was your parents created DNA? (America, atheism, believers, belief)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no such thing as chance . . . it is a formulation of our ignorance using our artificial mathematics. It is a non-explanation pretending to be an explanation for a causal chain we haven't the foggiest idea about. This is a symptom of the euphemistic jargon science uses to cover our ignorance while pretending to explain it so God can be ignored AS IF it is scientific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by infiri
are you serious? so change doesnt exist?
Clearly you didn't read my post or you didn't understand it because this makes no sense whatsoever . . . unless it is a typo and you meant chance. If you meant chance . . . I repeat . . . there is no such thing. It reflects our ignorance about the causal chains, period.
Quote:
that is not how science works... you should read a little about science and how it comes to a theory...
Science never use a non explanation, that would be religion, science always explain why, how and when. Religion on the other hand, just tell you with no explanation just believe it, with nothing to back it up.
The following are non-explanation "explanations": "Emergent;" "Self-organizing;" Self-replicating;" "Natural;" "Random;" "Mutation;" etc.. They simply describe observations without explanation.
Clearly, you do not understand what scientists mean when they use the word chance. It does not mean that they don't think there was a causal chain. It doesn't mean "something happened that we don't understand because it violated the laws of physics, so we will just call it chance". Chance just means that a very rare event occurred, but all the elements involved were still following the laws of physics.
By chance, a meteor crashed into the earth and took out the dinosaurs. The meteor was following Newtonian physics. It's orbit around the sun was set by the law of gravity, inertia, and centrifugal force. The earth also had it's orbit around the sun, and by chance the meteor and the earth collided. It all makes perfect sense why it happened. "Chance" doesn't require the introduction of any additional mysterious power to make the outcome happen. It just means that a rare event occurred. Had scientists been living at the time with the ability to calculate trajectories and measure the movements of celestial objects, the collision could have even been predicted, but it would still be a chance event, because it is a rare event.
Chance genetic mutations work by the same principle. DNA is held together by molecular bonds (I could go into further detail on that, but I don't want my main point to be lost by wading through details). When the DNA is being replicated, the two strands of the double helix are "unzipped" and floating molecules floating next to these strands are free to link up by the laws governing molecular attraction. Usually the molecules that have the strongest connection link up (G's to the C's, and T's to the A's). But, sometimes, by chance, an A might form a bond with a C. It is a rare event because the A-C bond is a rather weak bond, but it is a bond none the less that follows the laws of physics. We say that the mutation happened by chance because it is a rare event. Other mutations might involve losing a pair off the end of a strand. Those molecules may have been hit hard enough to knock them loose of the molecular bond to their neighbors.
The laws of physics are still intact and operating normally when a chance event occurs. There is no ignorance of the causal chain; it is simply that a rare event occurred. Rare events are bound to happen, 1 in 1,000 times or 1 in 10,000 times for example depending on the odds, but they are simply the result of objects on their own path following the laws of physics "running into each other".
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 05-31-2011 at 07:38 AM..
The laws of physics are still intact and operating normally when a chance event occurs. There is no ignorance of the causal chain; it is simply that a rare event occurred. Rare events are bound to happen, 1 in 1,000 times or 1 in 10,000 times for example depending on the odds, but they are simply the result of objects on their own path following the laws of physics "running into each other".
Hueff,
You are stuck in the artificial paradigm that "What is" must remain inscrutable and hence ignored as the default from which God must then be proven. You simply will not entertain the reality (for me) that the "laws of physics" and everything else we have discovered are established in the mind of God (Cosmic Consciousness as the universal field). What we consider rare and "chance" are Not . . . (in the mind of God). We are just ignorant of any possible guidance for them . . . so we call it "random" and quantitatively try to establish "probabilities" in our artificial mathematical rubric. Our minds (as powerful as they are) simply do not have the information or the ability even to conceptualize any coherence to it all beyond a self-defeating materialist "explanation." Your philosophical understanding of the flaws in the materialist position seems incomplete . . . or you refuse to engage the concept at that level.
Hueff,
Your philosophical understanding of the flaws in the materialist position seems incomplete . . . or you refuse to engage the concept at that level.
It is all fine and good to say, "Ahh, God's ways are higher than man's ways, and humans are too stupid to understand them, etc." But, it is an empty thought that leads nowhere. How does one build on that foundation? Should we just give up because somebody claims, without any support, that there is a god and his ways are beyond our comprehension, so we might as well not try to understand the universe because they say we are too stupid to understand? That is a cop out.
And why should I adopt the God theory, when there are other equally baseless theories out there. Perhaps we are in the Matrix (you know like the Matrix movies), and there is no way we can ever tell because everything we experience and every thought we have is coming from a computer our robot overlords designed. How does one choose which off the wall theory to subscribe to when all are baseless and can never provide support because either we are too stupid or our thoughts are computer generated and we can't escape the Matrix, or the spiritual world can't be tested scientifically?
You offer no coherent alternative to materialism. Seriously, if you or anyone else had anything substantive to offer, I'd love it. But, you only offer platitudes. It is far too easy to criticise without offering a well-thought out and supported alternative. Without that it is nothing more than gremlins, and as full of hocus pocus as religions' ghosts and demons.
Follow Einstein's example and give us a convincing theory with possible experiments we can run to test your theory. I will not admit that materialism has been defeated while it still has a chance of explaining things that are difficult to explain at this moment. If one asks how can neurons produce consciousness, I see that question as something that needs to be studied until we find the answer; I do not see it as a reason to give up on materialism. Where you and I disagree is you think there are philosophical reasons that make it logically impossible for materialism to explain consciousness, etc. I am familiar with the arguments, but I disagree mainly because although I believe the phenomenon of consciousness exists, I don't believe it is what it seems to be and what many think it is.
In any case, even if materialism isn't correct, no one has offered a cogent alternative theory with evidence to back it up. All you have are claims that nothing happens by chance to God, etc. Seriously?! And Santa Claus knows if you've been bad or good. Come back when you have something of substance to offer. Empty claims add nothing to the discussions, and are a distraction from the real scientific discoveries that are taking place. If you want to be taken seriously on the world stage bring something to the table. I and the scientific community are open to entertaining alternatives if someone would put together a paper like Einstein did that was so persuasive we can't deny it. That doesn't mean publish books full of elaborate claims, Lord knows we have enough of them, which are really not much different than the claims of various religions. Anyone can dream up fantasical worlds. Heck Scientology got its start by a science fiction writer claiming mental illness comes from Thetans. Until people who believe as you do, Mystic, have something of substance to support your claims, they are to me like the Thetans of Scientology. I don't know why I should adopt one oddball claim over another.
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 05-31-2011 at 09:57 AM..
Clearly you didn't read my post or you didn't understand it because this makes no sense whatsoever . . . unless it is a typo and you meant chance. If you meant chance . . . I repeat . . . there is no such thing. It reflects our ignorance about the causal chains, period.The following are non-explanation "explanations": "Emergent;" "Self-organizing;" Self-replicating;" "Natural;" "Random;" "Mutation;" etc.. They simply describe observations without explanation.
I cant believe u think chance is amare up thing...
It is all fine and good to say, "Ahh, God's ways are higher than man's ways, and humans are too stupid to understand them, etc." But, it is an empty thought that leads nowhere. How does one build on that foundation? Should we just give up because somebody claims, without any support, that there is a god and his ways are beyond our comprehension, so we might as well not try to understand the universe because they say we are too stupid to understand? That is a cop out.
No one is remotely suggesting such a thing, Hueff . . . your beliefs about the inscrutable are yours alone. What I argue for is abandonment of the pretense that your atheist beliefs about the inscrutable are founded in science and therefore of superior pedigree to theism. Mine have the exact same scientific basis as yours plus a scientific hypothesis explaining them and a personal experiential component. Even so . . . there is no reason for either of us to gloat . . . and there certainly is no scientific basis for your disdain of theism.
Quote:
And why should I adopt the God theory, when there are other equally baseless theories out there.
QED! Yours are as baseless as mine when the unverified attributes are considered, Hueff because we completely agree on the scientifically established ones. This strawman tactic of postulating any conceivable (or inconceivable) scenario is not just deceitful and illogical . . . it is tedious and boring. I have a scientifically based hypothesis . . . you have none . . . so from whence comes this superior attitude?
No one is remotely suggesting such a thing, Hueff . . . your beliefs about the inscrutable are yours alone. What I argue for is abandonment of the pretense that your atheist beliefs about the inscrutable are founded in science and therefore of superior pedigree to theism. Mine have the exact same scientific basis as yours plus a scientific hypothesis explaining them and a personal experiential component. Even so . . . there is no reason for either of us to gloat . . . and there certainly is no scientific basis for your disdain of theism. QED! Yours are as baseless as mine when the unverified attributes are considered, Hueff because we completely agree on the scientifically established ones. This strawman tactic of postulating any conceivable (or inconceivable) scenario is not just deceitful and illogical . . . it is tedious and boring. I have a scientifically based hypothesis . . . you have none . . . so from whence comes this superior attitude?
If I have inadvertantly constructed a strawman, it is because I am grasping at the trail of straws you've left. I have never seen your hypothesis spelled out. All I have ever seen is criticism of materialism and little quips and claims about God, but never a solid theory.
I will acknowledge my recent posts have had distainful tone, but to me they seem to match the tone in yours tit for tat. I usually don't strike that tone, but if someone gets that way with me, I generally give it back to them.
So, please elaborate on your scientifically based hypothesis? So, that I no longer have to waste either of our time knocking down shadows which apparently do not reflect your actual hypothesis. And please detail your personal experiential component.
An hypothesis is an explanation for an observation or aphenomenon. A good scientific hypothesis contains the following elements:
1. Description of the observation/phenomenon to be explained.
2. A clear, logically coherent description of the process(es) hypothesized to cause the observation/phenomenon.
3. A description of the consistency of the above descriptions with known facts and accepted theories.
a. What relevant observations/phenomena are explained?
b. What relevant observations/phenomena are not explained?
c. What observations/phenomena are incompatible with the explanation?
4. A description of how the hypothesis may be falsified.
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 05-31-2011 at 03:06 PM..
Originally Posted by MysticPhD There is no such thing as chance . . . it is a formulation of our ignorance using our artificial mathematics. It is a non-explanation pretending to be an explanation for a causal chain we haven't the foggiest idea about. This is a symptom of the euphemistic jargon science uses to cover our ignorance while pretending to explain it so God can be ignored AS IF it is scientific.
They do the same with the term "singularity" when referring to the center of black holes.
It simply means they are clueless. Unfortunately in order to avoid admitting ignorance irrationality is
conveniently elevated to the status of a virtue. Sadly such hocus-pocus modus operandi is routinely
passed off as science.
They also exhibit a blind faith in data garnered via the senses ignoring the fact that the human senses
can mislead and are merely interpretations of neural transmitter sequences by our hardwired brain and the
interpretations are all humanly subjective. Another creature exposed to the identical stimulus but neurally
hardwired differently might perceive a totally different thing from what we humans do. In fact, there might be
millions of different perceptions for the identical stimulus and each perceiver could very well argue that it's
particular perception is the one which represents reality.
We need not find ET aliens to confirm this-we have it right
here on earth in the animal world where compound eyes provide insects with a totally different perspective of the
same stimuli. Some detect the ultra violate. Other animals don't perceive in color as we do. The world is detected in a
myriad different ways-which one is the reality? All of them?
If indeed an alien is exposed to an object and perceives a sphere but we perceive a rectangular prism-which one
is perceiving it right? Or if we perceive bitterness and they sweetness. Who is right? Or if they perceive stars as points and their radiation as cold? Whose universe is the real one?
The truth is that we can never know because we are hardwired to perceive our own specific reality in a certain manner even with the aid of technology and can never break the shackles that bind us to our nervous system. So the phenomena we detect is a humanly a humanly interpreted one. What we can never truly know is the nomena or ultimate reality and that is why the scientific claims of certainty come across as presumptuous and totally ridiculous when they strive to dogmatically include what they are incapable of.
They do the same with the term "singularity" when referring to the center of black holes.
It simply means they are clueless. Unfortunately in order to avoid admitting ignorance irrationality is
conveniently elevated to the status of a virtue. Sadly such hocus-pocus modus operandi is routinely
passed off as science.
We don't avoid admitting ignorance. We readily admit what we don't know. I find that refreshing and much more noble than claiming to know something that you don't know, like anyone who claims to know god exists.
A singularity is simply a zone which is so radically different from our own that we cannot take the laws of physics that apply in our zone and apply them to that zone. Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure quite unlike anything we have observed. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. So, yes, we are unabashedly acknowledging our ignorance of what laws of physics might apply in such extreme conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radrook
They also exhibit a blind faith in data garnered via the senses ignoring the fact that the human senses
can mislead and are merely interpretations of neural transmitter sequences by our hardwired brain and the
interpretations are all humanly subjective. Anotjher creature exposeed to the identical stimulus but neurally
hardwisred differently might perceive a totally different thing from what we humans do. In fact, there might be
millions of different perceptions for the identical stimulus and each perceiver couyld very werll argue that itys
partcular perception is the one which represents reality. WE need not find ET aliens to confirm this-we have it right
here on earth in the aniklal world where compound eyes provide insects with a totallky different perspecvtive of the
same stimuli.
Interesting because the exact same can be said of the blind faith some people put in revelation (personal or otherwise). Pot meet kettle. Except we can do you one better because we actually understand how physical stimuli activate sensory receptors and are processed by the brain. And because we are aware of our capacity for misperceptions, we don't trust anecdotal evidence and require measurements to be made with instruments and go to great lengths to design experiments to minimize the effects of experimenter bias, etc. And we recognize that we cannot eliminate all bias, so we interpret our results with caution. That is way more than religionists do with what they assume are communications from god.
Hueffenhardt wrote: Interesting because the exact same can be said of the blind faith some people put in revelation (personal or otherwise). Pot meet kettle.
What I'm referring to is in relation to the existence or nonexistence of an ID. It has nothing to do with what some religionist claims he hears. And yes you are right. Some religionists do believe in a creator based on blind faith. But that isn't the type of belief the Bible recommends and isn't the basis for belief in an ID that I have been repeatedly proposing.
Quote:
Except we can do you one better because we actually understand how physical stimuli activate sensory receptors and are processed by the brain. And because we are aware of our capacity for misperceptions, we don't trust anecdotal evidence and require measurements to be made with instruments and go to great lengths to design experiments to minimize the effects of experimenter bias, etc. And we recognize that we cannot eliminate all bias, so we interpret our results with caution. That is way more than religionists do with what they assume are communications from god.
Once more you are debating against a position that I don't hold and of one that I am critical as well. So you need to argue that point with religionists who hold the blind faith views that you are assuming I hold despite my repeated explanations to the contrary.
Quote:
We don't avoid admitting ignorance. We readily admit what we don't know. I find that refreshing and much more noble than claiming to know something that you don't know, like anyone who claims to know god exists.
As opposed to those who claim to know he doesn't? Because those are the ones I am referring to and not agnostics. That should be clear from the context of my post.
Quote:
A singularity is simply a zone which is so radically different from our own that we cannot take the laws of physics that apply in our zone and apply them to that zone. Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure quite unlike anything we have observed. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity.
Quote:
So, yes, we are unabashedly acknowledging our ignorance of what laws of physics might apply in such extreme conditions.
You give the impression that the infinitely small can exist which is in itself a dishonesty since scientists readily admit if pressed that an infinitely small can only exist as a mathematical expression and not as a reality. To illustrate this let's do a thought experiment involving an infinitely powerful microscope. No matter how high we turn up the power on the supposedly infinitely small it can never be observed because if observed then it ceases to be infinitely small. So the very term-infinitely small is just semantics to avoid the obvious. They don't know. Describing the Big Bang as originating from something was infinitely small therefore is unscientific.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
