RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: RFJE's Personal Thread, Because our toilet is already cluttered< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,16:54   

Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,22:38)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,19:57)
         
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,19:36)
   
Isn't UV also absorped by water?
[snip]
So, the shorter the wavelength, the deeper the light can reach seems to be true only for the visible light. According to this list UV light can't reach as deep as e.g. blue light.

Does anyone know whether that is true?
Unfortunately, the author of that list states that he found several vastly different absorption coefficents for UV light in the literature and he would provide only a "best guess".

Yes water does absorb UV to some extent.

As for how deep different wavelengths of EM radiation can penetrate into bodies of water, I honestly don't know off the top of my head. I'm also not sure about the correlation between wavelength and depth of penetration. A couple of things spring to mind though:

a) Gamma rays, X rays, cosmic radiation etc pass through water. They have very short wavelengths compared to blue light for example.

b) Different materials have different absorption spectra, so there isn't necessarily a linear relationship between wavelength and depth of penetration.

I could be wrong however, I'll nip off and have a read!

Louis

Thank you!
Re. a) That fits with what I'd thought before I found this list.

Re. b) That's obviously true (otherwise we wouldn't see different colours), but it didn't occur to me that it applies to water, too. Thanks for reminding me.

I've read a bit more myself and found out that I've forgotten A LOT since I had physics classes during my study.... I'm sure that we learned about the Beer-Lambert law and I seem to remember that we used an experimental setting like this

to calculate concentrations but most of it I eradicated quite successfully from my memory...

{facepalm}

The Beer-Lambert Law!!!!!!! DAGNABIT!

{Sound of Louis going back to first year physics lectures*}

Louis

*Senility, I has it.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,16:56   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 10 2009,20:12)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47)
Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc).

This image made my morning.  Thanks, Louis.

Your (hic) very welcome.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,16:57   

Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 10 2009,20:18)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 10 2009,12:12)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47)
Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc).

This image made my morning.  Thanks, Louis.

The mystery lies in his route back from the pub.

Very true, very true. The uncertainty in homeward route is vast. All I know is that it involved three specific locations:

1) The kebab shop.

2) The gutter.

3) Eventually, the doghouse.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,17:53   

This patron at my bar turned around to leave and fell flat on his face.
He crawled to the door and thought, “I only live a block away.  I’ll
just crawl home.”
So he crawled home, crawled in his house, crawled into the bedroom and
crawled into bed with his wife.
She said, “You’ve been drinkin’ again, haven’t you?”
He replied, “Well yes.  How did you guess?”
She answered, “The bar called and said you left your wheelchair there.”

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,18:22   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,22:54)
*Senility, I has it.

You mean this:
   
Quote
I've read a bit more myself and found out that I've forgotten A LOT since I had physics classes during my study....

is a sign of early-onset senility?



--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:21   

This is to Louis: I wanted to thank you for the chemistry lesson.  You are the first person who has answered me without insulting me.  Though you were a bit sarcastic.

As you know, Louis I am not a chemist, that's exactly why I stripped material from the internet. One strike?  You are quite high-minded aren't you?  I do have a field of knowledge--it is just not chemistry.  

So anyway, I just wanted to let you know that you successfully refuted a public school teacher with a B.S. Ed in biology and a minor in chemistry from Montana State University, with 8 years of science teaching in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  And also Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics (Ohio State University). They wrote and edited respectively the book "Evolution Exposed."  It had an endorsement from Dr. David Menton PhD, cell biology (Brown University).

I did paraphrase what was in the book and erred in one sense, in that I said amino acids and their bonds break in water.  Here is the actual quote pp. 139. "Proteins cannot form in water because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together--a process called hydrolysis."

But you proved them wrong so I'm not supposed to repeat the point I know.  My question is, Louis, "Which PhD are we supposed to believe?"

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:28   

Another thing you've got to learn. Having a PhD doesn't make you intelligent or correct.

Look for any off the wall crazy idea you can think of, and you'll find a handful of PhDs pushing it. Aura feeling, alternative medicine of all sorts, psychic powers, moon landing conspiracies, 9/11 truthers, alien abductions, Illuminati, etc, etc, etc.

Hell, just turn on the TV during infomercials and watch all the PhD endorsements for bullshit products fly by.

What matters isn't what a handful of PhDs claim, what matters is reality and evidence.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:29   

RFJE:

Quote

You [Louis] are the first person who has answered me without insulting me.


Eh?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:31   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,22:21)
"Proteins cannot form in water because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together--a process called hydrolysis."

Well, that's news to my body, which is mostly made of water. The second most abundant stuff is proteins.

...made from amino acids.


...in water.

ETA: A process called "you're an idiot".

Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 10 2009,22:34

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:34   

Mayberry RFD,

I thought I was puffed up because of cheeseburgers, but it turns out it's only my vast store of knowledge.  That's a relief!  Thanks.

Louis isn't high-minded.  He's definitely low-brow.  I'm high-minded.  Just ask me.

As for "which PhD to believe," well this will come as a shock to an ignorant but literate person such as yourself, but as a scientist I don't "believe" anything.  Certainly not a PhD.  'Cause I am one and I don't believe me.  

You can believe that.

Here's what you do RFD old bean, go into a lab and do the experiment.  Come back and tell us all about protein hydrolysis.  Go into the field and look at the rocks.  Get yourself a stick and a nail and chart the stars.  Grow some pea plants.  Do it yourself.  If you don't "believe" it, go out and do something.  No one's stopping you.

So while you were out in the missionary position, I was in a lab night and day (cue violins, Louis) working on pattern recognition of dipeptide mass spectra.  Funny thing, I never believed it would work.

  
jeffox



Posts: 531
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,22:37   

(Feels that this is appropriate)   :)    :)

Just a step cried the sad man
Take a look down at the madman
Theatre kings on silver wings
Fly beyond reason
From the flight of the seagull
Come the spread claws of the eagle
Only fear breaks the silence
As we all kneel pray for guidance

Tread the road cross the abyss
Take a look down at the madness
On the streets of the city
Only spectres still have pity
Patient queues for the gallows
Sing the praises of the hallowed
Our machines feed the furnace
If they take us they will burn us

Will you still know who you are
When you come to who you are

When the flames have their season
Will you hold to your reason
Loaded down with your talons
Can you still keep your balance
Can you live on a knife-edge


- Emerson/Lake/Frazer/Jandcek

But there it is      :)      :)

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,22:51   

This is from you Louis

"Dear All,

Since a major part of all our online (and possibly even offline) existences is spent engaging in debate with various types of people. I was curious about a few things.

1) What actually motivates us to do this?"

Louis, I don't if you're an atheist, but you know many evolutionists are.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, and I ask these questions under no false pretense.

Assuming that you and I are just results of biochemistry, then what chemical process took place in you to motivate you toward science?  I am completely sincere, this is an honest question?  

Like the (cant remember his name) scientist who converted to atheism on "Expelled."  He said "I realized I had no free will."  Therefore whatever we do is all because of the chemistry and the biology.

What is it in us that gives us a desire to know what we don't know?  It must be important, because we fight so hard to guard our perceptions of reality.  But if it is just a biological process that eventually gives in to entropy then why is it so important to us?

Are there  chemical processes that cause love, hope, trust?  There should be somewhere in us.  It should be able to be diagrammed.

Where did sacrificial motives come from? Survival to the fittest.  Chemical processes in the mind?  Should we not have found them by now.

What about ethical judgement--the innate sense of right and wrong?  

Will, determination are these just products of digested, fats, carbs and proteins and the energy they produce.

What about a sense of fun, enjoyment, satisfaction vs. dullness, and boredom?  Chemical processes?  

Why do we cook and not eat our food raw like animals do?  Is it not to enjoy the taste?  What chemical process triggers this desire?

Where did sexual attraction come from and how did it come at the same time as the sexual organs evolved?  What gene is affection associated with, or by what chemical process is it triggered?  And why is it associated with sex?

Will, conscience, emotions, desire, ambitions, motivations, intentions bad and good, are all undeniably a part of our being.  They are as real as the screen in front of you.  They can be defined by neither mathematics, nor diagrammed by chemistry.  They can not be included in cell biology for observation.

Where does music come from?  Is this also a product of chemistry in the mind?  I am a musician and it seems to come from elsewhere.

What other species has serial killers?  Why are there people who kill for fun or fascination.  Are these mutations or evil?  Is evil just an idea of antiquity or is it evil--ask anyone who is on the receiving end of an evil and they will tell you.

If someone told you that affection or hate were not real because they are not perceived by the 5 senses, would tell them they were crazy? because they are perceived IN you.  What is the perceiving unit?  Even it is unseen and can not be defined by natural means.

What chemical process gives us the perceived sensation of knowing ourselves inwardly, but at the same time gives us the desire to project a certain image on the outside?  How can we discern a fake, even when we have no proof?  Isn't it because most of us are guilty of hypocrisy at one time or the other?

If all of this is just the brain, then we should have been able to detect the chemical and biological activity associated with it, if we are nothing more than chemicals.

But what if we have a soul Mr. Louis?  A spirit that perceives all these things that we undeniably sense inside.  And what if the Bible is true that our soul is eternal and we will give account?  Is our sense of fair and unfair a shadow of God's judgement?  Do we have his spiritual DNA?  






Assuming the naturalist

  
jeffox



Posts: 531
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,23:07   

RFJE, just think about this:  If many (if not all) thought processes weren't chemically-oriented, then why do certain chemicals make people feel a certain way?  After all, it's a pretty well-known fact that caffiene makes a person feel more awake and aware.  And that opiates make you feel rather painless.  And that other chemicals make you feel happy.  or sad.  or goofy.  one of those chemicals is in wine, ya know.  

Really, are you older than 18?  I mean, come on, this is just off the top of my head here, and I'm no genius.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,23:44   

Oh boy! From chemistry to neuro-chemistry to cognitive studies to psychology.

Goalposts on wheels, RFJE?

What about reasserting your initial claims with your own words, in light of what Louis and Doc GH have so patiently explained to you citing many references?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,23:58   

And I forgot: some ranges of head trauma can actualy alter one's personality drasticaly. Do you really think it's your "eternal soul" being altered? what about people in a vegetative state? What happened to their "eternal souls"?

Just so you don't ponder too much and see where I'm coming from: I think bringing to actually fonctional people a concept of hell in which they'll burn eternaly if they don't follow a book is the quintescence of evil. Every missionary should be locked up.

There, no sympathy from me.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
clamboy



Posts: 155
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,00:46   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,22:51)
This is from you Louis

"Dear All,

Since a major part of all our online (and possibly even offline) existences is spent engaging in debate with various types of people. I was curious about a few things.

1) What actually motivates us to do this?"

---snip BLAH-DE-FRICKIN'-BLAH-SAME-OLD-SAME-OLD-DID-YOU-THINK-YOU-WERE-BEING-ORIGINAL???-REGURGITATED-CRAP-MY-E
FFING-GAWD-RFJE-YOU-ARE-REPEATING-BULLSPIT-THAT-WAS-OLD-TWO-DECADES-AGO-LOUIS-IF-YOU-DON'T-CALL-THIRD-STRIKE-YOU-ARE-A-SPINELESS-LOSER-AFDAVE!AFDAVE!AFDAVE!-WHAT-AN-ARROGANT-BASTARD-IS-RFJE-MAKES!-ME!-FRICKIN!-SICK!!!!---

CHEEZ WHIZ, JREF, FREJ, WHATEVER - there was as time, a few years ago, when I wanted to have a good long talk with a creationist, but thank you very much again for convincing me that such an endeavor is...utterly...USELESS!!!

I am getting my breath back now. RFJE, people like you should never be in a position of power. EVER.

RFJE, YOU ARE THE MOST ARROGANT, IGNORANT, HUBRISTIC LOSER SINCE afdave MOVED ON TO OTHER PASTURES. ARGH, YOU SICKENING SICKENING INTENTIONAL IGNORAMUS!!!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,03:33   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,03:21)
This is to Louis: I wanted to thank you for the chemistry lesson.  You are the first person who has answered me without insulting me.  Though you were a bit sarcastic.

As you know, Louis I am not a chemist, that's exactly why I stripped material from the internet. One strike?  You are quite high-minded aren't you?  I do have a field of knowledge--it is just not chemistry.  

So anyway, I just wanted to let you know that you successfully refuted a public school teacher with a B.S. Ed in biology and a minor in chemistry from Montana State University, with 8 years of science teaching in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  And also Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics (Ohio State University). They wrote and edited respectively the book "Evolution Exposed."  It had an endorsement from Dr. David Menton PhD, cell biology (Brown University).

I did paraphrase what was in the book and erred in one sense, in that I said amino acids and their bonds break in water.  Here is the actual quote pp. 139. "Proteins cannot form in water because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together--a process called hydrolysis."

But you proved them wrong so I'm not supposed to repeat the point I know.  My question is, Louis, "Which PhD are we supposed to believe?"

RFJE,

A BIT sarcastic? I take that as an insult! I am very sarcastic thank you.

Which PhD to believe? Don't believe anyone because they have a PhD. It's not a good enough reason. Look at what Nerull and Doc Bill have said. Actually ignore the bit about low brow/high minded from Doc Bill, I'm both!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,04:57   

I wish I could express my opinion using a lot of words but I find that too difficult and time consuming so I'll limit myself to just one simple, basic observation that I believe those two leaves of the same tree, Daniel and RFJE ought to consider:

The theory of evolution is like an onion. You need to burrow from the outside to get to the core. I believe that's the gospel truth about evolution - you'll never understand it if you start with complex subjects like cell chemistry - not to mention the origins of the first cell, aka abiogenesis.

 
Quote
Assuming that you and I are just results of biochemistry, then what chemical process took place in you to motivate you toward science?  I am completely sincere, this is an honest question?

The question may be sincere and honest, but it also is completely absurd. IMHO, it shows however that you have a lot of homework to do before you know what you are asking for. You just are not ready. We all need to learn to crawl before we learn to walk. I've been crawling for 70 years but I can do some steps too...

Another point: A honest and sincere quest for the truth about evolution requires an open mind, where God and religion is put aside. As long as God stands in the way, no comprehension is possible.

So my best advice is, leave God out of your thinking when you study scientific issues, let them speak for themselves without intervention from God. Can you do that?

OTOH, the Holy Spirit of Truth is a fine companion, trust it! Speaking of spirit, do God, or spirit, really move atoms and molecules? Or are they obeying the laws of nature - about which we still have an awful lot to learn? About which we never may know all we would want to know. Will we ever be able to untangle the sobject of Complexity? Who understands quantum mechanics? Maybe it is a bit premature to proclaim the ToE invalid? What is God, is 'he', or rather it,  a tinkerer, messing with everything in the world, or is it more like a spirit pervading the universe?

Anyone who really knows, please speak up, show us the evidence.

The creationist's problem is not so much about science as it is about psychology, religion and philosophy. And then some.

Well, I managed a few words more than I though I could...

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:37   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,04:51)
This is from you Louis

"Dear All,

Since a major part of all our online (and possibly even offline) existences is spent engaging in debate with various types of people. I was curious about a few things.

1) What actually motivates us to do this?"

Louis, I don't if you're an atheist, but you know many evolutionists are.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, and I ask these questions under no false pretense.

Assuming that you and I are just results of biochemistry, then what chemical process took place in you to motivate you toward science?  I am completely sincere, this is an honest question?  

Like the (cant remember his name) scientist who converted to atheism on "Expelled."  He said "I realized I had no free will."  Therefore whatever we do is all because of the chemistry and the biology.

What is it in us that gives us a desire to know what we don't know?  It must be important, because we fight so hard to guard our perceptions of reality.  But if it is just a biological process that eventually gives in to entropy then why is it so important to us?

Are there  chemical processes that cause love, hope, trust?  There should be somewhere in us.  It should be able to be diagrammed.

Where did sacrificial motives come from? Survival to the fittest.  Chemical processes in the mind?  Should we not have found them by now.

What about ethical judgement--the innate sense of right and wrong?  

Will, determination are these just products of digested, fats, carbs and proteins and the energy they produce.

What about a sense of fun, enjoyment, satisfaction vs. dullness, and boredom?  Chemical processes?  

Why do we cook and not eat our food raw like animals do?  Is it not to enjoy the taste?  What chemical process triggers this desire?

Where did sexual attraction come from and how did it come at the same time as the sexual organs evolved?  What gene is affection associated with, or by what chemical process is it triggered?  And why is it associated with sex?

Will, conscience, emotions, desire, ambitions, motivations, intentions bad and good, are all undeniably a part of our being.  They are as real as the screen in front of you.  They can be defined by neither mathematics, nor diagrammed by chemistry.  They can not be included in cell biology for observation.

Where does music come from?  Is this also a product of chemistry in the mind?  I am a musician and it seems to come from elsewhere.

What other species has serial killers?  Why are there people who kill for fun or fascination.  Are these mutations or evil?  Is evil just an idea of antiquity or is it evil--ask anyone who is on the receiving end of an evil and they will tell you.

If someone told you that affection or hate were not real because they are not perceived by the 5 senses, would tell them they were crazy? because they are perceived IN you.  What is the perceiving unit?  Even it is unseen and can not be defined by natural means.

What chemical process gives us the perceived sensation of knowing ourselves inwardly, but at the same time gives us the desire to project a certain image on the outside?  How can we discern a fake, even when we have no proof?  Isn't it because most of us are guilty of hypocrisy at one time or the other?

If all of this is just the brain, then we should have been able to detect the chemical and biological activity associated with it, if we are nothing more than chemicals.

But what if we have a soul Mr. Louis?  A spirit that perceives all these things that we undeniably sense inside.  And what if the Bible is true that our soul is eternal and we will give account?  Is our sense of fair and unfair a shadow of God's judgement?  Do we have his spiritual DNA?  






Assuming the naturalist

***LENGTH WARNING, APOLOGIES TO SCROLLING FINGERS***

RFJE,

Good gravy! A stream of consciousness. Do you feel better yet? Is it all out? Have the goalposts moved once more? I thought evolution was false because of chemistry (it isn't), now it's wrong because of.....?

Before I continue there is one thing: learn how to quote  things, please. See above the window you type your comments in there is a little button marked "Quote", it will put the quote tags into your text for you, [QUOTE  ] at the start and [/QUOTE  ] at the end, making things easier to read. I don't always do this myself, but it'd general good practise and helps us all. Also, please link things like old posts, just for the sake of ease. When you are quoting websites a link to what you've quoted is very useful, it allows people to see what you are quoting in detail, and explore things further themselves. It's a basic tenet of intellectual honesty.

There are also five more relevant things I want to mention before I get into all of this:

a) Just because science may or may not have concrete answer to every question yet does not mean that your (or anyone's) religious explanation is automatically the default answer. Every scientist worth his or her salt will cheerfully admit that there are things we don't yet know.

b) I am neither a biochemist nor a neuroscientist, but I do have some brief familiarity with some aspects of these fields. So, like before, rather than present you with definitive answers and direct proof (which is practically impossible over the internet anyway, I am not typing out textbooks for you or leading you into a laboratory) I'll try to provide you with a few links which you can follow to begin your own investigations.

c) "Pathetic levels of detail". One of William Dembski's (a famous, and famously dishonest, intelligent design creationist) more famous quotes, very illustrative of his mindset (and yours, judging by your questions) is:

Quote
You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering.


From here.

Needless to say this an astounding piece of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty on Demsbki's part. He's basically trying to say that he has to provide no detail whatsoever for his propositions. If you want to do science, and Dembski pretends he does, then the devil is in the detail. Superficiality don't cut it. Now why do I mention this? I am pre-empting a very common creationist complaint, forgive me if you are not going to make it, but judging by the tone and type of your questions I can see it galloping towards us.

As above, if science hasn't (yet) provided a detailed answer to a problem, it doesn't follow that any other explanation is automatically the answer UNLESS that answer has a sufficient level of detail, and correspondingly matches the available evidence. So "goddidit" is absolutely not an answer to anything, it is the abandonment of enquiry, it simply pushes the problem one step further back. I will not accept "goddidit" as an answer for anything, only a dishonest attempt to avoid the answer "I don't know". No sympathy for non-answers. See the god of the gaps for more detail. Again, this is a beginning point for your investigations.

d) Doubt. As the physicist Richard Feynman said:

Quote
I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn’t frighten me.


Not knowing something, perhaps just not knowing something yet, is no crime. Not knowing something is not the end of enquiry, it is the beginning. We scientists LIKE not knowing something, it keeps us in a job! Not knowing things is WHY we try to find them out, it is for me why I became a scientist: because there are things (many, many, many, MANY things) I don't know. I don't crave certainty because I know that certainty is not possible, I am merely seeking to reduce the number of things I don' know about.

e) HUGENESS! The questions you ask are only really answerable at huge length with huge reference to the available evidence. Needless to say I i) cannot reproduce all of that here and ii) am not even going to try to! You need to do the work yourself. As I explained to Denial Smith, I am not interested in reproducing reams of textbook data. I am equally not interested in petty games of oneupmanship and trading authority figures. I couldn't care less that I have "successfully refuted a public school teacher with a B.S. Ed in biology and a minor in chemistry from Montana State University, with 8 years of science teaching in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  And also Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics (Ohio State University). They wrote and edited respectively the book "Evolution Exposed."  It had an endorsement from Dr. David Menton PhD, cell biology (Brown University)." It's not anything I'm interested in. If this is some pissing contest for you, then it will be strike three for me, and I'll simply retreat to mockery as is my wont!

Right, enough preamble, enough tips, on with the entertainment, I'll try and organise your stream of consciousness into themes if you don't mind:

1) Atheism:

Yes I am an atheist. I lack a belief in any god or gods. That's very different from believing god/gods doesn't/don't exist by the way, but rather than drift into philosophy, I'll leave it at that. Incidentally no one "converts" to atheism, it's not a religion, it is simply the absence of belief in a deity or deities. You too are an atheist with respect to every god except the one you believe in, I've just gone one god further. BTW "Expelled" is not a good place to get one's information from, it is a wickedly dishonest propaganda piece.

2) We/emotions/feelings/desires are "just" the results of natural processes:

Just the results of biochemistry? JUST? JUST?????? That's a pretty big "just" there my friend! I would suggest that you have no idea about the complexity and quantity of the phenomena you hand wave away with a "just". Anyway, the questions you are asking about thoughts, desires, feelings are simply huge and reduce to one overarching question: Is consciousness the product of the physical and chemical operations of the brain?

The answer to that is very simple: yes.

How do I know this? Well it's pretty simple to demonstrate that the consciousness can be altered by simple physical or chemical interventions. Don't believe me? Ok, here, take the dose of LSD. Seriously, the chemistry of neurotransmitters is very well understood. We can, and do, create drugs to manipulate the nature of people's consciousnesses and minds. We can, and do, induce hallucinations, revelations and altered states of consciousness in people by manipulating electromagnetic fields around people's heads. Obviously there's vastly more to it than this, rather than typing out textbooks for you I suggest you start with the basic things I've recommended to you and work from there.

The bigger question even than that is "HOW is the mind a product of the physical and chemical processes of the brain?".  Now this is vastly more difficult to answer, and as far as I am aware this has yet to be completely solved by science. I am not the best person too ask about this since it is not my area of expertise. Some answers might be found for you here and here. Reciprocating Bill is probably one of the best people to ask here at AtBC. I can recommend the work of Dan Dennett, and in particular his book "Consciousness Explained", which I admit I haven't read in years. You might also like to read about the Hard Problem of Consciousness, something Dennett disagrees exists, but I mention it as an illustration of some of the issues that may crop up.

3) Altruism:

Another huge question. I suggest reading about the evolution of altruism and explanations for its persistence. Altruism, altruism in animals, reciprocal altruism, kin selection, competitive altruism, and empathy altruism.

Since I haven't the time to deal with the rest of this, I'll leave you to get on with your work, just as I have to get on with mine.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:39   

[quote=J-Dog,Feb. 10 2009,13:25]  
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2009,13:08)
   
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01)

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.  :D

Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint.

A saint?  Louis?  Well, he could look like this Saint, I guess..


Fixed it for you. No ned for thanks.

Edit: WTF is up with formatting? Am I drunk again? Wait, don't answer that.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:41   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 11 2009,11:39)
[quote=J-Dog,Feb. 10 2009,13:25]  
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2009,13:08)
   
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01)

You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.  :D

Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint.

A saint?  Louis?  Well, he could look like this Saint, I guess..


Fixed it for you. No ned for thanks.

Wrong Simpsons character.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
nuytsia



Posts: 131
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:51   

Cup of sugary tea for clamboy!  :p

At the risk of fueling RFJE's persecution complex...
       
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,14:51)
This is from you Louis

"Dear All,

Since a major part of all our online (and possibly even offline) existences is spent engaging in debate with various types of people. I was curious about a few things.

1) What actually motivates us to do this?"

Louis, I don't if you're an atheist, but you know many evolutionists are.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, and I ask these questions under no false pretense.

Assuming that you and I are just results of biochemistry, then what chemical process took place in you to motivate you toward science?  I am completely sincere, this is an honest question?  


       
Quote
this is an honest question?

No.
No I don't think so.

No this and what follows is a way of moving onto a topic where you probably won't have your arse handed to you so easily... whilst still trying to plead the same point.
No longer able to claim your god lurks behind the "mystery" of the peptide bond... it's time to move on to a myriad of far more nebulous points.
Smart move too!
These are (mostly) bigger questions and far harder to resolve. You'll be able to lodge your "Heere be Dragones" sign in some of these for decades.
That must feel far more reassuring?

I must say I'm slightly disappointed to find that you didn't ask whether "we've really looked at our hands? I mean really looked at them?"

       
Quote
What is it in us that gives us a desire to know what we don't know?  It must be important, because we fight so hard to guard our perceptions of reality.
 
Something that works gets selected for. A species that develops a talent in learning how to manipulate its environment is going to have an edge. Chimps, bonobos and orangs show an impressive set of problem solving skills. Our lineage took it further. A lot further.

       
Quote
It must be important, because we fight so hard to guard our perceptions of reality.

I hate to point this out but our species has a terrible history of curbing it's curiosity in front of authority. Particularly military, religious or a heady mix of both.

       
Quote
But if it is just a biological process that eventually gives in to entropy then why is it so important to us?

We are all going to die so why bother living? This is a nonsense question. We all find our reasons to do things. Otherwise we wouldn't do them. At best this is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

       
Quote
Are there  chemical processes that cause love, hope, trust?

Yes.
       
Quote
There should be somewhere in us.

In the brain, that would be my guess.
       
Quote
It should be able to be diagrammed.

Yes. Possibly. Probably.
How accurate those diagrams are will vary.

   
Quote
Where did sacrificial motives come from? Survival to the fittest.  Chemical processes in the mind?  Should we not have found them by now.

Do have a read about social insects you'll find it most enlightening. Ants and bees are well into sacrifice to save their siblings.
The fact that you think such behaviour might be down to a a few simple chemical process doesn't speak well for you to be honest. That you might think that that is the expectation of evolutionary science.... well....  speaks volumes.

       
Quote
What about ethical judgement--the innate sense of right and wrong?

Some people think that G W Bush was right to invade Iraq. Others don't.
Some people think it's right to deny gay people the rights enjoyed by straight people. Others don't.
What's your point?


       
Quote
Will, determination are these just products of digested, fats, carbs and proteins and the energy they produce.
What about a sense of fun, enjoyment, satisfaction vs. dullness, and boredom?  Chemical processes?

For someone who supposedly teaches science you seem to show a total lack of love for it. If life and all it entails is ultimately explained in terms of chemistry, physics and biology does that rob it of it's wonder?
Really?
Over twenty years ago I had to learn (no great hardship; I relished the experience - like a condiment junky relishes a burger) the detailed biochemistry of photosynthesis (as known then) and I still think it's as cool as fuck. Nothing I've learnt about science has ever detracted from the fact that this is an amazing place to be.
Honestly does understanding how the world works only bring you ambivalence or contempt? Is there only value in seeing it as a magic trick? If so you have my pity.

       
Quote
Why do we cook and not eat our food raw like animals do?  Is it not to enjoy the taste?  What chemical process triggers this desire?

Honestly you are asking this?
Seriously????
Two advantages to cooking....
1) Pre-breakdown of proteins and carbohydrates making digestions easier
2) Killing off parasites and pathogens.
Any group of individuals adopting this have an advantage. Good ideas/practices spread.
You don't know this?
Honestly???

       
Quote
Where did sexual attraction come from and how did it come at the same time as the sexual organs evolved?  What gene is affection associated with, or by what chemical process is it triggered?  And why is it associated with sex?

(sigh)
       
Quote
Where did sexual attraction come from and how did it come at the same time as the sexual organs evolved?

Oh please cite your evidence for this claim.
Pretty please!!!!!!

A very brief summary of the science of sex
The Joy of Sexual Reproduction (for adults only apparently- flagged by creationist (sigh) - very good)
Evolution of Sex
The Origin of Sexual Reproduction

       
Quote
Will, conscience, emotions, desire, ambitions, motivations, intentions bad and good, are all undeniably a part of our being.  They are as real as the screen in front of you.  They can be defined by neither mathematics, nor diagrammed by chemistry.  They can not be included in cell biology for observation.

You know you are dead right. As far as I know they've never isolated the "bad intentions" cell.
Take that science!!!

       
Quote
Where does music come from?  Is this also a product of chemistry in the mind?  I am a musician and it seems to come from elsewhere.

I've never heard you play so I can't comment.
Perhaps it does come from somewhere else....

       
Quote
What other species has serial killers?  Why are there people who kill for fun or fascination.  Are these mutations or evil?  Is evil just an idea of antiquity or is it evil--ask anyone who is on the receiving end of an evil and they will tell you.

Have you ever owned a cat?
Dolphins pods living around east coast of Scotland kill porpoises for no apparent reason. Chimps are known to kill members of other tribes if they catch them alone.
You don't need to believe in god to recognise evil. Atheists don't have any trouble deciding if something is evil. Whether we can realistically attribute this human concept on the natural world is debatable and frankly doesn't get you very far apart from tutting at cats, dolphins, etc.
Again this is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

       
Quote
If someone told you that affection or hate were not real because they are not perceived by the 5 senses, would tell them they were crazy? because they are perceived IN you.  What is the perceiving unit?  Even it is unseen and can not be defined by natural means.

This is of course bullshit.
Which sense is schizophrenia experienced through?
Your argument here, that a rational approach is far too simplistic, is a strawman.

       
Quote
What chemical process gives us the perceived sensation of knowing ourselves inwardly, but at the same time gives us the desire to project a certain image on the outside?  How can we discern a fake, even when we have no proof?  Isn't it because most of us are guilty of hypocrisy at one time or the other?

If all of this is just the brain, then we should have been able to detect the chemical and biological activity associated with it, if we are nothing more than chemicals.

As I said at the beginning of this (as far as I know) scientific knowledge of how the mind works is still in it's infancy so you are safe to hide your god in here if you like.
It may take quite some time to resolve an issue of this subtlety and complexity.
But this is, of course, an argument from ignorance.
Some of us would prefer to wait for the evidence to come in before believing in ripping yarns.

       
Quote
But what if we have a soul Mr. Louis?  A spirit that perceives all these things that we undeniably sense inside.  And what if the Bible is true that our soul is eternal and we will give account?  Is our sense of fair and unfair a shadow of God's judgement?  Do we have his spiritual DNA?


I don't suppose we could prevail upon you to actually provide some evidence that the soul exists could we?
You know you'd be ever so famous if you could.
Lecture circuits. TV interviews. Oprah.
You'd be rich. Rich beyond your wildest dream.
Rich beyond k.e.'s wildest dreams.
... and those are really wild.
Apparently.


Bloody hell this is the longest post I've ever made.
This wine is really good!
:D

ETA - Took me too bloody long to write though!!!  :angry:

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:54   


ETA: apologies for the distraction. Please return to your regular viewing.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:03   

Why is the sky blue, daddy? Why does a boy's winky look different? Where does music come from? Why does Kitty kill mices? Why have the requirements for a BSc.Ed. fallen so drastically?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
RFJE



Posts: 45
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:17   

Hello,

I did want to apologize for my approach, that I paraphrased a source, and that I mis-paraphrased it.  I said that some amino acids break down in water when I should have said some proteins break down in water.

Here is the actual quote from Evolution Exposed by Roger Patterson..."Proteins can not form in water, because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together...hydrolysis."

I have read some of your posts and I understand your annoyance with me.  I was out of field of study and I will research this further.

I do believe from my study that hydrolysis is the opposite of dehydration sythesis--correct me if Im wrong.

Also my question would be here is what about the hydrophobic  side chains of the polypeptide chain.  They attract each other to the center of the molecule away from a watery environment.  If they were exposed say to water during spontaneous generation, could it break the peptide bond?

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:20   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 11 2009,06:03)
Why is the sky blue, daddy? Why does a boy's winky look different? Where does music come from? Why does Kitty kill mices? Why have the requirements for a BSc.Ed. fallen so drastically?

Why is water wet? why does fire burn? how high is up? Why are you coming at me with a knife daddy?

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:28   

yes, he/she does sound like a 4 years old.

I am inclined to take an issue regarding the music stuff. As a professional musician, I find no difficulty in understanding the source of my inspiration: imagination.

Imagination is an abstract thought. Since I do not have any PH.D or extent education in neuroscience, I cannot possibly detail the exact M.O of abstract thought process. But I know for sure that it initiates in the brain, and not some "holy-eternal-soul". Cognitive developement also plays a big part. Having been raised in an environnement surounded by a certain kind of music, I have some ease writting my music in a related style (i.e melodic and symphonic metal in my case, inspired by my living in a mostly classical and rock environnement). Don't ask me to write contemporary music, for I wouldn't even have a clue how to do it. Some people have talents in some areas, some have talents in others. I am not linking that to an "eternal soul", but rather to the wonders of our brain functions, combined with cultural and cognitive aspects...

The day you understand the "magic" in thit is the day you'll understand the wonders of Nature. Assuming your very own talent comes from some hypothetical deity of choice is diminishing to you and the entire human race.

My 0.01$ (because of the economical crises. I won't spend more on creo's)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2778
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:47   

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,06:17)
Hello,

I did want to apologize for my approach, that I paraphrased a source, and that I mis-paraphrased it.  I said that some amino acids break down in water when I should have said some proteins break down in water.

Here is the actual quote from Evolution Exposed by Roger Patterson..."Proteins can not form in water, because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together...hydrolysis."

I have read some of your posts and I understand your annoyance with me.  I was out of field of study and I will research this further.

I do believe from my study that hydrolysis is the opposite of dehydration sythesis--correct me if Im wrong.

Also my question would be here is what about the hydrophobic  side chains of the polypeptide chain.  They attract each other to the center of the molecule away from a watery environment.  If they were exposed say to water during spontaneous generation, could it break the peptide bond?

Actually, my annoyance with you has multiple bases.

1) quoting egregious lies from creationist sources, which would be obvious to anyone with a high school education in biology OR chemistry

2) moving the goalposts when the lies are exposed

3) extreme bluster about an ignorant claim while simultaneously lecturing those with superior knowledge about their lack of humility

4) mentioning atheism as if it has any relevance in a discussion about science.

There are probably more of them, but those come to the top of the list right now.

So the apology is appreciated. But it will be worthless if you revert to behaviors like those above.

As for your last question, if I can rephrase it as "Will the presence of hydrophobic side chains break the peptide bond?" (ignoring the spurious "during spontaneous generation" bit), the answer is

No.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:59   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2009,06:37)
Reciprocating Bill is probably one of the best people to ask here at AtBC.

I dunno.

A position that simultaneously claims an innate sense of right and wrong and the existence of serial killers as positive evidence is probably too ameboid for much constructive discussion.

Plus Refredjee is clearly abjectly ignorant of some of the obvious starting points for a discussion of the well studied neurobiological bases of many human and mammalian feeling states (love, lust, care and attachment, etc.) - e.g. the limbic system, mediation of sexual and loving feelings by oxytocin, etc. This is basic stuff.  

Mostly I'm still stuck on his ridiculous claims of "humility," "wisdom," and "god's edification." But perhaps he would like to acknowledge his unreflective arrogance in making some of the claims he has made. Let's see if he's got a neuron for that.

ReFred?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,07:08   

RB, I am not sure we yet had a clue about whether RFJE is male or female.

And as Al Pacino stated in the most excellent "the devil's advocate":

"Cemicaly speaking, love is no different from eating a large quantity of chocolate".

And this one just for fun and giggles:

"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER!"

I love tha movie :D

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
  452 replies since Feb. 09 2009,10:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (16) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]