That depends on which definition of "proof" you are using.
How is the information required for DNA ceated?
- Thread starter stu43t
- Start date
brainuniverse
Registered Senior Member
Dear Jade, your answer was of no importance to the sense that there is nothing in which you bring a point disagreeing with me or not. I agree with you about science and religion, let me remind you that I am an agnostic and a skeptic, when I say skeptic I am talking about what a real skeptic is, and not those so-called skeptics from those various associations making real skeptics look like fools. You say that science recognise things after strong evidences, nope, unfortunitly thats not really true, they recognise it when they can understand it(Quantum mechanic and the world of pharmacology being an expetion here). Lets refer you to homeopathy because I believe that it is one of the best examples describing the situation. After hundreds of studies and results, homeopathy has been shown to be nearly as efficiant as normally prescribed drugs, few studies have shown them having no effect, but those few studies have pointed specific products used for the wrong conditions, its like telling every drugs used to treat people have no effect because 3 or 4 of them have been shown to have no effect treating the condition they were not meant to treat. Latly a metanalaysis of homeopathy has been conducted, metanalysis is the most precise and new way of knowing the efficiancy of drugs, and that many present drugs will fail in those tests. What were the conclusions ? The conclusion was that or it has a positive effect or that the current scientific way of knowing if a drug is positive should be revised, just after this test, few studies have been done with few homeopathic substances wrongly used by ignorants then answering that the previous tests were flawed, than the same tests were mixed in another meta-analysis, and a conclusion was made that it appears that the results are not placebo but that more studies must be carried out, in fact, the same methods used to reject homeopathy would have proven that aspirin has no effect to prevent hearth attacks, many homeopathic products have been more under investigation than many commonly used drug where the compagny in question has manipulated the results to increase the efficiancies. I also have a first experience because I take those products myself, and the effects could in no way be placebo because many times I took the wrong one wondering why I had still the symptoms to then realise that I switched two products. You see, thats an example of what I say, hundreds of studies have been done and each times positive results were made(the majority being positive), other studies were conducted being those searchers had in mind that it was impossible that it works, than you had the Magician Randi something with his offering of 1 million to prove that homeopathy don't work. And you know what he did ? Insted of conducting a trial he tried to replicate the study of "waters memory" from which the concentration of the substance was of more than 10^-30 by claiming that it was near the concentration of homeopathic products, I will spare you his interview here.
Realtivity paradoxes could be found on the web, just type and you'll have some answer, if you don,t find any, I will give you few references if you like.
Now about the big-bang, it was developped years and years back, new theories and discoveries emerges where the big-bang can't answer all the questions and where many other theories brings many answers to questions unanswered by the big-bang alone, many physicists don't like the big-bang theory that is kept by the astronomer establishment against any changes of that theory. Cosmic Background radiation would be supported by other alternatives to the big bang(just a reminder here).
Now about natural selection, alone it does not explain many things, like for instance the possibility of a direct mutation that could be transmited to the descendant prior the the genetic "accident."
To finish, what I ask is that the scientific community stops immitating religious fanatics, and that skeptics become real skeptics. Thats the only thing I ask.
Realtivity paradoxes could be found on the web, just type and you'll have some answer, if you don,t find any, I will give you few references if you like.
Now about the big-bang, it was developped years and years back, new theories and discoveries emerges where the big-bang can't answer all the questions and where many other theories brings many answers to questions unanswered by the big-bang alone, many physicists don't like the big-bang theory that is kept by the astronomer establishment against any changes of that theory. Cosmic Background radiation would be supported by other alternatives to the big bang(just a reminder here).
Now about natural selection, alone it does not explain many things, like for instance the possibility of a direct mutation that could be transmited to the descendant prior the the genetic "accident."
To finish, what I ask is that the scientific community stops immitating religious fanatics, and that skeptics become real skeptics. Thats the only thing I ask.
My answer was a response to the comments you made. If you feel no need to respond to it, then that's your prerogative.
I suppose you are also right. But it is really a combination of evidence and understanding.
I am familiar with some alleged relativity paradoxes, such as the infamous twin paradox. However, they are not really paradoxes. They only reason they were described as paradoxes is because others did not understand the concepts of the theory.
There are alternate models for the origin of the universe, such as the eternal universe, the steady state universe, and the oscillating universe. But the Big Bang theory combined with Inflation theory match the observations the most closely. The latest evidence from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe has further strengthened these theories.
A very reasonable request. Although I'm not a scientist, I'll do all I can to help in this regard.
A functional process
You might look at glaciers as an analogy. Information regarding Earth's climate can be extracted from a glacier. The functional process of the glacier's formation causes this information to be recorded within its structure.
~Raithere
DNA is a functional chemical, not media for recording information. As with any chemical it will interact in particular ways with other chemicals. A change in the structure of the chemical (mutation) causes a change in its function, sometimes such a change is beneficial, sometimes it is harmful, and most times it is benign. Any such mutation changes the information of the structure which has grown and changed over time. The information within DNA is simply an historical record of its development.
You might look at glaciers as an analogy. Information regarding Earth's climate can be extracted from a glacier. The functional process of the glacier's formation causes this information to be recorded within its structure.
~Raithere
No, he gave the condition "if not, then I must presume God created the information" which is a logical fallacy known as "False Dilemma". Defskeptic already pointed out the error in the second reply to stu43t's post.
What authority would that be?
Homeopathy is the belief that a drug which causes symptoms similar to a disease when taken in large amounts will cure that disease taken in small amounts. However, studies do not show any significant correlation.
For instance, a drug that causes heart-failure when taken in large doses (according to homeopathy) will prevent heart-failure in small doses.
~Raithere
Raithere,
Thanks for the info!
Thanks for the info!
Thanks to brainuniverse for he has explained my thoughts very well, I am nowhere near as articulate as he is and I'm not knowledgeable in any specific subject. I am not a science or a religious expert, but I know enough for me to question and wonder.
I apolgise if I phrased the initial question obscurely, but the point I am trying to make is that science is not the only forerunner in seeking out our beginnings. Scientific theories have come and gone, but one theory has stood the test of time, it has been ridiculed and argued for two thousand years and it is still here, it is not going away. Surely that accounts for something and should also be considered in the quest for the truth.
Our planet to the universe has been described as like a grain of sand in the Sahara Desert, just think of that vastness, it's unimaginable. Science has come up with two great theories and I like them, and if they are proven to be true that would be great, we would be getting somewhere. But how close would we really be, how many more theories would we encounter after that - "What happened before the big bang? Why was there a big bang? Where does the universe end? Why the hell are we here living our three score and ten, and for what purpose? plus all the the countless questions we haven't even considered.
We know a great deal of the things that we are aware of, but what of all the unknowns which are waiting for us to find.
As I said to Jade in an earlier post: We will probably never know the truth, but just in case, there's no harm in keeping an open mind, at least I'll be prepared for the truth if we find it, scientifically or otherwise, and I wont be disappointed eitherway.
I apolgise if I phrased the initial question obscurely, but the point I am trying to make is that science is not the only forerunner in seeking out our beginnings. Scientific theories have come and gone, but one theory has stood the test of time, it has been ridiculed and argued for two thousand years and it is still here, it is not going away. Surely that accounts for something and should also be considered in the quest for the truth.
Our planet to the universe has been described as like a grain of sand in the Sahara Desert, just think of that vastness, it's unimaginable. Science has come up with two great theories and I like them, and if they are proven to be true that would be great, we would be getting somewhere. But how close would we really be, how many more theories would we encounter after that - "What happened before the big bang? Why was there a big bang? Where does the universe end? Why the hell are we here living our three score and ten, and for what purpose? plus all the the countless questions we haven't even considered.
We know a great deal of the things that we are aware of, but what of all the unknowns which are waiting for us to find.
As I said to Jade in an earlier post: We will probably never know the truth, but just in case, there's no harm in keeping an open mind, at least I'll be prepared for the truth if we find it, scientifically or otherwise, and I wont be disappointed eitherway.
I used to be surprised that people demand answers for questions that don't have them - justifying whatever ridiculous belief to which they cling with whatever excuse works for their experience. The ridiclous answer is then justified through an obvious inability to be rational. The fact is that there are no answers to some questions... only theories. Some theories seem damn stupid, like invisible sadists in the sky.
I would contend that if there is some "creator" he set things in motion and bailed. Any organized religion on the planet that I'm aware is an obvious sham constructed to placate those with the need to be controlled.
I would contend that if there is some "creator" he set things in motion and bailed. Any organized religion on the planet that I'm aware is an obvious sham constructed to placate those with the need to be controlled.
Last edited:
brainuniverse
Registered Senior Member
Jade, I will not answer you because there is nothing really in which I disagree, but just that there is more than those alternatives you mentioned, some have been proposed by some physicists.
Raithere, you can't attack someone even before knowing what he means by the word "God" the guy proposed something and insted of reading him you guys jumped on him only because he proposed something.
Now, lets answer your question about "However, studies do not show any significant correlation." Because I think I am able to answer that question because I am unknowledgeble in the medical field, and I am in what we call in a "scientific" discipline and as much as it is possible for me as a "scientific" I am an open minded individual and a real skeptic.
So here let you refer you to widly used drugs, for what they are used and what are their effects in overdoses. NSAIDs are widly used drugs, known as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, the way they work is by supressing a specific type of prostaglandin that is believed to play a role in the inflammatory reaction. In long overdozed uses in many treatments they have shown to do just the opposit by creating inflammation by the inhibitation process(I spare all the technicity here).
In fact, in the hand book "The Essential Guide to Prescription Drugs" I have, there is many many drugs that in the mechanism of action section it is writen by the authors( James J. Rybacki, Pharm. D., and James W. Long, M.D.), that the mechanism of action is still not well understood, in short we ignore why they work, many of those drugs and others have as side effects after overdoses that are the compleat opposit of those for which they are used to treat, like many NSAIDs.
Thats exactlly one of the logics used behind homeopathy, this reaction of oppsit answers has been known in the world of pharamcology for the last 80 years back after the first world war, many drugs when given in big amounts causes reaction and even induces problems for which they have been made to treat for, if need be I can explain you why.
The second way that homeopathy works is near the way that vaccins works, I don't think that anyone here will dare to tell that vaccins don't work, the logic is to give a very little amount of the substance that in normal amount will induce a problem, and wait that as reaction the body immune system over-eact to the pathogen, in a way that this over-reaction, this "plus", will answer back to the known problem.
There is nothing magical in homeopathy, only ignorants will claim that there is no correlations or proves, there are physicians that now treat their patients with homeopathic products, and for those that will claim that studies have been done that shows they are no better than placebos... here a little read.
http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/intro/history.php
Now Raithere, tell me what the f.k are those so-called skeptic organisation doing in the field of homeopathy ? What will be next ?
PS: There is two foods for the mind, one is scientific knowledge, the other is the "sense of life" the "why" this brough religions, science and that should not be mixed, science will never bring those answers.
Raithere, you can't attack someone even before knowing what he means by the word "God" the guy proposed something and insted of reading him you guys jumped on him only because he proposed something.
Now, lets answer your question about "However, studies do not show any significant correlation." Because I think I am able to answer that question because I am unknowledgeble in the medical field, and I am in what we call in a "scientific" discipline and as much as it is possible for me as a "scientific" I am an open minded individual and a real skeptic.
So here let you refer you to widly used drugs, for what they are used and what are their effects in overdoses. NSAIDs are widly used drugs, known as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, the way they work is by supressing a specific type of prostaglandin that is believed to play a role in the inflammatory reaction. In long overdozed uses in many treatments they have shown to do just the opposit by creating inflammation by the inhibitation process(I spare all the technicity here).
In fact, in the hand book "The Essential Guide to Prescription Drugs" I have, there is many many drugs that in the mechanism of action section it is writen by the authors( James J. Rybacki, Pharm. D., and James W. Long, M.D.), that the mechanism of action is still not well understood, in short we ignore why they work, many of those drugs and others have as side effects after overdoses that are the compleat opposit of those for which they are used to treat, like many NSAIDs.
Thats exactlly one of the logics used behind homeopathy, this reaction of oppsit answers has been known in the world of pharamcology for the last 80 years back after the first world war, many drugs when given in big amounts causes reaction and even induces problems for which they have been made to treat for, if need be I can explain you why.
The second way that homeopathy works is near the way that vaccins works, I don't think that anyone here will dare to tell that vaccins don't work, the logic is to give a very little amount of the substance that in normal amount will induce a problem, and wait that as reaction the body immune system over-eact to the pathogen, in a way that this over-reaction, this "plus", will answer back to the known problem.
There is nothing magical in homeopathy, only ignorants will claim that there is no correlations or proves, there are physicians that now treat their patients with homeopathic products, and for those that will claim that studies have been done that shows they are no better than placebos... here a little read.
http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/intro/history.php
Now Raithere, tell me what the f.k are those so-called skeptic organisation doing in the field of homeopathy ? What will be next ?
PS: There is two foods for the mind, one is scientific knowledge, the other is the "sense of life" the "why" this brough religions, science and that should not be mixed, science will never bring those answers.
Their beliefs only seem ridiculous to you, and their abilities are rational. It only appears that way because you can't or wont look at their views from their angle.
Thre are answers to every question, a theory is only a probable answer.
Sometimes they do, but not when an answer if found.
I think you are confusing faith with the cults in the world. I have no interest in mans manipulation of using someones belief in order to control them. I am interested in both faith and science, and I understand them both equally enough to not discredit either
NO, you're wrong. Their beliefs ARE ridiculous and stupid. IF you could understand that which is recorded on this site (and are a reasonable person), you'd reach the same conclusion. Maybe you grew up around it so you give it credence. If you finally separate yourself from it completely, you can see how fucking stupid it is. I can see it from the outside and from the inside. I don't think you can. (edit: having good reason to believe in something does not mean you are being reasonable in believing it, if you follow)
All the required evidence to debunk christianity is recorded on sciforums. You should read more... read old threads. Elegant and sweeping arguments. Beautiful. No one can justify christianity except in terms of tradition. I don't give a fuck about tradition. Christianity is stupid, as are most of the organized religions of the world. You just don't get it. Fine with me, but you're wrong. Defend whatever ignorant bullshit you'd like.
How is it that you feel that you've such insight into my thoughts? How is it that YOU think you would know the right answer if it hit you square between the eyes? I don't think you would.. especially since I happen to know it, and I've told it to you... but you still hang on to your stupid ideas. (note that I'm only accusing you of defending organized religions as feasible answers to fundamantal questions)
Possible would be a better word. Christianity and other organized religions are about as probable as that ass thing I was talking about before. Blame yourself if you can't tell the fucking difference, don't lay your stupid shit on me.
I don't see you defending my ass theory. WTF? I like Persol's theory about unicorns. I choose to promote it and base a religion on it so that idiots can be stupid with me. You simply don't see the big picture and you think you do. Try to learn something.
Brother, I assure you that I am NOT confused. They are one and the same. Religion = Cult with more members... still is a cult. If you don't see that it's your fault.
You seem to be defending organized religion as feasible, which generally implies that you DO have interest in man's manipulation blah blah. Are you missing something?
What does that have to do with anything? You seem to be equating faith and religion. Why? Faith is a much broader term than religion. Religion is when you make faith into a fucking cult. I'm trying to help you understand. You're just wrong. Not a big deal.. just learn something eh?
Last edited:
Originally posted by stu43t
If you wish to consider your theory of the invisible unicorn who am I to argue with you.
I agree... but the second I try to convince someone else of my theory, they are completely in their rights (and I believe duty) too shoot down my theory if it doesn't make sense.
Can you give me an example of how the invisible unicorn is connected with the creation of the universe and mankind?
For the sake of argument... sure. The unicorn has always existed. It cried a tear and made this tear into everything we now see. Now it lives in my closet, but avoids people. The point is that I can dream up any number of creation stories, but if it doesn't hold any water then why try to convince other people... or for that matter believe it?
If you wish to consider your theory of the invisible unicorn who am I to argue with you.
I agree... but the second I try to convince someone else of my theory, they are completely in their rights (and I believe duty) too shoot down my theory if it doesn't make sense.
Can you give me an example of how the invisible unicorn is connected with the creation of the universe and mankind?
For the sake of argument... sure. The unicorn has always existed. It cried a tear and made this tear into everything we now see. Now it lives in my closet, but avoids people. The point is that I can dream up any number of creation stories, but if it doesn't hold any water then why try to convince other people... or for that matter believe it?
Voodoo Child
Registered Senior Member
Actually it <i>hasn't</i> stood the test of time, has been ridiculed and argued for two thousand years and it is still here, it is not going away. Which tells you alot about human psychology. Scientific theories live or die on their merits, hence they can be relatively impermanent. The longevity of Creation/ Intelligent Design is attributable to the fact people are psychologically dependent on it, rather than any objective merit. Is this dependence indicative of what is true? Certainly not, what we like to believe has no effect on what is.
A cult is when a majority finds a minority looks too familiar.
Obviously you don't know how I see it, I didn't say it was right, I said it was a possibility.
So your saying although there are good reasons to believe the big bang theory, it is not reasonable to believe it?
So sciforums can debunk a faith which has lasted 2000 years?
Bullshit is in the eye of the beholder
I am not interested in the system of worship (cult), I am interested in the idea of God.
I consider the message of Christ and the concept of God as a possible answer, not organised religions, note the difference.
You have no authority to say I'm wrong. Why all the bad language is there any need?
Is this statement supposed to be intelligent
You obviously don't understand what I'm telling you, I didn't figure you would. My argument (as I stated explicitely) is only based on the fact that you were defending the beliefs of organized religion as reasonably probable. I'm saying that's stupid. YES, STUPID.
No.
Easily. It's stupid, but as was aptly noted by Voodoo Child, the "faith" is idicative of human brain problems.
Uh.. well, sure I guess.. but if the beholder is completely deluded, does his call of "bullshit" count?
No, you mention "christ" in your next line.. so you're interested in more than 'god'. You're apparently interested in lunatics who claim the only way to salvation is through them. Kind of sickens me and bit, but it's funny because in a twisted way I'm almost doing the same thing..
"the message of christ" is the basis for one of the largest religions in the world. try to play some stupid fucking game of semantics if you wish, but I'll refrain thanks.
As a guy who knows a lot about this junk, I have EVERY right to say you're wrong, and you have every right not to believe me. I don't imagine you will. I feel responsible to ensure that people who as questions here get good answers. You ability to comprehend them is your problem. Why do you consider my language "bad"?
It IS, regardless of what it is "supposed to be". IMO, you were accusing ME of spreading falsehoods.. again, it's not my fault if you can't comprehend what I'm telling you. I am trying to help.
Hi Wes,
There are skeptics like myself and brain universe, and then there are bigoted skeptics like you
But I am grateful that there are bigoted skeptics in the world like you, your flat denial of the theory of God contributes in making ideas like faith seem fresh and interesting to me.
I will state this again once more just for you:
I believe the answers to the beginning of the universe and mankind are held within the theories of science, or the theory of god. It doesn't matter which to me, but I will not discredit either.
There are skeptics like myself and brain universe, and then there are bigoted skeptics like you
But I am grateful that there are bigoted skeptics in the world like you, your flat denial of the theory of God contributes in making ideas like faith seem fresh and interesting to me.
I will state this again once more just for you:
I believe the answers to the beginning of the universe and mankind are held within the theories of science, or the theory of god. It doesn't matter which to me, but I will not discredit either.
That's fine, as long as you don't limit yourself to 1 'God'. While it is reasonable to say, 'the universe was either created or not' (intelligent design or nature), it is not reasonable to assume you know the details of a creature that may have created the universe.