warri0r45

BUGGER.

Zealot, I agree wholeheartedly with pretty much all you've said. :wink: - Correct, either life can arise from non-life or not. The key point here I feel is the environment the attempt occurs in. Earth's current biosphere is rich in bacteria which would, I'd presume, stop any abiogenesis from occuring by ingesting any potential chemicals (say RNA and autocatalytic proteins, for example) before it gets going. - I don't personally believe that it's necessary to have a godless answer to everything to lack belief in god. Personally, I'm not to keen on supernatural explanations nor am I keen on accepting natural explanations I don't understand or for which there is scant evidence. - Correct, god may very well have guided evolution by imparting the natural laws to make it go. You never know, ey? :wink: Point being that belief in god is completely compromisable with a non-biblical creation, from my perspective. - I don't believe being intellectually honest necessarily includes being a non-believer at all. Francis Collins - a leader of the human genome project, for example, is a Christian and a very smart guy. Another example would be a guy called Ken Miller. He's a Christian and anti Intelligent Design etc. He's written many school text books on biology and is a researcher on cell membranes. I'm sure there would be many millions more.

It's because it's not relevant to the task at hand. What exactly is the gripe you have? What are you finding difficult here? Actually it is relevant. You are disregarding the possibility of a lineage tracing back to the first man in support of your argument, but you provide no evidence. I disregarded nor asserted any possibility. I said it was irrelevant to the purposes of the task. Anything else not regarding my point you want to argue? Anything stated in your argument in support of your argument is up for discussion. Actually I was just wondering how your thoughts on biogenesis relate to the topic at hand: "Is God real or not". Clearly it is an epistemological question, philosophical in nature. But if we ever find God in a biology I'm sure what you have to say would be relevant. :wall: This dosen't change the fact that I disregarded nor asserted any possibility as you wrongly claimed. I said the possibility of abiogenesis is irrelevant to the purposes of the task of concluding evolution. If you want to argue a point I made at least make sure I made the point! Anything else not regarding my point you want to argue? I don't understand what you mean in your second paragraph about 'finding god in biology' making 'what I have to say relevant'. I don't think biogenesis has anything to do with god. I think it has to do with DNA and it's replication.

Probably not best to carry a weapon. A group of attackers is bound to get it off you and it will piss them off to the extent that you'll get a beating with it.

It's because it's not relevant to the task at hand. What exactly is the gripe you have? What are you finding difficult here? Actually it is relevant. You are disregarding the possibility of a lineage tracing back to the first man in support of your argument, but you provide no evidence. I disregarded nor asserted any possibility. I said it was irrelevant to the purposes of the task. Anything else not regarding my point you want to argue?

Why not? Because, for all intenstive purposes, it's completely unrelated and useless to the task at hand. It's a different topic all together- real family trees don't go back that far, ever. If you don't get the parallel warri0r's making, just think about it for a second, it'll come to you :| . Yeah, basically. It's all about putting things in context, unless you're into chatting about your chosen tree and it's evolutionary lineage, the origin of plants and all other life, the origin of earth, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe when chatting about origami. Either way the conclusions of evolution don't rely on the possibilities of abiogenesis just as the conclusions of family relatedness (DNA tests, etc) don't rely on knowing the origins of the first human. Hopefully this clears things up. Evolution traces life back to the universal last common ancestor, max. It's because it's not relevant to the task at hand. What exactly is the gripe you have? What are you finding difficult here?

I think you're misconstruing things. In general life only comes from life. This is the law of biogenesis, yet biologists recognise that this law would break down if there was a favourable environment where life may be able to arise from non-life (namely in an earth with no life where all the right chemicals aren't being ingested and recycled by microorganisms). In general biogenesis seems to be the one and only way it rolls, hence why it's referred to as a law I suppose. I don't think anyone seriously believes in a contradiction. Added to this if you believe in evolution, you don't have to believe in abiogenesis; they are different concepts. Do you demand to know where the first human came from when reconstructing your family tree?

Hope it's a good one. :wink:

Bill Hicks, George Carlin. Thier grasp of comedy and using it as a medium for social criticism is something that just appeals to me. I'd also add Carl Barron, I've always loved his dry wit and he just looks like a comedian. He's the type of guy who you always expect to be funny but he never tries to be. Other comedians who try to be funny in general conversation between jokes or in interviews are just painful to watch. Arj Barker would have to be another favourite.

South Park MythBusters Sienfeld Chasers War on Everything The war on everything is bloody hilarious. Probably best if you're an Aussie though, it heavily references and parodies our politics. Anyway I'm sure there's other TV series that I like but can't remember.

[hide] The one that really convinced me is rather silly... but it was the culmination of a long list of coincidences. C. S. Lewis likened his experience to a wounded animal fleeing its hunter, (Surprised by Joy). In a sence I can agree, but I won't bore you with the whole story, only the pivot point and a minimal of background information. In the Fall of 2000, I was becoming very militantly anti-Christian. My mom wanted to do something about it, so kinda forced me into going to a Christian Youth Group to try and demonstrate that Christians are people and not that different from anybody else. I argued with the ordained Youth Minister all night long. I also decided to read the Bible and prove that either she didn't know what she was talking about or else it didn't make sence of the world. (In either case demonstrating that Christianity was rediculous) I had made it a little over half way through the Old Testiment when I stumbled accross a book called Ecclesiastes and was stunned by how well this book that was thousands of years old nailed my life down. I threw the Bible accross the room and vowed never to touch it again, but the refrain "a chasing after the wind" haunted my every waking hour and also my dreams. I couldn't sleep and decided to prove once and for all whether God was real or not. I've always been a bit of a geek. At the time I was the DM for my friends' game of Dungeons and Dragons. I loved the sence of control that it gave me, though that is not important except that at this point I fealt completely out of control--helpless before what seemed to be an unbeatable adversary. Anyway, I decided to try a simple experiment. I took two 20-sided dice and said to myself that I was going to throw them and if they were both 20's then that would be proof enough that the God that this awful, wonderful book talked about was real. Anything else would be irrefutable proof that He wasn't. I didn't need much at that point I must confess... just something to push me over the edge at this point. God had already just about exhausted my ability to doubt His existance. Anyway, I threw the dice and I didn't believe what I saw--so much so that I threw them twice more, getting double 20's both times before I could accept that I was truely in the presence of Majesty. The probability of double 20's is 1 in 400 on any given throw. The probability of getting double 20's a specific time, three times in a row is 400^3=1 in 64,000,000. In and of itself I am aware that this is a rather silly reason to become a theist, but in light of the other evidence that I saw and continued to experience over the next six months as one by one my entire family became Christian... (the story is very messy but I suppose if you want, PM me and I will tell you) it seems to build a lot stronger case for that particular God then any other, and even more so for the existance of a God over the nonexistance of one. Really the coup de grace was when my father, an alcoholic and avowed atheist, accepted Christ one Sunday while I was being a cabin leader at a Christian camp with my youngest brother. I will add that he had divorced my mother because she was "interfering" with my becoming an avowed atheist like my father. When we got home dad was entirely different. Since that he has never again drank or even desired to, he and mom are getting remarried to one another some time in the next year, and for the first time in my life I really had (and have) a father. [/hide] Intersting story, thanks. Edit: Do you think, given another scenario, that someone else could have a similar experience to come to their religion?

Zealot, I have a question. With an example, what reason do you have to believe that the christian god was responsible for your coincidence?

Haha. Oh man. Hearing things like this make me wonder how the hell we could possibly have lost to them. :wall:

Interesting discussion. From what I know, separating the environment from your genes in terms of ending up as an artist is impossible, especially if artistic thinking has a greater phenotypic plasticity, and is multifactorial and polygenic, which IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢d speculate something as complex as artistic thought is. Your genes may be more keyed into a creative frame of mind or, say, a more physical state of body, yet you can indeed use the environment to change your phenotype as it kind of would automatically with multifactorial and phenotypically plastic traits. All it would take is altering your environment. As far as I'm aware it's still debated among geneticists as to how much environmental or genetic factors effect phenotype, with no one of these two being a clear winner. I suppose another aspect of the debate is the nature of the trait being discussed and whether itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s strictly Mendelian in nature or not. It's interesting that Venomai brought up that book of becoming a better artist by keying into the right side of your brain, kind of analogous to how you can work out at the gym, increase muscle mass and become better equipped for sport. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't underestimate the role the environment can play in becoming whatever it is you want to be. Merely finding something difficult does not suggest that you don't have the genes for it; more often then not, I'd say it's telling you that you're not going about it the right way (as in not putting yourself in the right environment), as is the case in trying to look at art logically and not creatively. But with some other traits, the genes you have may very well limit your ability to attain the phenotype of others. I mean, I doubt anyone would argue that eye colour has as large a phenotypic plasticity as artistic faculties. To sum all that up, I suppose considering the nature vs. nurture debate for a given trait would force you to question things like a phenotype's plasticity, whether a trait is multifactorial or is merely guided by the statitsical ratios of Mendelian genetics and whether more than one gene accounts for it. My speculation is that that artistic and creative thinking is most definately phenotypically plastic, multifactorial and ruled by multiple genes. Otherwise, you wouldn't see such a bell curve kind of statistic in a population's creativity and artistic ability. Anyway, hope that made sense.

Very interesting 16 off like 130 balls tbh. :^o Bloody oath. How exhilarating Dravid's innings was. Haha. Hopefully we'll match Steve Waugh's winning test record of 16 in a row. That's my prediction anyway. :P

Too bad we didn't get a wikcet this arvo. :P Anyway I predict it'll be over before the end of tomorrow haha. On the other hand, Tendulkar could fire up a partnership with Laxman, Dravid or someone else. Never know... I just don't see India getting out of this one at this stage.

Arthritis? No real edvidence of that whatsoever. Other hand injuries like swelling, lower grip strength etc? More likely. Probably best not to get too caught up in the habit. No difference in arthritis rates in knuckle crackers and non-knuckle crackers, yet other problems precipitated: [1] No link between knuckle cracking and arthritis yet other hand problems: [2] No higher incidence of arthritis in knuckle crackers yet other hand problems: [3] A doctor performed a 50 year controlled experiment on himself, cracking one hand daily and leaving the other as a control. After the 50 years, there was no evidence of arthritis in either hand: [4] No correlation between habitual knuckle cracking and arthritis: [5]

Definately. It was impressive. I'm liking how Brett Lee is stepping up recently. Stuart Clarke did really well too. Anyway hopefully we can totally blow India away with our 2nd innings batting tomorrow! :D

Hey? I don't quite understand, would you mind rephrasing that? You seem to be saying that atheists are theists and they believe in every god but yours while you believe in every god, including the Judeo-Christian one. Actually, he can't honestly make the claim that I am a theist at all, for I have not claimed to believe in any god. To be a theist, you have to believe in at least one. :lol: And you can't honestly make the claim that I am an atheist at all, for I have not claimed to lack belief in any God. The quote that Korskin paraphrased is one of the stupidest quotes I have ever read. Further, going "one god further" is not as simple as you think. Going from two gods to one god, is a LOT different than going from one god to no gods at all, and you all know this. The entire quote is rubbish. You are not an atheist, but that's not strictly the point it makes. You can call it artistic licence or you can call it stupid and utter rubbish as you have. The point is that an atheist percieves all gods as a theist percieves all gods but his. I doubt going one god further would be easy at all for the theist but then again you'd need to realise this isn't a conversion attempt. It's a statement that an atheist sees all gods the same and the mere 'one god further' is not such a hard step for an atheist because of this. It's a way to equalize all gods where a theist often sees theirs on a pedestal (regardless of what god this theist believes in) with no more evidence than anyone else. I'd argue it's this attitude of 'my god is superior to every other ever considered' that this quote is at least partly directed at because there is equal evidence for anyones chosen version of god over another - none.

Korskin, you haven't once adressed the actual point of the quote. It's a very simple one. What about it the point it makes lacks substance to you? You can be sceptical of Dawkins if you think he's a biased atheist but the ad hom infatuation rather than considering the point of the quote dosen't do anything for your argument that the quote lacks substance.

Hey Scars, yeah it was a pretty evenly matched day of cricked all round, don't you think? India started off so well with the ball with it seeming like crazy but just couldn't get an early breakthrough. I think Jaques was so lucky to avoid the outside edge however many times he did. But then came the awesome century from Hayden and among all that was the total mess of falling wickets for low scores. Lucky Hayden and Jaques set us up with a decent foundation. Overall I think 350ish is decent. Hopefully our boys can get some early wickets tomorrow. Oh yeah and it looks like my prediction on the Cappell-Hadlee came true. :D

Damn, sorry to hear about your sister's situation Raven. It's sad that society is so caught up on the whole body image thing these days. Kids need to be taught more about developing character rather than looks.

There is nothing in science that suggests that anything other than matter exists, yet there's nothing in science that dosen't. Science has a focus on a way of explaining things, it dosen't make a claim that things are always as science explains. It's not metaphysically naturalistic, it dosen't carry ideological baggages and doesn't suggest that there is no overarching meaning to existence, if you believe that there is. Your argument would be against a metaphysical naturalist who asserts that there is nothing beyond nature and your argument assumes that nihilism is the position that there is no objective meaning or purpose for the universe. Let me try and make this really clear - Science - no claim of the existence or non-existence of supernatural notions or overarching purpose to existence. Nihilism - claims that there is no overarching purpose to existence. Therefore, science is not nihilistic. Am I wrong? My discriptions off? I didn't say that nihilism is science, I was just thinking out loud that it is possible that it can be inferred from science. Damn, I think I may have overreacted, sorry. Yeah, I don't doubt that some people can become nihilists based on science. Hell, some people say their faith in god is concreted because of science. My point to raven (and I wrongly made this point directed at you) was that just because people can and do become nihilists based on scientific thinking, it dosen't make science nihilistic or vice versa.

So what's the deal? Do you think nihilism is science or not? Anyway I'm not going to repeat myself and go running round in circles. I've already covered response to this on page 1 and on this page.

There is nothing in science that suggests that anything other than matter exists, yet there's nothing in science that dosen't. Science has a focus on a way of explaining things, it dosen't make a claim that things are always as science explains. It's not metaphysically naturalistic, it dosen't carry ideological baggages and doesn't suggest that there is no overarching meaning to existence, if you believe that there is. Your argument would be against a metaphysical naturalist who asserts that there is nothing beyond nature and your argument assumes that nihilism is the position that there is no objective meaning or purpose for the universe. Let me try and make this really clear - Science - no claim of the existence or non-existence of supernatural notions or overarching purpose to existence. Nihilism - claims that there is no overarching purpose to existence. Therefore, science is not nihilistic. Am I wrong? My discriptions off?