Dawkins trying to arrest Pope Benedict Xvi

The pope moves the peodo priest out of their dioces if caught with no legal proceedings does this make him just as guilty and of perverting ( lol ) the course of justice.
 
Last edited:
Well doesn't saying life originated on another planet/asteroid just shift the problem under the carpet, so to speak?

I read a book a while ago, the contents of which I've largely forgotten. It was pro-creation, btw.

Two things I remember from that book. One was that the conditions necessary to create a living cell would also pretty much kill it instantly. It would have to be created, then immediately escape to a totally different environment.

The other thing I remember was that living tissue is based entirely on left-handed proteins, and that the random arrangement of molecules would create both left and right handed proteins.

Thus the chance of having only LH prots in the right place at the right time, under the conditions necessary to create life, then having it immediately escape that environment because it's too hostile to continue living there... well, it did strike me as a bit fanciful.

Maybe you can shed some light on that bit for me?

Incidentally, rejecting the idea that you need to know where life came from to believe in evolution is a bit of a cop out.

It's like saying "I believe in creation, but I don't need to know who did it or how to believe that I was created. I'm happy to just believe in creation; whether that was by aliens or god or the F.S.M. matters not."
 
Carbon isn't alive, it's an element. Under certain conditions and with other elements they form amino-acids which sporns into bacteria.
 
Yeah but apparently you can't spontaneously get living organisms from non-living matter in any environment of your choosing, as I understand it.

If you can, then show me where it's been done.
 
FoxEye said:
Well doesn't saying life originated on another planet/asteroid just shift the problem under the carpet, so to speak?
Click to expand...
Saying it was created by God does exactly the same thing, you get into the problem of infinite regression.

Incidentally, rejecting the idea that you need to know where life came from to believe in evolution is a bit of a cop out.
Click to expand...
I don't know where life came from, but I'm not asserting that I do. I am, however, saying that such knowledge isn't necessary when considering evolution, which it isn't.

It's like saying "I believe in creation, but I don't need to know who did it or how to believe that I was created. I'm happy to just believe in creation; whether that was by aliens or god or the F.S.M. matters not."
Click to expand...
It's not like saying that at all, because evolution has absolutely nothing to do with creation, nor the beginning of our universe.
 
Tefal said:
Why do you assume god is listening/cares/is a murderous nutter?


I will prove right now that there is no Bhavesh Patel.


If there is a such thing as Bhavesh Patel, then let him strike me dead right now.

Nope, nothing, I'm still here. Therefore, no Bhavesh Patel.
Click to expand...

No. all you proved is that there is no god, that's why your still sitting there
 
Incidentally, rejecting the idea that you need to know where life came from to believe in evolution is a bit of a cop out.
Click to expand...

Not really, evolution isn't a belief system, nor does it describe how life originated. It only describes how we believe life to have developed. Moreover, it describes the origin of species and biological diversity, but not life itself. If you want to attack a theory that attempts to describe how life first naturally developed, you want to look at abiogenesis - which is a closely related, but still independent field to evolution.
 
Superewza said:
It's not spontaneous, it's a chemical reaction.

Look around you.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that answers anything. Look around you.

Proteins used in living orgs are made from exclusively left handed amino acids, so I read. (Hint: I'm not a biologist). Yet if left to chance LH and RH amino acids would exists in equal numbers, and they do chemically bond with each other just fine.

However, proteins made of LH and RH aminos are useless, apparently (don't ask me why?) So you need somehow to exclude the RH ones.

Which is like saying you need to roll a 6-sided dice and guarantee only even numbers will occur, over however many rolls you need. Which is hundreds? Anyone know what the simplest protein molecule requires in terms of #amino acids?

Man I should really read up on this stuff, again. But I'll just forget it, again.
 
naffa said:
Put it this way, I've seen the words come out of each of their mouths several times, I've read the written accounts of both of their beliefs in both the God Delusion, and God is Not Great. I feel I can go so far as to say that they wouldn't have published such a thing as their opinion, if it wasn't their opinion.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you did that! You've read about their beliefs? So they are beliefs then? Freudian slip or genuine mistake? You decide. :)

PS - While Dawkins may not say that 'unequivocally, there is no god', this does not preclude him believing there is no god. However, in the grand scheme of things I don't really think it's that important whether or not he believes there is no god.
 
FoxEye said:
I don't believe that answers anything. Look around you.

Proteins used in living orgs are made from exclusively left handed amino acids, so I read. (Hint: I'm not a biologist). Yet if left to chance LH and RH amino acids would exists in equal numbers, and they do chemically bond with each other just fine.

However, proteins made of LH and RH aminos are useless, apparently (don't ask me why?) So you need somehow to exclude the RH ones.

Which is like saying you need to roll a 6-sided dice and guarantee only even numbers will occur, over however many rolls you need. Which is hundreds? Anyone know what the simplest protein molecule requires in terms of #amino acids?

Man I should really read up on this stuff, again. But I'll just forget it, again.
Click to expand...

There are several statements in this post that are refutable, and you yourself admit your lack of knowledge on the subject. Even going by this logic, you assume that all proteins will react with their opposite and there is an equal number of each. When it's said that they exist 'in equal numbers' it is more like the length of a 'half life'. Over time a pattern emerges, but it's not a completely linear pattern. There could be a build up of LH proteins in a certain place and a build up or RH in another.
 
"There could be a build up" but you aren't presenting a reason why that would be the case. If I mix blue ink with red ink in some water, perhaps the red will stay on one side, perhaps they'll mix, who's to say? If I was randomly creating ink molecules in situ, being randomly distributed in the jar, what reason would they have to collect into pools of their respective colour? Chance?

About the reactions; I'm not assuming. I read that LH and RH aminos can bond together. I didn't just make that up :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom