If you choose to believe that atoms happen (randomly) to order themselves into complex right handed and left handed amino acids, and create knotted protein structures and high efficiency chemical self replicating machines and then evolve through happenstance (random) processes only governed by "survival" - well, that is you religion.
Mine is that there is a simple compound God unknowable in essence behind all these things. That is after all the simplist explanation.
34 comments
The simplest explanation is rarely the correct explanation. That being said, it is easier for me to believe that molecules become compounds become amino acids, etc., than to believe there is one supreme being that mad e and controls everything in the universe. {b]That just takes a complete suspension of any logic and thought.
You're attacking a straw man, Andy. Atoms do not randomly order themselves into amino acids. The laws of chemistry and physics exert an unbreakable hold on how molecules can form. The formation may be unpredictable, but it is not random.
Amos, the "learning-stick" you describe would probably only be appropriate for ordinary, passively ignorant (just never encountered knowledge) idiots. For a true, actively ignorant (goes out of their way to avoid gaining knowledge) fundie, I'd recommend the 'enhanced' version - still a stick, but with nails hammered through it then dipped in ergot. Maybe electrified too.
" . . . and create knotted protein structures and high efficiency chemical self replicating
... well, that is you religion. That is after all the simplist explanation.
Your explanation: 1 unproven entity
Our explanation: 0 unproven entities
Sorry, you lose.
Idiot. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which talks about entropy (I think) actually favours amino acids forming chains that then fold to form proteins. It increases the entropy of the system, so there is no violation of Thermodynamics here.
No, the simplest explanation is that nobody created us, we're a huge cosmic accident. Because to say that someone creating us is the simplest explanation has to inherently imply that something created who or whatever created us, and then something created them/that, ad infinitum.
A further comment: AndyHolland, you obviously haven't a clue what science is, or even what religion is, if you cannot tell the two apart.
First of all, Andy, molecules don't come together by chance.Who did it?" or in some cases "What happened?" In order to get anywhere, however, you need to ask "How did it happen?" If you can't describe how things work, you'll never know what happened in the past.
What is this God compound that you speak of? Yes, it is indeed a simplistic explanation. Or at least simplistic.
By the way, protein structures "knot" themselves depending on their chemical environment, all organic compounds go through essentially "random" reactions that can change the molecules involved, and any already established self-replicating system that is capable of change would need to trend towards higher efficiency over time by necessity. These observed processes extrapolated over time are eminently more reasonable as an explanation than your belief in a strictly hypothetical, unobserved compound. Let alone a compound that is also sentient (chortle, chortle).
"Mine is that there is a simple compound God unknowable in essence behind all these things. That is after all the simplist explanation."
There are some exceptions to Occam's Razor.
And biology is one of them.
So 'God took some dirt amd made a man from it' is going to win you a Nobel Prize, Andy? And pray tell, where were you when the defence team needed you in Kitzmiller vs. Dover?
image
Oh no more, please Mr. Wilde, I am bereft of ribs!
If you choose to 'believe' that an 'eternal' God - who for the infinite eons before he even created the 'angels', just floated around nothing, doing nothing for eternity previously - then just decided to 'poof' a universe, world and all the life on it, then made a man from dirt, then took one of his ribs & cloned a woman from such; then these first people ate a magic fruit after being told to do so by a talking snake, then frankly I prefer the hyper -complex explanation. At least it has actual science to give such an explanation credibility .
And if you call Reality a 'religion', then I've got some rather bad news for you, when you experience brain-death via hypoxia, as you cark it on your deathbed, Andy(not Schaftafly, but is as near as dammit!). >:D
If you can't even spell simple, then you are truly simple-minded.
Where did God come from? Bringing a god into the mix creates new questions, it doesn't answer any, stupid.
On a topic such as that there is no simple explanation, only complex formulas would come close to pinpointing the beginning of life forms.
God of the gaps is a cop out, especially since you lot insist it's YOUR God of the gaps, YOUR God being a proven creation of fictional compilation of ancient myths, a composite.
Build a protein by unguided natural processes. Select out all the LEFT handed amino acids and see if they self assemble into a protein molecule. To your surprise chemicals and bases and amino acids do not self assemble! Never does information arise from non life!
Trained chemists are able to manipulate and DESIGN experiments with lots of INTELLIGENCE to do cellular engineering, but never does it happen all by itself!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
