the fact that

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


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
british

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. 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: Food for

seth wrote:

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.

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


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: If you are

seth wrote:

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.

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


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: Food for

seth wrote:

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'll let deludedgod's essay speak for itself on this one.

DNA is not a language

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

This means that the "language" of DNA, had to have existed, before and independently of the first organism that existed. How so?

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.

Quote:

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.

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.


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:

shikko wrote:

I'll let deludedgod's essay speak for itself on this one.

DNA is not a language

Ok, I read the deal, it's not a language per se, but that does not matter in the context of my argument. You could say some of the same things about HTML. A computer doesn't "understand" what it is doing, it's just obeying the commands. Can we call DNA a code then? Would that be OK with you? Or do I have to use the big words that no one understands anyway?

Quote:


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.

Saying HTML has nothing to do with the internet is not true. This very page is written using HTML. Thus it has something to do with the internet. Anyway, also besides the point, but I've learned about errors in my ideas on the site, though irrelevant to the point are still errors and will be attacked relentlessly.

Quote:
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.

I really don't want to go back to school. Do I really have to understand every detail to make a point? Anyway, I never said anything about a designer...

Quote:

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?

I wasn't actually asking where DNA comes from, I was asking where the code came from. What I'm contending is that the code behind DNA exists prior to the first strand of working DNA. If DNA is a cipher and certain combinations "mean" or do the same thing. Then the DNA code was just waiting to be unlocked. But my question is where did the code come from? Why was there a code in the first place? If there was no code, then life would not be possible.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: shikko

seth wrote:
shikko wrote:

I'll let deludedgod's essay speak for itself on this one.

DNA is not a language

Ok, I read the deal, it's not a language per se, but that does not matter in the context of my argument. You could say some of the same things about HTML. A computer doesn't "understand" what it is doing, it's just obeying the commands. Can we call DNA a code then? Would that be OK with you? Or do I have to use the big words that no one understands anyway?

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.

seth wrote:

shikko wrote:


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.

Saying HTML has nothing to do with the internet is not true. This very page is written using HTML. Thus it has something to do with the internet. Anyway, also besides the point, but I've learned about errors in my ideas on the site, though irrelevant to the point are still errors and will be attacked relentlessly.

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.

seth wrote:

shikko wrote:
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.

I really don't want to go back to school. Do I really have to understand every detail to make a point? Anyway, I never said anything about a designer...

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.

seth wrote:

shikko wrote:

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?

I wasn't actually asking where DNA comes from, I was asking where the code came from. What I'm contending is that the code behind DNA exists prior to the first strand of working DNA. If DNA is a cipher and certain combinations "mean" or do the same thing. Then the DNA code was just waiting to be unlocked. But my question is where did the code come from? Why was there a code in the first place? If there was no code, then life would not be possible.

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.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote:

seth wrote:

Ok, I read the deal, it's not a language per se, but that does not matter in the context of my argument. You could say some of the same things about HTML. A computer doesn't "understand" what it is doing, it's just obeying the commands. Can we call DNA a code then? Would that be OK with you? Or do I have to use the big words that no one understands anyway?

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. 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: NO

Crossover wrote:

NO DEBATEING GOING ON (unless the athiests have differing views on some ones answer)

I have 5 questions for you athiests. This isn't a debate, and don't think I intend to debate you. I just want to know more about what you believe.

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

Clearly science has proven a big bang.

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

You creationist continually bring out a version of second law of thermodynamics. But you never state exactly what is says. In a closed system, the net entropy(randomness, disorder) can only increase. Evolution or astronomy does not violate this law in any way. If you think it does, the burden is on you to tell us why.

 

3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

 

Yes, no real evidence he retracted. No other theories that have any evidence.

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

Don't know, but wish I could live long enough to see science find the answers.

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

 

Total hypocrite of the worst kind. Only claim to believe for selfish reasons. I don't believe Christians really believe, they were brainwashed as children and/or suckered in by Pascal's wager.

I think if you put a lie detector on "Christians" 99.9% would fail the do you really believe question. The 0.1% that would pass would be so delusional, they would need to be locked up in a mental hospital to protect themselves and society.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


seth
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote: To call DNA a

Fish wrote:

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.

I disagree, that appears to be exactly what DNA does.  DNA in essence "runs" a cell. That it's a mechanical process doesn't seem to matter.  Whether or not the cell realizes what it is doing, it is obeying the "laws of nature" surronding DNA.
Quote:
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).
I'm contending, that like gravity, what DNA does (not is), could be likened to a "law of nature".  Gravity had to have existed prior to our universe being formed.  Without gravity, our universe could not have formed.  Without DNA, the concept of DNA, which I am trying to describe as the "code", but not the actual "stuff", which I obviously haven't done a good job of, but I hope you can still see what I mean, life couldn't have formed.  I know it's a rather abstract idea, but I still think it's interesting.

Quote:
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.
Maybe this is where I'm getting at but I didn't know I was going.  the water cycle is indeed directed if you think about it.  It's directed by the "laws of nature", so ultimately, I guess I'm asking where the laws of nature come from, which had to have existed before the universe began?


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: DNA in essence

seth wrote:

DNA in essence "runs" a cell. That it's a mechanical process doesn't seem to matter. Whether or not the cell realizes what it is doing, it is obeying the "laws of nature" surronding DNA.

You are assigning an intelligence where no intelligence exists. I run my car by pushing the pedals and turning the steering wheel. It is through these decisions that the car is directed. DNA does not make decisions and does not direct the cell. The laws of nature are not followed in the way that you would follow a path through the woods as a suggested, easiest route, but one which you could leave if you chose. Here there is no communication, no intelligence involved; things which are required for language and codes. If you feel that these are present, please point them out.

A language is a representation. The shapes of the letters and the sounds they represent are arbitrary, which is demonstrated by the existence of many, many languages, and indeed even in the way that one idea can be expressed multiple ways in one language. DNA is not arbitrary in this way. The form and composition of each component is what directly determines the outcome.

Quote:
Gravity had to have existed prior to our universe being formed. Without gravity, our universe could not have formed.

I'm not sure what authority you're drawing from to make this conclusion. If you could provide some support to back up your statement, I can then form a response.

Quote:
Without DNA, the concept of DNA, which I am trying to describe as the "code", but not the actual "stuff", which I obviously haven't done a good job of, but I hope you can still see what I mean, life couldn't have formed. I know it's a rather abstract idea, but I still think it's interesting.

This argument falls apart your continued claim that DNA is a code, which it really isn't.

Quote:
Maybe this is where I'm getting at but I didn't know I was going. the water cycle is indeed directed if you think about it. It's directed by the "laws of nature", so ultimately, I guess I'm asking where the laws of nature come from, which had to have existed before the universe began?

The water cycle is not directed. The water cycle is a result of the laws of nature applying to a set of circumstances (water being heated and cooling on a global level, etc). This is the case for DNA as well.


dday76
BloggerRational VIP!
dday76's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-02-15
User is offlineOffline
First, an answer to a

First, an answer to a question you didn't ask. 

A: No.  Atheists are not a homogenous flock of sheep reading opinions from a script.  Don't expect one opinion, although some answers are pretty easy.

 Second, thanks for a simple set of questions.  I hope you're actually reading the answers.

Q. 5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?-

A. Belief isn't the point.  Science has a considered opinion on the matter.  I'd refer you to a science forum for the specifics.  (Although there are some pretty good answers here.)

Q.  4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

A.  It seems to me here that you are misunderstanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  There's no conflict.

Q. 3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

A. Once again, belief isn't the point.  Go check the science.  Modern evolution has accounted for a wide variety of scientific advancements (like genetics) since Darwin first posited his theory.  We aren't going on the first thing he wrote, he just got the ball rolling and everyone has been poking, prodding, and improving ever since.

Q. 2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

A. Good question.  pre-bang theories aren't as well developed.  It's ok to not have all the answers.  An honest admission of ignorance is far better than "God did it," if that's what you're asking.

Q. 1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

A.  Don't assume too much about our perceptions.  My whole family is Christian (good side).  Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson are also Christian (bad side).  I try not to stereotype.


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: Gravity had to

seth wrote:

Gravity had to have existed prior to our universe being formed. Without gravity, our universe could not have formed.

 Quick facts about gravity :

Gravity didn't came before the universe.

Gravity is the affect that matter has on the shape of space-time:

No universe = no matter = no gravity. 

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


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
seth wrote: Ok, I read the

seth wrote:

Ok, I read the deal, it's not a language per se, but that does not matter in the context of my argument. You could say some of the same things about HTML. A computer doesn't "understand" what it is doing, it's just obeying the commands. Can we call DNA a code then? Would that be OK with you? Or do I have to use the big words that no one understands anyway?

Code is exactly the right word. Ciphers try to hide the meaning or value of one piece by replacing it with another. Codes just replace piece A with piece B without the attempt to obfuscate. The data on an audio CD is encoded, not encrypted.

As an aside, I understood the words. If you didn't, well, you're the one with the power to change that.

Quote:

Quote:


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.

Saying HTML has nothing to do with the internet is not true. This very page is written using HTML. Thus it has something to do with the internet. Anyway, also besides the point, but I've learned about errors in my ideas on the site, though irrelevant to the point are still errors and will be attacked relentlessly.

Disagreeing with what I said doesn't make you right; it means you used a bad analogy. The best thing to do would be to find a better one.

Quote:

Quote:
(snip)

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.

I really don't want to go back to school. Do I really have to understand every detail to make a point? Anyway, I never said anything about a designer...

I don't know much physics, so I don't take part in the Big Bang/brane/multiverse conversations, or argue about them.

If you don't understand basic chemistry and biology, don't bring up DNA as part of an arugment.

Quote:
I wasn't actually asking where DNA comes from, I was asking where the code came from. What I'm contending is that the code behind DNA exists prior to the first strand of working DNA. If DNA is a cipher and certain combinations "mean" or do the same thing. Then the DNA code was just waiting to be unlocked. But my question is where did the code come from? Why was there a code in the first place? If there was no code, then life would not be possible.

I think I just explained where the code came from: tiny pieces of it existed as pieces, changing through simple chemical and physical processes. At some point, a bunch of then were joined together and started acting differently.

You are confusing code and cipher due to popular usage. A code doesn't hide anything; it's just a way to represent one chunk of information with another (think Morse code; you don't "break" it, you "render" it). The information for a protein is encoded in RNA sequence; it's not hidden, it's just written in a different way. It's ciphers that keep your financial information from being eavesdropped on when you buy something on Amazon.

You also seem to be assuming intent, or to be imbuing chemicals with volition. RNA and DNA don't want to do anything: in certain situations, they react in certain ways, usually helped along by organelles, etc.

As to why this is how life evolved, that's an awesome question. I'd love to find out the biochemical mechanisms behind it some day.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Subdi Visions
Bronze Member
Subdi Visions's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2007-10-29
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: 5. Big

Crossover wrote:

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

 Big Bang, but I don't believe it was the start of everything. Just the start of us.

 

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

I've never taken any courses on this nor read any books. What little I do understand makes sense and is quantifiable.

 

3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

 Evolution.

 

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

 I have no idea what gases your speaking of.

 

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

Christian followers, delusional.

Christian leaders, Con Men/Women.

 

Respectfully,
Lenny

"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush


Slayne
Slayne's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote: NO

Crossover wrote:

NO DEBATEING GOING ON (unless the athiests have differing views on some ones answer)

I have 5 questions for you athiests. This isn't a debate, and don't think I intend to debate you. I just want to know more about what you believe.

5. Big Bang versus Steady State? I know steady state has been dead for a while, but which do you believe? Or do you believe someting different?

4. How do you reconcile the scientific laws with the big bang theory? (ex. order can not come from disorder)

3. Do you believe in evolution? I know it sounds simple and basic, but even Darwin retracted his theory. REally this is more of a question of "are there any other theories out there to explain human existance that you believe?"

2. Where did the gases of the big bang come from? I know"atoms"...but where did they come from. Where they eternal or was there something before them?

1. Off the top of your head...if you were asked to describe a Christian, what would you say? This isn't really about what you believe, but I'm interested in how people percieve Christians. I know lot of it is bad...but I'm just curious.

 

As I think of more questions I will post them. If I have any questions as to what you are talking about, I will either post them or message you.

5. so far the big bang is the most hypothysized theory and seem pretty logical given the evidence, as for my theories on how it occured I have a few... but obviously cannot be tested so they are theories.

4. I can only speculate. it is not something I need to think about. because I dont really care.

3 Yes I do believe in Evolution as it is proven through fossil records and dating... unfortunately you dont know squat about Darwin though, as he never once retracted his statements he simply said, "if the linking fossils are not found in the next 100 years, my study shoulds be disregarded." . we have found the linking fossils within the mutations of a species. to say Darwin Debunked all his work is proof of ignorance on your part,with all due respect. It Really annoys me that you can bend words to make such a claim.

2. Again there is no real reason to debate this, but we know the universe as infinite. we see possibilities of new galaxies occuring through collapses of matter and so forth so who cares really, I am not a scientist but though even the human mind is unsure as of yet to know the workings... there is absolutely no reason to say god did it. If you want to talk about stuff nobody knows that is a rational philosophical discussion. but please if you are trying to make any point stick to Evolution and not Abio-Genesis. I like talking about philosophy but apparently you are seeking facts that cannot ever be such because they have no proof in either belief or lack of: where Evolution has millions of years of proof.

1. Out of respect I will not answer that. 

If God didn't want atheists than we wouldn't exist..