• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

Page 30 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
I answered this, sort of, in my last post, but I will directly address it.

"Before" the universe started, there was no time. Without time the rule about cause and effect do not exist, since these are time based.

Logically, the same argument can be used for a purely naturalistic approach to the creation of the universe as there does not need to be a prime mover when cause and effect do not yet exist.

I want to know what offset the equal balance of matter and antimatter at the beginning, but I realize we are treading into VERY new ground with that question (where dark matter and energy came from, for example).
Very new ground indeed. The subject of dark matter has fascinated me since the moment I heard of it. I lack some of the basic understanding of the thinking around it but I think that dark matter, energy, matter and anti-matter could be products of one another. That they are able to "co-exist" in an unbalanced equilibrium.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
IMO, science is something ALL religious people should embrace and advance. There are two great paths to better understand the Creator. The first is through His written and oral Word, the second is by better understanding what He created.

Religion is the first path, science is the second, and all those who want to vastly increase their understanding of the Creator should follow both paths.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,785
8,193
146
Well since abiogenesis isn't really a Scientific theory and more like a hypothesis, and evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of Life, then yes..



Yes I did know this, but that only happens in Space. We're talking about Life on Earth the last time I checked..

Unless you're trying to tell me that Life originated in Space o_O



I don't see what your point was with posting all of this. All of what you said concerning Star formation is well known and Scientifically supported.

The laws of physics and chemistry easily explain how Stars are formed..

Life forms however, ARE ANOTHER MATTER ENTIRELY, and I think you are being disingenuous if you don't realize that.

Are life forms composed of materials found in Stars? Yes. But Life forms also require one other ingredient which is not found in Stars, and which does not adhere to the known laws of physics and chemistry.

INFORMATION. Life forms are vestibules of enormous amounts of complex specific information, in the form of a code.

Thats the key to life, and nothing of what you said acknowledges that truth.

Also, unless you can show one instance of inorganic matter and chemicals self combining to form into a living cell, then admit what you said about "trillions of chemical reactions and environmental factors" eventually leading to a cell is purely hypothetical.

People have been attempting to do just that for many decades now under lab conditions, and insofar, they have utterly failed..

There is no hard evidence whatsoever that Life can arise from inorganic matter...
Well you're perfectly welcome to feel this way, but it doesn't mean you are right.

We are the hard evidence that life can arise from inanimate matter. You are made of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc formed from a star.

Your main problems with understanding this are tied to your innumeracy. I showed you how a random pile of hydrogen can self organize into a solar system. You had no problem with where the information to form the solar system came from all the way up to how organic precursors were formed. You had no problem with single cells evolving into us.

Your only problem was the step from organic chemical to single cell life. The scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis is still under investigation. I'm sorry you're impatient. But that's just the way it is. The information you are so hung up on is hypothesized to have been created during this trillions and trillions of reactions. Combinations of organic chemicals that didn't favor replication in their environments wouldn't be selected. Those that did were selected and eventually became our forerunners.

I don't expect you to understand this because the number of reactions and time scale involved are completely outside of yours and quite frankly most peoples frame of reference, hence your innumeracy problem.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,785
8,193
146
Not a cop out, but a poorly worded statement of what it means to be omnipotent. By the very meaning of the word omnipotent, any being possessing that adjective would no be limited by the rules of our universe. He is not beyond the rules of reality, but beyond the rules of our universe. Reality is everything, which includes an omnipotent god.

One of the big differences between humanity and God is that we are temporal creatures and God is atemporal. God is not bound by time, but we are. God existed "before" time began (since time did not begin until the big bang happened). As a note, we are so time based that we do not even have a word for "before" time began...before is time based and there cannot be a "before" time starts, since there technically is no before yet...

If we simplify time to a river, we are on a log in the river, ever moving forwards. We know where we have been and where we currently are, but we can only see so far ahead and even then we are not sure what we see will come to pass (due to the currently in the river moving us about). God is on the bank of the river. He can clearly see the past, present, and all the potential futures. If He wants one specific future, He simply alters the flow of our log in the river to ensure it takes a specific path and therefor a specific future.
While you are correct that time began with the big bang your explanation still sounds like describing what came before the big bang. While I don't think that's you intent it shows how difficult it is to use our language to discuss things which don't follow our everyday intuition about how the world works. It's like telling someone to go to the North Pole and then go north again. You can't. It's also why mathematics tends to be the best way to describe these phenomenon.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
We are the hard evidence that life can arise from inanimate matter. You are made of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc formed from a star.
You claim life arose from inanimate matter.. Prove it. Show us how it was done, and earn yourself a Nobel Prize.

Your main problems with understanding this are tied to your innumeracy. I showed you how a random pile of hydrogen can self organize into a solar system. You had no problem with where the information to form the solar system came from all the way up to how organic precursors were formed. You had no problem with single cells evolving into us.
If I'm innumerate, then you're illiterate. I already told you we're discussing LIFE ON EARTH.

Also, it's a false analogy to compare the formation of Stars with that of living creatures. The formation of Stars, solar systems and even galaxies can be explained to a great extent using currently known Scientific laws.

Not so with living creatures however. Living creatures defy the laws of physics and chemistry.

Living creatures are the most complex and ordered structures known to Science. Not only that though, but they contain extremely dense and complex information in the form of a code....something which inanimate matter does not have.

And to top it off, they have CONSCIOUSNESS.. Again, not even remotely comparable.

Your only problem was the step from organic chemical to single cell life. The scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis is still under investigation. I'm sorry you're impatient. But that's just the way it is. The information you are so hung up on is hypothesized to have been created during this trillions and trillions of reactions. Combinations of organic chemicals that didn't favor replication in their environments wouldn't be selected. Those that did were selected and eventually became our forerunners.
That wasn't my only problem. There's the information problem as well, and last but not least, the problem of consciousness.

I don't expect you to understand this because the number of reactions and time scale involved are completely outside of yours and quite frankly most peoples frame of reference, hence your innumeracy problem.
LOL yeah, Time is the new God now isn't it? Give something enough time, and "anything" is possible :rolleyes:

Too bad the odds are stacked against you. There have been numerous mathematical calculations by experts to discern the odds involved with life arising from inorganic matter by chance, and they are RIDICULOUS, to the point where it's almost impossible.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
Too bad the odds are stacked against you. There have been numerous mathematical calculations by experts to discern the odds involved with life arising from inorganic matter by chance, and they are RIDICULOUS, to the point where it's almost impossible.
Show me one example of those calculations, with results.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
While you are correct that time began with the big bang your explanation still sounds like describing what came before the big bang. While I don't think that's you intent it shows how difficult it is to use our language to discuss things which don't follow our everyday intuition about how the world works. It's like telling someone to go to the North Pole and then go north again. You can't. It's also why mathematics tends to be the best way to describe these phenomenon.
Yep, exactly the problem. Our language is incapable of explaining what happened "before" the big bang due to there being no before time began...since before requires time to be used.

It really highlights a limitation in human thinking, one I am not sure we can ever get past due to being time based creatures.
 

modestninja

Senior member
Jul 17, 2003
753
0
76
You claim life arose from inanimate matter.. Prove it. Show us how it was done, and earn yourself a Nobel Prize.



If I'm innumerate, then you're illiterate. I already told you we're discussing LIFE ON EARTH.

Also, it's a false analogy to compare the formation of Stars with that of living creatures. The formation of Stars, solar systems and even galaxies can be explained to a great extent using currently known Scientific laws.

Not so with living creatures however. Living creatures defy the laws of physics and chemistry.

Living creatures are the most complex and ordered structures known to Science. Not only that though, but they contain extremely dense and complex information in the form of a code....something which inanimate matter does not have.

And to top it off, they have CONSCIOUSNESS.. Again, not even remotely comparable.



That wasn't my only problem. There's the information problem as well, and last but not least, the problem of consciousness.



LOL yeah, Time is the new God now isn't it? Give something enough time, and "anything" is possible :rolleyes:

Too bad the odds are stacked against you. There have been numerous mathematical calculations by experts to discern the odds involved with life arising from inorganic matter by chance, and they are RIDICULOUS, to the point where it's almost impossible.
Ahhh, I must defer to your wisdom here. There is no stronger proof than proof by BOLD CAPITALIZATION (although there may be an argument for proof by BOLD, RHYMING CAPITALIZATION).
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
"It is not true!'' the poster cried,
As he crafted his post with care;
Supporting each phrase, he had not lied,
with some bolding and caps found there.

"It is not true! I have said it twice:
That alone should give pause all but a few.
It is not true! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true.''




:) My thanks to Lewis Carrol for his original poem.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
I answered this, sort of, in my last post, but I will directly address it.

"Before" the universe started, there was no time. Without time the rule about cause and effect do not exist, since these are time based.

Logically, the same argument can be used for a purely naturalistic approach to the creation of the universe as there does not need to be a prime mover when cause and effect do not yet exist.

I want to know what offset the equal balance of matter and antimatter at the beginning, but I realize we are treading into VERY new ground with that question (where dark matter and energy came from, for example).
WHAT beginning? Please demonstrate that the beginning to which you refer actually occurred.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
WHAT beginning? Please demonstrate that the beginning to which you refer actually occurred.
Big Bang, you may have heard of it.

Timeline of the Big Bang
Main article: Timeline of the Big Bang

Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[11] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch.
In physical cosmology, the Planck epoch (or Planck era), named after Max Planck, is the earliest period of time in the history of the universe, from zero to approximately 10−43 seconds (Planck time), during which, it is believed, quantum effects of gravity were significant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I have indeed. I also know that it is not known to be a beginning of the universe, so you are invited to try again.
Which part of 0 to 10 to the -43rd power seconds makes you think time did not start then? Wait, is that magic man who hangs around you and makes parts of posts go invisible next to you right now? That could be your problem.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
Which part of 0 to 10 to the -43rd power seconds makes you think time did not start then?
We're talking about the universe, not time. Try again.

Wait, is that magic man who hangs around you and makes parts of posts go invisible next to you right now? That could be your problem.
What are you talking about?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,785
8,193
146
You claim life arose from inanimate matter.. Prove it. Show us how it was done, and earn yourself a Nobel Prize.



If I'm innumerate, then you're illiterate. I already told you we're discussing LIFE ON EARTH.

Also, it's a false analogy to compare the formation of Stars with that of living creatures. The formation of Stars, solar systems and even galaxies can be explained to a great extent using currently known Scientific laws.

Not so with living creatures however. Living creatures defy the laws of physics and chemistry.

Living creatures are the most complex and ordered structures known to Science. Not only that though, but they contain extremely dense and complex information in the form of a code....something which inanimate matter does not have.

And to top it off, they have CONSCIOUSNESS.. Again, not even remotely comparable.



That wasn't my only problem. There's the information problem as well, and last but not least, the problem of consciousness.



LOL yeah, Time is the new God now isn't it? Give something enough time, and "anything" is possible :rolleyes:

Too bad the odds are stacked against you. There have been numerous mathematical calculations by experts to discern the odds involved with life arising from inorganic matter by chance, and they are RIDICULOUS, to the point where it's almost impossible.
Well I did provide a brief summary of the current hypothesis how life arose ON Earth and how the complex "code" in DNA/RNA could have occurred through natural processes. Did you read it? I'm sorry your impatient and want answees now but figuring this stuff out takes time. You can go ahead and believe whatever you want but just realize your probably wrong.

As for being innumerate, well your comment about Time being the new god and the odds stacked against me basically prove my point. If I gave you a powerball ticket for each organic chemical reaction that has happened on Earth you'd have won it a million times over.

As for me proving this, it's not my field. I'm just relaying what I remember reading about this.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,924
1,088
126
Ok, I haven't paid attention to this thread in a long time. How in the hell did a thread about a dad disowning his son for being gay turn into a scientific discussion on beginnings of the universe and life?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,785
8,193
146
Ok, I haven't paid attention to this thread in a long time. How in the hell did a thread about a dad disowning his son for being gay turn into a scientific discussion on beginnings of the universe and life?
Dude have ever read P&N?

The only thing even crazier is this hasn't turned into a thread about how women take responsibility or maybe guns.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,924
1,088
126
Dude have ever read P&N?

The only thing even crazier is this hasn't turned into a thread about how women take responsibility or maybe guns.
We usually manage to stay with at least some form of link to the OT, I just can't even imagine how it came to the current discussion. Hell, the Trayvon Martin thread is still mostly on topic after what, 40k posts?
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Ok, I haven't paid attention to this thread in a long time. How in the hell did a thread about a dad disowning his son for being gay turn into a scientific discussion on beginnings of the universe and life?
I'll give it a shot: talking about Dad disowning his gay son -> Bible's view on homosexuality -> Bible-thumpers vs secilarists -> Creation myth vs Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution.

I'll take some responsibility for a derailment at some point in the thread but not all of it.

We usually manage to stay with at least some form of link to the OT, I just can't even imagine how it came to the current discussion. Hell, the Trayvon Martin thread is still mostly on topic after what, 40k posts?
The TM thread has turned into a demilitarized zone of soldiers from both sides lobbing verbal grenades at each other; I wouldn't go in there without a Kevlar suit and flame-thrower. This thread at least maintains some decorum, albeit off topic.
 
Last edited:

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
I'll give it a shot: talking about Dad disowning his gay son -> Bible's view on homosexuality -> Bible-thumpers vs secilarists -> Creation myth vs Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution.

I'll take some responsibility for a derailment at some point in the thread but not all of it.
.
More narrowly, dad disowning his gay son based on biblical teachings > accuracy of biblical teachings in general > accuracy of specific biblical teachings; i.e. origin of life and the universe.

Honestly I'm not wholly sure we even technically off topic because this all still discussing the accuracy of the Bible which is at the root of the condemnation of the kid.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Not so with living creatures however. Living creatures defy the laws of physics and chemistry.
Name one. Seriously, I'll wait. Give me a single law of science life violates.


Too bad the odds are stacked against you. There have been numerous mathematical calculations by experts to discern the odds involved with life arising from inorganic matter by chance, and they are RIDICULOUS, to the point where it's almost impossible.
Show me the proof. I've seen a lot of them too, but never one that didn't display a profound ignorance of math and/or physics.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
We're talking about the universe, not time. Try again.
Time and space are connected, without time there is no space. No space, no universe.


What are you talking about?
The guy who you previously claimed made parts of posts vanish so you were unable to read them and therefor could say they did not exist.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
Time and space are connected
Not to the universe, but to eachother.

...without time there is no space. No space, no universe.
Tell that to the string theorists.

Time and space are a coordinate system. It is a mistake to think that the universe's existence requires them, or that you can infer the non-existence of the universe from the absence of 4 particular coordinate dimensions.

That's two strikes. Wanna take a third swing?

The guy who you previously claimed made parts of posts vanish so you were unable to read them and therefor could say they did not exist.
I never said anything resembling that. You are lying.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY