Your views on Christianity?

[pencilart3]

So with testaments, old and new, what we are essentially agreeing here is this is NOT a book set in stone. It was created on the views and opinions of other people.

The Old testament prophesies (it's amazing) about what will happen, and then the new testament fulfills every one of them. They work together perfectly.

What's ridiculous above everything is that if another "testament" came out with new laws and new rules, you'd believe it in a heartbeat, no question?

No, because neither testament says that a new one will come.

Scenario - if we still referred to the old testament, would you then agree that homosexuals should be put to death?

What do you mean by "Referred to"?

[timothy42b]

me thinks you meant hydrogen (*sorry my inner science nerd was evoked)
 

Uh, is that by mass, or numbers of molecules?

[pencilart3]

The Bible is also pretty fuzzy about why Jesus died, but that is probably above your head theologically.

Jesus died to retain God's justice, and yet show his love at the same time. You can do either one, but not both, without Jesus' death.

1) God could simply be just, and just kill us all for the sin that we deserve. That would be simple, but it would kind of be a fix for all of us, and it would mean that God didn't love us. So that doesn't work.

2) God could just save us all and, as Outi said, our sin wouldn't matter, but then he would not be just. He would let criminals get away with their sin. That would contradict his just nature.

So, to fulfill both, Jesus died FOR us, so that the price was paid, meaning that justice was upheld, and yet he still loves us, because he does not punish us for our sin.

Compare it to a court room... somebody stole a wallet, he's caught, so he has to pay $1,000. The judge steps down, takes out his wallet, and hands over the $1,000. He paid the fine, because the criminal was his son. He couldn't just say, "Son, I love you, so I'm going to let you get away with this crime", and yet because of his love, he didn't want his son to pay the price (suppose the son was broke). So, he upheld the law, but he showed his love for his son at the same time.

I may only be 16, but please don't say that things are "Over my head theologically", unless you know that for a fact.

[adodd81802]

me thinks you meant hydrogen (*sorry my inner science nerd was evoked)
 

Lol.

"Everything on earth is made up of combinations of different elements - all of which can be found on the periodic table. Considering that the periodic table contains 118 elements it seems a pity that organic life tends to feature only five or six of those elements in any vast quantities. The main one being carbon."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/shine-on-you-crazy-diamond-why-humans-are-carbon-based-lifeforms/

[adodd81802]

The Old testament prophesies (it's amazing) about what will happen, and then the new testament fulfills every one of them. They work together perfectly.

No, because neither testament says that a new one will come.

What do you mean by "Referred to"?

I think we will never agree and this conversation has no general goal. We are equally satisfied with our own opinions, you base yours off some books, I base mine off some books.

How the opinions are formed are very different but they're at so opposite ends of the scale there will be nothing we agree on.

The difference between us and what i'll never understand.

Is if "jesus" "god" "heaven" or any substantial evidence from the bible could be proved, i'd come on here and apologize to you with no reservation whatsoever.

However if I could come to you with definitive proof the reason we are here, that the bible was actually made up. You still wouldn't believe it. You cannot reason with that logic.

[timothy42b]

So, to fulfill both, Jesus died FOR us, so that the price was paid, meaning that justice was upheld, and yet he still loves us, because he does not punish us for our sin.

I may only be 16, but please don't say that things are "Over my head theologically", unless you know that for a fact.

Okay, I apologize.

I did not know that for a fact, and I treated a guess as more reliable than it was.

But let me explain it a bit further, if you don't mind.

The gospels do not really agree on why Jesus had to die.  And I'm just talking about the 4 canonical gospels, now called Matthew Mark Luke and John.  There are actually 16 more that we still have, but did not make the list at the council in 397.  

In modern Christian theology, there are four competing explanations for the crucifixion.

One of them, only one of them, is substitutional atonement, the idea that he died in our place, to pay our price.

I was pretty sure you were familiar with this concept and unlikely to be aware of the others.  

However that explanation is also the most problematic, and though mainstream churches don't make a point of it, their theologians favor some of the other explanations.  

That's what I meant by over your head, but I could have phrased it more tactfully.  

Now, why am I conversing with you at all?

Because I'd rather not see you abandon your faith.  As you get older you will run into contradictions and problems with what you've been told.  Those of us raised in moderate and mainstream churches are able to tolerate a little inaccuracy.  Experience shows those raised in conservative (and especially independent Bible churches, another wild guess) denominations leave in early adulthood never to return.  

[pencilart3]

Thanks for being very polite, Tim. Your arguments are much more persuasive when you present them that way, then when they are simply thalfoolery, as I mentioned earlier.

@adodd if you would like to leave the conversation, that's fine. But just remember that I have been on the defensive this entire time, and I think it's about my turn to go on the offensive! But you can leave, if you want, before the offensive argument I am about to make, just in case...

[adodd81802]

Thanks for being very polite, Tim. Your arguments are much more persuasive when you present them that way, then when they are simply thalfoolery, as I mentioned earlier.

@adodd if you would like to leave the conversation, that's fine. But just remember that I have been on the defensive this entire time, and I think it's about my turn to go on the offensive! But you can leave, if you want, before the offensive argument I am about to make, just in case...

I cannot get offended at your religion. And the fact of me having no religion means you cannot offend mine. You do not know me and cannot offend me.

I think i'm going to go back to the Piano part of this forum. It is unfortunate that you have gotten so defensive so quickly, It has maybe been unfair that you are the only person really arguing for Christianity in this thread.

We will never agree and I will continue to appreciate your piano playing because that's what I value, not what you believe in.

[visitor]

Uh, is that by mass, or numbers of molecules?

by mass would so from what we know I believe by total count of atoms as well. Molecules are groups of atoms bonded to each other.

[timothy42b]

by mass would so from what we know I believe by total count of atoms as well. Molecules are groups of atoms bonded to each other.

You're probably right, I was just thinking hydrogen has a tiny weight compared to, well, all other elements.

[visitor]

Lol.

"Everything on earth is made up of combinations of different elements - all of which can be found on the periodic table. Considering that the periodic table contains 118 elements it seems a pity that organic life tends to feature only five or six of those elements in any vast quantities. The main one being carbon."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/shine-on-you-crazy-diamond-why-humans-are-carbon-based-lifeforms/

organic matter  C is/tends to be one of the main building blocks but your comment earlier simply said 'everything'

also, even though carbon is pretty much a pre requisite (i say pretty much because it's theorized due to similar properties that Si (silicon ) based life forms might be able to exist somewhere in the universe ).

[pencilart3]

We will never agree and I will continue to appreciate your piano playing because that's what I value, not what you believe in.

Sounds good

[timothy42b]

Christianity is a very diverse religion and many adherents are unaware of what other Christians may believe.

Then there are the extremes on both ends.

I've met this lady:
https://dianabutlerbass.com/books/

and she's about as far to the progressive end as some of the hardcore are to the conservative end.

Definitely not good reading material for pencilart!  but maybe later.

[visitor]

You're probably right, I was just thinking hydrogen has a tiny weight compared to, well, all other elements.

it's an easy deduction to make but only works in certain instances.  if you have 50 1,000,000 lbs. rocks, but I have 1 trillion 1/2 lbs rocks, I have more total 'rock' by a factor of 10. note it's not a 'to scale' example, just simple illustration, we have estimated total hydrogen in the university by spectroscopy, but there's still a lot we don't know.

[thalbergmad]

 There are actually 16 more that we still have, but did not make the list at the council in 397.  

No doubt the retards down his local Godbotherers Society have banned him from reading those.

Thal

[timothy42b]

I'm glad you provided that graphic.

I knew most of our higher elements were made in stars, from the original H and He.  I didn't realize Li and Be were around that early though. 

[timothy42b]

No doubt the retards down his local Godbotherers Society have banned him from reading those.

Thal

Possible but unlikely.

I would think his church is simply unaware.  My church requires college plus seminary including Greek and Hebrew languages, but many churches only ask for a good speaker.

[pencilart3]

OK, well now that you have all attacked the Bible, I'm going to take a shot at your beliefs. Essentially, abiogenesis is at the heart of Atheism, correct? Let's take a look at that. In order for abiogenesis to work, proteins would have to be able to form from random chemical reactions. Without this happening, life could never appear because proteins are such a fundamental component of the chemical reactions that make life possible.

Let's take a look at the protein ribonuclease. It is a "simple" protein. Let's make it easy on ourselves and assume that the only amino acids in the mixture are the 17 types needed to make a ribonuclease protein. There are actually about 20, but to increase the chances, let's just say that the 17 needed are the 17 that there are, to make the outcome more likely. Making this assumption, we can say that the possibility of forming a protein that has "Lys" as its first amino acid (that is what it is in a ribonuclease) is, of course, 1 in 17. Those aren't bad odds. However, the chance of forming a protein with "Lys" as the first amino acid, and "Glu" as the second is 1 in 17 times 1 in 17, which is 1 in 289. Uh oh. Let's take a look at the next amino acid, "Thr". To get just the first three amino acids correct, times it by 1 in 17 again, and you get 1 in 4,913. If you were to complete this calculation, you would find that the odds for making this protein by chance FROM a mixture or proper amino acids is 1 in 10¹⁵². That's the same as a poker player drawing a royal flush 19 times in a row without exchanging cards. Yikes. Remember, this is Ribonuclease, a SIMPLE protein. Some proteins have 10,000 amino acids!

And that's assuming you have amino acids to start with! Where did they come from?!

[dogperson]

Thanks for being very polite, Tim. Your arguments are much more persuasive when you present them that way, then when they are simply thalfoolery, as I mentioned earlier.

@adodd if you would like to leave the conversation, that's fine. But just remember that I have been on the defensive this entire time, and I think it's about my turn to go on the offensive! But you can leave, if you want, before the offensive argument I am about to make, just in case...

PencilArt
As a Christian, I cannot agree with your positions, but that is not a conversation I will engage in on this forum... as this is a music forum. What I find ironic, is that you reopened this thread, and now feel like you were on the defensive?  

To all: IMHO, this divisive conversation has no place on a music forum-- inflammatory generalizations get made, and no one wins.  Ever.

Just one example, of many, why this forum no longer has much discussion of music topics which are educational or collaborative.  It is really a shame, as there are many talented people here.  I have not logged into this forum for awhile .... and now I will leave again to go think about music.

Go back and look at Josh's thread about the forum and ask yourselves  'Are things better or worse' than when that post was made?  I am not one of the old-timers nor one of the gifted, just a plugger who is passionate about really learning to play well, so I know these thoughts will have little consideration.  That is expected and ok-- I just wanted to make this statement before I leave.   

[outin]

Sorry Outi, I didn't see it. It got swamped in the "Thalfoolery".

1. You only need to believe in God to "get" to heaven. That depends on what you mean by "Believe".
2. It is definitely NOT OK if you have sinned. It grieves God, and if Jesus hadn't died for you, you would be sent straight to hell.

That was very nice of him, but it really wasn't necessary.

In my world it only matters what you do when you are alive and how you can cope with what you have done. No higher authority will reward or punish you for it. Your own mind may...

You do realize that you are trying to debate this with someone who has been on this earth for almost half a century, heard it all before countless of times (I had a very religious grandmother living with us), seen and done things that you would not want to know about and is still in piece with oneself and the eventual nothingness without any religion. And I am not at all scared of ending up in hell either, I'll deal with it if it ever happens.

Even though I have a crude sense of humour sometimes, I do not normally get insulting with religious people. In fact I get along pretty well with a few. But I cannot really respect their beliefs and I will tell them how i feel about it if I am asked. If I didn't I couldn't respect myself. So it's best to be avoided as a subject. I used to want to make people see the light as you do, but I have long lost hope of it happening by anything I say.

There are other things I will gladly discuss with you, such as the value of Chopin preludes

You can go practice the preludes if you wish.

Many thanks but now I think I will have to go to bed instead...good night

[timothy42b]

OK, well now that you have all attacked the Bible, I'm going to take a shot at your beliefs. Essentially, abiogenesis is at the heart of Atheism, correct?

Hmm.

What are you going to do with those of us Christians who accept evolution?  It looks like you're starting with an argument that only works on atheists.

You can deal with the atheists first but eventually you'll want to come back to this.

[pencilart3]

Go back and look at Josh's thread about the forum and ask yourselves  'Are things better or worse' than when that post was made?

Yup. But this is in the "Anything but piano" board, so that's ok. Let's keep the piano boards clean, which I am trying to do.

There are other things I will gladly discuss with you, such as the value of Chopin preludes

Amen! (sorry did I just offend you by saying that)

[pencilart3]

What are you going to do with those of us Christians who accept evolution?

I accept evolution. Oh sorry, you mean macroevolution? That thing that has never been seen, or any fossils have been found to prove it, despite the fact that they claim it has been around for millions of years?

[timothy42b]

I accept evolution. Oh sorry, you mean macroevolution?

No.  Macroevolution doesn't exist.  It is in fact a term invented by creationists to describe a process that can't happen.  Unfortunately even some biologists have used it thoughtlessly.

All evolution is a series of small steps.  Given sufficient time they add up to the tree of life. 

If there were a biological mechanism that somehow stopped the process short of a species change, genus change, family change, phylum change, kingdom change, or any other type of large change, creation "scientists" would be looking for it.  That would be the smoking gun.  None of them are. 

You haven't been around long enough, but for decades creationists denied the idea ANY type of evolution could occur.  Watson and Crick pretty well took care of that with their DNA findings back in the 60s. 

[dogperson]

Yup. But this is in the "Anything but piano" board, so that's ok. Let's keep the piano boards clean, which I am trying to do.

Amen! (sorry did I just offend you by saying that)

Is it really a winning position to reopen a divisive thread, regardless of the forum category, where no one will be the winner?  There have been 122 posts.  Just think of the difference it would make  if this were a discussion about the Chopin Preludes.  I think everyone would win.

But again, I don't really expect these thoughts to make a difference. Josh tried and was unsuccessful.

[pencilart3]

@Tim of course there are changes within the animal kinds. I mean my dog is an Australian Shepherd mix. But my dog is NOT a Kangarooian-Baboon-Fishman-GermanAntelope-Porcupine-WhaleShepherd. And one of those have never been found. Or their fossils.

Is it really a winning position to reopen a divisive thread, regardless of the forum category, where no one will be the winner?  There have been 122 posts.  Just think of the difference it would make  if this were a discussion about the Chopin Preludes.

I made a Chopin preludes topic and there have been 114 replies so far. They can "Coexist", to use the term that some here like very much, and everyone won on that topic. You can go bump it if you want.


And I'm still waiting for a reply about those proteins...

[timothy42b]

But my dog is NOT a Kangarooian-Baboon-Fishman-GermanAntelope-Porcupine-WhaleShepherd. And one of those have never been found. Or their fossils.

Okay, let me help you with the logic.

The theory of evolution predicts we should find a whaleshepherd.

We can't find a whaleshepherd.

Therefore the theory is falsified.

That's what you probably intended, just didn't make it explicit.

The problem with that might be with what ToE actually predicts!!!!!!!  I've yet to meet a creationist who understood, and you don't yet either, but maybe we'll help you along.

Now here's a problem you haven't anticipated, so I'll warn you before one of your antagonists brings it up.

Suppose you could find a fatal flaw somewhere in the body of science supporting evolution.  By the way, that is the only research "creation scientists" ever do, looking for flaws in established theories.  They don't do any building their own theories.  But suppose they could.

Would that prove that some type of Supernatural Deity exists?  and if it did, would it prove that it was your specific personal God? 

your protein problem can be restated as Argument from Incredulity.

[pencilart3]

OK, but why have we never found one or any fossils of a mid-transition creature? And why aren't mid-transition creatures roaming the earth as we speak? (or type) And why haven't we seen a creature make a major kind transition?


And this...

your protein problem can be restated as Argument from Incredulity.

...is a fine example of a genetic fallacy.

[swagmaster420x]

Pencilart is really effing bad at science, Im not saying evolution theory is legit, he just seems so effing bad at science, in fact all of you do xD

[swagmaster420x]

by mass would so from what we know I believe by total count of atoms as well. Molecules are groups of atoms bonded to each other.

If it was by total count of atoms, the pie chart would look way different
using your sh1tty *rocks* sh1t example (by the way, you got the math wrong holy f***. 1/2 lb* 1 trillion = 500,000,000,000 lbs. this is 10000 times greater than 1,000,000*50lbs = 50,000,000 lbs.  I know you meant billion though  cuz I'm *not bad at thinking* enough to account for others' mistakes  )

 
If by mass, the area of your section of the pie would be 10 times his section of the pie.
If by number of rocks, your section of the pie would be 1 billion : 50 which means your section of the pie would be 20 million times his section of the pie.

Thankfully i guess, the mass of hydrogen is only about 1/4 the mass of helium.

[pencilart3]

Pencilart is really effing bad at science, Im not saying evolution theory is legit, he just seems so effing bad at science, in fact all of you do xD

Thanks. Where was my scientific error again?

[swagmaster420x]

Let's take a look at the protein ribonuclease. It is a "simple" protein. Let's make it easy on ourselves and assume that the only amino acids in the mixture are the 17 types needed to make a ribonuclease protein. There are actually about 20, but to increase the chances, let's just say that the 17 needed are the 17 that there are, to make the outcome more likely. Making this assumption, we can say that the possibility of forming a protein that has "Lys" as its first amino acid (that is what it is in a ribonuclease) is, of course, 1 in 17. Those aren't bad odds. However, the chance of forming a protein with "Lys" as the first amino acid, and "Glu" as the second is 1 in 17 times 1 in 17, which is 1 in 289. Uh oh. Let's take a look at the next amino acid, "Thr". To get just the first three amino acids correct, times it by 1 in 17 again, and you get 1 in 4,913. If you were to complete this calculation, you would find that the odds for making this protein by chance FROM a mixture or proper amino acids is 1 in 10¹⁵². That's the same as a poker player drawing a royal flush 19 times in a row without exchanging cards. Yikes. Remember, this is Ribonuclease, a SIMPLE protein. Some proteins have 10,000 amino acids!

And that's assuming you have amino acids to start with! Where did they come from?!

I hate it when Christians talk about science/math. It's one of the cringiest things one can witness. the reason is that clearly their faith is from a spiritual/emotional/ideological place. So they shouldn't try to cross the borders into science/math. That's just completely unnatural and they have no business doing so. (Usually, Christians with the credentials to talk about science won't try to justify their faith with science... because they understand science well enough to know that THATS NOT THE REASON THEY'RE DEVOUT)

Onto the quote I linked. Ok. Ill comment on some things, though I'm not qualified. I would say you're definiteely less qualified though you're assuming there's only ONE CORRECT EXACT SEQUENCE of dna that NEEDS TO BE FORMED for it to be a life supporting structure. I don't have any knowledge on bio, but that just seems wrong, and reductive (of course you're just randomly quoting something you mindlessly read to blindly justify w.e w.e blah blah).

I also don't know how you got 10¹⁵². How many times did you multiply 1/17 by itself?
(1/17)^120 is about 1 over 10¹⁵². So you're saying, there NEEDS to be an exact sequence of the 120 amino whatevershits in the exact order for life to happen? I really don't think you have the credentials to say that.

The funny thing is, that's not even the biggest problem with what you say. You speak in terms of probability, but we live in a world of time. is it a probability of 1 in 10¹⁵² that so and so will occur within a day? Within a minute? Within a second? If these "reactions" you vaguely allude to happen close to infinitely quickly, then clearly we would expect a ton of them to have happened by now. There probably would be an insane amount of amino acids reacting at once. So if you multiply your probability by the number of reactions, perhaps it would get noticeably bigger =).

You also probably have no clue how to statistically model these reactions. Perhaps, due to inherent physical properties, it may be very likely like so and so sequence will occur??

Please stick to the argument that God made everything as it is so it would work out perfectly. Every time you try to poke your nose into science, you'll embarrass yourself.

[swagmaster420x]

No offense!!! love you!! 

[pencilart3]

I hate it when Christians talk about science/math.

Presumably because I am a stupid bigot with no brain? And why am I any less qualified than you?

You seriously didn't know that the amino acids have to be in the right order to make a protein?! I'm trying not to facepalm! Didn't you ever take a basic biology course? Oh wait,

I don't have any knowledge on bio,

Yes, you are certainly more qualified than me, aren't you.

To answer your question, there are 124 animo acids in a ribonuclease protein, which as I said is a very simple protein compared to some. And by the way, it is aimo acid, NOT an "amino whatever****". And if you would have taken a basic biology course, you would have learned that if any one of those amino acids are not in the correct order, or if one of them is the wrong kind, the protein would not be able to support life. And remember, these are just proteins. Even if you formed one, we have to think about forming DNA, Atoms, Cells, Molecules, Protozoa, and how such things form other things like plants, mushrooms, and fish.

And you say, "If you just give it enough time, it will happen". Well, according to your theory, when does time start? Does it start before or after the first protein somehow was created? Does it start just when the amino acids were brewing about? How did that form? And you still haven't told me how the amino acids got there in the first place.

Every time you try to poke your nose into science, you'll embarrass yourself.

Well, that wasn't the case on this little incident, was it?

[visitor]

If it was by total count of atoms, the pie chart would look way different
using your sh1tty *rocks* sh1t example (by the way, you got the math wrong holy f***. 1/2 lb* 1 trillion = 500,000,000,000 lbs. this is 10000 times greater than 1,000,000*50lbs = 50,000,000 lbs.  I know you meant billion though   cuz I'm *not bad at thinking* enough to account for others' mistakes   )

 
If by mass, the area of your section of the pie would be 10 times his section of the pie.
If by number of rocks, your section of the pie would be 1 billion : 50 which means your section of the pie would be 20 million times his section of the pie.

Thankfully i guess, the mass of hydrogen is only about 1/4 the mass of helium.

thanks for shoring it up. I was honestly preoccupied w someting else so i didnt map it out on paper and didnt give it much thought. I was good w inorganic chem but i hated it and its been ages. I spent most of my energy piano course work in under grad then later on my graduate level stuff with human biochemistry, molecular genetics, cellular physiology and special topics in molecular biology. Im good at that core stuff when i need to and focus on it but honestly i geek out more on reaction kinetics, and enzymes, mechanisms and impacts in the context of pathophysiology of cardiopulomonary systems. I dabble in nutritional biochem as well.  I have an interest in inorgo biochem, particularly in the chromium space but not a lot of formal work in that field.

Again i appreciate the correction and call. I was sloppy and should have known better.

Oh btw just a word of warning to those trying to cite examples , ie p3
You are young but there is a problem with forming a conclusion in your mind and heart then going into the literature to find examples to support it.  What you are doing is introducing a selection bias. And that is always bad science.  Look at what it did to the entire fatty acid and ldl particle size debate, it's been a disaster.

Btw also arguments fall apart when both sides are looking through different lenses.  One of my mentors early on showed me that you debate religion w religion, and science with science. Dont mix them. Especially when neither side has an equal buy in on the requisite background knowledge. Just sayin

[pencilart3]

Wait visitor, was there an error in my science?

[swagmaster420x]

Presumably because I am a stupid bigot with no brain? And why am I any less qualified than you?

You seriously didn't know that the amino acids have to be in the right order to make a protein?! I'm trying not to facepalm! Didn't you ever take a basic biology course? Oh wait,

Yes, you are certainly more qualified than me, aren't you.

To answer your question, there are 124 animo acids in a ribonuclease protein, which as I said is a very simple protein compared to some. And by the way, it is aimo acid, NOT an "amino whatever****". And if you would have taken a basic biology course, you would have learned that if any one of those amino acids are not in the correct order, or if one of them is the wrong kind, the protein would not be able to support life. And remember, these are just proteins. Even if you formed one, we have to think about forming DNA, Atoms, Cells, Molecules, Protozoa, and how such things form other things like plants, mushrooms, and fish.

And you say, "If you just give it enough time, it will happen". Well, according to your theory, when does time start? Does it start before or after the first protein somehow was created? Does it start just when the amino acids were brewing about? How did that form? And you still haven't told me how the amino acids got there in the first place.

Well, that wasn't the case on this little incident, was it?

U got me. Sike.
From this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribonuclease it looks as though there are tons of different kinds of ribonucleasesl this rather supports the idea that you don't need a specific sequence to support life. Anyway, you're unqualified because you're 17 and you don't have a phd. You don't have any REAL personally obtained working knowledge of biology. All you know is poorly memorized facts from high school textbooks. I'm more qualified because I'm older than you I go to college and I take math/science courses.

Your theory boils down to, science can't explain metaphysical aspects of the universe  like "why do things exist." I don't think this is really a question science can answer. So you shouldn't be using science to argue in favor of not being able to use science to explain the universe... It's like using a key to whittle at a block of wood to turn into a crude makeshift key instead of actually using the real key to open the door.

[swagmaster420x]

Also, I completely agree with visitor.

[swagmaster420x]

Wait visitor, was there an error in my science?

Visitor seems to have a graduate level background in science. If you don't want to take it from a measly sophomore undergrad that the stuff youre saying shows that yo're bad at science, then take it from him

[swagmaster420x]

Making this assumption, we can say that the possibility of forming a protein that has "Lys" as its first amino acid (that is what it is in a ribonuclease) is, of course, 1 in 17.

My point in saying that you don't know how to model these statistics is, while I commend you for being able to calculate the probaility of independent events happening together! And applying this line of thinking to the "knowledge" you gained from class or w.e, you don't know what Lys looks like and you don't know its properties.

What if Lys was like a corner puzzle piece? Then obviously it belongs in the corner, i.e. at an end point. Or something along those lines.

[pencilart3]

I got my information from a guy with a phd in nuclear chemistry from the university of rochester. It doesn't take that much qualification to know some basic biology, like the fact that proteins don't have "corner puzzle pieces".

And I'm 16, by the way (as I said earlier) so it's good to know that I sound like I'm older than I am, at least with science.

[swagmaster420x]

I got my information from a guy with a phd in nuclear chemistry from the university of rochester. It doesn't take that much qualification to know some basic biology, like the fact that proteins don't have "corner puzzle pieces".

And I'm 16, by the way (as I said earlier) so it's good to know that I sound like I'm older than I am, at least with science.

You're clearly not dumb. You're just naive, inexperienced, and desperate on mixing and matching two things that don't belong together (religion and science). I'm also pretty sure you're misquoting/misinterpreting what your "PhD source" says, until you give me the exact comment.

You're taking he implication behind my puzzle piece comment much too literally. All I'm saying is that you're modeling every component as identical, and that may not be true. I know for a fact that biological molecules demonstrate puzzle piece like characteristics in many instances, for example, DNA nucleotides will only match with the opposite kind in a pair. Adenine goes with Thymine and Cytosine goes with Guanine. Also, elements with a certain number of valence electrons are much more likely to form bonds with elements with a complementary number of valence electrons. These interactions are not random in the sense you are putting it.

Do you see why your model is naive (and reflective of a very strong bias/agenda), given what we know about chemistry?

[visitor]

Wait visitor, was there an error in my science?

1. If you are arguing science then you need to cite, the source matters.
2. Even is source is credible, objective observation rules first.
3. When you evaluate the observation you have to look at at the experiment design (and if we are going diwn the life scienxe rabbit hole qe need to knoow if we arw talking in vitro vs in vivo) and how many data points , is it powered enough to account for error.

Selection bias will also affect how objective data points are considered. (Or ignored). Thus they affect conclusions.

When yiu set out to review a science example to throw in the mix, ie your aminos paste,  it led you to select an example w lots of holes andfrom a  source that likely set out to create the example from the premise that it support creation or intelligent design. It would have been more convincing it it set out to discuss the possibility that the scenario could be used as a model and what questions it would raise
The you could introduce objective data or logical exexample and outline how it supports yiur view in the context that although evolution could ve possible a may in fact be a mechanism for change. , that you felt it wasnt THE only mechanism explaining complex microstructures.
Or something along that line

[swagmaster420x]

You seriously didn't know that the amino acids have to be in the right order to make a protein?! I'm trying not to facepalm!

The real face palm is you thinking that only one kind of protein exists  and your general sense of righteousness in spite of ignorance

[rubinsteinmad]

Most true scientists were/still are believers.


SHOTS FIRED!!!!!!!

[swagmaster420x]

I'm theist too.

[rubinsteinmad]

I'm theist too.

Good.

[tenk]

I got my information from a guy with a phd in nuclear chemistry from the university of rochester. It doesn't take that much qualification to know some basic biology, like the fact that proteins don't have "corner puzzle pieces".

And I'm 16, by the way (as I said earlier) so it's good to know that I sound like I'm older than I am, at least with science.

Most true scientists were/still are believers.

Both of these statements are fallacious appeals to authority. A Ph.D in nuclear chemistry does not a biologist/biochemist make. Nor does the claim that "Most true scientists were/still are believers." make it any more true.

The bigger issue though (as it is with most people in general) is that you have arrived at your conclusion first, then worked backwards. Pencil, while it's obvious you're no dummy, your argument reads like something you found on a website to use as a "gotcha" when arguing with scientists/atheists regarding abiogensis or evolution. If you wanted to really challenge yourself, and I mean really challenge yourself, there are plenty of resources out there to do it. Arguing with people on an Anything-but-piano forum is hardly a vehicle by which one who truly seeks knowledge would come by it.

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. Speculation is part of the process. Your answer is untestable, unverifiable, and like anything else, difficult to prove "wrong" (see Russell's_teapot). We are simply unwilling to accept an answer that we can't independently verify, but are also not willing to dismiss an idea just because of how unlikely it may seem.

[rubinsteinmad]

The bigger issue though (as it is with most people in general) is that you have arrived at your conclusion first, then worked backwards. Pencil, while it's obvious you're no dummy, your argument reads like something you found on a website to use as a "gotcha" when arguing with scientists/atheists regarding abiogensis or evolution. If you wanted to really challenge yourself, and I mean really challenge yourself, there are plenty of resources out there to do it. Arguing with people on an Anything-but-piano forum is hardly a vehicle by which one who truly seeks knowledge would come by it.

Yes, this is me most of the time But actually, I was not seeking backup information when I restated "most true scientists are believers".

At NASA, most of the workers are Christians. And I'm sure in the other countries' large scientific organizations, the workers are also believers of some theistic religion (Christianity, Judaism, Muhammadism, Buddhism/Daoism, traditional religions, etc.)

[rubinsteinmad]

Also, to lessen the tension on this subject, lets not forget the famous "Pascal's Wager".

He states that:

(1) If you are a believer, and He exists, then you gain something.
(2) If you believe, but He does not exist, you gain nothing.
(3) If you do not believe, but He exists, you gain nothing (at best)
(4) If you do not believe, but He does not exist, you gain nothing.

So basically, logic shows that it is good to be a believer I'm not trying to prove something against atheists or anything, and I'm not trying to pressure people into converting (people's minds just don't work that way ). All I'm doing is sharing an interesting thought published by the French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal..