18
   

What is hope...is there a difference between hope and faith

 
 
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2020 12:50 am
@Jiggy,
Interesting Jiggy...not sure where your question is leading but don’t forget that ultimately one could say that there is an observer of the dark matter as well even if everything else has disappeared.The observer bit is important as it starts to bring in the “i am” principle.Space may not be what it first appears to be either.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2020 04:04 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Ledfoot wrote:
You have probably noticed that I have not mentioned DNA yet. It is the nature of what DNA is that makes accidental life virtually impossible.


IB replied:
Your argument of "accidental life" is a straw man argument seeing as no one you're arguing against here is arguing that life is accidental.

Your ID is just as virtually impossible, however much you'd prefer to place your bet on it.

I expected better from you Blue.

First you accuse me of cherry picking your post, then you address my argument's conclusion without addressing a single detail about how that conclusion was reached. In this last little bit of dodging you give the childish argument 'Your argument is just as stupid as mine.' (Yes, I paraphrased)

And if my word choice of 'accidental' bothers you, just substitute 'random mutation' which is the preferred ‘scientific' synonym for 'accidental'.
And I am anxious to hear more of this mysterious force that you think created biological life instead of natural causes or an intelligent actor which you alluded to but left out.

I explained my reasoning step by step. Have the decency to criticize it in the same way. If you can.

Here it is again for your convenience.:

The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of 'accidental life' (or 'natural causes' if you prefer) is to understand what a protein is and how it is made. Search 'life of the cell' on YouTube for visual references to proteins. Without at least some grasp of proteins, a simple explanation is impossible. A protein in biology has little to do with the dietary term 'protein' so don’t think 'the stuff in meat'.

There are thousands of different types of proteins for doing different jobs in a cell. Anything that happens or gets done inside a cell is done either directly or indirectly by a protein. It is the most basic functional unit in a cell.

A protein is a molecular machine. I use the term 'machine' because of its interrelated combination of chemical, electrical and mechanical characteristics and the fact that it is very specific and functional.

A protein is made of amino acids. Amino acids are called the 'building blocks of life' for this reason. Making these 'building blocks' in the lab is as close to creating life as we have come, even though amino acids can potentially form naturally. This is why one theory of life emerging is called 'protein world' since it seems logical that the 'simpler' protein came before the far more complex cell.

There are hundreds of different amino acids and each one comes in right and left handed versions (mirror images). Proteins are made of only 20 of them and all are left handed. This creates a problem for 'naturally occurring' proteins because if you mix in any of the other amino acids, or even a single right handed one of the 20, the protein is broken and will not function. And there is no mechanism in nature to prevent such contamination. But we are not yet to the real reason why biological life had to be designed.

Each protein is a very specifically ordered chain of amino acids between about 150 and 3500 long, depending on the protein. They do not function in this string form. In order to be functional, they must be 'folded' into a complex physical three dimensional shape, which is another barrier to 'natural' life forming. But we are still not at the crux of the problem.

Let’s say that in spite of the odds, the right order of only the correct amino acids does link up by chance. Let us further say that they accidentally fold into the correct functional configuration. If you are into math, the chances of that happening have been calculated at 1 in 10^77. For perspective, there are about 10^50 atoms in the entire planet of earth. But still, we are not at the bottom of the problem.

Remember that we are only talking about a protein so far. it takes hundreds to thousands of different proteins working in a coordinated fashion to make a single cell function. But for now let's ignore the mathematical improbability of that first protein and the hundreds of others needed.

You have probably noticed that I have not mentioned DNA yet. It is the nature of what DNA is that makes accidental life virtually impossible. Bill Gates compared DNA to a computer operating system, only DNA is far more complicated. It is the most complicated thing we know of and we have only begun to understand just how complex it is.

But it is NOT the complexity itself that explains why it had to be designed. It is the multiple hierarchical levels of symbolic representation in DNA that demands a design. DNA has a LANGUAGE with syntax, words, punctuation, definitions, etc.

Here is the breaking point. It is possible for a human mind to imagine something as complex as a protein forming as a result of naturally occurring chemical processes even if the odds are vanishingly small. Then multiply that by the thousands of protein types needed. Still you could say, well given enough time, multiple universes, etc. it could happen. It sounds desperate to me but You can’t say the odds are zero. I should add that even the 'evolution explains everything' crowd can’t defend this 'Protein World' scenario, so they usually default to something like 'RNA world' as a precursor to first living cell. RNA is basically half of a DNA strand.

But to accept that this happened by random chance you would have to believe the following:

By random linking up of nucleotides (the four molecules that are in DNA), a machine language containing the words, letters, syntax and punctuation necessary for defining all the needed proteins for 'life' came about. Notice that I said 'defining' the proteins, not the proteins themselves or even the amino acids needed to make a protein.

To over simplify, DNA is a ‘recipe', an ordered list of instructions and ingredients on how to build thousands of different proteins. DNA itself cannot do anything with these instructions. In order to be built, the DNA instructions have to be transferred to a Ribosome, which in turn is a very complex protein itself (hopefully you see the chicken and egg problem here).

The Ribosome reads the symbolic list of the recipe and begins gathering the required amino acids called for in the list. It assembles the amino acids into a string in the order specified in the DNA strand sent to it. (in the form of what’s called ‘messenger RNA')

After the amino acids are strung together, Some simpler proteins will spontaneously fold into their final three dimensional shape but most require yet other proteins to actively form them in the correct way. If they are not folded correctly they will not function and are often toxic.

Hopefully you followed that but to summarize, complex combinations of amino acids are possible given enough time and material. The odds are not what I would call possible but you can’t say that a protein by accident is impossible, in spite of its complexity.

What cannot be reasonably believed is that 'nature' took that first accidental protein and then invented a symbolic language (encoded in DNA) that was able to be read and executed by yet another different protein in order to make more proteins.

A protein by accident - maybe.

A symbolic language describing all the needed proteins for life and simultaneously a molecular machine that understands that language and able to build according to the instructions by accident? - Nope.

It is the symbolic nature of DNA's language that required 'design'.
Jiggy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2020 06:16 am
@Leadfoot,
Nice Leadfoot. I think you just raised the bar too high for InfraBlue. I don't think they are on that level to go toe-to-toe with you on this.
Why? They told me an apple is an objective thing. So...
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2020 07:01 am
@Jiggy,
Jiggy wrote:

Hmmm. Let's look at that again...
Jiggy wrote:
Considering though, that there are some things science cannot explore, due to its limitations, should we restrict our knowledge by rejecting evidence?
Say for example, some phenomenon occurred that cannot be explained by any natural means - a miracle, if you will. Science does not have the answer, but religion does. Should we decide to deny that evidence, because scientists cannot interpret it to fit their naturalistic worldview?


Frank wrote:
So you are suggesting that when we come upon matters that "science" cannot explain....it makes more sense to call them acts of a GOD...

...than to simply say, "We do not know the answer to that question yet...and may never know?"


Wow. Those quotes look so completely opposite... like sunrise and sunset; North pole and South pole.
No wonder it makes no sense Frank. You created it, and I don't know why.
I know that it is a usual strawman Atheists create, which they term "god-of-the-gaps".

I said... "religion has the answer". Not, "religion creates an answer, or finds an answer". Has - past tense.

Age of science : The earliest roots of science can be traced to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3500 to 3000 BCE.
The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation and it was not until the 19th century that many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape; along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science."

Age of religion : Religion has been a factor of the human experience throughout history, from pre-historic to modern times. The bulk of the human religious experience pre-dates written history. Written history (the age of formal writing) is only c. 5000 years old.

So look again at what I said.
There is nothing such as, Since science does not have the answer for U(nknown), then G(od).
Rather, it has always been the answer for U, is G. When science comes upon U, and fail to explain it with N(aturalism), R(eligion) does not have that problem, because they understand G.

In other words, there is no God-of-the-gaps
There is rather naturalism... particularly during the so-called "age of Enlightenment", during the late 18th century, which declares... "God tells us nothing. Nature alone does."

Sadly, because of their commitment to "not let a divine foot in the door", they deny the evidence that G has the answers.
https://www.azquotes.com/public/picture_quotes/89/56/895685718fdc027a8b6184849b7e0d82/richard-lewontin-733892.jpg

For example ...
The Bible - ancient writings - contains statements of scientific truth, only recently discovered, by modern science.
1) When there were various inaccurate ideas about the earth, the Bible got it right - Job 26:7.
2) Recent discoveries in hygiene and medicine were already written in the ancient texts. Deuteronomy 23:13; Numbers 19:11, 19; Leviticus 12:3
I've read about what others say about circumcision, but haven't actually thoroughly researched it.
How circumcision shows God exists

There is a lot more the Bible says, which science did not know, until modern times - no earlier than the 17th century. Then there is a lot more the Bible says, which science will never know.
So, while it is expected that skeptics will be saying "We do not know...", perhaps taking that to the grave, I'm saying, why would religious people need to suppress their knowledge, just because of a naturalistic worldview.
They are not limited to that view. They go where the evidence leads them... regardless of the skeptics objections.

An Atheist, for about 50 years said this, after considering that the evidence before him strongly supports the existence of God.
“My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
Quote:
For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death, the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God. In 2003 he was one of the signatories of the Humanist Manifesto III.

However, in 2004 he changed his position, and stated that he now believed in the existence of an Intelligent Creator of the universe, shocking colleagues and fellow atheists. In order to further clarify his personal concept of God, Flew openly made an allegiance to Deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God, and dismissed on many occasions a hypothetical conversion to Christianity, Islam or any other religion. He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a God.



You are totally bat-**** crazy, Jiggy.

In any case, my quote of you (which you called "so completely opposite... like sunrise and sunset; North pole and South pole"...

...was a cut and paste. It was word for word what you wrote.

Wake up...then come back. I might try one more time to reach you, although I doubt that can happen.

By the way...I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...so you should not use that descriptor as you did in your first comments.

izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2020 07:30 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I might try one more time to reach you,


Sounds like the triumph of hope over experience.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2020 05:07 pm
@Jiggy,
Apparently, dark matter is physical, it's existence is implied by some of the characteristics of observed physical phenomena, but so far it isn't observable per se.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2020 05:37 pm
@Leadfoot,
The argument about proteins that you hang your incredulity on isn't different from the eyeball argument of incredulity. I'm sure you're familiar with it, so there's no need for a cut and paste job of it as well.

In the end, your point is about mathematical improbability. You place your bet on ID, which is just as statistically improbable as evolution. Understood.

"Accidental" is not a substitute for "random mutation," however much you've convinced yourself otherwise. Your argument is already flawed from the get go, therefrom.

Leadfoot wrote:
It is the symbolic nature of DNA's language that required 'design'.

It's merely an assumption of yours that the symbolic nature of DNA's language required design. People see significance in the symbolic nature of numerology as well. "There's something behind it, by god!"
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2020 05:45 pm
@Jiggy,
Jiggy wrote:

Nice Leadfoot. I think you just raised the bar too high for InfraBlue. I don't think they are on that level to go toe-to-toe with you on this.
Why? They told me an apple is an objective thing. So...

You don't understand a basic, dictionary definition?

It's completely over your head.
Jiggy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2020 08:54 pm
@InfraBlue,
Dark matter is a hypothetical.
In other words, it exists in the mind.
It has never been observed. Rather a phenomenon has been observed. What that phenomenon is scientists do not know.
The true nature of dark matter is still unknown.

How does one measure it? You did not answer.
However, you just expressed a willingness to consider an un-observable "thing", existing only in the mind, as physical - objective, according to you.
Why is that?

I don't want to assume a bias against religion, and for any science belief, so perhaps you can explain it to me.
Along with that, since we are here....

Dark Matter
In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter of unknown composition that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.

In religious knowledge, God is an invisible all powerful being, of great energy - a form of energy of unknown composition, which is unlimited - beyond the observable universe, and cannot be directly observed, but whose presence is perceived from the creation, as well as the effects on those who are led by spirit... or spiritual persons.

Can you explain what would make Dark Matter physical, and God not physical?
Since in scientific terminology supernatural is simply what is not understood, would God not be considered natural, if scientists understood God's nature?
No one can prove that God exists in the mind, anymore than they can prove that what a person experiences is in the mind.
Certainly, the phenomenon is real. Though the cause may be un-observed, or even unknown.
Jiggy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2020 09:03 pm
@InfraBlue,
I understand it.
Question is ... do you.

Objective
Quote:
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"

2.
GRAMMAR
relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.

noun
1.
a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.
"the system has achieved its objective"


Which one are you using... the adjective or the noun?
I thought we were discussing the adjective. However, please, correct me where I am wrong.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2020 06:09 am
@Jiggy,
Quote:
Nice Leadfoot. I think you just raised the bar too high for InfraBlue.
Thank you Jiggy.

What amazes me the most is that so many like IB think what I said challenges Science, yet they cannot cite one biological fact that is not accepted by all contemporary biologists. Nor can they offer any cohesive theory of how those facts could occur by random chemical reactions in any timeframe we know of.

I was disappointed that IB did not follow up with his theory of what force DID make them happen, since he claims that accident/chance/random event etc, was NOT the explanation for why life happened, even though 'Science’ does.

And his childish comparison of DNA's symbolic language to Numerology was really a shot in the dark. He misses the important detail that one works repeatedly and reliably and the other does not.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2020 06:29 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
"Accidental" is not a substitute for "random mutation,"


Cambridge dictionary defines 'accidental' as:
“happening or existing by chance".

In the context of biology ‘accidental' and 'random' are synonyms. But I do appreciate that 'random mutation' sounds more 'scientific'.

So what is your mysterious force behind 'random mutation’ that is responsible for life if not for those accidental events?
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2020 06:45 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
So what is your mysterious force behind 'random mutation’ that is responsible for life if not for those accidental events?

Chance

Quote:
As adjectives the difference between random and accidental is that random is having unpredictable outcomes and, in the ideal case, all outcomes equally probable; resulting from such selection; lacking statistical correlation while accidental is not essential; incidental, secondary.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2020 06:57 am
@hightor,
I smell a nit picker.
I think the terms are understood by most well enough to follow what I’m saying.
Otherwise, I must ask you for the different factors that make one event 'random' and the other 'chance'.

The point is there is no conscious actor involved. Agree or not?

I’ll wait for IB's try.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2020 07:12 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Otherwise, I must ask you for the different factors that make one event 'random' and the other 'chance'.

In this case, "random" is being used as an adjective and "chance" as a noun.

Quote:
Whether radiation causes mutations is a matter of chance:

when a lot of energy is released on a small distance (#alpha# particles), the density of damage is usually higher and more difficult to repair = high chance on mutations .
when radiation releases energy on a larger distance (#gamma# rays), there is less damage to one molecule, the cell is usually able to repair it correctly = lower chance on mutations

socratic

Quote:
The point is there is no conscious actor involved.

No need to posit a conscious actor, correct. Radioactive decay and cosmic radiation are all that's needed.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2020 02:35 pm
@Jiggy,
Jiggy wrote:
Dark matter is a hypothetical.
In other words, it exists in the mind.
It has never been observed. Rather a phenomenon has been observed. What that phenomenon is scientists do not know.
The true nature of dark matter is still unknown.

How does one measure it? You did not answer.
However, you just expressed a willingness to consider an un-observable "thing", existing only in the mind, as physical - objective, according to you.
Why is that?

Dark matter is speculated physical stuff. In regard to mesurments, at best, it's presence is inferred by the actions of other physical things. Black holes were once only predicted mathematically until evidence for them began to appear. It's possible that there may be some other explanation for the observed phenomena.

These are different things compared to the stuff of religion, which by definition are non-physical, observable
things.

Jiggy wrote:

In religious knowledge, God is an invisible all powerful being, of great energy - a form of energy of unknown composition, which is unlimited - beyond the observable universe, and cannot be directly observed, but whose presence is perceived from the creation, as well as the effects on those who are led by spirit... or spiritual persons.

Can you explain what would make Dark Matter physical, and God not physical?

Scientifically, dark matter is thought to exist physically. It's existence is inferred from evidence of other physical things.

I don't know of any scientific evidence of God's physicality, inferred or otherwise.
Jiggy wrote:
Since in scientific terminology supernatural is simply what is not understood, would God not be considered natural, if scientists understood God's nature?

If God were withing the scope of science, there would be no argument.

Jiggy wrote:

Certainly, the phenomenon is real. Though the cause may be un-observed, or even unknown.

If you mean that God is a real phenomenon, then in regard to science, there is no evidence to support that assertion.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2020 02:51 pm
@Jiggy,
Jiggy wrote:

I understand it.
Question is ... do you.

Objective
Quote:
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"

2.
GRAMMAR
relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.

noun
1.
a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.
"the system has achieved its objective"


Which one are you using... the adjective or the noun?
I thought we were discussing the adjective. However, please, correct me where I am wrong.

I certainly do.
Here, I already defined the word that I am using.

You can verify the reference here.

Jiggy wrote:

Which one are you using... the adjective or the noun?
I thought we were discussing the adjective. However, please, correct me where I am wrong.

I'm using one of the definitions of the adjective.
You are wrong about the particular adjective that I am using.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2020 02:59 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
"Accidental" is not a substitute for "random mutation,"


Cambridge dictionary defines 'accidental' as:
“happening or existing by chance".

In the context of biology ‘accidental' and 'random' are synonyms.

No they're not.
Within life the mutations are random, some being effected by environmental stimuli.

Leadfoot wrote:
So what is your mysterious force behind 'random mutation’ that is responsible for life if not for those accidental events?

Life itself is a force. It is as "accidental" as the other forces of nature. I speculate that it's been in existence around the same time as the others.
Jiggy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2020 07:14 pm
@Leadfoot,
They stick to science beliefs, and anything else is moot. So expect nothing other than, "That is not the current science belief'. Though they are not going to admit they are beliefs.
Jiggy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2020 07:23 pm
@InfraBlue,
Speculation. Hypothetical, Idea.... They are all in the mind. Nothing physical about them.
So we are square. Asking me for evidence for God is meaningless, if you only want what "science" considers evidence.

So you have your science beliefs. I have my religious beliefs. We both have beliefs.
I don't expect you will agree, and I am not into back and forth arguments of "Yes" "No" "Yes" "No" So we have reached the end of the road.
Thanks for the chat. Maybe we'll meet again. Smile
 

Related Topics

Biggest inspiration in your life of faith - Discussion by RicDeVela
Emmanuels Light A Poem of Death and God - Discussion by Alan McDougall
Help! Should I give up hope?!? - Question by Jessicalawely123
Can someone offer some clarity please? - Question by rebellefleur
Are you religious? - Question by lizaveta
Help me out please :/ - Question by Jeffrey1111
The Death and Life of Chicago - Discussion by Miller
Itinerary, Obama the next term - Discussion by RexRed
State Of Black Males in Chicago - Discussion by Miller
Is hope a bad thing? - Question by Procrustes
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 07:09:25