Eiviyn, I don't know much about the world of Biology but this seems interesting. What are your thoughts on this:
It speaks about irreducible complexity.
I like to keep my replies short, and explaining why irreducible complexity is wrong probably isn't going to be short.
At a protein level, your body operates very similar to a machine. These "protein machines" are made up of protein parts, just like a regular machine.
Creationists state that these machines are proof of God, because if you remove a single part, the machine breaks.
One life-size example of this they cite is that these machines are similar to a mouse trap, and I'll use that example to show why it's wrong.
While these machines do break if you take a part away, they can still take on other useful functions.
A mouse trap doesn't work if you take away the catch. However, it could still function as a tie clip.
"Ah, that's absurd. The function is so different that it couldn't possibly work like that!"
Another example they use is the evolution of the human eye. Now, unfortunately for them, this is one of the best documented cases of evolution there is. We have a full record of how an eye started as a patch of light-sensitive cell-skin, into a full-fledged eye. If my answer above doesn't satisfy your query, and I suspect it probably doesn't, you should check this out;
I found this post particularly interesting Eiviyn, and it begged a question for me; what is your view on science, exactly? I'm asking because what you described up here holds true for a LOT of things we do all name as 'science' daily. Economics can't present repeatable, lab-testable proof; all they have is models. Same for psychologists. This holds true for pretty much all social sciences, really. You very much come across as a naturalist (as opposed to a hermeneutic) to me, which makes perfect sense in light of the above argument. Even as a naturalist, though, you stumble across problems when answering the question of God sooner or later, be it in the process of induction or in the process of falsification (neither which is possible [yet] in the case of god). Which would logically lead you to be agnostic, I think? And does that also mean you completely reject all non-biological human sciences?
I'm a biochemist, or someone who studies chemistry in biology.
Your examples are things which involve people. You may as well have said "If I get 100 people to guess a number between 1 and 10, why can't science predict it?" It probably can, but not to much accuracy.
Economics follows the above. It can be studied, but at the end of the day it's inaccurate because it's based on what people do, rather than what nature does.
Nature is consistent. People are not. This is why, as you say, social sciences are less predictable than natural sciences like chemistry, physics and biology.
Hmm I think we both know you dont want to believe in God, thats why you`ll look for every avenue of excuse or irrationality to cloud your reason and logic. Why is that?. Thats ok and your business. As I said before, you fulfill bible prophecy though. Keep it up with getting intelligence and knowledge(always a good thing), since Im sure you think of yourself as a pretty smart guy(Not saying you`re not).
You're dead wrong here.
I would love to believe that if I played my cards right, I'd live forever.
I would love for there to be a single rational reason to believe such a thing to be true.
There just isn't any convincing evidence that it's true.
I struggle to read Christian apologetics. Often they rely on scientific falsehoods, or outright rejection of the scientific method which just frustrates me to a point where I can't continue.
I would happily read a peer-reviewed analysis of the evidence for creationism. However there aren't any. None by the Institute of Creationist Research. None by the Discovery Institute.
No religion can present repeatable, lab-testable proof of their deity. Fact. I'd be the first to welcome an afterlife but there's just no reason to believe in any of it.
Is it possible to create in a lab with the proper conditions a single celled organism and allow it to create 3 or more types of other forms and eventually distinct DNA configurations (or forms of life) without using already existing parts from organic things?
A lot of assumptions need to be cleared, I admit, in order to properly simulate this and even make it happen fast enough so we can observe it without having to wait billions of years.
But then when another group starts bashing at them, because some other group that has their same symbol or clothing or color of skin is doing something terrible, then I've got a problem with that. I believe anyone does, this is why it's wrong to just attack "Religion" in general.
It think it actually somehow gathers moderates from moderate to extremes. God forbid. I don't know why atheist suddenly rallied and marched out against everyone. I saw this and thought, Wow this is counter productive if the aim was to destroy religion. This is establishing religion.
What, why?
Skin colour is something you're born with, and attacking that is wrong
Religion, however, is just a hypothesis about how the world works. You can be convinced into it, and convinced out of it.
Religions can't prove their hypothesis is correct even after thousands of years, so they should just be mocked like every other bad idea.
And if your really that against religion ..... your only true option to rid the world of it is to kill all believers of every faith.... Pretty dark thought.....
if your whining for gay people then I don't think you got the balls or the stomach for what your really arguing for.
Because the believers will actually fight you..... and you wont win....
All you can do is attempt to find some kinda intellectual/ moral high ground that doesn't even exist.
So naive.
Religion had this out 150 years ago with slavery. Religious nuts like you wanted to keep slavery because it's in the bible.
0
I like to keep my replies short, and explaining why irreducible complexity is wrong probably isn't going to be short.
At a protein level, your body operates very similar to a machine. These "protein machines" are made up of protein parts, just like a regular machine.
Creationists state that these machines are proof of God, because if you remove a single part, the machine breaks.
One life-size example of this they cite is that these machines are similar to a mouse trap, and I'll use that example to show why it's wrong.
While these machines do break if you take a part away, they can still take on other useful functions.
A mouse trap doesn't work if you take away the catch. However, it could still function as a tie clip.
"Ah, that's absurd. The function is so different that it couldn't possibly work like that!"
Another example they use is the evolution of the human eye. Now, unfortunately for them, this is one of the best documented cases of evolution there is. We have a full record of how an eye started as a patch of light-sensitive cell-skin, into a full-fledged eye. If my answer above doesn't satisfy your query, and I suspect it probably doesn't, you should check this out;
0
I'm a biochemist, or someone who studies chemistry in biology.
Your examples are things which involve people. You may as well have said "If I get 100 people to guess a number between 1 and 10, why can't science predict it?" It probably can, but not to much accuracy.
Economics follows the above. It can be studied, but at the end of the day it's inaccurate because it's based on what people do, rather than what nature does.
Nature is consistent. People are not. This is why, as you say, social sciences are less predictable than natural sciences like chemistry, physics and biology.
0
You're dead wrong here.
I would love to believe that if I played my cards right, I'd live forever.
I would love for there to be a single rational reason to believe such a thing to be true.
There just isn't any convincing evidence that it's true.
0
You're being pedantic.
0
Nice dodge. Error quoted. Too bad. Even funnier since you told Barrin off for being a "grammar nazi".
Now for something slightly less stupid; Pope says atheists are responsible for global warming
0
Can you go fail at arguing grammar elsewhere? This is about religion.
0
I missed a 1 in "150". If that's the best retort to my claims that you have then I'd quit now really.
0
I was talking about religious people overall. I thought that was obvious.
0
You realise that this thread isn't about you, right?
0
Now if you'd just hold your god in the same light.
If you kept your beliefs to yourself, nobody would care.
0
No process discovered in the universe thus far requires a god. Any god. Any process. Not one.
What you're doing is just filling in a gap in human knowledge with your god.
I struggle to read Christian apologetics. Often they rely on scientific falsehoods, or outright rejection of the scientific method which just frustrates me to a point where I can't continue.
I would happily read a peer-reviewed analysis of the evidence for creationism. However there aren't any. None by the Institute of Creationist Research. None by the Discovery Institute.
No religion can present repeatable, lab-testable proof of their deity. Fact. I'd be the first to welcome an afterlife but there's just no reason to believe in any of it.
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
This is where you're leading.
0
It's not like their skin colour. You can change your religion. You can't change your race.
It's not an atheist's job to prove them wrong. If I say I have a magic unicorn, it's my job to prove it.
0
What, why?
Skin colour is something you're born with, and attacking that is wrong
Religion, however, is just a hypothesis about how the world works. You can be convinced into it, and convinced out of it.
Religions can't prove their hypothesis is correct even after thousands of years, so they should just be mocked like every other bad idea.
0
So naive.
Religion had this out 150 years ago with slavery. Religious nuts like you wanted to keep slavery because it's in the bible.
Believers fought. Believers lost.