Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[wellwisher]

Just wondering what scientists say makes - causes a mutation.

Mutations begin as improper base pairing along the DNA. These improper base pairings are at higher potential than proper base pairing. Proper base pairings will form the optimum number of hydrogen bonds, thereby lowering potential. If you think in terms of equilibrium, if there was excess potential in the cell; stress, and thereby near the DNA, the improper base pairing, by being at higher potential may reflect a dynamic equilibrium. The excess potential in the cell may be an environmental stress and this stress is felt on the DNA, and becomes a structural attempt to balance the problem; defines the stress.

Cells have proofreader enzymes, whose job is to correct improper base pairs. They can tell where these flaws are by the extra potential that these typos have and emit into the water; finger print. However, the fact that the proof reader enzymes allow some typos to remain, or we would not have mutations, suggests that the cellular equilibrium or the need, is also felt by the proof readers, with an acceptance of this change consistent with a better story. One way for the proofreader to have its cake and eat it to, is leave the typo that formed on the changed strand, but alter the base on the complementary strand to the lower the overall potential. This lowers the potential while leaving a stable double change.

 

[wellwisher]

First gravity does not emanate from the mass, bad science, "Easy?" of course we cannot see gravity, and it is not inferred it is objectively measured.

Faith is not like gravity it is subjective belief in things without evidence in terms of belief in Gods, spirits, supernatural and miracles. The bold is incomprehensible nonsense.

In your case "Trash in results in trach out."

The more mass we add the more gravity we will measure. If we take away all the mass, the gravity goes away and follows the mass. Either way, how can you objectively measure what you cannot see? That is black box science. We infer gravity from the impact on what we can see such as via mass. The mass of the universe gives the space-time effect capacitance. Below in the diagram if the sun disappeared that diagram would flatten. Or if the sun collapsed to a neutron star, it would dig a deeper hole. Gravity and the curvature of space-time more accurately defined by mass density.

The current theory of gravity as defined by General Relativity; GR, does not explain many important artifacts of gravity like the phases changes of matter that occurs within planets and stars due to gravity. If we applied GR to the sun, the core and center of gravity will contract or curve space-time the most. This is where time slows and distance contracts.

If we look at the core in terms of material/energy, the work from gravity creates pressure and heat and then fusion which causes the core to become the hottest zone. Although distance in the core contracts due to gravitational pressure, in the same direction as GR, time or frequency speeds up; kinetic energy and frequency. Time is not following the direction lead down by GR. The GR approach is incomplete since that is only addresses space-time but not the contrary expressions of time.

Gravity is also an acceleration which is d/t/t or space-time plus independent time. This is true of all forces; extra time. Special Relativity is about velocity which is d/t and is consistent with just space-time. The laws of physics, such as forces, are not effected. Gravity and the other forces also have extra time potential and this gives extra attributes we can also measure such as force and pressure.

 

[Revoltingest]

My breeding days were fairly comical.

 

[shunyadragon]

No. An example would be fine.

By asking for something more specific does not amount to acquiring a general knowledge of evolution that requires a good understanding for making judgements concerning the validity of the sciences of evolution. I would not recommend Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species, because it is old, Yes Charles Darwin is among the first to propose what he called the Theory of evolution, but the sciences of evolution have moved far beyond Darwin and should not be called Darwinism. There are many excellent general references on evolution that give comprehensive source. Take your pick.

It is important to understand contemporary scientific definitions, uses of terms like evidence, random, nothing, miracle (standard definition), randomness and statistics/probability

 

[shunyadragon]

The more mass we add the more gravity we will measure. If we take away all the mass, the gravity goes away and follows the mass. Either way, how can you objectively measure what you cannot see? That is black box science. We infer gravity from the impact on what we can see such as via mass. The mass of the universe gives the space-time effect capacitance. Below in the diagram if the sun disappeared that diagram would flatten. Or if the sun collapsed to a neutron star, it would dig a deeper hole. Gravity and the curvature of space-time more accurately defined by mass density.

The current theory of gravity as defined by General Relativity; GR, does not explain many important artifacts of gravity like the phases changes of matter that occurs within planets and stars due to gravity. If we applied GR to the sun, the core and center of gravity will contract or curve space-time the most. This is where time slows and distance contracts.

If we look at the core in terms of material/energy, the work from gravity creates pressure and heat and then fusion which causes the core to become the hottest

zone. Although distance in the core contracts due to gravitational pressure, in the same direction as GR, time or frequency speeds up; kinetic energy and frequency. Time is not following the direction lead down by GR. The GR approach is incomplete since that is only addresses space-time but not the contrary expressions of time.

Gravity is also an acceleration which is d/t/t or space-time plus independent time. This is true of all forces; extra time. Special Relativity is about velocity which is d/t and is consistent with just space-time. The laws of physics, such as forces, are not effected. Gravity and the other forces also have extra time potential and this gives extra attributes we can also measure such as force and pressure.

It is uncertain where you actually disagree with the substance of my post. I agree with your factual description of of gravity, but disagree with some of your philosophical interpretations.

For all practical purposes we can measure gravity,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

gravity does not emanate from the mass

Just to elaborate on that a bit, "A mass such as the sun does not shoot out gravitational force field lines. Rather, mass warps space and time, and when an object travels in a straight line through a warped spacetime, the object seems to be acted on by a force." Does the influence of gravity extend out forever?

Even so, isn't the warping of that surrounding space an effect of the matter in the gravitation well, and if so, can't that be described as gravity emanating from mass?

That's an interesting article on gravity, by the way, considering that it's effect may not be infinite, which is a concept I was first introduced to in an alternative explanation to accelerating universal expansion not hypothesizing dark energy, but rather, postulating that as the universe grew beyond a certain scale, gravity stopped being a factor except locally (up to the scale of clusters of galaxies).

The more mass we add the more gravity we will measure. If we take away all the mass, the gravity goes away and follows the mass. Either way, how can you objectively measure what you cannot see?

As I understand it, we do "see" gravity now thanks to the technology that detects gravity waves directly rather than by observing massive object accelerating:

"The first direct observation of gravitational waves was made in September 2015 by the Advanced LIGO observatories, detecting gravitational waves with wavelengths of a few thousand kilometers from a merging binary of stellar black holes" (source)

You're a religious man as I recall. Many Abrahamists object to the idea of the brain causing the mind, which this discussion reminds me of. They want to argue that minds can be removed from brains as when an eternal soul departs a body. You seem to be arguing that gravity is an effect of matter rather than merely an associated phenomenon, which implies that one can't separate gravity from matter and have a pure gravitational field, and most would agree.

Would you also agree that mind can't be separated from brain, or is that somehow different for you?

 

[shunyadragon]

Just to elaborate on that a bit, "A mass such as the sun does not shoot out gravitational force field lines. Rather, mass warps space and time, and when an object travels in a straight line through a warped spacetime, the object seems to be acted on by a force." Does the influence of gravity extend out forever?

Even so, isn't the warping of that surrounding space an effect of the matter in the gravitation well, and if so, can't that be described as gravity emanating from mass?

No,

That's an interesting article on gravity, by the way, considering that it's effect may not be infinite, which is a concept I was first introduced to in an alternative explanation to accelerating universal expansion not hypothesizing dark energy, but rather, postulating that as the universe grew beyond a certain scale, gravity stopped being a factor except locally (up to the scale of clusters of galaxies).

As I understand it, we do "see" gravity now thanks to the technology that detects them directly rather than by observing massive object accelerating:

"The first direct observation of gravitational waves was made in September 2015 by the Advanced LIGO observatories, detecting gravitational waves with wavelengths of a few thousand kilometers from a merging binary of stellar black holes" (source)

OK

You're a religious man as I recall. Many Abrahamists object to the idea of the brain causing the mind, which this discussion reminds me of. They want to argue that minds can be removed from brains as when an eternal soul departs a body. You seem to be arguing that gravity is an effect of matter rather than merely an associated phenomenon, which implies that one can't separate gravity from matter and have a pure gravitational field, and most would agree.

Would you also agree that mind can't be separated from brain, or is that somehow different for you?

I agree, the mind cannot be separated from the brain. IF the soul exists I believe it is separate from the brain and mind.

 

[Pogo]

The more mass we add the more gravity we will measure. If we take away all the mass, the gravity goes away and follows the mass. Either way, how can you objectively measure what you cannot see? That is black box science. We infer gravity from the impact on what we can see such as via mass. The mass of the universe gives the space-time effect capacitance. Below in the diagram if the sun disappeared that diagram would flatten. Or if the sun collapsed to a neutron star, it would dig a deeper hole. Gravity and the curvature of space-time more accurately defined by mass density.

The current theory of gravity as defined by General Relativity; GR, does not explain many important artifacts of gravity like the phases changes of matter that occurs within planets and stars due to gravity. If we applied GR to the sun, the core and center of gravity will contract or curve space-time the most. This is where time slows and distance contracts.

If we look at the core in terms of material/energy, the work from gravity creates pressure and heat and then fusion which causes the core to become the hottest zone. Although distance in the core contracts due to gravitational pressure, in the same direction as GR, time or frequency speeds up; kinetic energy and frequency. Time is not following the direction lead down by GR. The GR approach is incomplete since that is only addresses space-time but not the contrary expressions of time.

Gravity is also an acceleration which is d/t/t or space-time plus independent time. This is true of all forces; extra time. Special Relativity is about velocity which is d/t and is consistent with just space-time. The laws of physics, such as forces, are not effected. Gravity and the other forces also have extra time potential and this gives extra attributes we can also measure such as force and pressure.

Emm gravity actually decreases to zero at the center of a sphere so I'm not sure the rest of your explanation makes any more sense.

Gravity at the center of the Earth is zero because the forces from the upper and lower halves of the Earth cancel each other out. This is because mass attracts mass, and the same amount of mass is present in every direction. If you were at the center of the Earth, it would feel like you were weightless.

As with your electrostatic potential and DNA, I think you are wildly extrapolating from a small part of the physical reality.

 

[John53]

No. An example would be fine.

Galapagos Finches

 

[SkepticThinker]

However it is still true that if you assert that one view is more likely to be true than the other, you have a burden proof….which was the point of the comment

You need to stop making probability claims you can't back up. That was the point of my comment. And also to point out that you're confusing the definitions of a/theism and a/gnosticism as though they're mutually exclusive, which they are not.

So yes, I agree that if you make a claim, then you bear the burden of proof.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, what i said originally, is that I understand the word agnostic to mean “I dont know and I have no reason to think that one view is more likely to be true than the other”

It doesn't mean that.

Read my post again.

If you think that I am missuing the term “agnostic” that is ok, (I don’t care) feel free to use any other word.

Or we could use the proper words, so everybody knows what we're talking about.

The relevant question is, does that position (call it agnosticism or however you want) represents your view? Yes or no?.....just kidding, nobody is expecting a direct answer from you…

 

[leroy]

No. By implication of the words "brings about.." and "follows..."

If you think those words imply “in time” then change the words and use any other words that you find convenient………………..why do you keep insisting on semantics?

You can claim whatever you wish. That doesn't change the evidence of reality or the physical phenomenon of causality.

I'm just saying it is absurd to invoke the physics of the universe, to explain the universe.

Why would the cause of the universe be limited by the laws of the universe?

And you actually pretty much agree with that as per your own analogy that you can't explain the first computer by invoking another computer.

The computer analogy has nothing to do with physics it has to do with logic………….logically speaking the first computer can´t be caused by a preexisting computer……………you may or may not agree, but the point is that it is not analogous………………


Do you have anythogn to add besides your semantic tricks this is getting long and boring?

 

[shunyadragon]

If you think those words imply “in time” then change the words and use any other words that you find convenient………………..why do you keep insisting on semantics?

I believe how we use and define is very important, I have long objected to how many Christian Theists misuse words for their own agenda. Words like evidence, random, miracles, nothing, and probability/statistics are often misused and self-defined to justify an agenda.

Why would the cause of the universe be limited by the laws of the universe?

It would not be necessarily Natural Laws. It is possible our physical existence and Natural Laws are Created by God. "I believe so." At present the only objective verifiable evidence we have is the nature of our physical existence and the origin of our universe is natural.

The computer analogy has nothing to do with physics it has to do with logic………….logically speaking the first computer can´t be caused by a preexisting computer……………you may or may not agree, but the point is that it is not analogous………………

I agree that the computer analogy is meaningless. With large enough computers and AI there is almost no limit to be what we can program, it remains a human created program.

Do you have any thing to add besides your semantic tricks this is getting long and boring?

Proper use of terminology such as random, miracle (standard definition), nothing, and statistics and probability.

 

[leroy]

So yes, I agree that if you make a claim, then you bear the burden of proof.

Ok, so do you claim that a world view that includes naturalism is better supported by the evidence than theism? (yes or no)


if yes, then you have aburden proof

 

[leroy]

It doesn't mean that.

Read my post again.

Or we could use the proper words, so everybody knows what we're talking about.

ok if agnostic is not a proper word-----------then what would the proper word for this possition ? “I dont know and I have no reason to think that one view is more likely to be true than the other”


And even more important, does that position represents you?

 

[leroy]

It doesn't mean that.

Read my post again.

Or we could use the proper words, so everybody knows what we're talking about.

ok if agnostic is not a proper word-----------then what would the proper word for this possition ? “I dont know and I have no reason to think that one view is more likely to be true than the other”


And even more important, does that position represents you?

 

[ratiocinator]

Why would the cause of the universe be limited by the laws of the universe?

Using the word 'cause'actually implies that's what you think.

Causality and causes are features of the universe and, given GR, and what it implies about time and causality, applying a cause for the universe doesn't make sense. Not because GR applies to anything apart from the universe, but because it most likely doesn't.

 

[leroy]

Mutations are random with respect to fitness.

perhaps not, perhaps mutations are not always random

Study Challenges Evolutionary Theory That DNA Mutations Are Random​

“It turns out that mutation is very non-random and it’s non-random in a way that benefits the plant. It’s a totally new way of thinking about mutation.”"Study Challenges Evolutionary Theory That DNA Mutations Are Random

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, so do you claim that a world view that includes naturalism is better supported by the evidence than theism? (yes or no)

As far as the objective verifiable evidence all we have is a natural explanation.

if yes, then you have a burden proof

When doing a comparison between a natural versus Theist explanation the comparison should be unbiased without a burden of proof. The Naturalist simply claims the only available objective evidence is for a natural explanation.

perhaps not, perhaps mutations are not always random

There are more research on this subject that has not only questioned the randomness in genetic mutations, but determined that some mutations have been specifically non-random in nature. In the past it was described that mutations are random for fitness, but recently this is not necessarily the case, See post #2.686.

It remains that the timing and occurrence of mutations is random, but the cause and effect outcomes and reasons for mutations are not necessarily random.

Also Natural selection has also been determined to not random. Essentially the nature of our physical existence is naturalistic deterministic. This is not a rigid deterministic nature, because in this world we have variability in the outcomes of cause and effect events as fractal described by Chaos Theory.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok, so do you claim that a world view that includes naturalism is better supported by the evidence than theism? (yes or no)

Depends a bit on what you mean by 'naturalism', but since there is no objective evidence for theism and such 'subjective evidence' as we have (experiences, hearsay, etc.) is contradictory, of course the view that the natural world is all we have reason to accept is betters supported by evidence.