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

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-02-02 11:36am

If you want to know, why not just examine the literature? Seriously, just read talk origins or a biology book or something.

Anyway, as to the questions in your post:

1) DNA replicates utilising RNA, which is simpler stuff and there are even self-catalysing types of it (that discovery got the discoverers a nobel prize, no less). There are RNA viruses, too. RNA is predicted to have originated before DNA, DNA occurred later utilising the existing RNA chemistry, and then a self replicator cropped up, utilising the same chemistry that all living and "other (viruses, prions, etc)" organisms today are reliant upon.

2) Nature doesn't just have males and females. There are lots of variations. Asexual reproduction is the main means of reproduction, going by the number of organisms that do it. Lots of bacteria share genes chemically with their neighbours, this increases the likelihood of their offspring being naturally selected over more genetically limited stock. Think of males, then, as messenger females, who spread around different genes to increase diversity and the likelihood of a successful hybrid offspring. Parthogenesis also exists, as well as animals that can change sex, so really, gender isn't "irreducibly complex" as the fundy is arguing.

Furthermore, even if it was, "God" wouldn't be ansanswer, nor would anything "supernatural" since we have no rational basis to presuppose these as real or explanatory.

Since common ancestry accounts for why almost all animals breed sexually, it's not difficult to explain why such traits are popular among complex organisms.

Max · Post by **Max** » 2006-02-08 07:15pm

Apparently this struck a nerve, as I got this in my email box.

I mentioned occams razor in regards to god, and someone mentioned that love doesn't exist by occams razor as well, so occams razor is flawed.

> So does that mean that, before we could measure brain activity, love
> didn't exist? You're being ridiculous. Just because we can't see or
> measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's a non-sequitur.
> Your rejection of the idea of God is what's illogical; you have no
> proof. The only LOGICAL choice would be to say that you have
> inconclusive data and cannot say one way or another.
>
> Occam's razor is fundamentally flawed. It's entirely inductive and not
> very strong.
>

>I expect an unconditional apology and a promise to be openminded.
>Openminded means refusing to say or believe "absolutely X" or
>"absolutely ~X" unless you have a valid and sound deductive argument.

I thought love was actually ovbservable by brain activity...

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-02-08 07:24pm

Yeah, but if you read a touch more carefully, he says BEFORE we could measure brain activity.

Of course, anyone who experiences it does have a measurement. Not quantifiable, but enough that Occam's razor could not shave it away. Well, maybe out of explaining certain things, but it could not just get rid of it as a phenomenon.

Max · Post by **Max** » 2006-02-08 07:31pm

I told him anecdotal experience wasn't valid in arguing for god, so he'll just turn around and use that on me regarding love.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-02-08 07:43pm

If you said that the problem was that it was anecdotal, there's no problem. Enough of the population has experienced love that it has gone WAY past anecdotal.

If you said that the problem was that it was subjective, there's no problem. Love is a phenomenon -- it is something you experience.

God is not just something you experience.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-08 08:45pm

What? Lots of people say they've experienced god. According to your post, that means it's real.

Love itself is not something that can be observed. However, lust and deep friendship, the components of it, are observed. We know the reaction of the brain to sexy stuff, and we know that humans are capable of altruistic acts towards individuals whom they find favorable.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-02-08 08:49pm

wolveraptor wrote:What? Lots of people say they've experienced god. According to your post, that means it's real.

Love itself is not something that can be observed. However, lust and deep friendship, the components of it, are observed. We know the reaction of the brain to sexy stuff, and we know that humans are capable of altruistic acts towards individuals whom they find favorable.

Actually, scientists have localised portions of the brain that light up when experiencing emotions similar to love. So yes, it can be observed to a degree. And even synthesized, if given proper chemicals.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-02-08 11:07pm

If I don't love my son, why do I spend twelve thousand fucking dollars a year to put him in private school? What's his alternate hypothesis?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-02-08 11:10pm

wolveraptor wrote:What? Lots of people say they've experienced god. According to your post, that means it's real.

No. It means religious feelings are real, quantifiable, and measurable. No religion defines God as 'The feeling I get when I see something wonderous'. A beleiver may describe that as the proof they feel, but they do not stop with 'It's just a feeling in my head'.

Careful about shoving words in people's mouths, that's not appreciated.

Love, being nothing more than an emotion, is very real and trackable.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-02-08 11:10pm

Darth Wong wrote:If I don't love my son, why do I spend twelve thousand fucking dollars a year to put him in private school? What's his alternate hypothesis?

Masochism, or so said my father when confronted with a similar question. I'm relatively sure he was in jest.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-02-08 11:30pm

It should also be noted that love is not an entity at all; it is a state of an entity (a human being) which is already known to exist.