The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

A better analogy would have been the motherboard of a computer can spontaneously form while the computer itself can't.  The very first computers were very basic, type writers, adding machines, etc.  The components of those machines were extremely simple.  I'd venture to say (probably) simpler than an RNA molecule. 

Let's say you have a computer code, just a random sequence of code, and it is allowed to change through mutations and deletions and random permutations, for ages and ages, then it wouldn't be inconceivable that a code would at some point form that could replicate itself. It really is just a matter of time. That is a not too different to nucleotide coming spontaneously together to form replicating, small RNA molecules.

 

13 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

So if you are saying "life" can't form spontaneously, how did it form?  Any way you look at it, if you say that RNA, which later laid the code for life, formed spontaneously, then you are saying that the origins of life formed spontaneously.  (Whether RNA formed life through evolution is irrelevant). 

Yes, it is well known to science that origins of life can form spontaneously. Both nucleic acids, proteins, lipids, etc, can arise through spontaneous processes under the right circumstances.

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Let's say you have a computer code, just a random sequence of code,

Where did the code come from?

 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

Where did the code come from?

In contrast to the building blocks of RNA -- phosphate, deoxyribose and bases, which were present on early earth in sufficient abundance and came as a result of the planet acquiring large amounts of organic molecules -- the code in a computer program would have to have been designed by humans since it relies on human-made hardware that can't spontaneously arise - so that's another point where your analogy fails. 

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

In contrast to the building blocks of RNA -- phosphate, deoxyribose and bases, which were present on early earth in sufficient abundance and came as a result of the planet acquiring large amounts of organic molecules -- the code in a computer program would have to have been designed by humans since it relies on human-made hardware that can't spontaneously arise - so that's another point where your analogy fails. 

So RNA spontaneously formed on Mars as well?

https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/fingerprints-martian-life-180969265/

That's a heck of a lot of "spontaneity".

 

 

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

So RNA spontaneously formed on Mars as well?

https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/fingerprints-martian-life-180969265/

That's a heck of a lot of "spontaneity".

That simple RNA molecules might have been the interlink between inert organic molecules and the first replicators on Earth, is just one out of many hypotheses. We don't really know how it went, but it is a theory with quite a bit of scientific support.

That a similar process, involving RNA molecules, might have occurred elsewhere in the Universe isn't far-fetched since the same organic molecules are likely to be found all over.

As far as life on Mars is concerned, we don't have definite proof for that. It is just a theory tat life once existed on our neighbor planet. And as far as I know, we don't have any working hypotheses on how life on Mars came to be. But if life once existed there, then it is not unlikely at all that it happened through a similar (although not necessarily identical) process as on Earth. So maybe, yeah.

And spontaneity occurs all the time, all over. There is nothing more "magical" about a crystal spontaneously growing into complex shapes than organic molecules spontaneously coming together to form autocatalytic molecules. It is an everyday aspect of the Universe, but you might not know enough about chemistry to understanding its triviality.

Edited July 1, 2019 by SoulMonster

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

That simple RNA molecules might have been the interlink between inert organic molecules and the first replicators on Earth, is just one out of many hypotheses. We don't really know how it went, but it is a theory with quite a bit of scientific support.

That a similar process, involving RNA molecules, might have occurred elsewhere in the Universe isn't far-fetched since the same organic molecules are likely to be found all over.

As far as life on Mars is concerned, we don't have definite proof for that. It is just a theory tat life once existed on our neighbor planet. And as far as I know, we don't have any working hypotheses on how life on Mars came to be. But if life once existed there, then it is not unlikely at all that it happened through a similar (although not necessarily identical) process as on Earth. So maybe, yeah.

And spontaneity occurs all the time, all over. There is nothing more "magical" about a crystal spontaneously growing into complex shapes than organic molecules spontaneously coming together to form autocatalytic molecules. It is an everyday aspect of the Universe, but you might not know enough about chemistry to understanding its triviality.

There is substantial evidence that there are/were organic molecules on Mars.  The article illustrates that.  

As far as my knowledge of chemistry, it's obviously far below yours, I only have a basic understanding of it.  But there is enough evidence, imo, to acknowledge the probability/possibility  that the initial codes for the Universe and life were by some form of design.  I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp or believe for some folks....or at least be open to it.   You don't need to believe in the Biblical version of God to believe that the code for the Universe and life could have been designed. 

 

 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

6 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

There is substantial evidence that there are/were organic molecules on Mars.  The article illustrates that.  

As far as my knowledge of chemistry, it's obviously far below yours, I only have a basic understanding of it.  But there is enough evidence, imo, to acknowledge the probability/possibility  that the initial codes for the Universe and life were by some form of design.  I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp or believe for some folks....or at least be open to it.   You don't need to believe in the Biblical version of God to believe that the code for the Universe and life could have been designed. 

 

 

Don't play God of the Gaps with him, that's his wheelhouse. Everything he's explaining is just a scientific material explanation for God's action.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

There is substantial evidence that there are/were organic molecules on Mars.  The article illustrates that.  

As far as my knowledge of chemistry, it's obviously far below yours, I only have a basic understanding of it.  But there is enough evidence, imo, to acknowledge the probability/possibility  that the initial codes for the Universe and life were by some form of design.  I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp or believe for some folks....or at least be open to it.   You don't need to believe in the Biblical version of God to believe that the code for the Universe and life could have been designed. 

I haven't said there weren't organic molecules on Mars. I said there is not definite proof we had life on Mars.

What evidence do we have that "the initial codes […] life were by some form of design"? 

Why I find it ludicrous that life has been designed by some sentient being, is the fact that there is zero evidence for it.

 

[Ace Nova]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

 

What evidence do we have that "the initial codes […] life were by some form of design"? 

 

 

To me, saying that an intelligent code like RNA formed spontaneously isn't a rational explanation.   It certainly doesn't sound scientific and it's far from even being remotely proven.  Quite the opposite, actually.  Is it even considered a theory? 

So until science can come up with something better than it forming spontaneously, that's one of the better pieces of evidence, imo. 

One area of study where I have a solid understanding is mathematics and probability.  Do you realize the probability of a single protein molecule forming during pre-historic Earth is 1 in 10 to 164th power.  Do you have any idea how big of a number that is?   Like you stated earlier, the probability might as well be zero but not equal to zero.  That's about as close to being considered "mathematically impossible" as it gets.  

To give you an idea, people have been put to death and gone to prison for the rest of their lives with far less mathematical probabilities of DNA evidence.  Think about that for a second.   In a court of law, your "spontaneous assembly theory" would be thrown out immediately.

 

Now if any sort of protein molecule is found on a planet like Mars, the probability of it happening there as well becomes even more astronomical.    So yes, I think anyone with any sort of sense or understanding of mathematics and probability would at the very least need to be open to the idea that there is a better probability of there being intelligence at the initial stages of the universe/life vs such absurd, astronomical numbers.  I'll go with the math on this one.

 

As far as chemistry goes, I'll quote one of the top chemists in the world on the origins of life:

“We have no idea how the molecules that compose living systems could have been devised such that they would work in concert to fulfill biology’s functions. We have no idea how the basic set of molecules, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins, were made and how they could have coupled into the proper sequences, and then transformed into the ordered assemblies until there was the construction of a complex biological system, and eventually to that first cell. Nobody has any idea how this was done when using our commonly understood mechanisms of chemical science. Those that say they understand are generally wholly uninformed regarding chemical synthesis. Those that say “Oh, this is well worked out,” they know nothing, nothing about chemical synthesis – Nothing! Further cluelessness – From a synthetic chemical perspective, neither I nor any of my colleagues can fathom a prebiotic molecular route to construction of a complex system. We cannot figure out the prebiotic routes to the basic building blocks of life: carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins. Chemists are collectively bewildered. Hence I say that no chemist understands prebiotic synthesis of the requisite building blocks let alone their assembly into a complex system. That’s how clueless we are. I’ve asked all of my colleagues – National Academy members, Nobel Prize winners -I sit with them in offices; nobody understands this. So if your professors say it’s all worked out, your teachers say it’s all worked out, they don’t know what they’re talking about. It is not worked out. You cannot just refer this to somebody else; they don’t know what they’re talking about.”

- James Tour – one of the top ten leading chemists in the world.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Kasanova King

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I haven't said there weren't organic molecules on Mars. I said there is not definite proof we had life on Mars.

What evidence do we have that "the initial codes […] life were by some form of design"? 

Why I find it ludicrous that life has been designed by some sentient being, is the fact that there is zero evidence for it.

 

The whole concept of God is not that he is just a sentient being, but that he's all powerful, omnipotent order of the universe that humans can't fully understand. You're not going to convince anyone here not to believe in God by explaining material science just as no one is going to convince you to believe in God using God of the Gaps arguments.

[Ace Nova]

Theoretical Physicist, Dr, James Gates has found computer code embedded into the fabric of the Universe.  Yes, the same type of computer code that is used in search engines, etc.  How's that for evidence of intelligent design?

 

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

@Kasanova King let's pretend 'God' is real or at least could be real. Okay. How do you justify all the dogmatic mumbo-jumbo, let alone choose and endorse specific mumbo-jumbo as cream of the crop, when God is forever outside our realm of understanding and everything like The Bible etc is proven bullshit created by man in God's image.

Let's all piss away our Sundays and don't you dare eat any seafood! Etc etc. The list of moronic arbitrary rules of bullshit goes on and on. How do you justify it all and how is it worthy of respect? 

I don't need to justify it.  It's the way I choose to live my life.  It's my belief system.  And the Bible was written as a guideline for how we are to live in harmony with God.  You can choose not to believe it.    I don't ask you to justify your belief system, do I?

 

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

You don't need to justify it if it's merely how you want to live your life and it's not harming yourself or others - but it does and always has. This is why it is an issue. 

If you don't/can't justify dogmatic beliefs then, regardless of the fact you'll continue with them, are you able to at least concede that everyone outside of that carnival ride would never ever in their right mind respect those beliefs beyond a wary and very conditional toleration?

What do you think my belief system is? I expect to challenge and be challenged, at least in the context of a friendly debate/discussion otherwise we're all just in our own bubbles and full of shit and any effort big or small is disingenuous nothings.

That's a very dangerous attitude you know, to go around having beliefs never questioning things and even rationalizing that madness into intense ego concepts like "I never have to justify myself and my beliefs to anyone other than God."

Oh, I question things all the time.  If I didn't question things, I wouldn't have a need for faith nor would anyone else.  Questioning and wondering why certain things are the way they are is the basic building block of faith.  "The mystery of life" and believing in things, seen and unseen, is a foundation of Catholicism.   And no, the vast majority of Catholics are not out there harming themselves or others....quite the opposite, actually.  The Catholic Church is the single biggest charitable organization on Earth.  Yes, the Catholic Church helps more people via its charities than any other organization on Earth.  How's that for justifying my beliefs?

 

[Ace Nova]

26 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

"Only myself, people I explicitly approve of and God may question me." -KK 

I never said "the vast majority of catholics are literally going out harming themselves and/or others" I was talking about the ideology/belief system and Church having always harmed others. 

The Catholic Church takes more than it gives. And what it does give is used as defense/deflection. They are a PR corporation who rapes little kids up the arse.

It's like claiming the Mafia is justified and a moral charitable organization because some of their front businesses do some good.

Step away from your conspiracy theory documentaries and look at the facts, from Politifact:

We should start by noting that Catholic charity work is extensive and widely considered a crucial part of the nation’s social safety net. By itself, Catholic Charities USA, has more than 2,500 local agencies that serve 10 million people annually, said Mary L. Gautier, a senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, an institute at Georgetown University that studies the church.

And Catholic Charities is supplemented by a panoply of other Catholic-affiliated groups, Gautier said, including "St. Vincent De Paul societies, social justice committees, soup kitchens, food pantries, and other similar programs organized independently by thousands of Catholic parishes each year."

In 2010, Catholic Charities USA reported expenditures of between $4.2 billion and $4.4 billion, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which publishes an annual list of the 400 biggest charities in the United States, ranked by the amount of donations they receive. This enabled it to rank near the top of the 400 list, behind two major social-services charities -- the United Way and the Salvation Army, neither of which is affiliated with the Catholic church.

Meanwhile, Catholic News Service has noted a few other Catholic organizations that made the Chronicle’s annual 400 list, including Father Flanagan Boys Home and Covenant House. This excludes Catholic universities, which mainly provide higher education; hospitals, which are categorized separately from social services; and groups that focus on overseas work.

Let’s assume that other Catholic groups that didn’t crack the top 400 list spent six times what Catholic Charities USA spent, a multiplier that experts we contacted thought was reasonable. That would make the figure about $26 billion.

Then if you suppose that the 18,000 Catholic parishes spent an average of $200,000 on the needy every year beyond what they contribute to any of these charitable organizations, a number also considered plausible by our experts, that would add another $3.6 billion to the total.

All told, this would equal about $30 billion.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/19/frank-keating/does-catholic-church-provide-half-social-services-/

 

And that's just in the USA.  There are 3rd world countries who's economies could collapse if it wasn't for the safety nets the Catholic Church provides in those countries.  Think about that for a minute.  So your theory that the Catholic Church's charities are nothing but a mirage is absolute rubbish and nothing more than a dreamed up, conspiracy theorist fantasy.  

Edited July 2, 2019 by Kasanova King

[Ace Nova]

34 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Interesting that you're baselessly dismissing the one documentary I've posted, 'Conspiracy of Silence', which happens to be about child abuse(I guess some Catholics love glazing over that kind of stuff huh?) in a petty attempt to lash out and attack me personally. Far, far worse than attempting to insult me and character assassinate me by labelling me a conspiracy theorist; you are making a mockery of those real victims and you haven't even watched the fucking documentary. What an ignorant fool you are choosing to be.

P.S. I have never said Catholic charities are a mirage. I said they are used as a deflective shield to justify a rotten organisation. And that the organisation takes far more than it gives. I have repeatedly said the majority of Catholics are decent normal people so stop trying to put words in my mouth while you desperately try to cobble together a feeble rationalisation. 

 

I didn't call you a conspiracy theorist.  I said that your theory was based on a conspiracy theory.  And I've repeatedly addressed the child abuse scandals.  In this thread and with you as well.  It's impossible for a Catholic not to address it, actually.  It's in our faces everyday....it's not something that just goes away.  Smh.

As far as the charities go, they are the biggest on Earth and help hundreds of millions of people every year on a Global Level.  As for what they take vs what they give, do you have any sort of documentation saying they take in more than they give?   Last I checked, Old Mother Jude wasn't exactly rolling in the doe.  (Many lay people in the Church take vows of poverty).

 

Edit: I looked it up.  92% of the donations Churches receive go back to the Parish...which is basically a charity on its own.  Most parishes have schools and most donate upwards of $200,000 per year on average on social services within the community.  

The other 8% goes to the arch diocese.  And most of that ends up going to charitable causes as well.

So yes, the vast majority of money the Church takes in goes to charitable causes.

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

8 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

To me, saying that an intelligent code like RNA formed spontaneously isn't a rational explanation.  

Intelligent code?  

Your underlying mental error seems to be that you can't grasp that complex molecules can form without an intelligent creator. But complex molecules form all the time, spontaneously. Just look at the heaps of minerals around you. And they combine to form huge things like rocks, and boulders, and mountains, and the very crust of earth we stand on. Take water and add sugar to the point of oversaturation, let it stand, voila! sugar crystals spontaneously form! Hallelujah! It is a miracle!! Quartz crystals growing slowly into fantastic lattice shapes. Spontaneously.

And, mix certain organic molecules together and they, too, will form more complex molecules. Some of which likely had autocatalytic properties. 

There is simply no reason to bring a god into this. 

You mentioned proteins. Yay! That's my field of expertise! But of course no one here has said that long proteins (> 500 aas) have spontaneously been formed. What is more likely that in a concentrated solution of amino acids some smaller peptides will spontaneously form. That sounds plausible to me. I actually think that experiment has been done and published. Just like the formation of smaller RNA molecules.

That being said, much larger molecules than proteins are spontaneously being formed every day. Like crystals as mentioned above. Now bring out your calculator and start looking at the probabilities of that happening  Are you going to argue that a god is pushing all these molecules together every time it happens? That a rock is not possible without an intelligent creator?

8 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

The whole concept of God is not that he is just a sentient being, but that he's all powerful, omnipotent order of the universe that humans can't fully understand. You're not going to convince anyone here not to believe in God by explaining material science just as no one is going to convince you to believe in God using God of the Gaps arguments.

I am not trying convince anyone here that there is no god, I am arguing that abiogenesis is scientifically sound.

[SoulMonster]

5 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Theoretical Physicist, Dr, James Gates has found computer code embedded into the fabric of the Universe.  Yes, the same type of computer code that is used in search engines, etc.  How's that for evidence of intelligent design

Is anyone arguing that computer codes isn't the result of intelligent design? Except Skype. 

[Ace Nova]

8 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Is anyone arguing that computer codes isn't the result of intelligent design? Except Skype. 

Exactly.  And it’s been found embedded into the fabric of our Universe.  There you go.

Glad you just realized the Universe is a result of intelligent design. 

 

[action]

8 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Exactly.  And it’s been found embedded into the fabric of our Universe.  There you go.

Glad you just realized the Universe is a result of intelligent design. 

 

I have showed soul videos on computer code in the universe a couple of times already, but either he didn't watch them or failed to understand the shocking implications.

So I wouldn't waste your time.

You and me, and many others have taken knowledge of this, and the implications are vast to say the least.

Computer code built in the fundaments of reality.  No god of the gaps bullshit, just hard scientific evidence, that can not be explained unless with a programmer of some sorts

also, the chances of computer code like this, coming into existence "spontaneous", are as good as say the next grand theft auto suddenly popping up on mars

[Ace Nova]

8 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Intelligent code?  

Your underlying mental error seems to be that you can't grasp that complex molecules can form without an intelligent creator. But complex molecules form all the time, spontaneously. Just look at the heaps of minerals around you. And they combine to form huge things like rocks, and boulders, and mountains, and the very crust of earth we stand on. Take water and add sugar to the point of oversaturation, let it stand, voila! sugar crystals spontaneously form! Hallelujah! It is a miracle!! Quartz crystals growing slowly into fantastic lattice shapes. Spontaneously.

And, mix certain organic molecules together and they, too, will form more complex molecules. Some of which likely had autocatalytic properties. 

There is simply no reason to bring a god into this. 

You mentioned proteins. Yay! That's my field of expertise! But of course no one here has said that long proteins (> 500 aas) have spontaneously been formed. What is more likely that in a concentrated solution of amino acids some smaller peptides will spontaneously form. That sounds plausible to me. I actually think that experiment has been done and published. Just like the formation of smaller RNA molecules.

That being said, much larger molecules than proteins are spontaneously being formed every day. Like crystals as mentioned above. Now bring out your calculator and start looking at the probabilities of that happening  Are you going to argue that a god is pushing all these molecules together every time it happens? That a rock is not possible without an intelligent creator?

I am not trying convince anyone here that there is no god, I am arguing that abiogenesis is scientifically sound.

So you disagree with James Tour when he says that chemists really don’t have an explanation or  know how those early molecules came together to form life:  He says anyone who says it’s ‘been worked out’ is basically full of crap. 

[Dazey]

11 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

So you disagree with James Tour when he says that chemists really don’t have an explanation or  know how those early molecules came together to form life:  He says anyone who says it’s ‘been worked out’ is basically full of crap. 

Well anybody who is arguing for intelligent design is basically saying that they've got it all figured out.

[Ace Nova]

Just now, Dazey said:

Well anybody who is arguing for intelligent design is basically saying that they've got it all figured out.

Oh, we don’t have it figured out.  That’s where faith comes in. Being humble enough to say we ‘don’t know’ but ‘believe’.  

But like I stated at some point earlier, science and faith are closer now than they have ever been in my lifetime, anyway.  Progress in Quantum physics has opened up a new world of  possibilities/theories.

 

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

Post the video of this supposed computer code found in the fabric of the universe that proves the existence of God. Do. It. 

Religious folks knowing fuck-all and yet having the audacity of faith and being very much not humble; the idea that is somehow humble while, for example, Soulie taking the time to be very patient talking facts and sense is somehow arrogant and narrowminded is an absolutely laughable and disgraceful concept to a nightmarish extent. 

?  It was already posted.  It was a code made up of 0’s and 1’s.  Similar to codes used in our current internet search engines. 

 

[Ace Nova]

9 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Post the video of this supposed computer code found in the fabric of the universe that proves the existence of God. Do. It. 

Religious folks knowing fuck-all and yet having the audacity of faith and being very much not humble; the idea that is somehow humble while, for example, Soulie taking the time to be very patient talking facts and sense is somehow arrogant and narrowminded is an absolutely laughable and disgraceful concept to a nightmarish extent. 

As far as Soulie goes, I went into depth to show him that his spontaneous assembly theory was mathematically impossible.  I also posted a quote from one of the top chemists in the world stating that they ‘really don’t know’.

 Did you miss that entire post? 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Kasanova King

[Dazey]

21 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Oh, we don’t have it figured out.  That’s where faith comes in. Being humble enough to say we ‘don’t know’ but ‘believe’.  

Science is happy to just say "we don't know" without having to believe.