Laws of science. A question only a fundi could love..

[LadyTevar]

When people start talking about what a bitter, angry man I must be for disbelieving in God, I usually start talking about how great my uninhibited sex life is, and how much I enjoy things like sodomizing my wife while watching pornography which I rented with the money that I didn't donate to church on Sunday.

Just remind them of the things I'm allowed to do without a trace of guilt so they can't get too smug about their delusion that I'm an angry embittered little man cowering in my basement from the Big Bad Christians. I'm actually the guy who's enjoying his life while they scurry around trying to appease the invisible man.

Don't forget the sin-free alcoholic binges

[General Zod]

When people start talking about what a bitter, angry man I must be for disbelieving in God, I usually start talking about how great my uninhibited sex life is, and how much I enjoy things like sodomizing my wife while watching pornography which I rented with the money that I didn't donate to church on Sunday.

Just remind them of the things I'm allowed to do without a trace of guilt so they can't get too smug about their delusion that I'm an angry embittered little man cowering in my basement from the Big Bad Christians. I'm actually the guy who's enjoying his life while they scurry around trying to appease the invisible man.

Don't forget the sin-free alcoholic binges

Of course, technically it's only a sin to drink to excess. Jesus had a thing for wines after all.

[LadyTevar]

When people start talking about what a bitter, angry man I must be for disbelieving in God, I usually start talking about how great my uninhibited sex life is, and how much I enjoy things like sodomizing my wife while watching pornography which I rented with the money that I didn't donate to church on Sunday.

Just remind them of the things I'm allowed to do without a trace of guilt so they can't get too smug about their delusion that I'm an angry embittered little man cowering in my basement from the Big Bad Christians. I'm actually the guy who's enjoying his life while they scurry around trying to appease the invisible man.

Don't forget the sin-free alcoholic binges

Of course, technically it's only a sin to drink to excess. Jesus had a thing for wines after all.

So did everyone back in those days.. it was safer than drinking the water!

At lease he didnt' have to sneak to the next town to get his liquor, like many fid upstanding Baptist deacons I know of

[Darth Wong]

I also don't have to feel guilty if I refuse to forgive somebody for being an asshole, and I don't have to eliminate all of my sins before passing judgment on other people either. It's really so much easier this way. Plus I get to sleep in every Sunday without feeling bad about it.

[Plekhanov]

give a scientific reason, ... Why the laws of science were bent to give humans life.

This is backwards thinking of the worst kind, and to borrow an analogy from Douglas Adams is the equivalent of one (anthropomorphised obviously) puddle noticing that he and all his mates fit perfectly into their respective holes and concluding that therefore the road they reside in, the world and in fact the very universe was constructed to fit the puddles.

Of course humans (like all other surviving organisms) fit the universe very neatly, how could we not? If we didn’t we’d go extinct very quickly like all the millions of species before us that failed to adapt sufficiently to the changing environment.

[Admiral Valdemar]

My most favourite recent tactic is to say "OK, let's say we accept your standard of proof. Prove I am not God." And then you can take every argument they use for the existence of God and use it to prove that you are God.

*SNIP*

Oh Jesus Christ, that's brilliant! I can't wait to try that out elsewhere.

[Zero]

Tell him that the laws of science never had to change to allow humans to exist. If they did, then the complex biochemical processes that allow us to function wouldn't continue. Abiogenesis theories (Dealing only with molecules that self-replicate: RNA is a well-known example of one) and the theory of evolution are enough to explain how life arose on earth.

[Zero]

Tell him that the laws of science never had to change to allow humans to exist. If they did, then the complex biochemical processes that allow us to function wouldn't continue. Abiogenesis theories (Dealing only with molecules that self-replicate: RNA is a well-known example of one) and the theory of evolution are enough to explain how life arose on earth.

EDIT: Human life, or the diversity of living things.

[Max]

Does anyone have anything on Pasteur? Someone just used him as a reference for "life begets life" and thats why you can't create simple proteins or amino acids in a lab. So I referenced the Miller-Urey experiment, but I'm not sure if that was smart...as I see a lot of creation sites discounting that as well..

[Max]

can someone take a look at this link and offer some advice?

++http://forums.advancedmn.com/showthread ... 078&page=4

I know absolutely nothing about Pasteur....

arg.. I'll just post the conversation.

Originally Posted by MAX
You also obviously don't know what the Miller-Urey experiment was, maybe you should re-read the cut n paste job you stole to figure out why I mentioned it.

Uh, yes. This was a test, trying to demonstrate that the primitive atmosphere could beget life. They simulated the sea with boiling water, and the atmosphere with gases that were thought to be around then, without oxygen (since it would destroy the organic compounds), and with electricity sparks to simulate lightning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAX
I'm sure with the technology at the time, and the fact they knew practically nothign about DNA.. I can see why he's make that observation. However, unlike religion, science adapts with new information and techniques. So no, not busted...not when you're using outdated information.

sure, it keeps adapting. I admire that. But it's adapting, not answering questions. Just raising more of them. Raising questions is fine also, since we are creatures of curiosity. But it can't be denied that it's impossible to test whether life was spawn on a primitive earth. It can't be tested, so it's not under the scientific method, and isn't scientific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAX
I don't know why patients get infections when I perform surgery after using the outhouse. It must be god. I'll just use the knife I cut the chicken with to perform this operation...
-- Louis Pasteur

yeah, I'm not really caring too much for Pasteur. He's a scientist, and like all scientists, he wasn't infallible. Who cares? The fact is that he proved a scientific fact.

It had nothing to do with DNA with Pasteur. He saw something simple and irrefutable, and made a rule from it. He didn't need to know about DNA to figure that out.

[Adrian Laguna]

My most favourite recent tactic is to say "OK, let's say we accept your standard of proof. Prove I am not God." And then you can take every argument they use for the existence of God and use it to prove that you are God.

I made a thread in Testing about it a while ago. Titled "I knew it! Darth Wong is God!", it was quickly derailed into a discussion about some user's philosophy book. Anyone interested in seeing Mr. Wong in action using this tactic can go here. Start from that post and continue reading.

[Darth Wong]

can someone take a look at this link and offer some advice?

One word: MECHANISM. In science, you test mechanisms, not histories. You can't devise a scientific test to see whether OJ Simpson murdered his wife, but you can test a hypothesis about this event to see if it was possible for him to murder his wife in the timeframe available to him.

Similarly, we can't test the history of what happened when life first spawned on Earth, but we can test the mechanisms underlying any particular hypothesis which should show that it's possible. And in order to do this, you need only test the catalytic chemical reactions possible with basic organic "building blocks".

[Rye]

Here's a question I always wanted to ask the fundy debaters. Do you actually think you will change any of their minds by debating them? Even if you go into this not trying to open their eyes do you think you would ever get a concession from these people? Is that why you debate them or is there another reason?

It happens rarely, but sometimes it does work. The other day I chatted to a woman from the US that used to be quite fundy, and I had an argument with her ages ago about how repugnant the idea of vicarious atonement is, she couldn't answer it and went away for quite a while. So I chat to her again and she now says she's a Unitarian Universalist, which is like the most liberal church out there, it's not even christian, it's just ambiguously spiritual, accepting all walks of faith or lack of. Anyway, I ask her why, and she says "because of something you said to me," so I'm like, "whoa, really? What?" and she says "well, you said something about vicarious atonement and it got me thinking..." and I must say, it's a slightly creepy feeling to know you got through to one of these people. Think of all the subsequent changes that could've happened in their life!

However, I usually just go into debates either to shame someone for being so stupid or ignorant, and for mental exercise. It requires you really examine the concepts being put forth, even if they're obviously wrong, and think up the best counterargument that accomodates for everything they're arguing, and, even better, future concepts. It's like a strategy game, killing their reinforcements before they get to use them, and so on.

I think the main focus isn't to change the fundy's mind, just to change anyone else's that's not adopted a stance, or is having doubts they can't voice, etc. Sometimes you "bag a fundy" too.

Oh and for the main thread: Pasteur disproves Spontaneous Generation which is a different concept altogether to abiogenesis. SG is the ridiculous notion that dead things become other, seperate living things, like a slab of meat spontaneously generates maggots, rather than the fly laying them, or that ropes spontaneously generate mice, water spontaneously generates algae.

He showed that if you sterilise a sample of something (for instance, by boiling), then keep it away from everything that's living, nothing living will generate within that sample.

Abiogenesis is saying something entirely different, it is noticing that living organisms live due to their complex biochemistry, and that chemistry would've started by other chemical reactions that culminated in a self replicator. This "there is no life from non-life" is an oversimplification and frankly, silly; viruses aren't alive yet they reproduce, prions aren't alive yet they reproduce, and they don't even have any genes!

[SirNitram]

Here's a question I always wanted to ask the fundy debaters. Do you actually think you will change any of their minds by debating them? Even if you go into this not trying to open their eyes do you think you would ever get a concession from these people? Is that why you debate them or is there another reason?

I do it for one reason here: Fun. Yes, it's actually amusing to me to deconstruct this stuff, and it keeps my brain running. Same way if you don't use math, it'll fade, it helps keep things in my head.

Outside of SDN, there's two methods, each with a goal. The first is in front of a third party, to show them how looney the fundy is.

The third is for actually cracking their faith, and I don't recommend it. Born Agains are often worse than original fundies, and you can rarely assure they'd be anything else. Basically, keep throwing out their own source and it's contradictions in their face until they can't keep up.

Pointing out Morality doesn't come from God, but from a tree, and that learning of morality pissed God off, tends to make most fundies of the biblical inerrancy flavour have a headache.

[Max]

What about the Fundy's that just flat out ignore what you post, and then when you point out that they've done such an act...they act as if (this is just one example) your post didn't matter because science is just "circular reasoning" anyway, unless you do the research yourself.

[drachefly]

Spontaneous Generation and abiogenesis basically amount to the same thing... Just, let's work on what Pasteur really showed:

Boiled meat, left still for several weeks not in direct sunlight, did not rot.

Wow, so, if you have like a quarter kilo of organic matter and you don't apply any energy to it, and you give up after a few weeks, you're not going to get life that's so obvious you can't help but smell it.

Compare this to trying with all of the carbon on Earth, under the sun's rays, trying continuously for billions of years.

It's the same thing at the base, but in the end it's not the same thing at all.

[Surlethe]

What about the Fundy's that just flat out ignore what you post, and then when you point out that they've done such an act...they act as if (this is just one example) your post didn't matter because science is just "circular reasoning" anyway, unless you do the research yourself.

At that point, you have to either have the patience of a god to keep debating, you start flaming for amusement, or you walk away, secure in the knowledge you are intellectually superior. If you have deistic patience, then you point out the following: science is not circular; it requires no more faith than everyday life; and since they're not a scientist, their positions are hardly valid since, by their logic, they didn't do any research whatsoever. You then conclude by noting, since they're not scientists, they can't say anything about evolution; then repeat ad nauseam until the WoI starts to crack.

[wolveraptor]

Debating a fundy online is like masturbating. If they're easy air-headed teen fundies in some dumbass youth group, it's like masturbating to soft-core. If it's Behe, you're on to the really hardcore stuff. If you penetrate their thick skulls...well, I really don't need to spell out that analogy. But anyways, the whole idea is to use it so you don't lose it. Your brain, I mean.

[CaptJodan]

If you penetrate their thick skulls...well, I really don't need to spell out that analogy.

So if you don't penetrate then you get no satisfaction?

[Max]

I'm pretty much at the point where I'm flame baiting him, since he's obviously cutting and pasting all his posts from some creationist site.

[wolveraptor]

If you penetrate their thick skulls...well, I really don't need to spell out that analogy.

So if you don't penetrate then you get no satisfaction?

If you can't enjoy it without penetration, you can't enjoy it 90% of the time.

[Turin]

MAX, I would 100% believe you if you can give a scientific reason, completely infallible, why humans exist on earth today. Why the laws of science were bent to give humans life.

It looks like people have moved on from the original topic, but I thought I'd throw something in on it because I think I know what this moron thinks he's talking about. Steven Hawking refers to this as the "anthropic principle", which is to say that the laws of the universe appear to be constructed in such a way as to allow not only life, but intelligent life that can ask the questions about how the universe is created. For example, if the constants involved in the nuclear strong force were slightly weaker than they are in the real universe, the universe would consist of a mostly uniform soup of quarks and not the conditions we see (I'm just talking out of my ass in terms of the results of changing the constants, but I think I'm making my point).

Of course, the simple rebuttal for this, as Hawking says, is that of course the universe has properties that allow for intelligent life, otherwise we wouldn't be here to question it. The universe could certainly have developed with a different set of fundamental characteristics, but it didn't. Hardly evidence of divine creation, just fortunate happenstance. Hawking refers to this as the "weak anthropic principal." I forget what the "strong anthropic principal" was... maybe someone else can jump in on that.

[Darth Wong]

Besides, the idea of calculating probabilities for the appearance of these characteristics is utterly ridiculous. In order to calculate the probability of any given outcome, you must know how many different possible outcomes there are.

So, the "fine-tuning" argument inevitably begs the question: how many different possible kinds of universe are there? People usually speak in terms of altering one particular physical constant, but of course, they have no way of knowing if this is possible. One could quite easily say that the probability of our universe developing this way is 100%, because it is the only known possibility.

[drachefly]

For example, if the constants involved in the nuclear strong force were slightly weaker than they are in the real universe, the universe would consist of a mostly uniform soup of quarks and not the conditions we see (I'm just talking out of my ass in terms of the results of changing the constants, but I think I'm making my point).

Pretty much, the idea was, if the proton were heavier than the neutron, the proton would decay into the neutron instead of the other way around, and this would be a BAD THING(tm) for matter as we know it -- everything would have ended up neutrons instead.

As it stands, they are quite close in mass.

Now, I'm not sure that this is actually the showstopper he made it out to be (though it sure wouldn't be matter as we know it). If you got a bunch of neutrons together, protons might begin to emerge as a consequence of their interaction. Then you'd have a really weird periodic table with 20 stable isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium being the lightest) or something like that. But in that case you could also have 100 stable isotopes of carbon to go with it.

I forget what the "strong anthropic principal" was... maybe someone else can jump in on that.

The strong anthropic principle is that the universe HAD to have constants that would permit life. I don't buy it. As suggested by my comment above, I think that the conditions for life are much weaker than most people assume.

Now, there are some versions of cosmogeny which allow the universe to have different regions with different constants. In that case, that at least one region had a set of constants which suits us is profoundly unsurprising.

[Max]

In regards to DNA linking us to all other life, and evolution...can someone help me out with this?

I am aware of DNA. There is a lot of commonality between other species and humans, sure. But how did DNA begin to self replicate, and why do all of the chromosomes contain the DNA blueprints? Why did both a male and female gender both evolve so perfectly and were able to pro-create at the same time? And not just humans, but other mammals and species?

I have better access to some stuff at home, but I'm in class right now, so you'll have to wait until the afternoon.