what faith you
Posted on: September 6, 2007 - 7:57pm
Offline
what faith you
You can't prove there isn't a God. You believe it - I believe you are sincere - but that's your faith. You can't prove it.
I believe there is a God. I believe He designed, made the world and everything in it. I believe the sun, moon, stars, and penguins show great design - just to name a couple.
I think you guys have more faith than I do when it comes to believing preposterous stuff. My hat's off to your great faith - it's just illogical faith to me.
Man could not even make one acorn or one bee - this is evident to you guys. You can't explain magnetism or gravity - yet you think there was no designer? Great faith I say.
Since this is a variant on Payley's fallacy, which I refuted three posts ago, I can only conclude you have poor memory or you don't read your interlocutor's post.
*Snickers*. It's always fun when someone uses words when they don't know what they mean. I shall give it to you more clearly by defining the words you attempted and failed to use:
Neuron: A neuron is the fundamental unit of the brain. It accounts for 10% of the cells that constitute the organ, the rest being glial or support cells. A neuron propogates an electrical charge via voltage-gated ion channels across a stretch of thin, long cell called the axon towards a junction with the receptor unit of another neuron (called a dendrite) at which point it performs a signal transduction by converting the eletrical signal into a chemical one into the release of excicatory or inhibitary neurotransmitters which determines whether the signal recieved by the receptor neuron is depolarazing (increase the signal) or hyperpolarizing (depress the signal). All neurons generate a binary signal by firing in a threshold all-or-nothing style called an action potential, also somtimes shortened to AP.
Neural cluster: A neural cluster is a group of closely related neurons forming a "pack" or a "unit". These neurons can be designated in terms of distinct functions (which depends on the speciality of the neuron in question, since they are type-grouped)
Synapse: A synapse is a junction between the end of the axon of one neuron and the dendrite of another. THe synapse is the point at which the two neurons are seperated via a cleft which must be crossed by the transmitter signals. The synapse is the point where a signal is decoded and recoded for determining the overall membrane potential of the post-synaptic neuron. This in turn is directly proportional to the number of action potentials the neuron generates per second. This in turn codes a signal for the neuron to pass on to its linked
Synaptogenesis: Synaptogenesis is a combination of synapse and genesis. It is the formation of a synapse The -genesis suffix is common in biology to indicate the formation or creation of something. Neurogenesis is neural formation. Embryogenesis is the formation of an embryo. Spermatogenesis is the formation of the male gamete, and Oogenesis is the formation of an egg cell, etc. Synaptogenesis is the foundation of memory formation. The linking of two hitherto unassociated neural clusters is the basis for association which is the basis of memory, thought and language.
Association: Association is the foundation of memory. It is where the subject associates certain concepts, abstracts or entities with other concepts, abstracts or entities. This is central to language, memory and thought. The thing which sits in front of me is associated the word computer. It is also associated with the words black, grey, blue, etc. etc. The complexity and degree of associative links that a brain forms is a reasonable reflection of their cognitive ability. Cognitive scientists do not speak of cognition in terms of brain size, which is an unhelpful measure past a certain point, but rather synapse formation, for it reflects the ability of the subject for abstract thought. The impairing of the formation of synapses is an effect which can be induced by many different drugs which act as depolarizing agents which rapidly shut down the stimulus received by neurons, and some which do the opposite and overload the neurons with stimuli by acting as depolarizing agents. The latter case is called "tripping" and severely impairs the subject's capacity for abstract, reasoned thought.
Now that I have kindly cleared things up for you, I wish for you to answer me a pressing question:
How did your above post actually address my argument?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
well deluded,
Glad you ask. I do some experimenting too you know, repeatable things, scientific repeatable true things - like removing splinters. I've been practicing on myself (good numbers 100/100) and I think I've found the secret, which I thought you worthy to share it with, being part of the scientific "brotherhood", me a specialist.
I've been thinking I'm getting good enough at it I could do it for others on the side. At least I could locate the splinter with the secret, which I shared a couple posts back.
You can think the first day (best day to get it) that it's out and you keep hoping and telling yourself maybe it is, but no, it's really not - sorry, you have to go in again and again the next day, it's even more "touchy" in there. But when it's out, it's out. You don't have to tell yourself, "it's out", "it's out", "it's out", because, it's out. In fact, you can forget about it and go on. When you bump that finger into something, it isn't traumatic, it's getting better and better all the time.
I didn't know there was all that in there (the brain) doing all that, I just used it. (I, deluded, don't even know how digestion happens - what juices to tell when to come in the mix and where to store B1 and so on). I function on a very primitive level, but I guess I have a "user friendly" design - like the later versions of "windows and word", "touch screen" might be the comparison.
I'm able to videotape and playback, stop, rewind - sound and color, don't ask me how, it just happens. I don't even know where the remote is. Again, design friendly user happy here. User happy, yes, and splinter removal, the doctor is in. I think I've found one here.
mephibosheth
I believe you.
You probably did use your brain at one time. then someone told you that all you needed was faith and you just stopped.
Well, I'm pretty sure you stopped. What other reason would there be for you to counter facts with sermonettes?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You seem to have an implicit ability to answer a point-blank request. Although since the last ten months have demonstrated this aptly, I should be unsuprised. My argument was that from our understanding of the fundamental working of our minds,it necessarily follows that the destruction of the system in question necessitates in the destruction of the conscious entity it supports. Hence, when I ask you to elucidate how you have responded, I expect a premise-conclusion style set of points. What you have given me is gibberish.
This isn't even remotely anything like a valid response. If I am to understand your response, it is as follows:
Premise: I can function without understanding the underlying mechanisms by which I function (my conscious mind can perform tasks without necessarily being aware of the facts upon which its processes are built)
Conclusion: Therefore, these mechanisms don't underly the function in question
Anyone can see this is a non sequitur. It is also not a response to my argument. There is no reason to suppose that there is some necessity in conscious beings underlied by complicated but non-conscious matter, need to innately be intimately aware of how they function without thorough investigation. All you demonstrate when you remove a splinter is that the parasympathic division of your nervous system works properly. It isn't necessary to be familiar with this mechanism to employ it and remove it, just as it is not necessary to understand mammallian anatomy to understand that the tiger chasing you will probably catch and kill you. Daniel Dennett calls this the intentional stance, and for more information on it, the book Breaking the Spell has good information.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
So let me get this straight: he's saying just because he can't understand it, it can't be going on inside him? No really, is that what's going on? Or is it more "someone has to know how it works, or it couldn't work, so it must be god knowing". Either way, I'm dumbfounded. Major WTF moment. Is he serious?
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
Unfortunately for him, apparently so.
Mental health issues masquerading as religious discussion are all too prevalent, and in themselves highlight a fundamental feature - and failure - of religion. It attracts psychotics and feeds their psychoses without once offering them any rehabilitive help. Instead it validates their mental illness with a spurious stamp of authority and wholly subjectively alleged credibility, and as this thread reveals, can do so to the extent that the ill person feels quite incorrectly that they have abilities they do not possess - in this case the abilities to discuss, to rationalise, to express and to think.
But of course this is not a failure that religionists care to contemplate. And there is a perfectly logical reason for this (besides the human tendency to avoid admitting the extent of one's illness).
When the syndrome is contained within harmless contexts such as this one here then it invokes only pathos. When the same psychoses are inflicted on others rendered vulnerable through age, ignorance, social conditioning or simply because the psychotic has targeted them, then it is revealed for what it really is - and in the process reveals religion's overriding purpose; power over others.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Yeah, meph is Satan revealed ... Thanks for teaching the ugly face of idol worship !
-----------------------
All is ONE , what is separate?
worship what ?
I AM GOD , as YOU , no god before US
100 %
no idols , no master
NO RELIGION
ONE
Atheism Books.
It is very unfair to call a sick person names purely because they are sick.
Meph's demonstrated inability to discuss matters rationally, or even to acknowledge the bulk of the points made against his badly outlined viewpoint, has nothing to do with being religious. It has everything to do with wanting the sensation of having made valid points in discourse without actually having done so, or even possessing the ability to do so. It is a common problem suffered by people whose self recognition has become overly predicated on external (and therefore perceived as safer) paramaters than he. That is why he lapses into insult himself, why he will always choose obfuscation over clarity, why veiled threat is put forward as a suitable retort to stated opposition to his standpoint, and why the secure bolt hole of legitimized vagueness that scripture provides is the chosen fallback strategy he uses with such regularity.
There are many like him - and if I were you IAGAY, I would be a little careful in choosing someone with such an obviously similar problem as your own to be the subject of such childish namecalling!
But then again, if I were you I probably wouldn't appreciate the distinction much myself either.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
The story does go, ..... Jesus called Peter Satan ..... And so I remind the XAINS ..... That is why I call Meph Satan ..... all in Love the enemy .... , the Sword said Jesus ..... No Peace with the hypocrites at the temple dogma church, .... SHOUT AT THE DEVIL .....
All is ONE ...... ONE with the father COSMOS .......
Atheism Books.
ms,
Cats are capable of jumping 5 times as high as they are tall, running 31 mph, seeing 6 times better in dim light (and have some binocular vision). Their sense of smell is 14 times stronger than ours, can hear better than us or dogs (32 individual muscles in their ears allow pinpointing exact locations of sounds.
The positioning of whiskers is unique to all cats - like finger prints. It's cousin the Cheeta is the fastest land mammal.
A cat's heart beats twice as fast as a human heart at 110 to 140 BPM.
In 1952 a Texas Tabby named Dusty set a record by having more than 420 kittens before having her last litter at age 18. A single pair of cats and their kittens can produce as many as 420,000 kittens in just 7 years.
Cats have 290 bones in their bodies and 517 muscles - 5 more vertebrae in their spinal column than a human. The Giraffe, Camel and Cat are the only animals that walk by moving both their left feet, then both their right feet when walking. This method ensures speed, agility and silence.
These cats are designed to run on a variety of fuels - fresh and canned. Take a look at mattshizzle. A large enough cousin to this pictured cat could even fuel on the likes of mattshizzle! I think they're well designed and each has their said designer's mark.
Those of you that think there isn't great design in these cats are missing a genesis suffix detector chip - possibly the neurons aren't firing through the synapse or the the synapse isn't decoding into the association. There might be a drug that can help cognition to polarize the stimulus received by the neurons and "trip" the transmitter across the cleft and pass it on to its link. This is not my specialty, nor I'm sure is it yours.
mephibosheth (and a lot of things taste like chicken I'm told)
This is just too funny. Stop using words when you don't know what they mean! You've certainly demonstrated you have no idea what the words "association" or "neuron" mean. Hell, it is clear that you don't even know what the word suffix means. How stupid are you? Seriously, what do you intend to accomplish by writing something like this? When you know that you don't know the meaning of the words in question and surely by now you must have realized that what you have written has no meaning! Are you trying to convince me and everyone else that you are a barely literate, uneducated idiot? If not, why on Earth would you write something like this? And furthermore, why continue to use Paley's fallacy, when, surely by now you must realize that if you and I were to debate on the finer points of how evolution produces complex biological structures, you will be crushed! What is the point of your continued death throes? I suppose the purpose of this vent has truly been to ask if you are wholly incapable of assembling a rational argument, why won't this thread fucking die?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
DG,
I really think meph NEEDS his god. That's what keeps his sense of self-loathing at full power. If he looks at just how worthwhile he is as a human being without having a god to keep him down his world would break apart.
I'm still learning this myself - many years of christianity wrecked my self esteem.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Seems many of the religious feel sorry for god. Part of the religion attraction is "helping" god, and relating god to poor mistreated Jesus. "Gods helpers", for their Egos sake.
Afterall, the imaginary God of Abraham is pitiful ..... Maybe going from, "Fear of god", to "Helper of god", is a transition to becoming "One with the father" Cosmos (god), as atheist story Jesus/Buddha taught. I hope so. Maybe it's a sign of better distant times to come, as we evolve. The next "Age" ???
Atheism Books.
As you have clearly established you are incapable of addressing questions directed at you it appears you now make comments that appear to be satire or is it just a complete lack of understanding. What ever the case may be I think you have beaten yourself to death on this thread and will only continue to lose more self-respect as you continue.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
pjts,
This reminds me of a time when Jesus was just leaving some "religious leaders" who wanted to stone Him but couldn't (I guess you could say He had lost their respect?). He evidently wasn't in a big hurry to make a "getaway" (as I'm not either) because His attention was stopped and fixed on a man blind from birth.
Jesus ignored the philosophical questions of why the man was blind (you say I ignore some of your statements which I consider blindness) and instead saw the opportunity to glorify God (light vs darkness - if you will - who are you betting on?).
He spat on the ground and made clay and put the clay on the man's eyes, then told him to go wash in the pool of Siloam, which he did, then he could see.
People with the university in their head (including the library) might scoff at this, just as they are offended with the gospel - they are offended with the idea that the Word became flesh, Jesus took a body and died for our sins, then was raised from the dead - with victory over death. They are offended also at the idea that we can be transformed by faith in Jesus - just as they are with spit-clay.
I will, however, take the spit-clay just as gladly as the man who washed and saw. You can't argue with the man after he washes in the pool of Siloam and can see - check it out. Just as he couldn't deny the success of the clay/spit and his faith in following Jesus' Words - I can't either. It has worked for me and is working.
It's not that somebody else saw and told me about it, it's that I see myself. All this is personal - I am telling you it has happened to me. And just as the blind man went personally to the pool and washed so have I. There was no arguing with him that he could see because he was looking them right in the face - just as I am you, pauljohntheskeptic.
mephibosheth (THE GOSPEL: PLAIN AS A PIKESTAFF)
Just a couple of differences between you and the blind man in the story.
1. He had no choice about his blindness - you embrace yours willingly.
2. He wanted to see - you wear your blindness as a badge of honor.
If you really want to use this story, look on us as the bringers of the spit-clay to heal your eyes (the story is not unique to Jesus)
Judging from what I've seen of your dishonesty and attitude - if you've been transformed by Christ you need to practice Revelation 2:5.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You use this sick example as a way to show God's love? John 9:1-12 where the man is born blind in order to allow Jesus to heal him such that God could be glorified. How cruel!
I see you look at the world in a distorted way through your blinders. You see events as this as glory to god yet they establish how sick and twisted your god is.
Enjoy your delusion
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
(I KNOW YOUR LITTLE GAME, fly, SAY THE OPPOSITE, SAY THE OPPOSITE, SAY THE OPPOSITE......BUT YOUR NEGATIVE PRETENDING DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.)
mcfly,
Nice try with the flip - flop, but it flopped. Did you go on and see yourself and your friends in the story? You say you're interested in proof, but there it was right before your/their eyes.....PROOF!
They took no pleasure in a man blind all his life seeing. They saw no light (light, mcfly) - they saw no Messiah. They just had another argument ready - a technicality, a form, a left hemisphere malfunction in sequential analysis. They weren't interpreting logically - just like you and your friends.
I would look in the parietal lobe - more specifically the thalamus if I were you. There have been tremendous advancements in the last twenty years with huge improvements in the tools used to monitor brain function. And it's basically well designed.....
Do you know the brain is made of approximately 100 billion nerve cells (neurons) (about 16 times as many people on Earth) with the ability to gather and transmit electrochemical signals. Neurons come in many sizes and each one links to as many as 10,000 other neurons. Neurons multiply at a rate of 250,000 neurons per minute during early pregnancy.
Your brain is the most energy consuming part of your body. It represents only 2% of the body weight but it uses up to 20% of the body's energy production; i.e. cell maintenance and electrical impulse fuel for communicating. It consumes 25 watts of power when awake (remember VOLTS X AMPS = WATTS).
This was too easy for God so He also made it 75% water. The human brain has a raw computational power between 10 to the 13th and 10 to the 16th power operations per second. This is far more than 1 million times the number of people on Earth.
This is a lot of "bang" for your "bang" guys! DESIGN/ DESIGN/ DESIGN (and your response is to give it a name (Paley's fallacy) rather than use your brain to think.
I'm just going to have to go with the Jesus/Savior/God spoke creation/ spit-clay version. It works.
mephibosheth
(a billion minutes ago Jesus was walking the earth. He lived on earth in His earthly Body about 1.090909 billion seconds)
There is no point in you looking up random facts of neuroelectrochemistry. Be assured that I could give you far more if you so wished, far more than you know or could ever want to know or comprehend. But I believe I already answered your point. The citation of remarkable facts about the brain is not evidence for design. Paley's fallacy is the name which is given to the error, but the fact that one has called their interlocutor out on a logical error does not constitute an inability of that person to think. The reason for the repition is that it has already been articulated to you multiple times how the process of biological evolution produces complex structures, and the precise processes by which this occurs has already been articulated. Hence if you wish for me to articulate them again I shall do so, only because I am very patient. The fallacy in your argument is a way of indicating that you fundamentally misunderstand the issue at hand. Being that, the citation of numerous complex features of neurobiology does not support your case, because we have already articulated how the process of biological evolution produces these structures via the process of natural selection hence giving the illusion of design. In other words, no matter how many impressive facts you look up on wikipedia to make it look like you know what you are talking about, no matter how many times you do this, it will not supplement your case. So why do it? I have already spent exhaustive amounts of time explaining to you the manner in which natural processes produce biological structures. The fact that you don't acknowledge this point but merely continue to cite examples of illusions of design reflects your general idiocy, inability to argue and lack of education.
Speaking of which, why are you refusing to address my argument from before?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
"I'm just going to have to go with the Jesus/Savior/God spoke creation/ spit-clay version. It works." ~ meph /////
Please please dude, stay away from the children. Do your 40 days ..... a message from me, GOD. Sheeezzz, and atheist Jesus wept .....
Atheism Books.
And you're still stumbling around insisting you see...putting design in all caps doesn't make it truthful when it comes to what you think your god did.
Did he "design" the disaters (earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, etc) also> Or do you give that to something else so that Yahweh can look good?
All that work for a canaanite god...
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
deluded,
I don't buy your so called argument. You can't argue away faith in God and the Light of His Word with philosophical gimmicks. You look totally silly in the light of Scriptures.
I don't buy the Paley's fallacy magic answer to design either. You really look silly trying to prove unbelief. Your river of scientific terms are nothing but babbling from the view of the Scriptures.
As I see it you have no argument whatsoever. So you blow more fire from your medical scientific library and think by that you have brought God down and you up. Instead you impress only yourself and your dupes.
If your question is why won't the light of the gospel die, or why won't faith in Jesus die, or why won't Jesus die - you're in for a great disappointment there.Jesus and His Gospel and His In-destructible Life will never die - nor will it die in the hearts who have been renewed by it. The fact that you are blind siding yourself on this will be a worm that won't die with you through eternity.
I'm thinking this "answers your argument" about like your Paley thing does mine - which is not at all. That you have said yourself you don't even know you have a spirit ought to be a clue that you aren't suited up to play ball in this stadium.
What you'll probably do is your version of "thoroughly answering" this - to scoff and mock at it line by line - then you strut through the earth as if you have created the speck of it you see and are yourself.
Why won't unbelief die? You can see in the example I gave that guys like you weren't convicted by the blind seeing - in person - nor like them are you glad about the good that happened. And your argument like theirs goes unanswered.
mephibosheth
This is not a response. You've essentially said: I don't like your argument, ergo, your argument is wrong.
I expect a real response, given that this is the same courtesy I have extend to you. I invite you to read my writing on evolutionary biology- for the first time. If you do not wish to do this, then you can just leave. Seriously, it is no loss. You've already admitted your complete inability to argue. So why don't you just go away? Really...there is no point in your continued presence here. You won't argue, you can't argue, you have neither the education or the technical training to address a serious argument on the evolution of biological structures. Your presence here serves only to waste the time of your interlocutors.
Since you so wish for me to give you a detailed reply on your argument beyond an accusation of Payley's fallacy, well, you must understand why I am shocked at your hypocrisy. The hypocrisy is shocking because I have provided you with my writing on evolutionary biology, whole pages of it, but you have not read it. You cannot accuse your interlocutors of not responding if you do not read their responses. Hence if you wish for me to provide it for you again...
Molecular Evolution Lecture Section IV Part ii) Homology and Evolutionary Modularity
This ends now. Leave the room. You can save a scrap of torn dignity if you leave now, after 8 months and 1000 posts. Either write a technical, articulated refutation to my technical, articulated explanation, or get out. It is truly that simple. Argue or leave.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Thanks for your help meph, for exposing the stupidity of religion.
Thanks DG for your help, to understanding what we are.
Atheism Books.
deluded,
You don't bother me a bit. I have an irrefutable argument: I was blind (like you I might add) but now thanks to Christ and the gospel and my obedience to it I see.
You aren't providing an argument to me because you don't even know you are blind. Your spiritual optic nerve is missing. You don't even desire spiritual sight - the Cross of Christ is offensive to you. The authority of Christ is anathema to you. You don't respect the Scriptures - not sure if you have read them but I'm sure you don't understand them for what they are.
I can't deny that I was blind and now see - neither can you.
mephibosheth
How nice - you're channeling Todd Friel's "Atheists hate Jesus" drivel.
The only basis you have for claiming your argument is irrefutable is the fact that you've chosen to ignore the refutations put before you.
If ignorance is bliss, let me know when you've reached nirvana.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The problem here, meph, is that you've bitten off far more than you can chew. You're a little kid trying to hit a 99 mph fastball in the big leagues. I'm won't refer to myself as an "expert", I've still got a lot to learn. But the people on this thread with years of studying vastly complex sciences just pure and simple know more than you do. I'm beginning to think even I know more than you do. The thing is, you have never studied any more than a wikipedia article on any of this, and are incredibly far from an expert on any type of science. However many of the posters here, myself included, HAVE studied the bible, and have found it to be inaccurate, to say the least.
YOU are the one lacking the information. You have one twisted side to a many-faced argument memorized. How can you claim to be correct when you are clearly the one with less knowledge?
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
We have established the gospel you preach is one you have interpreted. If I was still a practicing Catholic I'd call you a heretic.
So many arguments have been presented to you and you have ignored them all.
No it is a symbol of irrational belief in a fantasy and shows the believer to be one who ignores reality and lives in a dream world.
As to Christ having authority its pretty hard for a decayed corpse to do much at all if he was even real.
You have clearly shown you don't respect the Hebrew scriptures as you have subscribed to a fantasy interpretation that they reject. You claim superior knowledge over those that created the basis for your belief claiming they too were blind. Could it be that you can't see when you have your eyes covered and your head stuck in the ground?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
pyro,
First I want to say I don't take offense at your barbs directed to me. It does hurt to see your blasphemy and disrespect for the Living Christ my Lord and Savior and God and heavenly things.
I would compare this to a hard rock concert. If the song was good enough there would be no need for fireworks, laser lights, strobe lights, guitar smashing, bizarre makeup, and so on.
If the argument was sound enough there would be no need for clothing it in blasphemies and treating heavenly things common. If you were secure in your argument you wouldn't feel the need to be profane. Other than that your company is better than those who say they are Christians but are not. There are weeds that look like wheat.
As for the frankness of this website - that I like, frankness. I have no hidden agenda, I have nothing to hide, I'm transparent - I believe in Jesus and trust Him as my Lord and Savior and can't get enough of Him. I can't get enough of the Word of God. I'm reading from Hebrews this morning and every line is living and breathing. "Therefore He had to be made like His brethren in every respect, so that He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. For because He Himself has suffered and been tempted, He is able to help those who are tempted."
As far as your 99 mph fastball I have a designated hitter. Have you heard? - "the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all. For a man does not know his time. Like fish which are taken in an evil net, and like birds which are caught in a snare, so the sons of men are snared at an evil time, when it suddenly falls upon them."
You better pay more attention to the inning than your fast ball. It could become a "past ball".
mephibosheth
(I have downloaded a copy of deluded's "deluded world) and I am going through it)
Still playing the "atheists hate Jesus" card?
I can't hate anyone I haven't met personally so I can't hate Jesus. You can't like/love anyone who you haven't met personally so you really can't say you love Jesus either.
Can't meet him personally as he's not (or is no longer) a person.
As you've said - all you have is faith.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Without these things people would just buy the album or more likely just download the song illegally and you wouldn't sell many tickets. But in the end this is irrelevant to the topic.
First, I would like to refute that I was profane. If you could point out exactly what was profane about my post, I'll try to be less offensive in the future. I definitely did, however, make the accusation that you lacked the proper knowledge to properly argue. You have admitted yourself you don't understand many of the arguments put forth, and you have consistently demonstrated that you lack understanding of science and scientific terminology.
I also want to point out that it's you who's making "heavenly" things common. Christianity has the tendency of making you think you're worthless as a person without Jesus to make you better. It gives ludicrous explanations for fascinating and beautiful natural phenomena. Why can't the world be beautiful with a scientific explanation as to why? I'm not sure you'll read it but this essay by Hambydammit
http://www.rationalresponders.com/does_science_take_away_wonder_and_awe
offers more insight on the delusion that science takes away the wonder and "heavenly" qualities of life.
Please use a source other than the bible to argue your point. If I were to say I was right because I read about this in a book somewhere you'd want more than just that book as evidence for my position. And if you found out many different people had many different opinions as to what the book meant and that it contradicted itself many times you probably wouldn't even allow me to use it.
You still haven't answered my original question:
Why do you think you can adequately argue your point when you are clearly lacking so much information?
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
Bulverism Fallacy.
The title of the piece in question is "Homology and Evolutionary Modularity" and you will refer to it as such.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
pyrokidd,
I may be lacking information you would require but I am not lacking information I require. In 1963 I was reading the Scriptures by myself in my dorm room - the skaters were going by in that rink and I was holding the wall, bewildered.
It all opened up to me and I was determined to be baptized into Christ that day - which I was, without ceremony.
Not long after I ended up in the hospital for 2 weeks with mumps. I came out of the hospital divorced from reality. Unknown to the science of the time (at least that I encountered) I had bipolar. It was a little time before my state of mind became evident on a college campus. When it did I was taken home to the first phycdoc who told me to get rid of my Bible. After giving me shock treatments, misdiagnosing me and throwing me out with the wrong Rx I struggled and was run over again and again, but I kept reading the Scriptures and it opened up more and more. I took a job at the world's worst factory. The outlook was bleak, but I couldn't deny where I had found the treasure.
My home neighbor had seen me growing up always building things and got me my first construction job. Five years later I started my own company, which is going good even today. I have articles in magazines. I found the perfect wife and got married without dating in '68 (wrote for 6 mo). All the time I have kept studying and applying the Scriptures. I diagnosed and prescribed my own treatment (legally, getting the Rx from the family doctor) and haven't had any trouble with the bp for 34 years.
What I am arguing is still getting brighter and brighter and more exciting even today - 45 years later. God has brought me to a spacious place in every way. I'm excited to share it. If I knew how to argue it in a way that would get it across to you I would.
To answer your question, I would say these are things I have studied and applied again and again. I haven't "arrived" - not saying that, but I have been sorting all these things out and testing them and looking at them from every angle. I am arguing from things I have applied and experienced.
There are examples in the Scriptures of "learned" men's disregard for Jesus' being the son of a carpenter, the apostles being common men. They weren't supplying the scientific argument. This prejudice kept them from being open to their message.
mephibosheth
deluded,
I will refer to it as you have stated and you will not be doing any blasphemy or profane peppering. Just stick to your scientifics.
Respectfully let me say that the use of terms such as "Bulverism Fallacy" is an excuse for not thinking.
thank you
respectfully yours,
mephibosheth
In a slew of absurd things you have said so far, this may be the most. Pointing out a specific logical error in your interlocutors argument does not constitute an excuse for not thinking. If anything, given that you don't know what a Bulverism fallacy is, the charge of not thinking could be applied to you. So I shall tell you what it is. A bulverism fallacy is where your interlocutor attacks your motive, real or imagined, for making an argument, as opposed to addressing the argument itself. That is what you did. This is logically invalid.
Seriously, the irony of your comment is stunning. I point out a specific logical error in your answer and you accuse me of not thinking when you cannot even answer the charge? What sort of absurd logical reasoning is that? Rather than me not thinking, the reality of the siutation is that you cannot even answer a simple charge of logical fallacy, something you've already demonstrated repeatedly.
Blasphemy? What a meaningless and vacuous concept. How can one blaspheme against such a thing that they do not believe even exists? They might mock the concept, and I do, because the notion of a creator God is quite absurd, but to "blaspheme" against such a thing implies that the person doing it holds that such a being does exists. I could utter the sentence "God can go fuck himself" but it would not mean anything to me whatsoever, since I don't consider the concept of God to be coherent in any meaningful way. Whatever I am doing, it therefore cannot be called blasphemy.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Oh screw the motherfucking scriptures for fucks sake! Don't you get they are utter bullshit and mean nothing to us? Quoting MAD magazine would be more meaningful to me anyway. Go shove the stupid bible up your ass. At least using it as toilet paper would make it more useful than reading that nonsense.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
MattShizzle,
You said that and nothing happened to you did it? How do you interpret the fact that you can do that? Look at the patience of God with the likes of you! He even allowed His Son to be tortured and killed while men like you were saying things like you, so even enemies of God like you could be forgiven! God is a forgiving God, and He is a God to be feared! You mistake God's patience for weakness, or non existence - but His patience is actually kindness, giving you time to repent. Yet you kick against the goads.
You might put these proverbs where you know where they are - in your personal file, out of God's sunshine and fresh air (which you are currently enjoying). Regardless of whether or not you apply them, they apply.
He who is estranged seeks pretexts to break out against all sound judgment.
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
When wickedness comes, contempt comes also; and with dishonor comes disgrace.
Every one who is arrogant is an abomination to the LORD; be assured, he will not go unpunished.
He who is often reproved yet stiffens his neck will suddenly be broken beyond healing.
My son, eat honey, for it is good, and the drippings of the honeycomb are sweet to your taste. Know that wisdom is such to your soul; if you find it, there will be a future, and your hope will not be cut off.
Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.
mephibosheth
It could be:
1. God is patient.
2. God really doesn't care what people say about him one way or the other.
3. God doesn't exist.
I realize you'll ignore this anyway like you have the others. People must be hitting too close to home.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
What a slew of worthless, condescending, self-congratulatory drivel.
Granted, MattShizzle's post was probably just as bad, but it is the fact that you address all of us, including those of us, like myself, who have wasted swaths of time assembling vast arguments and refutations, in this thread, in precisely the same manner, that is so angering. How woefully inadequate you are! For when you are cornered, when you have no arguments left, when there is nothing meaningful you can say that has not already been said and refuted...you break out in scripture, praying for our souls and our repentance. This is all you can do, is it not? For you know to be hopelessly outclassed in every arena under discussion...logic, philosophy, physics, biology, chemistry. Is that why you incessantly speak in garbled proverbs and parrot meaningless verses? Because you know, and you know that we know, that you can offer nothing else, and you seem proud of this? As if such drivel constituted a well-founded argument? Are you so incapable of reasoned thought that at every turn you must employ an Appeal to fear fallacy and threaten your interlocutors, or pray for them? That you must make assertions based on the very issue under discussion, hence begging the question? Whether or not that is the reason behind your cognitive malfunctioning, there is no doubt that you are a disgrace to every reasoned man who has ever entertained a coherent and well-constructed original thought. And should you have the gall to respond with yet another parable or quote, or allegory or metaphor, instead of a straight refutation, you shall merely hammer my point home.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
You guys are wasting your time....
meth is just a pathetic attention whore, he's not here to discuss, ask and answer questions, he's just basking in the attention he gets from posting meaningless drivel.
I quit.
I will not read or post to this thread again.
If he wants to cling to the disgusting, savage image of a moron on a stick, rapsodise over the demented mewlings of a desert madman, let him...
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
deluded,
Is that Bulverism fallacy?
mephibosheth
Not quite
check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
Your argument was annihilated some time ago but you don't see it.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Copied this from
http://www.flipsideshow.com/IIF1--LogicalFallacyList.htm
you should read the whole thing
Regardless of your prior knowledge, all of your "arguments" have been logically refuted. The fact that you have no knowledge of any of the listed subjects has something to do with why they have been refuted. But regardless of who they're coming from, the ideas are still illogical.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
Since you didn't make a formal argument with a premise and conclusion, there was no logically sequential assertion that I could fallaciously respond to, so no.You are now only compiling more evidence on your inability to articulate and argue. Here you demonstrated a simple error. The context in which I asked my question was the context in which you had already been hopelessly defeated in argumentative terms, which you have. However, if you had assembled a suitable argument (I have yet to see you do this), then my statements would have been a form of red herring, and under that, a Bulverism fallacy. (this would not make them untrue as that would be an ad logicam). However, as it stands now they are not. On the contrary, since there are a myriad of arguments I have already put forth which you have either conventiently forgotten about or not responded to, the charge is still open on you.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Meph, my brother. I must ask you again, what I think is a silly question, as the linguistic word, spelled G-O-D is a compounded freaking nearly worthless distorted mess. According to your definition of god, what is not god? I can guess your answer but I won't for now .....
And just for the record, the god of Abraham concept, and most others, are obviously the invention of ignorant "imaginative" men, in ancient extremely superstitious times, lacking the most basic science knowledge we take for granite. I have much more respect for the many naturalistic "gods" of the native Indians, etc, than the sicko god of Abe you adore ..... Your god is my devil , as my Jesus would scorn all such idol worshipers.
..... and Jesus wept .... and so do I .... the damn devil of wrong thinking .... smash the temple/church, all religion , all dogma, all is ONE and equal, no Master .... godly speaking ....
Atheism Books.
deluded,
I am looking in your Molecular Evolution Lecture Section IV Part ii) Homology and Evolutionary Modularity for
the moment
at which things become "proved" to you -
the very moment proof happens in your world.
The first I found describes such a moment as: (and I quote) "In science, we often have moments of jigsaw-style epiphanies, moments where all the pieces fall into place, and in a single stroke, the solution, hidden by its simplicity, tumbles out, too beautiful to not be true."
(skipping ahead) "As a biologist, I can testify that it is impossible to quantify the magnitude of the problem which Darwin, Huxley, Wallace and Kettlewell solved in a single stroke. Such was the coherent simplicity and elegance of their theory that jigsaw pieces fell into places immediately, and those that did not were worked out by future generations of molecular geneticists, proteomicists, ecologists and evolutionary developmental biologists."
If the point of proof is when things come together in a beautiful way, the gospel is proven scientifically beyond any doubt!
Then the way that you distinguish between things designed (because, "we designed them" ) and biological systems is that they have a very special set of attributes which allow them to generate complex intricacies from simple origins, and thus you say the question should be whether or not this can come about through "natural process".
Why aren't "natural processes" considered the result of design?
Then the neat principle of natural selection is mentioned as a process that allows biological life to fill endless niches in the struggle for resources and the production of biological innovations that produces complex phenotypes through mechanisms described.
How is it that you view the process of natural selection not being designed?
Then reproduction is brought on the scene
- wait!
Why isn't reproduction viewed as being designed? Convenient revelation?
Ok, I have a theory. It's like the American Idol auditions who sincerely believe and desperately want to believe they can sing and are good and are the next American Idol. You can't deny they really believe this - otherwise why would they camp outside in the middle of the city without comforts to be the first to audition.
It's the same with you. You believe these things "come together in a beautiful way" and prove evolution because you have a great desire to believe that, and like the American Idol auditioners have had people tell them/you that you are right on this, thus you are as your name: deluded.
The same tone deafness that makes you think you can sing keeps you from knowing you can't. Others tell you what you want to hear. You are in a evolution bubble.
mephibosheth (friend, I'm not being rude but you're the worst singer I've ever heard in my life, sorry - it's a no)
This is a fallacy of equivocation. I didn't define "proof" to be a "jigsaw style epiphany". I merely pointed out that some proofs work so well, and that they are so coherent, that they are often discovered in that manner. The discovery of one fact leads to more, which amplifies...and so on. Evolution is not the only example of this...Newtonian mechanics, the proof of Fermat's Last theorom and the Taniyama-Shurima conjecture. It is a comment on the history of science, nothing more.
In other words "coming together in a beautiful way" is not some condition for a proof, rather it is a consequence of finding many objective facts which fit together to make a coherent explanatory theory. Notice I say objective. To state that such facts can fit togheter in such a manner is an objective statement, not a subjective one, since it is dependant only upon examination, not introspection nor emotion. Since you have not articulated how your Gospel fits this criterion, you cannot make this knowledge claim. I on the other hand, can make this knowledge claim about evolution and many other theories because evolution constitutes the basis of a set of mutually interlocking disciplines which mutually butress each other with overwhelming evidence of testable predictions known as "biology".
This is actually an amusing and desperate comment on your part. You are making a false comparison (there is a specific name for this fallacy, called false analogy). You are accusing me of formulating a set of religious principles around this idea because the manner in which I described its discovery, you are under the delusion is similar to the manner in which religious principles are formulated in the mind of the believer. You clearly (as clearly as you are capable of, which is not very clearly) stated this at the bottom. Please, for your own sake, this is a pointless thing to do. And I might add, it is a Bulverism fallacy, again. Completely irrelevant. THe only things that matter are your arguments for design. These arguments are terrible, so I shall shred them now. In future, please only produce your poor arguments for me to destroy and leave your personal comments out of discussion. It makes the process of refutation more industrial and efficient for me.
This is a desperate ploy on your part. It is because of the principle of reductionism. It is in categorical error to ask "who designed the evolutionary process" because evolution is simply the natural result of the existence of self-replicating systems, in much the same way that the laws of thermodynamics are the result of probability, and so forth.
This is the same desperate argument. Natural selection is a process which is a consequence of anything self-replicating, however small or simple, it is not some metaphysical innateness carved into the metaphysical principles of the universe by an omnipotent being. In much the same manner as the principles of thermodynamics are not the result of some innate metaphysical tendancy of material bodies stamped into them to take the path of least resistance, or for heat flow to move from hot to cold. It is simply a basic consequence of mathematics, which in turn is based on a set of a priori true statements which can be derived from an axiomatic system. Hence there is no need to invoke some vague idea of a supernatural maintainer behind natural processes, because they can be reduced to simpler principles, which in turn can be reduced to axiomatic statements, from which we build a posteriori statements.
The philosophical side of your argument is desperate, and a very poor argument. It is essentially a second-order reduction. It indicates that you have missed the point entirely. Have you read no literature on the relationship between biology and teleology written in the last 100 years?
Reproduction of modern organisms is based on a set of complex attributes which in turn developed from simpler self-replicating systems that began as primordial biochemistry. Reproduction is not designed because it is subject to precisely the same processes. The origin of self-replication began in the most primitive form imaginable. I can give you a technical answer to the origin of reproductive systems, but it will have some gaps because our knowledge on this matter is not complete. Hence, would you like to see my answer?
Actually, I wasn't offering you a choice, it is here:
I trust this is detailed enough for you, and certainly more coherent than your vague one word answer of "design":
The process of formation of organic autocatalysis is time consuming. It begins with Piezoelectric systems on crystallien surfaces, which form the progenitors of ribozymes. The first biological molecules on Earth may have been formed by metal based catalysis on the crystalline surface of minerals.
In principle, an elaborate system of molecular synthesis and breakdown called metabolism could have existed as such long before the first cells. Life requires molecules which catalyze reactions hsih lead directly or indirectly to replication of more molecules like themselves. Catalysts with this self promoting propertycan use raw materials to reproduce themselves and therefore divert the same materials from the production of ther substances. In modern cells the most versatile catalysts are polypeptides. However, they cannot propogate self-replication, they do not replicate. There needs to be a molecule which can act as a catalyst and guide its own replication. Such a molecule does exist: RNA.
To understand this more fully, we must understand the relation between protein, DNA, and RNA. Now, the key principle to grasp is the central dogma of molecular biology. Note that the word dogma is not used because the principle has religious adherence, but rather because it seems to be obeyed by all biological life.
Proteins, being the primary structure and material of all cellular life, are encoded by the information in DNA, which is transcribed to an RNA intermediate before being translated into protein. This process is central to all biological life and is universal in its usage. However, it was not always the case. Prior to the existence of DNA, RNA was used as a ribozyme, prior to the usage of protein as the catalytic compound which would be necessary for the self-replicative properties of biological life. Hence:
Pre-RNA>Pre-RNA
would eventually be superseded by:
RNA>RNA
The manner in which this could occur and form has been detailed above, since RNA have a similiarity to polypeptides in their ability to form an active site for homogenous catalysis.
The process of natural selection would naturally favor those RNA which could hold amino acids or small stretches of such at their active sites, by the process detailed above. Hence, eventually the order above would have been superseded by the following:
RNA>RNA and RNA>Protein
DNA has several advantages over RNA. The superseding of RNA as the primary encoder of the codons for polypeptides would have been a slower process. In modern organisms, translation is done by virtue of a set of RNA molecules which hold amino acids and match them to the mRNA called tRNA adaptors. As mentioned previously, RNA molecules that could hold information to guide polypeptide synthesis would have had a massive advantage over its catalytic counterparts because polypeptides are much more efficient at catalysis. Now, ribozymes can perform the function of tRNA-like molecules called psuedo-tRNAs. Finally, this crude form of the peptidyl-transferase would have been naturally selected for its ability to hold the amino acid at the catalytic side of the string of RNA that can hold its code. This development was probably what led to the modern system of codons. Hence we have the following:
mRNA (via psuedo-ribosomes)> translates Protein
Finally, the sequence we see today:
DNA>RNA>Protein
Would have arisen later. The chemical similarities between the two molecular chains, that is, DNA and RNA, allows for the superseding to occur without interrupting the central processes of this primitive form of biological life. But DNA would be naturally selected for as the primary sequence for the transcription of chains to hold the codons because deoxyribose is more stable than ribose and thymine more so than uracil.
We will now consider the precise manner in which this process occured. First we must understand proteomics in some detail:
Essentially, a protein is a string of amino acids, usually 500-2000 amino acids long. The whole of life depends on proteins. Everything else, save the genes, is a mere passive bystanders in a biological dance of life. When we observe the cell, we are in essence observing proteins. Proteins control movement (motor proteins), the control structure (structural proteins), they control concentration (transmembrane proteins), they control ion gradients (pump proteins), and most importantly, they control every single chemical reaction in the body (enzymes). Proteins don't just control the body, they are the body. All proteins fold up tightly into one highly preferred conformation. There is no limit to the number of tasks they do in the cell. Proteins can be subdivided into two large classes, the globular proteins fold up into irregular ball-like shapes and fibrous proteins. Nearly all globular proteins are allosteric, which means they can adopt two slightly different conformations, this means they have two binding sites, one of which is for a regulatory molecule, and the other is for the substrate. Allosteric control is very complex. Suffice it to say for now that it works on either negative or positive feedback (ie the regulatory molecule increases the protein's affinity for the substrate, and the other way around, or the opposite, the regulatory molecule decreases protein affinity for the substrate, which of course, would be reciprocal. In this way, regulatory molecules can turn the protein on or off, and in negative control, there is a tug of war between the regulatory ligand and substrate which are reciprocally affected by each others concentration in the cell.
A protein is a specific type of biological polymer made up a specific family of chemical subunits called amino acids. There are 20 biological amino acids, and they are distinguished by the fact that they all have a central alpha carbon, which is attached to an amine group (-NH2), a Carboxyl group (-COOH), a hydrogen, and a side chain. It is the side chain that gives each amino acid its properties, and each of the 20 has a different side chain. Proteins can be anything in length. Usually it is 50-2000 amino acids long, and the longest ones can 7000 amino acids long. The interaction between the side chains (which is determined by charge, since three are basic, four are acidic, nine are nonpolar and five are polar but uncharged) determines the shape of the protein. For instance, the nonpolar side chains are all hydrophobic (water hating) which means the protein will fold up in a manner where the nonpolar side chains are facing inwards and not exposed to water (this is the most energetically favorable conformation). This is just one of many different subtle interplays between amino acids that determine a proteins shape. However, nearly all proteins fold spontaneously in a solution, indicating that all the information necessary to fold it is stored in the amino acids.
Proteins have only one or a second highly similar conformation, that is how they work.
Now, for the number of possible combinations of amino acid, such calculations are easy to make. With just two amino acids joined in a row, we have 20^2, or 400 possibilites. With three we have 20^3 or 8000 possibilities, with ten, we have 10240000000000 possibilities, with the average protein having several hundred amino acids up to a thousand, we have vastly more conformations than there have been seconds or atoms in the universe.
However, the Hoyle Fallacy occurs here, in making our calculatiosn in the possibility of stable biological proteins arising, because the calculations, as was pointed out by the TalkOrigins archive:
· They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
· They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
· They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
· They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
Now, proteins do not form in this way. There is an evolutionary advantage to stable conformations forming, and stable conformations, in turn, are the ones which give rise to biological functions. There is an obvious reason for this. In my notes on the matter, I wrote:
All Proteins Bind to Other Molecules
· Properties of proteins depend on their interactions with other molecules
The Details of a Protein’s Conformation Determine It’s Chemistry
· Proteins chemical capability comes in part because neighboring chemical groups on the protein’ surface often interact in ways which enhance the reactivity of amino acid side chains
· Two categories of this: Neighboring parts of the chain may interact in a way that restricts water molecules access to the ligand binding site.
· Because water molecules tend to form hydrogen bonds, they can compete with the ligands for sites often the protein surface
· Therefore, the tightness of the protein-ligand bonding is greatly increased if water molecules are excluded
· Water molecules exist in large hydrogen bonded networks, and inside the folds of a protein a ligand can be kept dry because it is energetically unfavorable for water molecules to break from this network
· Clustering of neighboring polar amino acid side chains together can alter reactivity. If the way the protein folds forces many negative side chains together that would otherwise not associate due to their mutual repulsion, the affinity of this new pocket for a positive ion is greatly increased
· Sometimes, when normally unreactive groups like CH2OH interact with each other because the side chains on which they are on form Hydrogen bonds with each other they can become reactive, allowing them to enter reactions making/breaking covalent bonds
· Therefore the surface of each protein has a unique chemical reactivity that depends on which side chains are exposed and their exact orientation relative to each other.
Sequence Comparisons Between Protein Family Members Highly Crucial Ligand Binding Sights
We must understand all of this. Biology is highly modular. It is all about the assembly of large structures from smaller ones. Polypeptides are modularly assembled from amino acids hence determining its structure hence its chemistry and binding. Proteins are modularly assembled from polypeptides, and supramolecular structures from polypeptides, therefore, the evolution of proteins will be forced in the direction of stable amino acid conformations not random possibilities associated with amino acids. This becomes evident when we consider proteomic supramolecular structures:
Protein Molecules Ofter Serve as Subunits for the Assembly of Large Structures
· Noncovalent bonding allows proteins to generate supramolecular structures like construction of giant enzyme complexes, ribosomes, proteasomes, protein filaments, and viruses
· These are not made by one giant single covalent molecule, instead by noncolvalent assembly of many giant subunits
· Advantages of this building technique: Large structure built from a few repeating subunits requires little genetic information
· Both assembly and disassembly are easily controlled and reversible
· Errors in structural synthesis are easily avoided as proofreading mechanisms can operating during the course of the assembly
· Some protein subunits assemble into flat sheets, on which the subunits are arranged in a hexagonal pattern
· Slight changes in the subunit geometry can turn the sheet into a tube, or with slightly more changes, into a hollow sphere
· Protein tubes and spheres which bind to RNA form the coats of viruses
· Formation of these closed structures provides additional stability because it increases the number of covalent bonds
· This principle is illustrate by the protein coat or capsid of may viruses
· Capsids are often made of hundreds of identical protein subunits enclosing and protecting the viral nucleic acid code
· The proteins of capsid must have particularly adaptable structure. Not only must it have multiple contact points to make a stable sphere but also must be able to change to let the nucleic acid out to initiate viral replication in a cell. This is shown here by the construction of a capsid from monomer protein subunits, which connect into dimers, then trimers, then into the intact sphere with the addition of more free dimers
Polynucleotides Can Both Store Information and Catalyze Chemical Reactions. RNA can propagate itself by means of complementary base pairing. However, this process without catalysis is slow, error prone and inefficient. Today, such processes are catalyzed by a massive battery of complex interactions of RNA and proteins.
In the RNA world, the RNA molecules themselves would have acted as catalysts. A pre-RNA world probably Predates the RNA One. It is unlikely RNA was the first self-replicating propogater. It is difficult to imagine that they could form through nonenzymatic means. The ribonucleotides are hard to form enzymatically, also RNA polymers entail a 5 to 3 chain which must compete with other linkages that are possible including 2 to 5 and 5 to 5. It has been suggested that RNA was anteceteded by molecules with similar properties, but that were similar. Candidates for pre-RNA include p-RNA and PNA (peptide nucleic acid)
The transition from pre-RNA to RNA would have occurred through the synthesis of RNA via these simpler components as template and catalyst. Laboratory experiments demonstrate this as plausible. PNA can act as a template for RNA molecules. Once the first RNA molecules had been produced, they could have outphased their antecedents leading to the RNA world
Single-Stranded RNA molecules can fold into highly elaborate structures Comparisons between many RNA structures reveal conserved motifs, short structural elements used over and over again as part of larger structures. Common motifs include
Single strands, double strands, single nucleotide bulges, triple nucleotide bulges, hairpin loops, symmetric internal loops, asymmetric internall loops, two stem junction, three stem junctions and four stem junctions. RNA molecules can also form common conserved interactions such as psuedoknots and “kissing hairpins” and hairpin-loop bulge contacts, like in this picture:
-Protein catalysts require a surgace of unique countours. RNA molecules with appropriate folds can also served as enzyme. Many of the ribozymes work by positioning metal ions at the catalytic sites. Relatively few catalytic RNA exist in modern day cells, being the polypeptides work much better.
An example of In vitro selection of synthetic ribozymes:
-A large pool of dsDNA each with a randomly generated sequence. Transcription and folding into randomly generated RNA molecules. Addition of ATP derivative containing a sulfer in place of oxygen Only a rare RNA has the ability to phosphorylate itself. This is captured by elution of the phosphorylated material
These experiments and others like them have created RNAs that can catalyze a wide variety of reactions:
Peptide bond formation in protein synthesis, RNA cleavage and DNA ligation, DNA cleaving, RNA splicing, RNA polymerization, RNA and DNA phosphorylation, RNA aminoacylation, RAN alkylation, Amide bond formation, amide bond cleavage, glycosidic bond formation and porphyrin metalation, since, like proteins, ribozymes undero allosteric conformation change
Self-Replication Molecules Undergo Natural Selection
-The 3D structure is what gives the ribozyme chemical properties and abilities. Certain polynucleotides therefore will be especially successful at self-replication. Errors inevitably occur in such processes, and therefore variations will occur over time. Consider an RNA molecule that helps catalyze template polymerization, taking any RNA as a template
-This molecule can replicate. It can also promote the replication of other RNA. If some of the other RNA have catalytic activity that help the RNA to survive in other ways, a set of different typers of RNA may evolve into a complex system of mutual cooperation.
One of the crucial events leading to this must have been the development of compartments. A set of mutually beneficial RNA could replicate themselves only if the specialized others were to remain in proximity
Selelection of a set of RNA molecules according to the quality of replication could not occur efficiently until a compartment evolved to contain them and therefore make them available only to the RNA that had generated them. A crude form of this may have simly been simple absorption on surfaces or particles.
The need for more sophisticated containment fulfilled by chemicals with the simple physiochemical properties of ampipathism. The bilayers they form created closed vesicles to make a plasma membrane. In vitro RNA selection experiments produced RNA molecules that can tightly bind to amino acids. The nucleotide sequence of such RNA contains a disproportionate number of codons corresponding to the amino acid. This is not perfect for all amino acids, but it raises the possibility that a limited genetic code could have arised this way. Any RNA that guided the synthesis of a useful polypeptide would have a great advantage.
I trust this is sufficient detail to answer your question.
Go fuck yourself. You couldn't put together a decent argument if you tried. You put together a terrible argument, indicating you have read no philosophical or scientific literature, then you insult me based on a slew of meaningless garbage and parables? You obviously stopped maturing by the time you were 7. Go back to the hole you crawled out of. You are not a judge on American Idol, and I am not a contestant. You are a slightly retarded debate partner who is extremely irritating, and I am the person with whom you are having this "debate". Please remember this in future and leave your parables of an irritating and rather stupid television show out of the discussion. If you think you have a genuine critique of evolutionary theory, a particular philosophical or scientific concept, please let me know so I can shred it.
Now, to say lastly and more seriously, I must ask if this is truly the best you can do? I write 5000 words of a detailed and technical explanation and you can only base metaphorical parables around a few lines in an introductory paragraph that wasn't even written in scientific language or was expressing scientific concepts, but rather to introduce the reader to the topic at hand! What sort of nonsense is this? Have you even read the entire piece yet? If no (the if is for purely academic purposes since I surmise that you have not) then don't come back until you have. I know this is surely a futile request given that the probability that you will read down to this line is vanishingly small, but I thought to ask nonetheless.
If you wish for me to abate with the tone of anger, then you will follow a very simple request. All you have to do is conduct yourself like a real debate. All this means is that you read my argument, quote it, and respond, then I will do the same. Cut the garbage out of the attempted refutation. I couldn't care less about your religious beliefs, about God, Jesus, or the Easter Bunny, or parables or scripture or any of this other madness. Just read the argument, write a well-founded response, then I shall respond with equal civility. If you cannot do that, then I shall surmise that you are incapable of doing it. And by that, I shall conclude rightly that you are an idiot. Prove me wrong.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Funny to read that you're talking about "convenient revelations"? Christianity (especially your version) is full of them.
meph:Wow! Lightning sure is powerful! God did it!
Those are really cute kids! God must have made them!
I have no idea how animals and man got to their present forms! God must've designed and created them!'
What? You mean science has working explanations for those? Isn't God wonderful?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Happy 1000th, everybody.
Did I miss anything ?