Prime Factor

[Guest]

@TG:

Wait… so these experiments happened in the 1950’s? It seems a bit odd that our science books don’t mention this. Have there been any other such breakthroughs more up to date?

Only the Miller experimetn has been in the 50’s to my understanding (and took “wrong” ingredients for the atmosphere). The other ones are later, but i don’t know when.

For chemical bonds to form there needs to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953) that synthesized amino acids(which is the one I think you mention), a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a challenge to simplistic schemes where lightning simply strikes a primitive ocean. Where is the “trap” in such an ocean? Also, the creation of amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming self-replicating life.

Another problem is that different molecules will react with one another. For example, amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other. In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean?

For the first:
You have to distinguish between endotherm and exotherm reactions. A typical exotherm reaction just needs a bit of energy (to get started), and then releases much more energy in the process. So, to reverse the process, you need much more energy.
Hold a small flame to a piece of paper: A classic exotherm reaction, holding that small flame at that piece of ashes later won’t make it paper.
The amount of needed activation energy can even be reduced by using a catalyser.
Just as examples that the “most likely” part is probably a false assumption, plus: after the reaction the products may leave the catalyser, which is a means of seperation you talk of
For the second:
Some of the hypothesis take place in quite unusal environments, like on comets or in ice. The mobility (which is dependant on size) may be a factor there: the smaller parts are more mobile, the bigger molecules aren’t (just an idea from me :) ).
But, i can’t give a answer for that, maybe you just found an interesting field of research for you :).
One answer might be: The crystals (mentioned in the previous post) may have an impact either in the sense of catalysers or reactors.

Now it’s Lunchtime :)

[cystic crypt]

@FinsterniS:

Whoa, Fisternis is at it again, beating up poor crypt with his “Unicorns never existed so neither does God” arguments.

I never said god does not exist because unicorns never existed. I just said the bible make reference to unicorns and i find that amusing. Don’t make me say things i never said.

I may be way out of line, but i think you can assume YB was joking.

If you want to believe in god; don’t look at science and don’t use deformation to caution your belief. You want to believe in god ? Well i don’t care. But please don’t come up with the “uncaused cause” and the “design need designer”, it’s an insult to my science.

your science, eh? hmmm . . . my science, i think, is different than yours.

Wooooo, the “error”… i wish you are not serious, otherwise it is another good exemple of christian arrogance. I can hardly believe someone can really believe, that of all the religion, he’s on the right one, as most of them goes on different direction.

The morale; of all the religions, the more dangerous are the monotheistic, because they think they have the true message of god, others are infidels.

of course, irrespective of your opinion on this, it does not serve as evidence one way or another, or validate one way or another, your beliefs with regards to any kind of deism. Believe it or not, one of the basis of Christianity is that it is the true religion. If a Christian does not believe this, then they are just a person who thinks that Jesus was a cool guy. That’s it.

[TG Moses VI]

“Believe it or not, one of the basis of Christianity is that it is the true religion. If a Christian does not believe this, then they are just a person who thinks that Jesus was a cool guy. That’s it.”

Hey, Jesus was a cool guy!
I don’t need The Church to profess my commitment with Jesus!

“For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” - Romans 10:13 :P

“Some of the hypothesis take place in quite unusal environments, like on comets or in ice. The mobility (which is dependant on size) may be a factor there: the smaller parts are more mobile, the bigger molecules aren’t (just an idea from me ).
But, i can’t give a answer for that, maybe you just found an interesting field of research for you .
One answer might be: The crystals (mentioned in the previous post) may have an impact either in the sense of catalysers or reactors.”

Now it’s Lunchtime

F_alk, well thanks anyways for helping. :) I’ll be sure to post other questions tomarrow. Good day and good lunch (I had dinner awhile ago :P). Or as the German would say, “Guten Tag, Ist das Mittagessen inbegriffen.”

[FinsterniS]

your science, eh? hmmm . . . my science, i think, is different than yours.

Well you must use somekind of “out of space” logic or very old logical theorem (they are not false because they are old, but we still use a better logic now). I never saw anything scientific about god, only thing scientific against god. Just think how god loose space in science.

Believe it or not, one of the basis of Christianity is that it is the true religion. If a Christian does not believe this, then they are just a person who thinks that Jesus was a cool guy. That’s it.

• If you believe your monotheistic god is the good one

• Then and Odin, Thor and Belenos are false gods

• So other polytheist and even maybe some other monotheistic religion are complete lies, or at best an innacurate vision of god.

• If you believe that theres a lot of gods

• Then Allah, Odin, Zeus and Isis are all real gods, just from another - people

• So you won’t believe other religion are false.

That is the problem in most monotheistic dogma; you believe you are right and the others are wrong. If you were a greek from antiguity, you would not believe frigg does not exist, she would only be “another god”. Sure Norse believe their gods were better, but these polytheistic religion were not subject to war between parties like monotheistic religion. I think it is a good reason why monotheistic religion were active actor in most religion wars.

But this does not constitute an argument against the concept of god.

I want an answer of this; Was the pope Urban II, when he declared the wars against the “infidels”, really acting against fondamental law of christianism ?

[Guest]

@yourbuttocks:

So, Fisternis, where did matter come from? Has it simply always existed?

“Matter” as we know it, came into being short after the big bang. Energy (if you have enough) can bring into being (in pairs) matter and antimatter. If these hit each other again, then they annihilate to create energy.
So, the question is not “where did it come from” (there was an experiment using VERY! strong lasers, a handful of them, all of the beams focused into one spot, and they really created pairs of electrons and their anti-matter partner called positrons, very low rate of creation though), but “why did only matter survive, why did it all not annihilate again?”.

The answer to that question is:
The universe is not totally symmetric!
The elemental particles can “change” from one class or family or flavour to another. Processes of the so called “weak interaction” let this happen (this governs for example the beta-decay in radioactivity, but much more). Recently, scientists have shown that particles from the “heaviest family” have a very strong channel to create particles of lighter families (protons and neutrons are made up of the elements of the “lightest family”). So, this channel may have contributed a lot to the survival of only matter.

Another interesting question that arises from the so called “standard model” (which is the theory to all that above):
Why does nature seem to favor the numbers “2” and “3” ?
We have 3 families of particles (and it seems like there is no fourth one out there), 3 different flavours (red, green and blue), in each family we find 2 different classes (leptons and quarks) of particles, each having 2 members (the family one (lightest) has the electron and electron-neutrino as leptons, the up and down quark as quarks). For each particle there exists a mirror particle (matter and antimatter), another “2”.

That is something i’d really like to know :)

[cystic crypt]

@FinsterniS:

your science, eh? hmmm . . . my science, i think, is different than yours.

Well you must use somekind of “out of space” logic or very old logical theorem (they are not false because they are old, but we still use a better logic now). I never saw anything scientific about god, only thing scientific against god. Just think how god loose space in science.

Believe it or not, one of the basis of Christianity is that it is the true religion. If a Christian does not believe this, then they are just a person who thinks that Jesus was a cool guy. That’s it.

• If you believe your monotheistic god is the good one

• Then and Odin, Thor and Belenos are false gods

• So other polytheist and even maybe some other monotheistic religion are complete lies, or at best an innacurate vision of god.

• If you believe that theres a lot of gods

• Then Allah, Odin, Zeus and Isis are all real gods, just from another - people

• So you won’t believe other religion are false.

That is the problem in most monotheistic dogma; you believe you are right and the others are wrong. If you were a greek from antiguity, you would not believe frigg does not exist, she would only be “another god”. Sure Norse believe their gods were better, but these polytheistic religion were not subject to war between parties like monotheistic religion. I think it is a good reason why monotheistic religion were active actor in most religion wars.

But this does not constitute an argument against the concept of god.

I want an answer of this; Was the pope Urban II, when he declared the wars against the “infidels”, really acting against fondamental law of christianism ?

WRT God - i think it is unscientific to consider it impossible that intelligent design may have taken place. The only evidence you’ve thrown up to support this is that “God is not necessary” as per Occam’s razor.
And yes, i do believe that God is the one true god to be worshipped. I believe it possible (or even likely) that there are other gods out there (as per Romans - “now we know that there are many gods”) and as per Genesis and Job (references to nephillium and the “sons of God” - but these are not God the father/creator. So yes, i am rather dogmatic here. If i weren’t, i would obviously not be a Christian - no Christian can believe in worshipping more than one God.
I believe that it is possible that God manifests itself to other people (Jehovah, the Alfader, The Great Spirit, Allah), but not sure that it is likely.
Also any figure that commands Christians to go out and kill other people is acting against the commandments of Jesus. There is no where in the NT that supports wars against the “infidels”. But as we discussed before - a few corrupt leaders does not invalidate an entire ideology (witness Stalin, Chairman Mao, etc.).

[FinsterniS]

WRT God - i think it is unscientific to consider it impossible that intelligent design may have taken place. The only evidence you’ve thrown up to support this is that “God is not necessary” as per Occam’s razor.

I think it is unscientifis to limit the world as an intelligent design, as there is only evidence rising that there’s no intelligent design. I can give you lots of exemple of design in the nature, that does not need any intelligence, a star, a moon, a cloud, a snowslake… and we are getting close; the universe’s birth itself.

Also about the “i did’nt give evidence against intelligent design”;

There’s no evidence to proove the tooth fairy exist, no reason
So we will go with occam’s razor to justify it’s inexistence

In short; if nobody give me any argument for an intelligent design the only thing i would be able to answer is the occam’s razor.

I can give you counter-argument about god, but atheist don’t have the burden to proove the inexistence of something.

Also any figure that commands Christians to go out and kill other people is acting against the commandments of Jesus.  There is no where in the NT that supports wars against the "infidels". 

When you look at the history of Joshua; god kill lots of people because they were infidels nos ? and they are called “wicked people”, so why the pope Urban was’nt right ? His interpretation of his religion was really so bad ?

Another interesting question that arises from the so called “standard model” (which is the theory to all that above):
Why does nature seem to favor the numbers “2” and “3” ?
We have 3 families of particles (and it seems like there is no fourth one out there), 3 different flavours (red, green and blue), in each family we find 2 different classes (leptons and quarks) of particles, each having 2 members (the family one (lightest) has the electron and electron-neutrino as leptons, the up and down quark as quarks). For each particle there exists a mirror particle (matter and antimatter), another “2”.

Funny, Plato said the movement of the celestials body around the earth make the planet position look like.
2^0, 2^1, 2^2, 2^3
3^0, 3^1, 3^2, 3^3

I don’t know if you even seen the problem, but when we take n(2^(1/2) mod 1). with values of n between 1 and 30, we get an equipartition. While it does not work with a simple number like 3/2. (1.5)^n mod 1 is complety incoherent. Why ? Why some make equirepartition and other not ? It is a paradox, why a simple number like 1.5 is incoherent, while another irrational number can be equirepartitional ?

In math and in physic we often see and order without understanding why. That’s part the fun, but sometime it’s frustrating :)

[Mr Ghoul]

@FinsterniS:

WRT God - i think it is unscientific to consider it impossible that intelligent design may have taken place. The only evidence you’ve thrown up to support this is that “God is not necessary” as per Occam’s razor.

I think it is unscientifis to limit the world as an intelligent design, as there is only evidence rising that there’s no intelligent design. I can give you lots of exemple of design in the nature, that does not need any intelligence, a star, a moon, a cloud, a snowslake… and we are getting close; the universe’s birth itself.

Also about the “i did’nt give evidence against intelligent design”;

There’s no evidence to proove the tooth fairy exist, no reason
So we will go with occam’s razor to justify it’s inexistence

In short; if nobody give me any argument for an intelligent design the only thing i would be able to answer is the occam’s razor.

I can give you counter-argument about god, but atheist don’t have the burden to proove the inexistence of something.

Also any figure that commands Christians to go out and kill other people is acting against the commandments of Jesus.  There is no where in the NT that supports wars against the "infidels". 

When you look at the history of Joshua; god kill lots of people because they were infidels nos ? and they are called “wicked people”, so why the pope Urban was’nt right ? His interpretation of his religion was really so bad ?

Another interesting question that arises from the so called “standard model” (which is the theory to all that above):
Why does nature seem to favor the numbers “2” and “3” ?
We have 3 families of particles (and it seems like there is no fourth one out there), 3 different flavours (red, green and blue), in each family we find 2 different classes (leptons and quarks) of particles, each having 2 members (the family one (lightest) has the electron and electron-neutrino as leptons, the up and down quark as quarks). For each particle there exists a mirror particle (matter and antimatter), another “2”.

Funny, Plato said the movement of the celestials body around the earth make the planet position look like.
2^0, 2^1, 2^2, 2^3
3^0, 3^1, 3^2, 3^3

I don’t know if you even seen the problem, but when we take n(2^(1/2) mod 1). with values of n between 1 and 30, we get an equipartition. While it does not work with a simple number like 3/2. (1.5)^n mod 1 is complety incoherent. Why ? Why some make equirepartition and other not ? It is a paradox, why a simple number like 1.5 is incoherent, while another irrational number can be equirepartitional ?

In math and in physic we often see and order without understanding why. That’s part the fun, but sometime it’s frustrating :)

Stands there scratching his head

[yourbuttocks]

Falk, where did the matter for the Big Bang come from?

Fisternis, there is to a burden of proof on both sides. Maybe it is greater on theists side, but that is because they are trying to prove something specific.

And for the last, THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE TOOTH FAIRY

With the tooth fairy, you can wait up when you loose a tooth and find your parents coming in with your quarter. The tooth fairy hasn’t had miracles accredited to him. Every person is not born with a “tooth-fairy center of the brain” IT goes on and on.

If God does not exist, why then do:

…85% of the population believe in him?
…natural law/intrinsic concience exist?
…miracles, such as Fatima, hundreds in this century alone, occur?
…people have a built in need for him? (God-Center of the brain)
…the Catholic Church, the longest lasting institution in the history of man, continue to thrive, continue to exist, even after periodic corruption, schisms, revolts, etc.? Every HUMAN institution is crushed by similiar burdens.

The list goes on and on. That was just off the top of my head.

[FinsterniS]

@yourbuttocks:

Falk, where did the matter for the Big Bang come from?

Where god come from ?
…he can exist without being created ?
…Then why not matter ? Why not physics law ?

Fisternis, there is to a burden of proof on both sides. Maybe it is greater on theists side, but that is because they are trying to prove something specific.

That is a non-sence. If i say; the tooth fairy exist, you will ask why ? I will say that you have to prove his inexistance ? How can i proove the inexistence of something that does not exist ? The burden of the proof is on the shoulder of those who are exposing a thesis. That is very simple logic i don,t know why i need to repeat it again and again, if you have somethign against it then show me your argument but stop repeating the same thing.

And for the last, THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE TOOTH FAIRY

There is a lot of difference. The tooth fairy doest not have a church, people never massacer anyone in the name of her… Anyway the two are mythological being.

With the tooth fairy, you can wait up when you loose a tooth and find your parents coming in with your quarter. The tooth fairy hasn’t had miracles accredited to him. Every person is not born with a “tooth-fairy center of the brain” IT goes on and on.

In fact the god center can be attribute to anything philosophical. Maybe not the tooth fairy, but all existensial question.

…85% of the population believe in him?

Argumentum ad populum, a very inconsistent kind of argument that only try to give weigth to an argumentation without giving any real argumentation. I am sure you feel suported, but this does not constitute an argument. What, God exist because people believe in him ? whaooow. 1000 years ago, while it has been proven several time that the earth was not flat, how much people believe the earth was flat ?

…natural law/intrinsic concience exist?

You are showing off our ignorance and say; it’s god. While you are maybe poiting out a real dark side of our knowledge, this does not constitute any kind of argument for god. In logic we call this fallacies a “Bifurcation”. A is false because blablabla… Then it is B, but you forget all the other possibilities. As science become more “powerfull”, god is loosing power…

…miracles, such as Fatima, hundreds in this century alone, occur?

There is miracles in every singles religion, so i don’t see how it can be some sort of argument as most religion are in contradiction. Also what is a miracles ? Is had been proven by c14 and by microbiology that the Shroud of Turin was a false, but people stil believe it’s true…

…people have a built in need for him? (God-Center of the brain)

Your interpration on the subject is clearly biased, and you and i don’t have the knowledge to analyse in deep the subject. But at first it seem to me it’s a good proof of all atheistic theory; like religion is an opium.

...the Catholic Church, the longest lasting institution in the history of man, continue to thrive, continue to exist, even after periodic corruption, schisms, revolts, etc.?  Every HUMAN institution is crushed by similiar burdens.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem, another logical fallacies. This does not give anything to an argumentation. Other religion in complete contradiction with Christianism like Bouddhism are in very good shape.

The list goes on and on. That was just off the top of my head.

There is nothing consistent with that, i can resume your argumentation to logical fallacies and attack on some physical theory (existence of matter), there is not a little trace of argument for god.

[TG Moses VI]

Well, I was about to amke post on evolution, but it seems some people are already going at it [God and the like]. :wink:

“Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.” - Bokonon

[cystic crypt]

As YB says, the myth of the tooth fairy is easily dispelled. For one to say that “it is impossible for the tooth fairy to have created the world” is something that is a little more difficult to dispell, except for the fact that our parents have announced that they ARE the tooth fairy, and they never created the world.
The possibility that God never created the world (universe/orderly and non-orderly systems) IS impossible to show any evidence for. Therefore it is unscientific to say that “factually, intelligent design never took place”. That would imply that you knew it. You might say “due to O’s Razor it is philosophically unlikely that the universe needs to have a creator”, but that is playing with likelyhoods based on your take on philosophy.
With regards to YB’s argument based on 85% of the world, i think the point here is that God has obviously influenced a great many people, possibly many more than might be diagnosed schizophrenic/schizo-typal etc. If only 2-4% of the world believed in God and that corresponded to the numbers of people with mental illnesses, one might begin to suggest a correllation.
Your argument against miracles because “the Shroud was not likely one” is also poor.
YB’s reference to the existance of the Catholic Church is not that unsound. The fact that Christianity has had the kind of staying power that it HAS had, especially despite early attempts to wipe it out, suggests that there is something moving in her people.
Also, has it been proven that opium and religious beliefs stimulate the same part of the brain? Or that the two have an identical effect? If we were to take a person in pain, sit him in a church for an hour, would that be worth an hour’s worth of a morphine-derivative? No, what a silly thing to say.
Also - please note that the New Testament and words of Jesus are significantly different than what the Israelites were ordered to do in order to establish their home. Jesus is very clear on the “no killing” bit - “turn the other cheek”, etc.
Finally, your deft ability to counter an argument with “you’re a fool” does not seem as effective as some of your other ones. Are you slipping?

[FinsterniS]

@cystic:

As YB says, the myth of the tooth fairy is easily dispelled. For one to say that “it is impossible for the tooth fairy to have created the world” is something that is a little more difficult to dispell, except for the fact that our parents have announced that they ARE the tooth fairy, and they never created the world.

As the tooth fairy, there is an human being (well, some human being) behind every religion.

That would imply that you knew it. You might say “due to O’s Razor it is philosophically unlikely that the universe needs to have a creator”, but that is playing with likelyhoods based on your take on philosophy.

If there is no reason to believe in an intelligent design, if as we go further in science, everything seem to be natural, then how can you say it is unscientific to say god does exist ? How can it be unscientif to tell a theory is false when there is nothing to support it ? Science is the enemy of religion, when science gain knowledge, religion loose power. Just look how much god is small now.

With regards to YB’s argument based on 85% of the world, i think the point here is that God has obviously influenced a great many people, possibly many more than might be diagnosed schizophrenic/schizo-typal etc. If only 2-4% of the world believed in God and that corresponded to the numbers of people with mental illnesses, one might begin to suggest a correllation.

Here CC you support an argument just because it go by your side just like when you supported YB’s circular argument, which is not very logic. The fact that people believe something to be true does mean it is true. I cannot believe someone can use argumentum ad populum as anything near a method of understand what is true and what is false. Then why don’t you go outside asking people how to treat X sickness ? Most people don’t have the knowledge to be atheist, when you don’t know how nature work, how evolution and how logic work; god seem to be theonly answer. (note that i am not saying Theist lack education and logic, nor do they lack intelligence, i just think they lack objectivity).

Your argument against miracles because “the Shroud was not likely one” is also poor.

I never said that, but the Shround of Turin is a good exemple of how blind people are when they face religion. Also the argument of Miracles is by itself very poor… it is an argument for nothing. Lots of phenomean attributes in ancient time to god(s) are now scientificly explained. A mircales is something we don’t understand, and that we will likely understand someday, claiming it is some sort of divine message it what i call a lack of vision/objectivity.

YB’s reference to the existance of the Catholic Church is not that unsound.

I don’t believe you really support this kind of argument, this is using very poor, demagogic rethoric ! Just look at how christianism spread in the world ! Certainly not with tender words about god’s love. It is more an argument about the religion conformism, it does not change.

Also, has it been proven that opium and religious beliefs stimulate the same part of the brain? Or that the two have an identical effect? If we were to take a person in pain, sit him in a church for an hour, would that be worth an hour’s worth of a morphine-derivative? No, what a silly thing to say.

You misunderstood something in the opium analogy, religion is certainly not for physical pain. But for moral/psychological pain. It is far more easy to go in life, following some rules, don’t have to think about how the world came to existance, and to believe you will have eternity just for following some rules…

Also - please note that the New Testament and words of Jesus are significantly different than what the Israelites were ordered to do in order to establish their home. Jesus is very clear on the “no killing” bit - “turn the other cheek”, etc.

… still it is the same god, no ? Jesus is the messager of the god who give order to Joshua ?

Finally, your deft ability to counter an argument with “you’re a fool” does not seem as effective as some of your other ones. Are you slipping?

In fact it is full of logical fallacies, i don’t said he was a fool (only when he said he want communist to go on working camp). And no, i am not slipping, are you ? But when someone he saying that the fact most people on earth believe in god constitute an argument for religion; that is just really funny and the only answer i can give to that is; this is fallacious. If i say; X is the greatest genius, he did not believe in god, then god does not exist, that is clearly fallacious, what will you say to that ?

[Mr Ghoul]

I have to side with FinsterniS on this topic.

God center of the brain??? never heard of that?
Doesn’t sound very scientific.

85% of people belive in “God”…ummm no.
Miracles do not constitute evidence for/of a God. If in fact you belive in miracles in the first place.

Oh, and about the tooth fariy, 100% of children belive in it before their parents tell them different.

[TG Moses VI]

“85% of people belive in “God”…ummm no.”

I think what YB was trying to say is that 85% of the world does believe in a monotheistic or pluraltheistic religion, which is likely true. However this still isn’t a good argument if you think that Christianity is the “true” religion and that the Christian God is the “correct” one.

[Mr Ghoul]

@TG:

“85% of people belive in “God”…ummm no.”

I think what YB was trying to say is that 85% of the world does believe in a monotheistic or pluraltheistic religion, which is likely true. However this still isn’t a good argument if you think that Christianity is the “true” religion and that the Christian God is the “correct” one.

I’m assuming he is referring to the Christan God.
It doesn’t really matter what God he uses, its not evidence.

The other 15% of people belive in Thor :lol:
Therefore Thor exists

[TG Moses VI]

yeah, that’s the problem with Christianity. Some Asian religions have been around a lot longer - are those people before Christianity “saved?”

[Mr Ghoul]

@TG:

yeah, that’s the problem with Christianity. Some Asian religions have been around a lot longer - are those people before Christianity “saved?”[/quote

From what I know, they would not be saved unless they converted from their religion.

Not that it matters anyway, its all nonsense.

[TG Moses VI]

You’re right, why believe in the first place?
Though you can never be too safe – which is why I try not to break any moral codes. :roll:

[Mr Ghoul]

You don’t have to be a religious person to be a good person with morals, thats for sure.

You dig on what I’m saying? :o