Vianet.ca
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: a single protein

  1. #41
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    16,988

    Default Re: a single protein

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristotle View Post
    You do not know that, you simply have blind faith it will come to fruition.

    So, back to square one.
    I am not following you. I do not know what?
    Are you saying we are not able to travel the skies or landed on the surface of the moon?

    Or, are you stating I do not know that because I was not there so therefore it could have all been a hoax?
    The flat-earthers use that argument when presented with pictures from earth taken in space. Since they were not there when the picture was taken all the pictures are fake.

    Don't tell me you are one of those...
    2600X at 4.25 Ghz, CLC 240, OCZ Vertex 4, Corsair M4, Samsung EVO 850, Gigabyte G1 GTX 1070, 2 x 8GB Trident Z RGB, Corsair 600T, Samsung 2443BW, Asus PB278Q 2560x1440

  2. #42
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    16,988

    Default Re: a single protein

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesky View Post
    Hans' problem - his blind devotion to scientism.
    Here is a good article on scientism.





    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publi...y-of-scientism

    How am I blind, when I look around and see what science has given us so far, and keep up to date on the many technological advances coming our way in the near future?

    I think ignoring all that is being blind.
    2600X at 4.25 Ghz, CLC 240, OCZ Vertex 4, Corsair M4, Samsung EVO 850, Gigabyte G1 GTX 1070, 2 x 8GB Trident Z RGB, Corsair 600T, Samsung 2443BW, Asus PB278Q 2560x1440

  3. #43
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    16,988

    Default Re: a single protein

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesky View Post
    Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
    ― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
    And Berlin ski is an Agnostic.
    There's so much I could say to this, but I will limit myself to one statement : "Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close"

    That is 100% correct, because they don't have too. Our universe is not fine-tuned for life at all, actually the opposite. That's obvious from all the existing knowledge about the universe.
    Only our planet is fine-tuned for the existence of life. And what is exactly fine tuned to allow life to exist on our planet has been well explained by science.

    So I am not sure what he is exactly getting at with that statement.
    2600X at 4.25 Ghz, CLC 240, OCZ Vertex 4, Corsair M4, Samsung EVO 850, Gigabyte G1 GTX 1070, 2 x 8GB Trident Z RGB, Corsair 600T, Samsung 2443BW, Asus PB278Q 2560x1440

  4. #44
    Senior Member Aristotle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,503

    Default Re: a single protein

    [QUOTE=Hans;779704]There's so much I could say to this, but I will limit myself to one statement : "Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close"

    That is 100% correct, because they don't have too. Our universe is not fine-tuned for life at all, actually the opposite.
    /QUOTE]



    Errrr ...what????
    The one exclusive sign of thorough knowledge is the power of teaching.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Bluesky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7,345

    Default Re: a single protein

    Doesn't have to be?

    Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
    strong nuclear force constant
    if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
    if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
    weak nuclear force constant
    if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
    if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
    gravitational force constant
    if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
    if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
    electromagnetic force constant
    if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
    if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
    ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
    if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
    ratio of electron to proton mass
    if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
    if smaller: same as above
    ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
    if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
    if smaller: same as above
    expansion rate of the universe
    if larger: no galaxies would form
    if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
    entropy level of the universe
    if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
    if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
    mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
    velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
    age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
    initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
    average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
    density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    Etc etc.
    Last edited by Bluesky; 7 Hours Ago at 11:49 AM.
    The heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Aristotle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,503

    Default Re: a single protein

    Quote Originally Posted by Hans View Post
    I am not following you. I do not know what?
    Are you saying we are not able to travel the skies or landed on the surface of the moon?

    Or, are you stating I do not know that because I was not there so therefore it could have all been a hoax?
    The flat-earthers use that argument when presented with pictures from earth taken in space. Since they were not there when the picture was taken all the pictures are fake.

    Don't tell me you are one of those...
    Hardly
    The one exclusive sign of thorough knowledge is the power of teaching.

  7. #47
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    16,988

    Default Re: a single protein

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesky View Post
    Doesn't have to be?

    Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
    strong nuclear force constant
    if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
    if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
    weak nuclear force constant
    if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
    if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
    gravitational force constant
    if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
    if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
    electromagnetic force constant
    if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
    if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
    ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
    if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
    ratio of electron to proton mass
    if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
    if smaller: same as above
    ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
    if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
    if smaller: same as above
    expansion rate of the universe
    if larger: no galaxies would form
    if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
    entropy level of the universe
    if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
    if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
    mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
    velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
    age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
    initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
    average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
    density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    Etc etc.
    Yes, that is what I said. "Our universe is not fine-tuned for life at all, actually the opposite"

    If you don't believe me jump into space or land on any other surface in our solar system besides earth. I can assure you you will not survive it.
    2600X at 4.25 Ghz, CLC 240, OCZ Vertex 4, Corsair M4, Samsung EVO 850, Gigabyte G1 GTX 1070, 2 x 8GB Trident Z RGB, Corsair 600T, Samsung 2443BW, Asus PB278Q 2560x1440

  8. #48
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    16,988

    Default Re: a single protein

    [QUOTE=Aristotle;779708]
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans View Post
    There's so much I could say to this, but I will limit myself to one statement : "Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close"

    That is 100% correct, because they don't have too. Our universe is not fine-tuned for life at all, actually the opposite.
    /QUOTE]



    Errrr ...what????
    Don't tell me you believe the universe is fine tuned for life? Because if that would be the case, there would be lots of life in the universe besides ours.
    That would cause a few issue for any religion on earth as that would not be accounted for in the creation stories.
    2600X at 4.25 Ghz, CLC 240, OCZ Vertex 4, Corsair M4, Samsung EVO 850, Gigabyte G1 GTX 1070, 2 x 8GB Trident Z RGB, Corsair 600T, Samsung 2443BW, Asus PB278Q 2560x1440

  9. #49
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    16,988

    Default Re: a single protein

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristotle View Post
    Hardly
    Ah good, you were starting to scare me there for a second.
    2600X at 4.25 Ghz, CLC 240, OCZ Vertex 4, Corsair M4, Samsung EVO 850, Gigabyte G1 GTX 1070, 2 x 8GB Trident Z RGB, Corsair 600T, Samsung 2443BW, Asus PB278Q 2560x1440

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts