Skala #fundie

Skala #fundie christianforums.com

Atheists do the same thing. We don't know how life can arise from non-life or how a perfect planet can form from random chaos.

"We don't know" so they add the magic ingredient called "time".

A germ can't turn into a princess normally, but if you add the magic number 50,000,000,000 years, it can.

Time is the atheists god.

89 comments

Liberal Christian... why do you even include the word Christian?

#1533737
"perfect planet"
Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.
5/1/2013 5:47:19 AM

Ah, but it is, read any book on the hyperfine tuning of fundamental constants. There are plenty of them - largely ignored because of the fundamental / fundie challenge they bring.

Men are without excuse. The bible says it plainly. 20th Century science nailed the coffin on humanism well and truly shut. Up until about the middle of the 19th Century spontaneous biogenesis seemed by everyone a reasonable proposition. 150+ years of microscopes to electron microscopes to fundamental physics makes spontaneous generation of life perfectly "impossible"
Modern science has become the very best evidence of the existence of God; and you are, to a person, without excuses. Even a pseudo random blog like this exposes it.

Here is a simple mental experiment for you to perform right now in your very own mental back yard Hadron Particle Accelerator.

Take all the biological/ organic life on earth and put it in a large blender. Then put it in a large pressure cooker and bring the whole thing up to 300 degrees and leave it for 90 minutes. Then take the contents and smear them evenly over every surface on earth. Then leave for 10 billion years.

AN. What you come back to will be as dead as when you left it.

It has all the ingredients for life. All the amino acids and small peptide chains in the right optical isomer form. But it is dead and shall remain dead - until something alive comes and eats it and turns non living into living via the biological algorithm called life.

Louis Pasteur wasn't just a genius. He is entirely right.

old comment by rubber chicken

@Philip George

The hyperfine tuning of fundamental constants is an interesting question.
Change one particular constant by even a small amount and it seems that the universe, as we know it, is impossible.

However, change more than one constant by a similar amount and it seems that this is not necessarily the case.

Calculations performed so far would seem to show that, of the almost infinite possible starting conditions for a universe, the odds of producing a universe containing structures conducive to the support of life is around 50/50

Far from being a miraculous circumstance, it looks like the chance of our universe being able to support us is no more than a coin toss.

My advice, read better books.

old comment by Dr. Shrinker

"Dr Shrinker, inside of creation, apparently yes; but outside of it, no."

- Is that supposed to be a defense of god's alleged omnipotence? And where did this come from? I know of no passage of scripture which supports this assertion.

"Debates raged over the veracity of Genesis on just this same point."

- And debates raged over whether Santa Claus lived at the North Pole or on the moon. Your point was...?

"Surely the infinite wouldn't need to take time."

- Apparently Genesis suggests otherwise. Genesis also said that your god rested. Odd for a deity that is supposedly omnipotent.

"While some things are unknowable within creation - See Godel's incompleteness theorem of formal logic"

- If you had any appreciation for logic you wouldn't be defending the Genesis account.

"- the presumption is that time was taken simply for 'demonstration purposes'."

- Again, chapter and verse supporting this?

"The creation is a teaching exercise; among other things.

See: Napoleon's metric week for experiments with altering it."

- Okay, so what are you? You've expressed open contempt for science, we accept that it doesn't impress you. Now you're apparently writing your own scripture, a big no-no among biblical literalists. Just where do you get your ideas from and how do you evaluate them for veracity?

tracer, replicating polymers demonstrates the machinery of life. They are no more alive than a growing crystal or a photocopier left running. The most alarming words were "must have". Why must they? For what its worth viruses and prions are not alive by my definition. They exist as artifacts of life.

Just demonstrate these simple living things that must have existed. The racemic mixtures problem wasn't addressed at all.

Adrian - ad hominem isn't an argument.
Dr Shrinker. That was an honest enough challenge. I'll get back to you with the exegesis. Two that come to mind. The sons of God shouted for joy at creation. Presumably they were dimensionally outside of it looking in. Two.

Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. [unquote] even angels looking at and learning from us is a repetitious theme.

Dr Razark,

as much as I thought calls for me to "Fuck off, die in a fire, and fuck myself with a lawn mower" would give way to censorship - I must apologize. It seems the blogs owners do believe in first amendment rights. They are advocates of free speech.

So rather than this just being a site for sneering and mocking fundies, I've decided from sheer benevolence to turn it into an "Ask a fundie" web site, in order the masses of humanity remain not so uninformed. Thank me as you most certainly will Dr Razark. There's no need yet. I know where you're coming from - I was there. Been there, done that.

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. Mark Twain.

old comment by Night Jaguar

Phillip-George,

"Modern science has become the very best evidence of the existence of God"

Interesting then that those who know modern science the best (i.e, scientists) tend to be disproportionately atheistic. Moreover, the proposition of God's existence did nothing to help with the establishment of modern science. Oh, it may have motivated some religious scientists, but logically that hypothesis was never needed.

"Take all the biological/ organic life on earth and put it in a large blender. Then put it in a large pressure cooker and bring the whole thing up to 300 degrees and leave it for 90 minutes. Then take the contents and smear them evenly over every surface on earth. Then leave for 10 billion years.

AN. What you come back to will be as dead as when you left it."

You haven't proved it, you merely declared it. It's just argument from incredulity, one that can't be taken seriously since human intuition wasn't designed to think in terms of billions of years.

In any case, no one is claiming chemicals collided together and formed a lion billions of years ago. Just by probability the first organisms would have had to be very simple. Of course even if they could be generated nowadays (the Earth has changed much since then) it would be absorbed and devoured by organisms that have a few billion years head start in the game of life. Spontaneous generation doesn't happen with extremely complex organisms and/or when life is already so abundant on the planet, so it doesn't apply in a discussion on the origin of life on Earth.

I find all of this amusing since your Bible is the one claiming extremely complex organisms were just spontaneously generated.

As for your definition of "life", you're free to define words as you choose, but nature doesn't seem care for your definition.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

Creationists say that God to six days, no more or less, to create the universe. They say that on the seventh day he rested. This defines what a creationist believes, though it defines nobody else. They quarrel over whether the earth is young or old. This, again, is a creationist dispute that defines them and goes to the heart of their religion; to scientists and non-creationists, this is matter of observation and may well change according to the evidence obtained and analyzed. Time is simply a factor through which change can be discerned and measured, and I speak as a historian, someone whose professional life deals with time. Jesus Christ is important only because he existed as a real person in time. Many non-Christians do not believe in the divinity of a historical person.

This is another case of DARVO - Time, per se, is far more important to the creationists than it is to those who don't share their views.

old comment by Night Jaguar

Phillip-George,
"I honestly think you are as wrong as wrong can be"

You can think whatever you wish, but you haven't demonstrated that I am wrong.

"pure imagination/ article of faith/ nil laboratory backing "

Not really. The similar biology of all life on Earth suggests there is a last universal common ancestor. Since vitalism is dead we know that life is just chemistry. Anyway, it's far more compatible with modern science than 'magic man poofed every creature into existence'.

"what you call science was once called natural philosophy."

And?

" See Karl Popper for science."

Not many philosophers follow Popper's views on the philosophy of science. In my teens I was attracted to falsifiability. I have since come to realize the many problems of that school of thought. Nowadays, I am of the view that scientific reasoning can be described in terms of Bayesian inference.

http://www.intechopen.com/books/the-mechanisms-of-dna-replication/proposal-for-a-minimal-dna-auto-replicative-system

at least those people are in a laboratory doing something.
The problem of reductive to oxidative atmospheres, concentrations, racemic mixtures, reversing entropy, etc etc etc

Honestly, No amount of time or money can help you on this one. All you have is a belief system called naturalistic materialism

Carl Sagan put it openly and bluntly - all he could see was all there ever was and all there ever will be. I just call it narrow minded.

[Ed:- Ps. this one wasn't Troy - the other one might have been?]

old comment by pyro

> Take all the biological/ organic life on earth and put it in a large blender. Then put it in a large pressure cooker and bring the whole thing up to 300 degrees and leave it for 90 minutes. Then take the contents and smear them evenly over every surface on earth. Then leave for 10 billion years.

In the voice of some academic nature documentary:

It took hundreds of years for the last of the goop to be washed into the ocean.

But, and this started before the whole of the biosphere finished washing into the ocean, complex chemical reactions took place in the ocean. We're still not sure how long it took for the cycles that define reproduction to start taking place, but we do know that what happened was essentially trial and error. Non-cyclical reactions quickly consumed all their fuel, and fragile chemical reaction cycles were disrupted.

So the chemical equivalent of a copy machine producing more copy machines. The rest is copy machines being changed while continuing to copy themselves, To summarize, not everyone comes up with the same result of a thought experiment.

Skala #fundie christianforums.com

89 comments

Confused?