How human language refutes atheism

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:57 pm

spinoza99 wrote:
Not to mention the one true sequence fallacy you are also committing the serial trials fallacy.
No, I stated the odds of forming a sequence of 300,000 base DNA pairs long is 1 in 10^1800 and if you assume that there are 10^16 possible sequences then odds are still 10^1784.
But your rough calculation is assuming it sprang from a merely jumble of 300,000 base pairs. That's not what happened. There was something there before it, which wasn't nearly so mixed up.

spinoza99
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by spinoza99 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:31 pm

You specifically talked about the order of nucleotides on the backbone of a DNA molecule. They are in all sorts of orders.
There are a lot of orders, but even for the odds to even become somewhat reasonable you need at least 10^1784 orders, and right now we know of about 10^8 orders of animals, the number of one celled procaryote orders is far, far lower. When you talk of "all sorts" of orders you're not understanding just how many orders you need.
The molecules come together as molecules do under the right circumstances -- it is no different than CO2 or H2O forming - covalent bonding. Nothing needs to "know" anything. Certain molecules will bond certain ways. Others won't.
If you want me to believe that 300,000 molecules form under the right circumstances in the right sequence, then I'm sorry I can't accept that. To be honest even the odds of just 50 DNA being sequenced properly is still one in 10^30, which is very likely impossible, though not absolutely impossible.



spinoza99 wrote: Proteins are so precisely built that the change of
even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the
whole molecule so severely
that all function is lost
So? Ammonia, NH3, is so precisely built that a change of even one atom in one amine disrupts the structure of the whole molecule so severely that all function of that Ammonia is lost and it is no longer ammonia....in an aqueous solution it loses an H and we get H30 plus NH2.
Those are Albert's words an orthodox Darwinist, not mine. Certain proteins are absolutely necessary for a cell's functioning, if the protein doesn't get built the cell dies.



But, you're stats are bollocks. One, your mistake is that you are assuming that DNA had to spring out of whole cloth - the pieces just happening to fit together out of pure chance. That's not how it worked. It was a gradual process over time, and at some point the first "replicator" molecules formed
This is the thing just how gradual are we talking about? You heard what Albert said, a being probably can't function without 200 genes. Even if we were to be ridiculously generous and say that a being could function with 50 genes, even that is beyond the realm of the impossible. There has to be an elementary building block and right now all the candidates are hopelessly complex. Moreover, you're believing in something for which there is no evidence. You're just wishing that the elementary building blocks are simple when he have no reason to believe that.


The chances have to be calculated based on the number of materials available (e.g. more than one different molecule may serve the same purpose at any given point in a chain),
You read Albert, proteins are extremely specific, most of them have only one function. Two, if we say you're right, the number of function they would need to be to perform would need to be far beyond 10^22, which is certainly not possible.


the probability that they will form into collectives (e.g. amino-acids naturally chain, water molecules do not),
Which is very small.

and the number of tests that occur in a given environment
Yea, even if we say that the number of tests are equal to every atom in the universe making a test in every nanosecond in our universe's history, even then there are not a tests available.
I read a good quote on this: "I think it is safe to say that any time you hear someone waving around statistics about the improbability of life, you can rest assured that they know absolutely nothing about the matter at all. Their statistics are going to be all but worthless, because they cannot know what they really need to know in order to make such calculations." - Richard Carrier
The only thing this shows is that you trust people who agree with you. I'm reading Ricahrd Carrier right now by the way.


But your rough calculation is assuming it sprang from a merely jumble of 300,000 base pairs. That's not what happened. There was something there before it, which wasn't nearly so mixed up.
No serious scientist believes this number is below 200,000 but even if it is around 30,000 the odds are still ridiculous large. But again, you're just indulging in wishful thinking. You're wishing that a being can pass on its genes when it only has 30 to start with.
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:27 pm

spinoza99 wrote:
You specifically talked about the order of nucleotides on the backbone of a DNA molecule. They are in all sorts of orders.
There are a lot of orders, but even for the odds to even become somewhat reasonable you need at least 10^1784 orders, and right now we know of about 10^8 orders of animals, the number of one celled procaryote orders is far, far lower. When you talk of "all sorts" of orders you're not understanding just how many orders you need.
It's not a question of "needing" any orders. They can be in any order, and in fact are in every order, in a long chain.

Be specific: Odds for what?

spinoza99 wrote:
The molecules come together as molecules do under the right circumstances -- it is no different than CO2 or H2O forming - covalent bonding. Nothing needs to "know" anything. Certain molecules will bond certain ways. Others won't.
If you want me to believe that 300,000 molecules form under the right circumstances in the right sequence, then I'm sorry I can't accept that. To be honest even the odds of just 50 DNA being sequenced properly is still one in 10^30, which is very likely impossible, though not absolutely impossible.
Out of the blue? No. But then again, polymers form too. It's no different. Take sucrose - you don't need to meet the odds of all the atoms in a sucrose molecule suddenly springing together to form a sucrose molecule. They first bond individually - like OH, CH2, etc. and then they link together into dextrose and fructose. The odds of a sucrose molecule forming ONCE YOU HAVE dextrose and fructose are much better - inevitable, actually.

Image


Same shit with DNA and RNA - only the molecules are bigger and longer. Savvy?



spinoza99 wrote: Proteins are so precisely built that the change of
even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the
whole molecule so severely
that all function is lost
So? Ammonia, NH3, is so precisely built that a change of even one atom in one amine disrupts the structure of the whole molecule so severely that all function of that Ammonia is lost and it is no longer ammonia....in an aqueous solution it loses an H and we get H30 plus NH2.
Those are Albert's words an orthodox Darwinist, not mine. Certain proteins are absolutely necessary for a cell's functioning, if the protein doesn't get built the cell dies. [/quote]

....and, he doesn't mean that proteins can't form without magic. The point of my raising the NH3 molecule is that this "remove one X" from the molecule thing is worthless sophism. It's interesting, but doesn't mean that proteins can't form naturally. They DO form naturally - they do it every day, and scientists have seen it happen.

spinoza99 wrote:
But, you're stats are bollocks. One, your mistake is that you are assuming that DNA had to spring out of whole cloth - the pieces just happening to fit together out of pure chance. That's not how it worked. It was a gradual process over time, and at some point the first "replicator" molecules formed
This is the thing just how gradual are we talking about? You heard what Albert said, a being probably can't function without 200 genes. Even if we were to be ridiculously generous and say that a being could function with 50 genes, even that is beyond the realm of the impossible. There has to be an elementary building block and right now all the candidates are hopelessly complex. Moreover, you're believing in something for which there is no evidence. You're just wishing that the elementary building blocks are simple when he have no reason to believe that.
All the evidence supports me. I've been through the chemistry. There's no point in the process of bonding of molecules that requires magical intervention. once molecules form into more complex molecules they start bonding with other complex molecules and form still bigger molecules. It's easy to see how nucleotides form and we know how nucleotides link up chemically - it's been seen, with no intervention.
spinoza99 wrote:
The chances have to be calculated based on the number of materials available (e.g. more than one different molecule may serve the same purpose at any given point in a chain),
You read Albert, proteins are extremely specific, most of them have only one function. Two, if we say you're right, the number of function they would need to be to perform would need to be far beyond 10^22, which is certainly not possible.
Not a question of "need."

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:36 pm

spinoza99 wrote:
the probability that they will form into collectives (e.g. amino-acids naturally chain, water molecules do not),
Which is very small.
No, not at all. amino acids naturally chain - put them together and they will chain. Not only is it not "very small" it's almost inevitable. Water molecules won't chain though.
spinoza99 wrote:
and the number of tests that occur in a given environment
Yea, even if we say that the number of tests are equal to every atom in the universe making a test in every nanosecond in our universe's history, even then there are not a tests available.
That's wrong, unless you're calculating the odds of an amoeba just self-assembling one day from constituent elements.
spinoza99 wrote:
I read a good quote on this: "I think it is safe to say that any time you hear someone waving around statistics about the improbability of life, you can rest assured that they know absolutely nothing about the matter at all. Their statistics are going to be all but worthless, because they cannot know what they really need to know in order to make such calculations." - Richard Carrier
The only thing this shows is that you trust people who agree with you. I'm reading Ricahrd Carrier right now by the way.
I neither trust, nor distrust him. I liked the quote, irrespective of who the speaker was. It could have been Hitler, and I'd still like the quote. The point of me posting it was that you don't have the math right, and you need to read a book on molecular biology and another on organic chemistry. Actually - don't go there - go to Chemistry 201 and start there.
spinoza99 wrote:
But your rough calculation is assuming it sprang from a merely jumble of 300,000 base pairs. That's not what happened. There was something there before it, which wasn't nearly so mixed up.
No serious scientist believes this number is below 200,000 but even if it is around 30,000 the odds are still ridiculous large. But again, you're just indulging in wishful thinking. You're wishing that a being can pass on its genes when it only has 30 to start with.
Are you seriously suggesting that genes weren't passed from your father and mother to you? Really? You are challenging the entire notion of sexual reproduction?

Wishful thinking, indeed....

User avatar
GenesForLife
Bertie Wooster
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by GenesForLife » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:43 pm

spinoza99 wrote:
You specifically talked about the order of nucleotides on the backbone of a DNA molecule. They are in all sorts of orders.
There are a lot of orders, but even for the odds to even become somewhat reasonable you need at least 10^1784 orders, and right now we know of about 10^8 orders of animals, the number of one celled procaryote orders is far, far lower. When you talk of "all sorts" of orders you're not understanding just how many orders you need.
And still no citations in support of your assertions, nothing of substance yet.
The molecules come together as molecules do under the right circumstances -- it is no different than CO2 or H2O forming - covalent bonding. Nothing needs to "know" anything. Certain molecules will bond certain ways. Others won't.
If you want me to believe that 300,000 molecules form under the right circumstances in the right sequence, then I'm sorry I can't accept that. To be honest even the odds of just 50 DNA being sequenced properly is still one in 10^30, which is very likely impossible, though not absolutely impossible.
Once you have self replicating systems, the formation of which falls under the remit of known natural processes, there is raw material for known evolutionary processes to produce sequences, which themselves are amenable to mutation and selection.



spinoza99 wrote: Proteins are so precisely built that the change of
even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the
whole molecule so severely
that all function is lost
So? Ammonia, NH3, is so precisely built that a change of even one atom in one amine disrupts the structure of the whole molecule so severely that all function of that Ammonia is lost and it is no longer ammonia....in an aqueous solution it loses an H and we get H30 plus NH2.
Those are Albert's words an orthodox Darwinist, not mine. Certain proteins are absolutely necessary for a cell's functioning, if the protein doesn't get built the cell dies.

Modern cells, not protocells, and this 'absolutely necessary' description is a case of the illusion that irreducible complexity is, and the Mullerian two-step deals with this, and so does co-optation. Deal with it.



But, you're stats are bollocks. One, your mistake is that you are assuming that DNA had to spring out of whole cloth - the pieces just happening to fit together out of pure chance. That's not how it worked. It was a gradual process over time, and at some point the first "replicator" molecules formed
This is the thing just how gradual are we talking about? You heard what Albert said, a being probably can't function without 200 genes. Even if we were to be ridiculously generous and say that a being could function with 50 genes, even that is beyond the realm of the impossible. There has to be an elementary building block and right now all the candidates are hopelessly complex. Moreover, you're believing in something for which there is no evidence. You're just wishing that the elementary building blocks are simple when he have no reason to believe that.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 2&start=25

Read the papers therein, including the extremely small sizes of the samples needed for the formation of replicators, then come back, or, better, don't.


The chances have to be calculated based on the number of materials available (e.g. more than one different molecule may serve the same purpose at any given point in a chain),
You read Albert, proteins are extremely specific, most of them have only one function. Two, if we say you're right, the number of function they would need to be to perform would need to be far beyond 10^22, which is certainly not possible.
Most proteins have one function =/= there can only be one protein for one function. Example is Lactate Dehydrogenase, which comes in five different forms , compositions, and sequences in the human body, but catalyze the same reaction.


the probability that they will form into collectives (e.g. amino-acids naturally chain, water molecules do not),
Which is very small.
Irrelevant, what part of protocells/self replicating systems do not need any proteins do you refuse to understand?
Even protein synthesis alone can be catalyzed by RiboZYmes, and the presence of peptidyltransferase ribozymes have been documented.

Hint - RiboZYmes contain just RNA. The evidence for this too has been presented before.


and the number of tests that occur in a given environment
Yea, even if we say that the number of tests are equal to every atom in the universe making a test in every nanosecond in our universe's history, even then there are not a tests available.
And this piece of droolingly anenchephalic ex-recto blind assertion is supposed to mean what, exactly?
I read a good quote on this: "I think it is safe to say that any time you hear someone waving around statistics about the improbability of life, you can rest assured that they know absolutely nothing about the matter at all. Their statistics are going to be all but worthless, because they cannot know what they really need to know in order to make such calculations." - Richard Carrier
The only thing this shows is that you trust people who agree with you. I'm reading Ricahrd Carrier right now by the way.
Poisoning the well much?
But your rough calculation is assuming it sprang from a merely jumble of 300,000 base pairs. That's not what happened. There was something there before it, which wasn't nearly so mixed up.
No serious scientist believes this number is below 200,000 but even if it is around 30,000 the odds are still ridiculous large. But again, you're just indulging in wishful thinking. You're wishing that a being can pass on its genes when it only has 30 to start with.
You are free to provide citations supporting the assertion that every serious scientist believes that all life, including the first cells, had to have that many genes. The fact that Irreducible complexity and the illusion thereof doesn't cause a single problem for any postulated simpler precursors drives a tank battallion through your assertions. Of course, there also is the fact that those who have demonstrated self replication etc with an extremely minute quantity of nucleotide sequence as opposed to what you've been claiming are serious, publishing scientists, so your attempt at presenting a nonexistent, false scientific consensus on the issue fails.

Nothing of substance, as usual.

spinoza99
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by spinoza99 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:52 pm

It's like we're looking at a typewriter type an English paragraph all by itself without a human and I keep asking you, how does it do that? and you say: the keys, hit the rods and the rods hit the paper. Then I say, no, how does it know English and you say, the rods can hit the paper, simple.

For the sixth time: precise DNA codes are needed to form life, not just any order will do.

I'm not going to state that a seventh time, so this will be my last post. But in any case, it sure has been fun and I really enjoyed our debate. I learned a lot about how atheists see the world, which was my goal. I respect you as a thinker and wish you well.
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:54 pm

GenesForLife wrote:
droolingly anenchephalic ex-recto
:coffeespray:

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:59 pm

spinoza99 wrote:It's like we're looking at a typewriter type an English paragraph all by itself without a human and I keep asking you, how does it do that? and you say: the keys, hit the rods and the rods hit the paper. Then I say, no, how does it know English and you say, the rods can hit the paper, simple.
No, actually, it's like we're looking at a guy sitting at a typewriter typing an English paragraph and you keep asking "how does it do that?" And, we explain to you that the guy presses down on the keys which are associated with letters and the guy presses the keys in the order he wants the letters to appear. The striker associated with the key pressed swings upward and hits the ink-sodden ribbon which leaves a mark in the shape of the letter on the paper. We tell you that, and then you just say, "yeah, but how? It must be impossible..." ...as the guy on the typewriter happily types away his impossible paragraph....
spinoza99 wrote:
For the sixth time: precise DNA codes are needed to form life, not just any order will do.
Weren't you reminded that life didn't just spring out of random associations of atoms? And, like any polymer the constituent monomers are formed separately and later merge to become the larger polymer, all without direction or purpose, because that's how molecules act when they're around each other due to their electrons?
spinoza99 wrote:
I'm not going to state that a seventh time, so this will be my last post. But in any case, it sure has been fun and I really enjoyed our debate. I learned a lot about how atheists see the world, which was my goal. I respect you as a thinker and wish you well.
What did you learn about how atheists view the world?

User avatar
GenesForLife
Bertie Wooster
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by GenesForLife » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:07 pm

spinoza99 wrote:It's like we're looking at a typewriter type an English paragraph all by itself without a human and I keep asking you, how does it do that? and you say: the keys, hit the rods and the rods hit the paper. Then I say, no, how does it know English and you say, the rods can hit the paper, simple.

For the sixth time: precise DNA codes are needed to form life, not just any order will do.

I'm not going to state that a seventh time, so this will be my last post. But in any case, it sure has been fun and I really enjoyed our debate. I learned a lot about how atheists see the world, which was my goal. I respect you as a thinker and wish you well.
Time to repeat this again.

1) long chains of RNA can spontaneously form in water, randomly (observed fact)
2) some of the possible sequences confer self replicability , and this sequence length falls within the chain length documented for 1)
3) self replication generates raw genomic material.(observed fact, since we have seen it in cases of ploidy and gene duplication within organisms, and in gene pools wrt populations)
4) Mutations act upon raw genomic material (observed fact again)
5) Ribozymes et cetera trigger protein synthesis (observed fact again)
6) We have the basic ingredients for the execution of the central dogma with RNA and ribozymes, throw in free amino acids. (RNA-RNA interactions to form tRNA, I did present a paper on this too, ribozyme catalyzes peptide bond formation)
7) Protein based metabolism is more diverse and adaptable than RNA based metabolism alone, hence shift by natural selection, on account of the selective advantage conferred.
8) Proteins are bound to interact due to the chemistries of secondary and tertiary structure formation
9) Protein interactions themselves will consequently be selected for naturally, as happens in the case of gene networks.
10) Once interactions are selected for, and the "add a protein, make interaction necessary" steps occur by the Mullerian two step, if the organism loses that protein it goes kaput, so we now have a minimum complement defined for an organism that has already evolved from replicators. This when extended is what gives you, erroneously, your dodgy minimal complement numbers, when it is not a barrier to evolution from simple replicators, the feasibility of which is an empirically demonstrated fact.

To put it simply, optimal sequences are part of stochastic sequence space, or the fitness landscape, and selection leads towards optimality, this too is demonstrated fact, as the Hayashi et al paper demonstrates.

To put it simply...flawed argument is flawed.

By the way , Spinoza, as a parting gift I have a link for you.

http://www.bioxplorer.com/

That site links to freely downloadable textbooks, and there are truckloads of them, but registration is required.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:15 pm

GenesForLife wrote:
spinoza99 wrote:It's like we're looking at a typewriter type an English paragraph all by itself without a human and I keep asking you, how does it do that? and you say: the keys, hit the rods and the rods hit the paper. Then I say, no, how does it know English and you say, the rods can hit the paper, simple.

For the sixth time: precise DNA codes are needed to form life, not just any order will do.

I'm not going to state that a seventh time, so this will be my last post. But in any case, it sure has been fun and I really enjoyed our debate. I learned a lot about how atheists see the world, which was my goal. I respect you as a thinker and wish you well.
Time to repeat this again.

1) long chains of RNA can spontaneously form in water, randomly (observed fact)
2) some of the possible sequences confer self replicability , and this sequence length falls within the chain length documented for 1)
3) self replication generates raw genomic material.(observed fact, since we have seen it in cases of ploidy and gene duplication within organisms, and in gene pools wrt populations)
4) Mutations act upon raw genomic material (observed fact again)
5) Ribozymes et cetera trigger protein synthesis (observed fact again)
6) We have the basic ingredients for the execution of the central dogma with RNA and ribozymes, throw in free amino acids. (RNA-RNA interactions to form tRNA, I did present a paper on this too, ribozyme catalyzes peptide bond formation)
7) Protein based metabolism is more diverse and adaptable than RNA based metabolism alone, hence shift by natural selection, on account of the selective advantage conferred.
8) Proteins are bound to interact due to the chemistries of secondary and tertiary structure formation
9) Protein interactions themselves will consequently be selected for naturally, as happens in the case of gene networks.
10) Once interactions are selected for, and the "add a protein, make interaction necessary" steps occur by the Mullerian two step, if the organism loses that protein it goes kaput, so we now have a minimum complement defined for an organism that has already evolved from replicators. This when extended is what gives you, erroneously, your dodgy minimal complement numbers, when it is not a barrier to evolution from simple replicators, the feasibility of which is an empirically demonstrated fact.

To put it simply, optimal sequences are part of stochastic sequence space, or the fitness landscape, and selection leads towards optimality, this too is demonstrated fact, as the Hayashi et al paper demonstrates.

To put it simply...flawed argument is flawed.

By the way , Spinoza, as a parting gift I have a link for you.

http://www.bioxplorer.com/

That site links to freely downloadable textbooks, and there are truckloads of them, but registration is required.

Wait --- but how?
:hilarious:

spinoza99
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by spinoza99 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:18 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote: No, actually, it's like we're looking at a guy sitting at a typewriter typing an English paragraph and you keep asking "how does it do that?" And, we explain to you that the guy presses down on the keys which are associated with letters and the guy presses the keys in the order he wants the letters to appear. The striker associated with the key pressed swings upward and hits the ink-sodden ribbon which leaves a mark in the shape of the letter on the paper. We tell you that, and then you just say, "yeah, but how? It must be impossible..." ...as the guy on the typewriter happily types away his impossible paragraph....
The guy typing is intelligent. In an atheist world there is no guy.

spinoza99 wrote:
For the sixth time: precise DNA codes are needed to form life, not just any order will do.
Weren't you reminded that life didn't just spring out of random associations of atoms? And, like any polymer the constituent monomers are formed separately and later merge to become the larger polymer, all without direction or purpose, because that's how molecules act when they're around each other due to their electrons?
yes, I've already addressed this
spinoza99 wrote:
I'm not going to state that a seventh time, so this will be my last post. But in any case, it sure has been fun and I really enjoyed our debate. I learned a lot about how atheists see the world, which was my goal. I respect you as a thinker and wish you well.
What did you learn about how atheists view the world?[/quote]
Didn't know they believe in free will primarily
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:37 pm

spinoza99 wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: No, actually, it's like we're looking at a guy sitting at a typewriter typing an English paragraph and you keep asking "how does it do that?" And, we explain to you that the guy presses down on the keys which are associated with letters and the guy presses the keys in the order he wants the letters to appear. The striker associated with the key pressed swings upward and hits the ink-sodden ribbon which leaves a mark in the shape of the letter on the paper. We tell you that, and then you just say, "yeah, but how? It must be impossible..." ...as the guy on the typewriter happily types away his impossible paragraph....
The guy typing is intelligent. In an atheist world there is no guy.
...and the typewriter is alive.

spinoza99 wrote:
For the sixth time: precise DNA codes are needed to form life, not just any order will do.
Weren't you reminded that life didn't just spring out of random associations of atoms? And, like any polymer the constituent monomers are formed separately and later merge to become the larger polymer, all without direction or purpose, because that's how molecules act when they're around each other due to their electrons?
yes, I've already addressed this[/quote]

Well, if you think what you typed is persuasive, then there's not much more we can see. We see nucleotides self-organising in solutions all the time. Ribonucleic acids form happily on their own, some of which become self-replicating. The next step is not unexpected.


spinoza99 wrote:
I'm not going to state that a seventh time, so this will be my last post. But in any case, it sure has been fun and I really enjoyed our debate. I learned a lot about how atheists see the world, which was my goal. I respect you as a thinker and wish you well.
What did you learn about how atheists view the world?[/quote]
Didn't know they believe in free will primarily[/quote]

Well, a belief in free will or no-free-will is not required to be an atheist, nor does one view "necessarily" follow from atheism.

Free will may exist with god-belief: Lutheranism, for example - god-belief - free will - all powerful god somehow creates everything knowing in advance what we're going to do, but because he's all powerful he nevertheless gives us free will. God can do logically inconsistent things.

No Free Will may be the case with god-belief: Calvinists - Presbyterians - we are all predestined (by god).

Atheists - just believe that there are no gods. There is no required dogma, and plenty of atheists believe in plenty of woo. Theravada Buddhists are atheists, so atheism is not incompatible with woo - they believe in re-incarnation, for example.

My personal belief is that I strongly suspect that I have free will because nothing I've seen indicates that I don't, and everything that I can perceive indicates that I do have free will, at least to some degree. And, if I don't - if free will is an illusion or a mere false perception, or a construct of the brain - then so be it. That's what it is. I am open to that. I just haven't seen anything on which to base such a belief and I find it hard to go through life assuming the truth of things on which there is no demonstrable basis.

There is no god. So what? If there is and I'm wrong, then if that god is good he will know that I sincerely sought the truth, and I hope my sincerity is enough to make it happy, or at least not hurt me. Any pretense I might make to "try" to believe something so as to avoid a negative consequence would surely be seen through, and, again, I hope my sincerity is enough to stay the whip hand of god. If that god is not a nice one, then I'm fucked, but the best I can do is be sincere, so what choice do I have? If I "believe" in order to assuage an angry god, will it not see through that insincerity? I would imagine so.

Thus, I am left with one choice - look out into the world using the brain that either developed solely due to natural processes, or was given to me by some deity, and see what I can make of it. If it indeed was a god that gave me this brain, then surely it knows my brain's limitations and if I, despite all sincerity, simply can't put 2 and 2 together, then I must throw myself on the mercy of the divinity.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by FBM » Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:01 am

spinoza99 wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: What did you learn about how atheists view the world?
Didn't know they believe in free will primarily
:ddpan: So you weren't paying attention, after all. You seemed to have learned nothing, but anyway, it was a fun exercise, even if it was an exercise in futility. Most discussions like this are, anyway. Don't see why this one would be any different. :td:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Feck » Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:25 am

Shit am I lumped in with all atheists .... :think: fucking marvellous and by someone who loses every prepared argument he had prepared to dazzle us with and then ends by explaining that his understanding of the world includes 911 numerology .
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How human language refutes atheism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:43 am

I just skipped over the number nonsense. I was a bit surprised that it was even brought up. Kind of turned the thread into the movie "23."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests