8
   

Is Atheism the New Age Religion?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 03:41 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Bullshit. GCAT can link to themselves and G to C (only) and A to T (only)
We've been here before. The G to C and A to T refers to the complementary pairing to form DNA from RNA.

Strip the complementary pairs apart (unzip as you say) and you are still left with the full encoding of the RNA. The encoded information there cannot be explained by any naturally occuring preference in bonding.

Your snow job only works on those who don't have the necessary understanding of biochemistry. The hell of it is, I think you DO have the understanding and willfully deny the obvious implications.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 05:02 pm
@Leadfoot,
NO YOU ARE NOT "left with the fullencoding of the (sic) RNA" whatever the hell you were trying to get at). I do understand the biochem at a workers level, apparently you have less of a series of clues. Look up RNA/DNA reptation(think polymer lngths)

You are chipping away at the knowledge base though. Just two months ago I dont think you even knew the names of the polymers involved
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 05:04 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
We've been here before. The G to C and A to T refers to the complementary pairing to form DNA from RNA


If you dont know of what the hell youre speaking, alays make it sound like youve dismissed the point before. A good TRUMPISM.

Actually ALL reactions of DNA tranfer involve the same limitations of the nitro bases.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 05:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It's a complex world where people are free to choose what they wish to believe.


Yabut we still don't need to waste class time teaching that unicorns fart rainbows.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 05:25 pm
@roger,
Yea, but, that's creative thinking!
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 06:13 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
Quote:
1) I would argue there is no such thing as free will;
I guess you had no choice about that either...
Alas, overly simplistic argumentation via semantics will not change the fact that the appearance of choice, is nothing more than the appearance of choice; such overly simplistic argumentation via semantics is in fact far removed from free will's confirmation.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 06:17 pm
@Chumly,
The fact that the denier is posting on a2k must be a fluke. LOL
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 06:21 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's a complex world where people are free to choose what they wish to believe.
Yabut we still don't need to waste class time teaching that unicorns fart rainbows.
I was thinking the exact same thing at the exact same time but you thought of it first. Which makes about as much sense as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

This leaves open the question of whether my dog smells enough to warrant a bath this evening, or whether such a question would be best left to those of faith.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 06:23 pm
@Chumly,
The question is, do you have a dog or someone with faith close by?
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 06:28 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
The fact that the denier is posting on a2k must be a fluke. LOL
If you wish to demonstrate free will I invite you to do so, if you do not wish to demonstrate free will I invite you to do so, if you do not wish to do either I invite you to do so.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 06:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
The question is, do you have a dog or someone with faith close by?
I have a faithful dog named Faith who fatefully needs a bath badly.

Her real name's Muffy, but I could not work with that.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 06:38 pm
@Chumly,
Nick names always works.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 07:39 pm
@Chumly,
Quote:
such overly simplistic argumentation via semantics is in fact far removed from free will's confirmation.
I'll have to take your word for it, since I have no choice...

God I love tell'n the same joke twice.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 08:56 pm
@Leadfoot,
Your behavior is unsurprisingly deterministic, witness your penchant for uninformed clich├ęs. I have to take the dog for a walk now and maybe give her a bath. For a small dog she gets pretty smelly.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 11:24 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
They're not just questioning evolution. They're opposed to it on religious grounds. Their entire take on it isn't scientific.
I think you are generalizing here. I remember the questions I had In school about the difficulty in explaining abiogenesis. I didn't mention God, wasn't even thinking about that. This was long before I was aware of the debate about teaching 'creationism' in school. I was genuinly curious about the question but the teacher just gave me a disparaging look and ignored the question.


I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the Institute for Creation Research.

Quote:
Asking about the odds of a certain chain of polypeptides organizing by chance is not being unscientific. To the contrary, it is the natural question to ask if you are scientific.


You're confusing long odds with impossibility. As long as there is a chance within given odds, it's possible. What are the odds against an intelligent designer/creator?
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 02:08 am
@fresco,
Expert2 wrote:
Is Atheism the New Age Religion?

To me, that sounds a bit like asking if non-stamp-collecting is the New-Age hobby. I can think of many potential New-Age religions, Gaia worship being first and foremost among them. Gaia worship is what I call a belief-system often held by emotionally-driven American lefties, combining organic-food fundamentalism, zealous hostility to genetic engineering and nuclear energy, belief in homeopathic medicine, an apocalyptic view of global warming, and many more. It tends to live in symbiosis with other unfounded beliefs such as astrology and the conviction that any food containing gluten is unkosher.

While god plays no role in this belief system, atheism isn't the driver of its beliefs. It's simply that belief of god has given way to other silly beliefs. I think that's fairly typical for religion-like belief systems within the New-Age subcultures. Atheism is not the New-Age belief system; New-Age beliefs, to their adherents, just happen to function an alternative to a belief in gods.
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 02:20 am
Thomas wrote:
Fresco wrote:
Is Atheism the New Age Religion?

Fresco wrote that?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 02:23 am
@timur,
timur wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Fresco wrote:
Is Atheism the New Age Religion?

Fresco wrote that?

No he didn't, Expert did. Thanks for the correction I changed the attribution in my post.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 07:33 am
@InfraBlue,
Sorry for not catching that you were refering to the ICR, I'm not familiar with them.

Quote:
You're confusing long odds with impossibility. As long as there is a chance within given odds, it's possible. What are the odds against an intelligent designer/creator?
Yes, there is a chance that abiogenesis is possible. But in every attempt to actually quantify that chance, the number turns out to be something less than 1 chance in 10^500. When you consider that there are something like 10^50 atoms in the earth, it's a really long shot.

But if and when the designer/creator shows up, it would come as no surprise because the evidence for design is virtually everywhere, after the fact.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 08:30 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Sorry for not catching that you were refering to the ICR, I'm not familiar with them.

InfraBlue wrote:
You're confusing long odds with impossibility. As long as there is a chance within given odds, it's possible. What are the odds against an intelligent designer/creator?
Yes, there is a chance that abiogenesis is possible. But in every attempt to actually quantify that chance, the number turns out to be something less than 1 chance in 10^500. When you consider that there are something like 10^50 atoms in the earth, it's a really long shot.


Even if the odds were infinity there would still be a chance.

Leadfoot wrote:
But if and when the designer/creator shows up, it would come as no surprise because the evidence for design is virtually everywhere, after the fact.


You've stated a presumption fallacy.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/11/2020 at 08:09:29