The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[SoulMonster]

19 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

If you prefer we can go back to DNA randomly forming.  

But why should we? No scientific theory relies on DNA randomly forming, either. And we can't "go back" to this topic unless you think RNA and DNA are the same... 

[SoulMonster]

22 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Stephen Hawking (known atheist) basically asked the question why DNA formed at a rate of 14 times faster than what it should have here on Earth. (In terms of a time for what it would have taken to happen randomly) 

Huh? This doesn't sound like Dawkins at all. Firstly, DNA hasn't formed on earth. DNA is being synthesized in living cell through the process of DNA synthesis, directing by DNA polymerases. Secondly, how can you calculate the rate at which DA would form? You would need to know what the precursors were, what the concentrations you would have of these, and all other conditions. Which of Dawkin's book did this come from? I think I have them all and can check this. I am pretty certain that from Dawkin's book to you (probably relayed by some dubious creationist websites that either didn't understand Dawkins or willfully misrepresented him) something has been lost in transit.

26 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Why are you so certain it’s a ‘normal’ part of evolution here on Earth?  

Why am I so certain WHAT is a 'normal' part of evolution? DNA? We know that DNA is the molecule that stores genetic information in living cells, and hence it is the substrate upon which the process of evolution takes place.

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

But why should we? No scientific theory relies on DNA randomly forming, either. And we can't "go back" to this topic unless you think RNA and DNA are the same... 

We can go back to RNA, the simpler structure.  And Hawking referred to that as well.  I used DNA because that’s what Hawking referred to initially....you know, just so us regular folks could understand.....but I guess I forgot I was talking to a chemist.  

[SoulMonster]

27 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Ask some physicists and they will state that they believe the Universe is based on math.  That’s not me saying it. That’s them.

Probably in a misguided attempt at dumbing things down in the hope you would get it  That being said, there is actually a small subset of physicians who think that the Universe IS mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Huh? This doesn't sound like Dawkins at all. Firstly, DNA hasn't formed on earth. DNA is being synthesized in living cell through the process of DNA synthesis, directing by DNA polymerases. Secondly, how can you calculate the rate at which DA would form? You would need to know what the precursors were, what the concentrations you would have of these, and all other conditions. Which of Dawkin's book did this come from? I think I have them all and can check this. I am pretty certain that from Dawkin's book to you (probably relayed by some dubious creationist websites that either didn't understand Dawkins or willfully misrepresented him) something has been lost in transit.

Why am I so certain WHAT is a 'normal' part of evolution? DNA? We know that DNA is the molecule that stores genetic information in living cells, and hence it is the substrate upon which the process of evolution takes place.

Why are you certain that RNA forming spontaneously on Earth is normal? 

[SoulMonster]

30 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

They firmly believe the language of the universe is based on math.

They believe the Universe can talk?? And in maths? 

[SoulMonster]

30 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

I find them discovering “computer code” within String Theory fascinating.  You obviously don’t.  

The only reason you find it fascinating is because you think it is some evidence for god

I find it mildly fascinating. I can control myself. As can one of the authors of that scientific paper, he found it close to inevitable...

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

They believe the Universe can talk?? And in maths? 

Not like you’re describing it.   You acting like it’s silly just makes you look silly.

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

We can go back to RNA, the simpler structure.  And Hawking referred to that as well.  I used DNA because that’s what Hawking referred to initially....you know, just so us regular folks could understand.....but I guess I forgot I was talking to a chemist.  

You want us to yet again talk about how you don't understand how RNA can spontaneously form under specific conditions? And then you will perhaps again argue that it is mathematically impossible that such a complex molecule can spontaneously form despite me pointing out that much more complex and large molecules are spontaneously being formed in such mundane things as water oversaturated with sugar? Why?

[Ace Nova]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 That being said, there is actually a small subset of physicians who think that the Universe IS mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

You mean Max Tegmark?  He’s a physicist not a physician. Smh. 

 

[SoulMonster]

12 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Why are you certain that RNA forming spontaneously on Earth is normal? 

I have never said that RNA forming spontaneously on Earth is normal. I believe it is very natural given certain conditions and I find it plausible that such conditions existed on early Earth and that the first replicators were indeed small RNA molecules with autocatalytic capacity.

[SoulMonster]

 

6 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

You mean Max Tegmark?  He’s a physicist not a physician. Smh. 

Obviously that was a typo on my part

[Ace Nova]

14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You want us to yet again talk about how you don't understand how RNA can spontaneously form under specific conditions? And then you will perhaps again argue that it is mathematically impossible that such a complex molecule can spontaneously form despite me pointing out that much more complex and large molecules are spontaneously being formed in such mundane things as water oversaturated with sugar? Why?

Do those ‘much larger’ molecules contain the genetic codes for life? 

 

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I have never said that RNA forming spontaneously on Earth is normal. I believe it is very natural given certain conditions and I find it plausible that such conditions existed on early Earth and that the first replicators were indeed small RNA molecules with autocatalytic capacity.

So under the right circumstances, RNA, can form spontaneously in nature.  Is that what you’re saying? 

 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

Do those ‘much larger’ molecules contain the genetic codes for life? 

Nope. But there is no chemical reason why they couldn't. Although, that being said, DNA is particularly suited for this hence it is why it ended up being the molecule used in living cells for that purpose. It simply won in competition with whatever other molecules were in the race at the time, through natural selection. 

[Ace Nova]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Nope. But there is no chemical reason why they couldn't. Although, that being said, DNA is particularly suited for this hence it is why it ended up being the molecule used in living cells for that purpose. It simply won in competition with whatever other molecules were in the race at the time, through natural selection. 

What other molecules. other than RNA/DNA,  had genetic codes for life within them?   (Honest question btw). 

 

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

What other molecules. other than RNA/DNA,  had genetic codes for life within them?   (Honest question btw). 

I don't know if I would say that RNA had "genetic code" in it back then. This came slowly as the molecules got more complex through abiogenesis. But they did have the property to autocatalyze, which is the crucial first step. And there have been numerous theories on what molecules could constitute the first such replicators, with RNA now being the one favored by most scientists. Other molecules that have been suggested are peptides, variants of amino adenosine triacid ester, peptide nucleic acid, threose nucleic acid, glycol nucleic acid and probably many more. It is difficult to study these things, but what we can say is that whatever molecules won out out-competed all the others because all life forms studied are based on the same macromolecules, with either RNA or DNA as the genetic carrier. 

EDIT: You might find this interesting: https://www.quantamagazine.org/lifes-first-molecule-was-protein-not-rna-new-model-suggests-20171102/

Edited July 3, 2019 by SoulMonster

[Ace Nova]

15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know if I would say that RNA had "genetic code" in it back then. This came slowly as the molecules got more complex through abiogenesis. But they did have the property to autocatalyze, which is the crucial first step. And there have been numerous theories on what molecules could constitute the first such replicators, with RNA now being the one favored by most scientists. Other molecules that have been suggested are peptides, variants of amino adenosine triacid ester, peptide nucleic acid, threose nucleic acid, glycol nucleic acid and probably many more. It is difficult to study these things, but what we can say is that whatever molecules won out out-competed all the others because all life forms studied are based on the same macromolecules, with either RNA or DNA as the genetic carrier. 

EDIT: You might find this interesting: https://www.quantamagazine.org/lifes-first-molecule-was-protein-not-rna-new-model-suggests-20171102/

I was going to post that article and ask your feelings on it.   I figured you might like it since you’re a “protein” guy.  

In all seriousness, I do find the stuff interesting though. 

[Ace Nova]

A complex God: why science and religion can co-exist

 

Science and religion are often cast as opponents in a battle for human hearts and minds.

But far from the silo of strict creationism and the fundamentalist view that evolution simply didn’t happen lies the truth: science and religion are complementary.

God cast us in his own image. We have free will and intelligence. Without science we could only ever operate at the whim of God.

Discussion of the idea that our universe is fundamentally intelligible is even more profound. Through science and the use of mathematical rules, we can and do understand how nature works.

The fact our universe is intelligible has profound implications for humankind and perhaps for the existence of God.

 

Does science work?

It’s very clear that science “works”. We can explain and predict how nature will behave over an extraordinary range of scales.

There are various limits to scientific understanding but, within these limits, science makes a complete and compelling picture.

We know that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. The “Big Bang” model of universal creation makes a number of very specific and numerical predictions which are observed and measured with high accuracy.

The Standard Model of Particle Physics employs something known as “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking” to explain the strength of the laws of nature.

Within the Standard Model the strength of these laws are not predicted. At present our current best theory is that they arose “by chance”.

But these strengths have to be exquisitely fine-tuned in order for life to exist. How so?

The strength of the gravitational attraction must be tuned to ensure that the expansion of the universe is not too fast and not too slow.

It must be strong enough to enable stars and planets to form but not too strong, otherwise stars would burn through their nuclear fuel too quickly.

The imbalance between matter and anti-matter in the early Universe must be fine tuned to 12 orders of magnitude to create enough mass to form stars and galaxies.

The strength of the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions must be finely-tuned to create stable protons and neutrons.

They must also be fine-tuned to enable complex nuclei to be synthesized in supernovae.

Finally the mass of the electron and the strength of the electromagnetic interaction must be tuned to provide the chemical reaction rates that enables life to evolve over the timescale of the Universe.

The fine tuning of gravitational attraction and electromagnetic interactions which allow the laws of nature to enable life to form are too clever to be simply a coincidence.

 

Is intelligent life special?

It has taken 4.5 billion years for humans to evolve on earth. This is more than 25% of the age of the universe itself.

We are the only intelligent life that has existed on the planet and we have only been here for 0.005% of the time the planet has been here.

This is a mere blink in the age of the galaxy. If some other intelligent life had emerged elsewhere in the galaxy before us, why haven’t we seen it here?

To me this is a strong argument that we are the first intelligent life in the galaxy.

 

Designed for life

One interpretation of the collection of unlikely coincidences that lead to our existence is that a designer made the universe this way in order for it to create us; in other words, this designer created a dynamic evolving whole whose output is our creation.

Many take exception to this idea and argue instead that our universe is but one of an uncountable multitude that has happened to create us.

Other ideas are that there are as-yet unobserved principles of nature that will explain why the strengths of the forces are as they are.

To me, neither argument is in principle against an intelligent design.

The designer is simply clever enough to have devised either an evolving multitude of universes or to have devised a way to make our present universe create us.

 

Intelligible Design

We do know a lot about the design of the universe, so clearly the design is in good measure intelligible.

But why is it that we can understand nature so well?

One answer is that evolution favours organisms that can exploit their environment. Most organisms have a set of “wired” instructions passed from earlier generations.

Over the evolutionary history of Earth, organisms that can learn how to manipulate their surroundings have prospered.

Humans are not unique in this trait but we’re definitely the best at learning. So in other words nature has built us to understand the rules of nature.

Mathematics and science

All of this rests on the predictability which results from nature obeying rules. As we’ve learned about these rules we’ve discovered that they can be expressed in purely mathematical form.

Mathematics has a validity that is independent of its ability to describe nature and the universe.

One could imagine mathematics with its complex relationships being true outside of our universe and having the ability to exist outside it.

The outcome of humankind’s investigations into nature is science. And the fundamental tenet of science is that there is an objective reality which can be understood by anybody who is willing to learn.

 

A universe without laws?

The only way I can imagine a universe without rules is for every action to be the result of an off-screen director who controls all.

Such a thing is almost beyond comprehension as everything would need to be the result of premeditation.

Events would appear to occur by pure random chance. Furthermore the level of detail required for godly oversight is absolutely beyond human comprehension.

Each of the hundreds of billions of cells in our bodies operates within a complex set of biochemical reactions, all of which have to work individually and as well as collectively for just one human body to function.

So for a start our offscreen director would have to ensure that all these processes happen correctly for every one of the trillions of living organisms on earth.

 

Free will

We are all the stuff of the universe, absolutely embedded within, and subject to, the rules which govern nature. Because we’re self-aware, one can argue that the universe is self-aware.

Without an intelligible design it would be impossible for humans to have free will as all actions would be as a consequence of the will of the director. Free will is a fundamental element of Christian doctrine.

The Christian statement “God made man in His own image” implies both free will and intelligence for humans. Intelligible design is thus a necessary condition for the existence of a Christian God.

Given we are intelligent, we can imagine sharing this aspect with a God who made us in “His own image”.

Free will is only possible in a universe with rules and hence predictability.

Intelligence has application beyond our physical universe – which is indicative, but not proof of, God to me.

On the other hand, the existence of a God providing free will to humans requires the existence of science.

Otherwise we could only ever operate at the whim of God.

Science and religion go hand in hand.

We all know the subjective reality of experience. I personally feel the power of the redemption which is at the core of Christianity.

Each of us has access to that through our own free will to exercise choice.

 

http://theconversation.com/a-complex-god-why-science-and-religion-can-co-exist-909

 

 

[Dazey]

9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

A complex God: why science and religion can co-exist

 

Science and religion are often cast as opponents in a battle for human hearts and minds.

But far from the silo of strict creationism and the fundamentalist view that evolution simply didn’t happen lies the truth: science and religion are complementary.

God cast us in his own image. We have free will and intelligence. Without science we could only ever operate at the whim of God.

Discussion of the idea that our universe is fundamentally intelligible is even more profound. Through science and the use of mathematical rules, we can and do understand how nature works.

The fact our universe is intelligible has profound implications for humankind and perhaps for the existence of God.

 

Does science work?

It’s very clear that science “works”. We can explain and predict how nature will behave over an extraordinary range of scales.

There are various limits to scientific understanding but, within these limits, science makes a complete and compelling picture.

We know that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. The “Big Bang” model of universal creation makes a number of very specific and numerical predictions which are observed and measured with high accuracy.

The Standard Model of Particle Physics employs something known as “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking” to explain the strength of the laws of nature.

Within the Standard Model the strength of these laws are not predicted. At present our current best theory is that they arose “by chance”.

But these strengths have to be exquisitely fine-tuned in order for life to exist. How so?

The strength of the gravitational attraction must be tuned to ensure that the expansion of the universe is not too fast and not too slow.

It must be strong enough to enable stars and planets to form but not too strong, otherwise stars would burn through their nuclear fuel too quickly.

The imbalance between matter and anti-matter in the early Universe must be fine tuned to 12 orders of magnitude to create enough mass to form stars and galaxies.

The strength of the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions must be finely-tuned to create stable protons and neutrons.

They must also be fine-tuned to enable complex nuclei to be synthesized in supernovae.

Finally the mass of the electron and the strength of the electromagnetic interaction must be tuned to provide the chemical reaction rates that enables life to evolve over the timescale of the Universe.

The fine tuning of gravitational attraction and electromagnetic interactions which allow the laws of nature to enable life to form are too clever to be simply a coincidence.

 

Is intelligent life special?

It has taken 4.5 billion years for humans to evolve on earth. This is more than 25% of the age of the universe itself.

We are the only intelligent life that has existed on the planet and we have only been here for 0.005% of the time the planet has been here.

This is a mere blink in the age of the galaxy. If some other intelligent life had emerged elsewhere in the galaxy before us, why haven’t we seen it here?

To me this is a strong argument that we are the first intelligent life in the galaxy.

 

Designed for life

One interpretation of the collection of unlikely coincidences that lead to our existence is that a designer made the universe this way in order for it to create us; in other words, this designer created a dynamic evolving whole whose output is our creation.

Many take exception to this idea and argue instead that our universe is but one of an uncountable multitude that has happened to create us.

Other ideas are that there are as-yet unobserved principles of nature that will explain why the strengths of the forces are as they are.

To me, neither argument is in principle against an intelligent design.

The designer is simply clever enough to have devised either an evolving multitude of universes or to have devised a way to make our present universe create us.

 

Intelligible Design

We do know a lot about the design of the universe, so clearly the design is in good measure intelligible.

But why is it that we can understand nature so well?

One answer is that evolution favours organisms that can exploit their environment. Most organisms have a set of “wired” instructions passed from earlier generations.

Over the evolutionary history of Earth, organisms that can learn how to manipulate their surroundings have prospered.

Humans are not unique in this trait but we’re definitely the best at learning. So in other words nature has built us to understand the rules of nature.

Mathematics and science

All of this rests on the predictability which results from nature obeying rules. As we’ve learned about these rules we’ve discovered that they can be expressed in purely mathematical form.

Mathematics has a validity that is independent of its ability to describe nature and the universe.

One could imagine mathematics with its complex relationships being true outside of our universe and having the ability to exist outside it.

The outcome of humankind’s investigations into nature is science. And the fundamental tenet of science is that there is an objective reality which can be understood by anybody who is willing to learn.

 

A universe without laws?

The only way I can imagine a universe without rules is for every action to be the result of an off-screen director who controls all.

Such a thing is almost beyond comprehension as everything would need to be the result of premeditation.

Events would appear to occur by pure random chance. Furthermore the level of detail required for godly oversight is absolutely beyond human comprehension.

Each of the hundreds of billions of cells in our bodies operates within a complex set of biochemical reactions, all of which have to work individually and as well as collectively for just one human body to function.

So for a start our offscreen director would have to ensure that all these processes happen correctly for every one of the trillions of living organisms on earth.

 

Free will

We are all the stuff of the universe, absolutely embedded within, and subject to, the rules which govern nature. Because we’re self-aware, one can argue that the universe is self-aware.

Without an intelligible design it would be impossible for humans to have free will as all actions would be as a consequence of the will of the director. Free will is a fundamental element of Christian doctrine.

The Christian statement “God made man in His own image” implies both free will and intelligence for humans. Intelligible design is thus a necessary condition for the existence of a Christian God.

Given we are intelligent, we can imagine sharing this aspect with a God who made us in “His own image”.

Free will is only possible in a universe with rules and hence predictability.

Intelligence has application beyond our physical universe – which is indicative, but not proof of, God to me.

On the other hand, the existence of a God providing free will to humans requires the existence of science.

Otherwise we could only ever operate at the whim of God.

Science and religion go hand in hand.

We all know the subjective reality of experience. I personally feel the power of the redemption which is at the core of Christianity.

Each of us has access to that through our own free will to exercise choice.

 

http://theconversation.com/a-complex-god-why-science-and-religion-can-co-exist-909

 

 

In the simplest terms no matter what science doesn’t tell you where you can put your penis.  

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

In the simplest terms no matter what science doesn’t tell you where you can put your penis.  

In a nutshell, yes. That's one of the biggest hangups people have about religion, which is the restraint required in the sexual realm. 

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

In the simplest terms no matter what science doesn’t tell you where you can put your penis.  

No.  Neither do all religions either.  You have free will to choose whether you want to follow a certain religion, etc. 

[Dazey]

Just now, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

In a nutshell, yes. That's one of the biggest hangups people have about religion, which is the restraint required in the sexual realm. 

Not at all. It’s the fact that people are preaching a certain set of moral rules because the bible says so. This has nothing to do with science as there is no evidence to support it. Intelligent design is creationism in all but name and doesn’t belong anywhere near a science class. 

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

No.  Neither do all religions either.  You have free will to choose whether you want to follow a certain religion, etc. 

Bollocks!!!  Really? Religions don’t tell people that bumfucking is wrong? Catholicism doesn’t tell 5 year olds to confess their “sins”? Sorry Kass, you know I love ya but you’re reaching here. ❤️

[Ace Nova]

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Huh? This doesn't sound like Dawkins at all. Firstly, DNA hasn't formed on earth. DNA is being synthesized in living cell through the process of DNA synthesis, directing by DNA polymerases. Secondly, how can you calculate the rate at which DA would form? You would need to know what the precursors were, what the concentrations you would have of these, and all other conditions. Which of Dawkin's book did this come from? I think I have them all and can check this. I am pretty certain that from Dawkin's book to you (probably relayed by some dubious creationist websites that either didn't understand Dawkins or willfully misrepresented him) something has been lost in transit.

 

Stephen Hawking not Dawkins.  

Our solar system was formed about four and a half billion years ago, or about ten billion years after the Big Bang, from gas contaminated with the remains of earlier stars. The Earth was formed largely out of the heavier elements, including carbon and oxygen. Somehow, some of these atoms came to be arranged in the form of molecules of DNA. This has the famous double helix form, discovered by Crick and Watson, in a hut on the New Museum site in Cambridge. Linking the two chains in the helix, are pairs of nucleic acids. There are four types of nucleic acid, adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thiamine. I'm afraid my speech synthesiser is not very good, at pronouncing their names. Obviously, it was not designed for molecular biologists. An adenine on one chain is always matched with a thiamine on the other chain, and a guanine with a cytosine. Thus the sequence of nucleic acids on one chain defines a unique, complementary sequence, on the other chain. The two chains can then separate and each act as templates to build further chains. Thus DNA molecules can reproduce the genetic information, coded in their sequences of nucleic acids. Sections of the sequence can also be used to make proteins and other chemicals, which can carry out the instructions, coded in the sequence, and assemble the raw material for DNA to reproduce itself. 

We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth. 

One possibility is that the formation of something like DNA, which could reproduce itself, is extremely unlikely. However, in a universe with a very large, or infinite, number of stars, one would expect it to occur in a few stellar systems, but they would be very widely separated. The fact that life happened to occur on Earth, is not however surprising or unlikely. It is just an application of the Weak Anthropic Principle: if life had appeared instead on another planet, we would be asking why it had occurred there. 

If the appearance of life on a given planet was very unlikely, one might have expected it to take a long time. More precisely, one might have expected life to appear just in time for the subsequent evolution to intelligent beings, like us, to have occurred before the cut off, provided by the life time of the Sun. This is about ten billion years, after which the Sun will swell up and engulf the Earth. An intelligent form of life, might have mastered space travel, and be able to escape to another star. But otherwise, life on Earth would be doomed. 

There is fossil evidence, that there was some form of life on Earth, about three and a half billion years ago. This may have been only 500 million years after the Earth became stable and cool enough, for life to develop. But life could have taken 7 billion years to develop, and still have left time to evolve to beings like us, who could ask about the origin of life. If the probability of life developing on a given planet, is very small, why did it happen on Earth, in about one 14th of the time available?

 

http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html

He goes on go explain that it basically "could have happened", etc. 

[Ace Nova]

9 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Bollocks!!!  Really? Religions don’t tell people that bumfucking is wrong? Catholicism doesn’t tell 5 year olds to confess their “sins”? Sorry Kass, you know I love ya but you’re reaching here. ❤️

Sins yes, of course.  But most (not all) sins could be considered morally wrong even by non-believers, no?  Murder, Theft, Rape, Robberies, Cheating on you spouse, Lying, etc etc.