God is in your mind?

Salami · 12-17-2011, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

That's a tricky way of getting to the main point, I think.

Put simply, the TTSS represents a reduced version of the flagellum which, as you write, is useful for pumping/secreting proteins. Had the flagellum been irreducibly complex, then any "reduced" part of it (like the TTSS) would be useless. The TTSS shows that it is possible for bacteria to evolve a TTSS first and then evolve that structure into something more complex (made up of more proteins) like a flagellum.

Indeed. Well put.

If it were irreducibly complex, the idea is that the flagella could not function were one of the parts missing.
And guess what?
The TTSS can function independently.

(I love this, I'm getting free biology lessons online!)

Guybrush · 12-17-2011, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mighty Salami

(I love this, I'm getting free biology lessons online!)

I definitely think you should follow in your parents academical footsteps

The world needs more biologists/biology professors!

RVCA · 12-17-2011, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

It talks about irreducible complexity. Our entire universe is irreducibly complex. Have you ever read the book the science of god? It's quite an interesting read. It talks a lot about how finely tuned the universe is for life and that if the big bang would have been slightly different in any way, this life wouldnt have been possible.

To quote Stephen Hawking:

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Here's the thing: Stephen Hawking scoffs at the idea of irreducible complexity. That quote you just used has been taken out of context. Allow me to pull another Hawking quote straight out of his latest book, "The Grand Design" (which I am holding here in my hands).

"Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

This entire book is about why recent developments in science have made it unnecessary to invoke God when attempting to explain the beginning of all things. So let's be crystal clear for a moment: Stephen Hawking, one of the most prominent quantum physicists in the world, thinks that God is not a necessary element in the equation of life. Another interesting fact is that a famous Gallup poll from 1998 found that only 7% of members in the National Academy of Sciences believe in God.

This leads me to conclude that it is almost never in religion's best interest to appeal to science when seeking proof for the supernatural. In regard to Duce's hypothesis, I'm still not entirely sure what he's trying to get at, but I will say this:

If someone claims to have knowledge, with certainty, that God exists, or that something supernatural has occurred (such as Astral Projections or Out-of-Body experiences), it becomes clear that either they are lying, or their brain has for some reason short-circuited and tricked them. So yes, I will say that God is most certainly in your mind because there is no evidence that he/she/it is anywhere else.

Salami · 12-17-2011, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I definitely think you should follow in your parents academical footsteps

The world needs more biologists/biology professors!

It's definitely my favourite subject at the moment.
I'm going to try!

I'm still not sure whether biology/geology/engineering is the best choice for me, but we have some very good universities here in England.

I'll make you proud, sir!

RVCA: tore and I have had an interesting discussion over Irreducible complexity, if you'd care to read the last page yet again!

RVCA · 12-17-2011, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mighty Salami

RVCA: tore and I have had an interesting discussion over Irreducible complexity, if you'd care to read the last page yet again!

Yes, I saw that, which is why I didn't really go into detail about why "irreducible complexity" is such garbage.

Salami · 12-17-2011, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

Yes, I saw that, which is why I didn't really go into detail about why "irreducible complexity" is such garbage.

Haha... I'd not call it "garbage", it's just a failure to understand science. What is garbage is when people try and make an argument out of it. Often they know all the names of the biological apparatus, but not how it works or to apply knowledge. They like to start with a conclusion and work towards it, which is really my problem with irreducible complexity.

The trouble is when people use lengthy technical terms which will often confuse the listener, especially if they don't even make sense. I always end up thinking "have I missed something here?", which usually means the ID proponent has stopped making sense.

RVCA · 12-17-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mighty Salami

Haha... I'd not call it "garbage", it's just a failure to understand science. What is garbage is when people try and make an argument out of it. Often they know all the names of the biological apparatus, but not how it works or to apply knowledge. They like to start with a conclusion and work towards it, which is really my problem with irreducible complexity.

Yes yes exactly, but that's why it IS garbage! Irreducible complexity is what happens when someone takes everything that science has worked to understand in the last millennium of our existence and misapplies it to align with iron-age beliefs about the nature of the universe. It's really insulting when you sit down and think about it, it's like these people are sticking one big middle finger up at Hawking, Einstein, Russell, Darwin, Bohr, Bernard, Heisenberg, Galilei, Newton, Kepler, and everyone else who has ever contributed to our understanding of modern science. Fuck the people who deny volumes upon hundreds of volumes of meticulous datamongering and experimental analysis over hundreds of years in favor of their one volume that has remained unchanged for the past 2,000 years. It really pisses me off!

Salami · 12-17-2011, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

Yes yes exactly, but that's why it IS garbage! Irreducible complexity is what happens when someone takes everything that science has worked to understand in the last millennium of our existence and misapplies it to align with iron-age beliefs about the nature of the universe. It's really insulting when you sit down and think about it, it's like these people are sticking one big middle finger up at Hawking, Einstein, Russell, Darwin, Bohr, Bernard, Heisenberg, Galilei, Newton, Kepler, and everyone else who has ever contributed to our understanding of modern science. Fuck the people who deny volumes upon hundreds of volumes of meticulous datamongering and experimental analysis over hundreds of years in favor of their one volume that has remained unchanged for the past 2,000 years. It really pisses me off!

Interestingly enough, can you name one person apart from Behe who supports Irreducible complexity and isn't trying to prove God? Or isn't trying to disagree with evolutionism?
I'm beginning to suspect that there is an agenda here...

The internet is supposed to be hoaching with creationists. Where are you? Show yourselves! RVCA and I have a few things to say to you!

blastingas10 · 12-17-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Here's the thing: Stephen Hawking scoffs at the idea of irreducible complexity. That quote you just used has been taken out of context. Allow me to pull another Hawking quote straight out of his latest book, "The Grand Design" (which I am holding here in my hands).

"Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

This entire book is about why recent developments in science have made it unnecessary to invoke God when attempting to explain the beginning of all things. So let's be crystal clear for a moment: Stephen Hawking, one of the most prominent quantum physicists in the world, thinks that God is not a necessary element in the equation of life. Another interesting fact is that a famous Gallup poll from 1998 found that only 7% of members in the National Academy of Sciences believe in God.

This leads me to conclude that it is almost never in religion's best interest to appeal to science when seeking proof for the supernatural. In regard to Duce's hypothesis, I'm still not entirely sure what he's trying to get at, but I will say this:

If someone claims to have knowledge, with certainty, that God exists, or that something supernatural has occurred (such as Astral Projections or Out-of-Body experiences), it becomes clear that either they are lying, or their brain has for some reason short-circuited and tricked them. So yes, I will say that God is most certainly in your mind because there is no evidence that he/she/it is anywhere else.

I don't think irreducible complexity can be so easily ruled out when it comes to the birth of the universe.

I can't be so arrogant. While I'm not religious, nor do I believe in the Bibles story of creation, I cannot allow myself to draw these kinds of conclusions. The book cannot yet be closed. We still have much to learn.

Stephen Hawking may be a very renowned physicist - but as I mentioned earlier - so is Roger Penrose. He shared the Wolf Prize with Mr. Hawking in 1988 for his contributions to our understanding of the universe. Penrose is an atheist and I'm sure he doesn't think a god was necessary for life. However, he still has beliefs such as this:

"I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."

I don't necessarily believe in any deities, but I will not call myself an atheist. I remain agnostic towards the subject. There doesn't have to be a god or deity in order for this life to be more than just a "survival of the fittest".

RVCA · 12-17-2011, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

I don't think irreducible complexity can be so easily ruled out when it comes to the birth of the universe.

I can't be so arrogant. While I'm not religious, nor do I believe in the Bibles story of creation, I cannot allow myself to draw these kinds of conclusions. The book cannot yet be closed. We still have much to learn.

Stephen Hawking may be a very renowned physicist - but as I mentioned earlier - so is Roger Penrose. He shared the Wolf Prize with Mr. Hawking in 1988 for his contributions to our understanding of the universe. Penrose is an atheist and I'm sure he doesn't think a god was necessary for life. However, he still has beliefs such as this:

"I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."

I don't necessarily believe in any deities, but I will not call myself an atheist. I remain agnostic towards the subject. There doesn't have to be a god or deity in order for this life to be more than just a "survival of the fittest".

Why would a universe that lacks a creator have "purpose"? If you don't believe that a sentient being sits behind the curtains and calls the shots, then from what source is a "purpose" derived to be attributed to our existence, or the existence of the universe?

And how does this discussion of purpose even relate to irreducible complexity?