My DNA Challenge

[_-iconoclast-_]

There are no rights/wrong/good/evil. Only opinions.

Hey hey my friend opti

So stealing is not good/bad, right or wrong. Stealing is an opinion?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey hey my friend opti

So stealing is not good/bad, right or wrong. Stealing is an opinion?

As they say:

War doesn't determine who's right, war determines who's left.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

As they say:

War doesn't determine who's right, war determines who's left.

I like you.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hey hey my friend opti

So stealing is not good/bad, right or wrong. Stealing is an opinion?

Stealing is an action that one can have opinions on.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well that should insure every child aces their math tests, no matter what they put down as an answer.

0/0=1

No, read up on the matter.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, read up on the matter.

I did -- post 299.

 

[VirOptimus]

I did -- post 299.

No, as you obviously dont understand (or maybe you just troll) you havent educated yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, as you obviously dont understand (or maybe you just troll) you havent educated yourself.

So I need a whole education, just to understand post 299?

 

[VirOptimus]

So I need a whole education, just to understand post 299?

Depends. I think you are deliberatly obtuse but on the offchance that you post in good faith; right/wrong is regarding moral positions (i.e. metaphysics) not knowledge as a whole.

 

[HitchSlap]

Would you say that stealing from someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong?

Can you conceive of a situation when stealing may be inherently good?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hey psychopathic noblewoman

"Nothing more humbling though than being an insignificant, transient speck on a water covered rock that has no ultimate purpose, though"

Good - to be desired or approved of.

So this attitude - too small or unimportant to be worth consideration - is a desired way of thinking?

Cheers

I never said it was a desired way of thinking, only that it doesn't cause me any emotional distress or result in me wanting to harm other people.

It was a response to a person that both suggested that atheists such as myself were "too proud for belief", as well as trying to appeal to the common desire to be important.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hey hey my friend opti

So stealing is not good/bad, right or wrong. Stealing is an opinion?

What if I steal food because I am starving, and the people I am stealing from have an excess of food? Is that outright morally wrong? What if I am stealing information to help cool down a potential nuclear war? Is that wrong just because I am stealing? Life has more nuances than "this always good, this always bad" can cover.

 

[ruthiesea]

What if I steal food because I am starving, and the people I am stealing from have an excess of food? Is that outright morally wrong? What if I am stealing information to help cool down a potential nuclear war? Is that wrong just because I am stealing? Life has more nuances than "this always good, this always bad" can cover.

You are talking about extenuating circumstances. Stealing could be justified, although still wrong, just a killing a person can be excusable or justified, under the law.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are talking about extenuating circumstances.

Most people do not steal purely out of malice or greed.

Stealing could be justified, although still wrong, just a killing a person can be excusable or justified, under the law.

So it would be wrong to steal, even if it's to prevent a nuclear war, according to your moral compass. You must be surrounded by a bunch of boulders made of iron.

 

[Divide]

Ok, I checked and there does not seem to be text available for all of Chuck Misslers videos. So I rewatched a few and managed to find some short ones for your perusal (and others!) that are specifically about the subject matter.

I especially like this one, because he gets right to the point of statistacal probabilities of DNA forming by chance...which was P'shawed by a particular poster because Chuck was a businessman and not anything scientific in nature. He was Harvard educated though, so easily puts to shame our skeptical poster, lol.

He gives enough info, that you can check his work with a calculator.
Enjoy Brothers and Sisters...

 

[Divide]

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, I checked and there does not seem to be text available for all of Chuck Misslers videos.

Did you see his (and Mark Eastman's?) CREATION SERIES videos?

 

[Divide]

Did you see his (and Mark Eastman's?) CREATION SERIES videos?

I'm not sure Brother. I've watched about a zillion Chuck Missler videos so can't remember offhand.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ok, I checked and there does not seem to be text available for all of Chuck Misslers videos. So I rewatched a few and managed to find some short ones for your perusal (and others!) that are specifically about the subject matter.

I especially like this one, because he gets right to the point of statistacal probabilities of DNA forming by chance...which was P'shawed by a particular poster because Chuck was a businessman and not anything scientific in nature. He was Harvard educated though, so easily puts to shame our skeptical poster, lol.

He gives enough info, that you can check his work with a calculator.
Enjoy Brothers and Sisters...

XD his "Morse code" beads crack me up; we only have his word that he didn't make that necklace that way intentionally.

Also, a fundamental issue with his type of argument:
1. it's about abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution starts with the first living cell, not with DNA by itself.
2. This video seems rather old based on the quality, so poor Chuck of the past hasn't been exposed to the abiogenesis experiments circa de 2013 in which protocells developed. Hence why he acts as if the prevailing idea is that DNA came first (when the RNA world theory actually is the current front runner for abiogenesis).
3. Evolution doesn't claim that DNA was random to begin with... or make any claims as to its origin. In fact, due to the selective pressures of evolution, the sequence of genetic material distinctly is not random; that which improves survival and reproduction persists better than that which does not in and of itself makes certain sequences more likely to be seen than others, because those are the sequences that would withstand the test of time and be passed on the most successfully. Thus, Chuck's equations don't apply, since they assume all sequences are equally likely, and this is not true.
4. Another problem with his argument is that for him to have a leg to stand on, he'd have to know how many times DNA/RNA was generated before life existed on this planet. It's impossible to know that, and given that seemingly impossible events can occur if a large enough number of tries are done, any number Chuck comes up with is essentially meaningless (even if it was an accurate representation of the likelihood of functional DNA forming). 1/10^10 stops being so unlikely if there are 10^9 tries, you see.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure Brother. I've watched about a zillion Chuck Missler videos so can't remember offhand.

I love the way he describes the Bible as a message from outside the universe, written in spread-spectrum design and immune to hostile jamming.