The real problem with Atheism.

[Mr. P]

I vote for banning....despite his attempt to make us look bad for doing it. I just dont care.It is like the Klan member defending his right to descriminate based on free speech. It makes sense, but it is pure bullshit.The fact is, you are NOT a freethinker at all and should be banned for that reason, since this is a community of freethinkers.Whatever...my vote is yes.Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Frank 013]

Saint Gasoline... Edited by: Frank 013 at: 10/21/06 1:31 am

[Asana Bodhitharta]

Hi there!First read this:Natural Selection and the Origin of New GenesThe observations summarized in the law of recurrent variation directly lead to the question of the origins of new genes. The probability of obtaining an entirely new functional DNA sequence (necessary, for example, for the origin of the more than five thousand extant different gene families of today's living organisms) due to gene duplications with subsequent nucleotide substitutions by point and other mutations has been calculated by several authors to be less than 1 in1050, even granting billions of years for natural selection working on random mutations (ReMine, 1993; Kunze et al., 1997). The result is, simply put, that the probability is so low that no reasonable person would expect to obtain a target or goal in any other area of life by such small chances. Due to the factual absence of completely new functional DNA sequences in mutagenesis experiments, as well as the low likelihood referenced above, the origin of new genes and gene families cannot be explained by natural selection. Additionally, the necessity of genetic engineering for organism transformation simultaneously exemplifies the fact that induced mutations in the host organism cannot substitute for the task. This is not only true for slow breeding organisms, but also for the fastest; for instance, bacteria like Escherichia coli, where thousands of generations with trillions of individuals per generation can be cultivated in the relatively short time of a few years (3,500 generations in 1 year; 1 gram of E. coli cells contains about 1013 individuals).Quote:With that in mind, is it true that time, space, energy, and matter work together in a way where they have the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge? Not at all. Time certainly does not acquire knowledge. What reason do you have to think that space and energy can acquire knowledge or have some sort of "intelligence"? I think you are misusing your words and changing your definitions as you go. Perhaps you mean that matter and energy work together in a way that allows intelligent beings to exist, but this is hardly a proof of the existence of God.Within time energy stirs in space and matter is the result of density of enegy. I also say that God is the source of all these things, even you have to admit a singularity. There is only One Singularity and that is God. What is the atomic difference between Iron and light?Quote:This is not correct at all. What makes you think matter or intelligence is permanent? For instance, you can be almost 100% certain that your own intelligence will fade with death, the removal of your brain, or the onset of senility. And matter itself is not permanent either. In fact, given the Big Bang model for our universe's origin, "matter" did not initially exist at all. The singularity from which all matter sprang was a lot like a "black hole" in a way--it had no matter because it was so dense. So matter certainly isn't permanent. If you collapse a star into a black hole, or the universe into a singularity, you have no more matter. You are also wrong when you say that randomness is only temporary until a building up of order occurs. But this is wrong as well. The second law of thermodynamics actually says just the opposite. Order is NOT permanent and it is in fact entropy that increases. It is possible to build up order in closed systems, but this order is always being depleted and broken down. Eventually our own sun will burn out, life will die out, and the universe itself will experience "heat death".Matter is a form of energy. The energy in the matter destroyed exactly equals the energy released in the reaction. Because the formula for this transformation isE = mc^2and c^2 is a VERY large number, you can see how a small amount of matter destroyed can result in a great deal of energy released. The 2nd law was originally defined in thermodynamics in terms of heat and temperature.The 3rd law is that it is impossible to cool a body to absolute zero by any finite process. Therefor total entropy never happens. God will destroy this Heaven and Earth and replace them with a new Heaven and Earth all in accordance with these laws that He put into place.This is fun!

[Saint Gasoline]

Quote:H5N1 Random Mutations Are Not Random Or Recent Mutations Recombinomics CommentaryMarch 21, 2006As the number of bird flu sequences increase it becomes more apparent that the gentic drift of H5N1 is not due to random mutations, but is due to recombination. The widely held belief that the drifting is due to copying errors becomes less and less tenable as new sequences are made public.I hate to break it to you, Asana, but this little blurb actually does little to support your thesis that mutations are not random. This blurb only says that the genetic changes of certain bird flu strains are not produced by copying errors but by recombination. (And, just so you know, recombination is RANDOM.)Random mutations are not the same thing as recombination, to be sure, but both are indeed random. One cannot predict which genes of the mother and which of the father will be carried over to their offspring. The blurb, then, is simply saying that a RANDOM process other than mutation is causing the genetic drift, not that the process isn't random!Now, regarding your last link--it states that if we randomly change a text, we would almost never arrive at a coherent English sentence with random mutations. Of course not! We also need a selection mechanism! In this case, the mechanism could be grammatical rules for speaking English.Okay, now, we have to posit that the sentence will replicate itself, but there will be copying errors every so often.Okay, so let's use the sentence, "I like cats."If we get the mutant, "K like cats.", this would die out and not be replicated. Only variants that are English would be passed on. We will mostly have clones of "I like cats." passed on.However, eventually, with enough time and enough mutations, we will get something like, "I like rats." This is a good sentence, and it only requires one little change, but creates a huge difference in meaning. The problem with the "mutation generator" on that web site is that it doesn't have a selection mechanism. After you mutate it to something in NON-ENGLISH, you are left to mutate the BAD sentence. If it were truly one of natural selection, it would only let you mutate the GOOD sentence. For instance, if the first mutation of "The cat jumps over the fox." produced "Thq ckt jumps over the fix.", then you should not be left with the latter sentence to mutate. How would this sentence mutate if it is not english and wouldn't be selected by the rules of English to be replicated again?Basically, your web site is flawed and misrepresents evolution by natural selection by portraying it as a process of pure chance, when this is far from the truth.Not only that, but it is also flawed in several other ways. The situation with life is more complicated than your website would have you believe. There are genes were simple changes (as little as one letter in a sequence) can create HUGE differences like legs growing out where antennae should be. Thus, there can be huge changes in phenotype with only slight variations in genotype. And this isn't always the case with English sentences, where we are limited in this respect.

[Saint Gasoline]

Quote:The probability of obtaining an entirely new functional DNA sequence (necessary, for example, for the origin of the more than five thousand extant different gene families of today's living organisms) due to gene duplications with subsequent nucleotide substitutions by point and other mutations has been calculated by several authors to be less than 1 in1050, even granting billions of years for natural selection working on random mutations (ReMine, 1993; Kunze et al., 1997). The result is, simply put, that the probability is so low that no reasonable person would expect to obtain a target or goal in any other area of life by such small chances. Due to the factual absence of completely new functional DNA sequences in mutagenesis experiments, as well as the low likelihood referenced above, the origin of new genes and gene families cannot be explained by natural selection.This article is simply not accounting for natural selection, and is only offering the chances of these results being produced randomly. Unfortunately for you, only the mutations are random--those that replicate successfully are NOT random. So yes, it is indeed very unlikely to generate a new functional gene sequence if we simply add random changes to the original gene sequence. However, it is not so unlikely when we take into account the fact that "bad" variations will not have their flaws and degradations passed on. When you pass on the flaws, of course it is impossible! But natural selection prevents this from happening, and it thus greatly increases the chances of having a functional gene sequence forming as a result of random changes.Quote:Within time energy stirs in space and matter is the result of density of enegy. I also say that God is the source of all these things, even you have to admit a singularity. There is only One Singularity and that is God.So wait, you are claiming that God is defined as all of the matter and energy of the universe condensed into a single point? That's a relief! For a minute there I thought you were talking about a sentient entity that produced moral laws and sent his son to save humanity! I believe in a singularity, too! But I think it quite strange to call this natural phenomenon a God.Quote:The 2nd law was originally defined in thermodynamics in terms of heat and temperature.The 3rd law is that it is impossible to cool a body to absolute zero by any finite process. Therefor total entropy never happens. God will destroy this Heaven and Earth and replace them with a new Heaven and Earth all in accordance with these laws that He put into place.I have no idea why you think these inferences follow from these laws of thermodynamics. For instance, the 2nd law says that eventually total entropy will occur. What this means is that energy and heat will become so dispersed that it will be spread evenly through the universe. There will be no more "hot spots" like suns, solar systems, and so on. "Order" is essentially composed of these "hot spots" where there are large packets of energy. Once all the hot spots burn out, however, as is required given the second law, there will be no more "order".How on Earth you get the idea that God will replace Earth with a new heaven from all this is beyond me. Even if it were true that order was permanent instead of being destroyed, it would hardly prove that God is going to create a new heaven. How would you test this claim? What evidence do you have for it? Is there any potential observation which could disconfirm it?

[Asana Bodhitharta]

Quote:(And, just so you know, recombination is RANDOM.)Random mutations are not the same thing as recombination, to be sure, but both are indeed random.Which is it?A series of 5 coins tossed can be combined and recombined in several ways hhthh tthht ....and once in a blue moon you might even have a coin land on it's edge. What you won't have is a suddenly different coin.Quote:However, it is not so unlikely when we take into account the fact that "bad" variations will not have their flaws and degradations passed on. When you pass on the flaws, of course it is impossible!Also, you keep referring to a sense of intelligence by using the terms "good" and "bad" as If this "Natural Selection" is purposely trying to be successful. Actually, that is the part that is so easily skipped by those who are unbelievers in God. You keep saying that nature or genes are doing "Willful things with purpose" You never hesitate to ask why is this trying to become that, Why is everything attaining to survival? You keep speaking as if the earth decided to produce life and gathered the elements and started selecting the best elements to make things and simply started evolving.You keep saying these things happen, you just can't say How or Why?

[MadArchitect]

You'll have to excuse me for not dropping in on this thread beforehand. I've been really busy with other things and didn't even notice this thread until it was already 100+ posts long. I've scanned it to get the general gist, but I don't plan on addressing every point here. And to be honest, I don't like the idea that I'm going to be invoked as one of the resident theists every time someone drops in and tries to demonstrate the existence of God. My theist belief doesn't necessarily have any relation to the beliefs of other theists. I feel a little like I'm being blackmailed on both sides. Asana says that any theist who doesn't come running to his defense ought to be shamed and judged; and the atheists around here seem to be waiting for me to come and discredit Asana by distancing myself from his arguments. To hell with all that. My beliefs are my beliefs, and they're not there in service of anyone's debating points.

[Asana Bodhitharta]

Quote:and the atheists around here seem to be waiting for me to come and discredit Asana by distancing myself from his arguments. To hell with all that. My beliefs are my beliefs, and they're not there in service of anyone's debating points. That was all I was asking, that no one who believed in God not take a stand against with Atheist against another person who believed in God.May God bless you.

[Dissident Heart]

Asana: that no one who believed in God not take a stand against with Atheist against another person who believed in God.If what you have to say makes sense, reflects careful consideration of the issue at hand, sparks intelligent conversation and brings pertinent, meaningful information to the discussion...then, chances are, you'll be respectfully received. Understand, this is predominantly an Atheist community. You are presenting a point of view that is apriori anathema to most members, and the burden of proof is on you to show that you are not just another religious yahoo thumping bibles or preaching hate. Good luck, you'll need it.

[MadArchitect]

It looks to me like you and I differ on far more points than we have in common. And you can begin with the question of evidence.