(01-16-2014 03:51 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Which is easier to believe?

That the entire universe just blinked into existence for nothingness? (everything from nothing)

Or the "invisible man in the sky"?

I find a creator easier to digest than an entire universe and life from nothing.

This is especially true when you factor in free will among living creatures.

Science is limited to our perception, and we are a pretty limited species.

(01-16-2014 09:46 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Dated a girl in college that was pretty religious. She said the more she learend of science the more she was amazed by God. She has a PhD in biology now. Just an interesting take you don't hear very often.

I've never understood the concept of having to choose between religion and science.

I've always had plenty of room for both.

(01-16-2014 02:04 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 09:46 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Dated a girl in college that was pretty religious. She said the more she learend of science the more she was amazed by God. She has a PhD in biology now. Just an interesting take you don't hear very often.

I've never understood the concept of having to choose between religion and science.
I've always had plenty of room for both.

Same here.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Just give science some more time. It is relentless.

Again, science may effectively answer mysteries surrounding primordial soup chemicals flying around, which could've given rise to the tangible, fleshy shells we all occupy. But it is completely incapable of explaining the origin of sentient consciousness.

Repeating what others have just said, I find that science and the spiritual (or religious, etc.) don't need to be mutually exclusive subjects where you are "all in" one or the other. In the end, they go hand in hand.

(01-15-2014 09:42 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Science is pretty relentless. I don't see how all origin stories from religious sources won't end up in archeology museum eventually. (And before any creationists start getting butthurt, I should point out that MOST religiously sourced creation stories are already in archeology museums.)

Probably b/c there weren't any brilliant scientists around with million$ in grant money, equipment and research funding 3,000 yrs or however many millions of yrs ago (depending on new or old Earth viewpoint) to make this stuff.

I'm pretty disappointed in you. I thought you were smarter than this.

georgia_tech_swagger
Correct, but the scope of faith is ever shrinking. All experiments I list above have been retested quite a lot. The one where they get 2 of the 4 RNA bases is just an expanded scope version of the Miller-Urey experiment.[/quote' Wrote:  Not at all. You are falling into the God of the gaps fallacy. You don't understand the question.

Quote:[quote='DrTorch' pid='10300531' dateline='1389880255']
Just curious GTS, where do you think you fall on this chart:

Last I had it tested back in HS it was 138, if you must know. And also, it tells me the best and brightest are capable to removing their childhood indoctrination.

Really? How so. Methinks you misunderstood the chart.

Quote: Let's add in the theists to this:



So where would you say YOU fall on the very C- ish bell curve of theists?

Toward the far right hand side. I'm a bit surprised you brought this chart up. Not exactly a testimony to the high intellectual prowess of atheists.

(01-16-2014 01:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 05:58 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 10:46 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Plus, the fact that he pumped electricity through his chemicals until he got amino acid formation, which is unlikely to happen in nature.

Would lightning do the trick? Haven't seen this particular show, but was just wondering since you mentioned nature and electricity.

Ding ding ding ... only his electrodes were small time compared to the breadth of lightning. The energy from lightning is much greater, and therefore would allow for potentially much greater synthesis. That is how we have managed to create polymer amino acids from monomers ... take a solution of amino acid polymers in water, and fire them at ballistic speed into a surface. In this case, you're imitating a glancing blow by a comet (which themselves are balls of ice and dust and contain amino acids as well). The end result is more complex polymer amino acids. Oddly enough, it seems the violence of early Earth that would be so abhorrent to complex life is a veritable factory for building critical organic compounds.

You really, really need to research Miller's experiment. It's not nearly as earth shattering as you make it.

You also need to brush up on your protein synthesis and function. Proteins don't just function as a chain of amino acids. They have to have a tertiary and quaternary structure to have any function. Not to mention an actually cellular life to function in.

I hope you actually have some sort of a biology background or else you're in over your head.

I just want to point out that the theory of abiogenesis (the belief that organic material came from inorganic material) and evolution are not tied at the hip, and in no way does an understanding of the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence in favor of evolution at all imply you must agree with the abiogenic theories posited here. It's an important distinction, and one that I think is underplayed by those on the right who purposefully tie the two at the hip in order help further their ID bullsh*t.

But yeah, we all evolved from a common ancestor guys. Every significant breakthrough in the past 20 years has done nothing but confirm evolutionary theory, from DNA sequencing to geographical distribution of different species.

(01-16-2014 02:40 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 01:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 05:58 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 10:46 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Plus, the fact that he pumped electricity through his chemicals until he got amino acid formation, which is unlikely to happen in nature.

Would lightning do the trick? Haven't seen this particular show, but was just wondering since you mentioned nature and electricity.

Ding ding ding ... only his electrodes were small time compared to the breadth of lightning. The energy from lightning is much greater, and therefore would allow for potentially much greater synthesis. That is how we have managed to create polymer amino acids from monomers ... take a solution of amino acid polymers in water, and fire them at ballistic speed into a surface. In this case, you're imitating a glancing blow by a comet (which themselves are balls of ice and dust and contain amino acids as well). The end result is more complex polymer amino acids. Oddly enough, it seems the violence of early Earth that would be so abhorrent to complex life is a veritable factory for building critical organic compounds.

You really, really need to research Miller's experiment. It's not nearly as earth shattering as you make it.

You also need to brush up on your protein synthesis and function. Proteins don't just function as a chain of amino acids. They have to have a tertiary and quaternary structure to have any function. Not to mention an actually cellular life to function in.

I hope you actually have some sort of a biology background or else you're in over your head.

To think that lightning's extra power would aid synthesis of complex structures (not just C60) is absurd. GTS doesn't know chemistry.

(01-16-2014 02:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I just want to point out that the theory of abiogenesis (the belief that organic material came from inorganic material) and evolution are not tied at the hip

It's crucial for the philosophical materialism that drives GTS and most evolutionary assertions.

Quote:, and in no way does an understanding of the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence in favor of evolution at all imply you must agree with the abiogenic theories posited here. It's an important distinction, and one that I think is underplayed by those on the right who purposefully tie the two at the hip in order help further their ID bullsh*t.

But yeah, we all evolved from a common ancestor guys. Every significant breakthrough in the past 20 years has done nothing but confirm evolutionary theory, from DNA sequencing to geographical distribution of different species.

*yawn* It works except for when it doesn't.

(01-16-2014 01:19 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 08:28 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 03:51 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Which is easier to believe?

That the entire universe just blinked into existence for nothingness? (everything from nothing)

Or the "invisible man in the sky"?

I find a creator easier to digest than an entire universe and life from nothing.

The mathematics of quantum mechanics supports the "just blinked into existence from nothingness" concept. However, there is no empirical or experimental evidence that the equations are correct.

Serious uneducated question...Does that mean that the "mathematics" were developed in an effort to prove the theory or that research into the possibilities brought on discovery of the "mathematics"?

That's a great question and the answer is neither. Theoretical physics is really pure mathematics. What the theoretical physicist does is take the mathematical models that are currently accepted as providing an empirical theory of the physical world, and then trying to see where "playing" with the equations takes you. There is no set goal. It's a process of finding out what happens when you manipulate. In advanced mathematics, there is a whole area of manipulation, often applying transformations within the complex analysis and non-Euclidian geometries, that cause the equations to predict certain things that were previously unknown. This is done by the intuition of the physicist and culminates in the "a-ha" moment. This is how Einstein developed the theories of special and general relativity.

It's sort of like saying, gee if I do this, what will happen.

(01-16-2014 02:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But yeah, we all evolved from a common ancestor guys. Every significant breakthrough in the past 20 years has done nothing but confirm evolutionary theory, from DNA sequencing to geographical distribution of different species.

Umm, you sir are incorrect. Actually most evolutionists don't believe the common ancestor theory anymore. For further evidence against that just look up something called the Cambrian Explosion.

(01-16-2014 02:59 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  To think that lightning's extra power would aid synthesis of complex structures (not just C60) is absurd. GTS doesn't know chemistry.

It doesn't take a genius to realize insertion of energy helps create more complex molecules and break down others. You do it every time you cook food on a stove top. You see it in Miller-Urey. You see it when you smash monomers at water at ballistic speed into a wall.

(01-16-2014 02:40 PM)dfarr Wrote:  You really, really need to research Miller's experiment. It's not nearly as earth shattering as you make it.

You also need to brush up on your protein synthesis and function. Proteins don't just function as a chain of amino acids. They have to have a tertiary and quaternary structure to have any function. Not to mention an actually cellular life to function in.

I hope you actually have some sort of a biology background or else you're in over your head.

I understand it in full. I'm not saying you can start your own Miller-Urey and you have new lifeforms by tomorrow. But it is impressive to get amino acids out of "nothing" with just a water cycle and lightning. And as I said elsewhere ... similar experiments are getting other major organic elements out of "nothing" with similar simulations of nature.

Of course everybody on the internet just happens to have an above average IQ...

(01-16-2014 03:25 PM)Hitch Wrote:  Of course everybody on the internet just happens to have an above average IQ...

Anybody know where there's a good free IQ test online?

(01-16-2014 03:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 02:59 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  To think that lightning's extra power would aid synthesis of complex structures (not just C60) is absurd. GTS doesn't know chemistry.

It doesn't take a genius to realize insertion of energy helps create more complex molecules and break down others. You do it every time you cook food on a stove top. You see it in Miller-Urey. You see it when you smash monomers at water at ballistic speed into a wall.

Genius or not, you don't know anything about thermodynamics or kinetics. And your silly statement is off the mark in many ways.

But if you really want to talk physical chemistry, I'm your huckleberry. (Debye-Huckel berry pchem humor)

(01-16-2014 03:14 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 02:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But yeah, we all evolved from a common ancestor guys. Every significant breakthrough in the past 20 years has done nothing but confirm evolutionary theory, from DNA sequencing to geographical distribution of different species.

Umm, you sir are incorrect. Actually most evolutionists don't believe the common ancestor theory anymore. For further evidence against that just look up something called the Cambrian Explosion.

Really? Most evolutionists don't believe the common ancestor theory anymore? You got a source for that statement, or are you just pulling it out of your ass. I'll save you the time; you pulled it out of your ass because it's not even close to being true. You want proof of this? There is literally a single evolutionary biologist called as an expert witness in every ID court case, while those arguing against it just use a professor from whichever college is nearby. And it's not because he's that good, he loses every case he's in. He's just the only one who's willing to actually argue in favor of ID.

As to the discussion of punctuated equilibrium brought up by the issue of the Cambrian explosion, which was among a half dozen or more similar explosions of diversity, it exists well within the darwinist framework set up by classical evolutionary theory. Next you'll be pointing to the Haekels Embryos and arguing for irreducible complexity, which are similar nonsense often peddled as legitimate evolutionary science.

If you honestly think that god created us as we are now 6,000 years ago, then you're either painfully ignorant of the scientific facts surrounding this or you view god as a prankster of sorts who created the world in a way to leave evidence of evolution in order to trick us.

(01-16-2014 03:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 02:40 PM)dfarr Wrote:  You really, really need to research Miller's experiment. It's not nearly as earth shattering as you make it.

You also need to brush up on your protein synthesis and function. Proteins don't just function as a chain of amino acids. They have to have a tertiary and quaternary structure to have any function. Not to mention an actually cellular life to function in.

I hope you actually have some sort of a biology background or else you're in over your head.

I understand it in full. I'm not saying you can start your own Miller-Urey and you have new lifeforms by tomorrow. But it is impressive to get amino acids out of "nothing" with just a water cycle and lightning.

You need more than water, but hey don't let problems of nuclear synthesis get in your way.

(01-16-2014 03:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 03:14 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 02:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But yeah, we all evolved from a common ancestor guys. Every significant breakthrough in the past 20 years has done nothing but confirm evolutionary theory, from DNA sequencing to geographical distribution of different species.

Umm, you sir are incorrect. Actually most evolutionists don't believe the common ancestor theory anymore. For further evidence against that just look up something called the Cambrian Explosion.

Really? Most evolutionists don't believe the common ancestor theory anymore? You got a source for that statement, or are you just pulling it out of your ass. I'll save you the time; you pulled it out of your ass because it's not even close to being true. You want proof of this? There is literally a single biologist

As to the discussion of punctuated equilibrium brought up by the issue of the Cambrian explosion, which was among a half dozen or more similar explosions of diversity, it exists well within the darwinist framework set up by classical evolutionary theory. Next you'll be pointing to the Haekels Embryos and arguing for irreducible complexity, which are similar nonsense often peddled as legitimate evolutionary science.

Oddly enough, peddled by the pro-evolutionists. Why is that?

Anyway if punk eq fits so well, then why do followers of Gould and Dawkins get so upset w/ each other?

Quote:If you honestly think that god created us as we are now 6,000 years ago, then you're either painfully ignorant of the scientific facts surrounding this or you view god as a prankster of sorts who created the world in a way to leave evidence of evolution in order to trick us.

So you pull out a tired canard and call everyone else ignorant.