• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Facts vs evidence

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
I think that’s what is called teleonomy, which is rather different, being concerned with the ability of even quite simple organisms to exhibit apparently purposeful behaviour.

There nothing in that to suggest a purpose behind how life arises, or guiding evolution, for example.
The guiding principle for life is water. Liquid water is a very stable matrix of water molecules, where each molecule of water secondary bonds with up to four strong hydrogen bonds. This imparts stability to liquid water and gives it a huge boiling point for such a small and light molecule.

Individual water molecules are also very stable molecules, born in fire; terminal product of combustion and metabolism or the oxygen and hydrogen flame. The liquid water molecule and matrix has not changed over time. It was there before life and has stayed the same as life evolved. The stability of water has the highest priority in life; timeless self organized bookend.

The organics, which are the other side of the coin of life, have the opposite role, in the sense that organics seem to have endless possibilities, due to the four bonds possible with carbon atoms in organic materials. Water does not change but the organics are always changing; synthesis, recycle and creation. Just as water and oil do not mix, this endless variety of organics in water, create unique surface tension profiles in water, adding potential and even gradients to the water matrix stability. The matrix of water, lowering this potential over time, is vector for cradle to grave evolution.

For example, if we mixed lipids in water, the surface tension of the water, will force the lipids to oriented to minimize surface tension, thereby forming a cell membrane; chaos to order. This is not random, but driven by the needs of the strongly bonded water matrix to reform. This repeatable and timeless shape of the lipids defines minimal energy in water. This is not zero energy, so there is lingering potential, that will require the addition of proteins to further lower the potential.

Ions are important, since these help to extend the bandwidth of the water matrix. The two most important ions are Sodium and Potassium, since these two positive ions can compete with the hydrogen bonding of water and extend its bandwidth; both up and down. Sodium is kosmotropic creating more order in the water matrix than pure water will create for itself. While potassium is chaotropic creating more disorder in water than pure water creates for itself. Cells tend to accumulate potassium inside and sodium outside to create two different water zones with two different water needs.

Inside the cell, the potential of the internal water matrix is used to fold and pack protein. The folding begins with the moieties with the most surface tension in water being packed first; hydrophobic. This lowers the water surface tension, the fastest. The folding finishes with the lowest surface tension moieties on the surface. This is highly repeatable, due to the same protein types following the same potential gradient logic. The potassium by making the water more chaotic, adds some slack to the minimal surface tension requirements, so enzymes can flex; Enzymes need conformational changes to work properly.

Outside the cell, the sodium by creating more order in water mimics surface tension; attractant for food. Organic food materials will add surface tension to the outside water, as they approach and collect near the cell. This could force pure water to become too ordered, until it might tries to reverse the surface tension; repelling the food. The Sodium orders the water, outside the cell, so it is easier for even more food to flow toward the membrane; mimic higher surface tension.

Neurons expand 90% of their metabolic energy pumping and exchanging sodium and potassium ions. The firing of neurons causes these cations to reverse. Sodium in and potassium out temporarily reverses the water compartments. It creates more Sodium induced order in the cell, for changes connected to fixed memory. Outside, the potassium prevent a food log jam that could impede the surface flow of ions.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I think that many people believe and I am OK with that. I believe in things.

But when they criticize science it is always based what they want to believe and not on what they can demonstrate.

A man sees a dark biped walking in the woods at night, the automatic explanation is Bigfoot. By his "evidence" he has eliminated all other possibilities without any observable effort to that end. It definitely wasn't a bear walking on two legs and the test for that is the man doesn't want it to be a bear walking on two legs, so it must be, by his "evidence", what he wants it to be, Bigfoot.

Well, we have at least one poster that claims everything can done by science with evidence, logic and without bias. Notice that is actually not science, but another version of philosophy.
I have never actually seem evidence for that and it contradicts this site:

Now there are 3 positions here:
Those who don't understand science at all and thinks it doesn't work at all.
Those who understand the limit of science and understand how science works.
Those who don't understand science as for its limits and thinks science can do everything.

That is the actual definition of scientism: Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
Not what the first group claims, but what the third group does.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, we have at least one poster that claims everything can done by science with evidence, logic and without bias. Notice that is actually not science, but another version of philosophy.
I have never actually seem evidence for that and it contradicts this site:

Now there are 3 positions here:
Those who don't understand science at all and thinks it doesn't work at all.
Those who understand the limit of science and understand how science works.
Those who don't understand science as for its limits and thinks science can do everything.

That is the actual definition of scientism: Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
Not what the first group claims, but what the third group does.
What is the version of scientism here? Is it really scientism in a pure sense or one of the version used most often on here as a pejorative for atheists or non-believers in whatever those levying the charge happen to believe?

Is it scientism or realism?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Look at all the evidence for Bigfoot.

All the myths and legends. They must have some sort of real core round which those pearls were formed.

All the eyewitness accounts. Those are substantial and must mean Bigfoot exists, since no other explanation will suffice for them.

Footprints. What else could make footprints like that?

Hair. Scat.

If you will allow me to wax psychologically, Bigfoot is characterized by a duality of personality that has both an affinity for encountering people and a secretive nature that demands that it or they remain cryptic and out of sight of people.

Science only claims there is no evidence, but look at all the evidence I have listed just off the top of my head.

Bigfoot is real.

Yeah, that reminds me of a scientist on the Internet I can across years ago. He seemed to be able to do the correct version of how science works in practice and yet he claimed that when I was wrong, that was an actual physical case of actually physical wrong in my brain.
People are funny that way. They have normal lives and yet they are also weird in some sense.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
The guiding principle for life is water. Liquid water is a very stable matrix of water molecules, where each molecule of water secondary bonds with up to four strong hydrogen bonds. This imparts stability to liquid water and gives it a huge boiling point for such a small and light molecule.

Individual water molecules are also very stable molecules, born in fire; terminal product of combustion and metabolism or the oxygen and hydrogen flame. The liquid water molecule and matrix has not changed over time. It was there before life and has stayed the same as life evolved. The stability of water has the highest priority in life; timeless self organized bookend.

The organics, which are the other side of the coin of life, have the opposite role, in the sense that organics seem to have endless possibilities, due to the four bonds possible with carbon atoms in organic materials. Water does not change but the organics are always changing; synthesis, recycle and creation. Just as water and oil do not mix, this endless variety of organics in water, create unique surface tension profiles in water, adding potential and even gradients to the water matrix stability. The matrix of water, lowering this potential over time, is vector for cradle to grave evolution.

For example, if we mixed lipids in water, the surface tension of the water, will force the lipids to oriented to minimize surface tension, thereby forming a cell membrane; chaos to order. This is not random, but driven by the needs of the strongly bonded water matrix to reform. This repeatable and timeless shape of the lipids defines minimal energy in water. This is not zero energy, so there is lingering potential, that will require the addition of proteins to further lower the potential.

Ions are important, since these help to extend the bandwidth of the water matrix. The two most important ions are Sodium and Potassium, since these two positive ions can compete with the hydrogen bonding of water and extend its bandwidth; both up and down. Sodium is kosmotropic creating more order in the water matrix than pure water will create for itself. While potassium is chaotropic creating more disorder in water than pure water creates for itself. Cells tend to accumulate potassium inside and sodium outside to create two different water zones with two different water needs.

Inside the cell, the potential of the internal water matrix is used to fold and pack protein. The folding begins with the moieties with the most surface tension in water being packed first; hydrophobic. This lowers the water surface tension, the fastest. The folding finishes with the lowest surface tension moieties on the surface. This is highly repeatable, due to the same protein types following the same potential gradient logic. The potassium by making the water more chaotic, adds some slack to the minimal surface tension requirements, so enzymes can flex; Enzymes need conformational changes to work properly.

Outside the cell, the sodium by creating more order in water mimics surface tension; attractant for food. Organic food materials will add surface tension to the outside water, as they approach and collect near the cell. This could force pure water to become too ordered, until it might tries to reverse the surface tension; repelling the food. The Sodium orders the water, outside the cell, so it is easier for even more food to flow toward the membrane; mimic higher surface tension.

Neurons expand 90% of their metabolic energy pumping and exchanging sodium and potassium ions. The firing of neurons causes these cations to reverse. Sodium in and potassium out temporarily reverses the water compartments. It creates more Sodium induced order in the cell, for changes connected to fixed memory. Outside, the potassium prevent a food log jam that could impede the surface flow of ions.
…and the cracked record continues to revolve, off-topic as usual……:rolleyes:

But this time only 2 Wellwisher Bingo points, for water and for H-bonding.
No mention of entropy or liberals, I notice.:cool:
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, we have at least one poster that claims everything can done by science with evidence, logic and without bias. Notice that is actually not science, but another version of philosophy.
I have never actually seem evidence for that and it contradicts this site:

Now there are 3 positions here:
Those who don't understand science at all and thinks it doesn't work at all.
Those who understand the limit of science and understand how science works.
Those who don't understand science as for its limits and thinks science can do everything.

That is the actual definition of scientism: Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
Not what the first group claims, but what the third group does.
I think this thread is mostly split between those that either don't understand science or don't want to and those that understand science and hold many different personal beliefs. The most common of which is some form of agnosticism.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
What is this evidence and how is it used to demonstrate claims?
That we can ask the question, "Does God exist?" but we cannot answer this question, demonstrates that it is logically possible that God exists.

That we cannot answer the question also demonstrates that the content of the question excedes the limitations of our understanding. Leaving whatever conclusion we draw to remain suspect.
What benefit would it be to science were it accepted and employed?
This question transcends the realm of science.
How would it enhance our understanding of the natural world and help the blind to see?
By giving the "natural world" a transcendent context within which to exist. The same goes for the "blind" man.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
That we can ask the question, "Does God exist?" but we cannot answer this question, demonstrates that it is logically possible that God exists.
It is evidence that we can conceptualize and ask questions. What is meant by "God" in that question is undefined. It could mean nature.
That we cannot answer the question also demonstrates that the content of the question excedes the limitations of our understanding. Leaving whatever conclusion we draw to remain suspect.
That puts parameters around us again. It is also the beginnings of arguments from ignorance.
This question transcends the realm of science.
Certainly science has limits, but within the scope that science fits, it has been performing well for us. Often many of the failures attributed to science are not from science but from the tool users abusing it, manipulating it, suppressing the information or misrepresenting it.
By giving the "natural world" a transcendent context within which to exist. The same goes for the "blind" man.
I'm not sure what you mean. By making rational statements about what we learn from the natural world, this is not transcendent and helped man blinded by the god of lightning learn about electricity.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
The guiding principle for life is water. Liquid water is a very stable matrix of water molecules, where each molecule of water secondary bonds with up to four strong hydrogen bonds. This imparts stability to liquid water and gives it a huge boiling point for such a small and light molecule.

Individual water molecules are also very stable molecules, born in fire; terminal product of combustion and metabolism or the oxygen and hydrogen flame. The liquid water molecule and matrix has not changed over time. It was there before life and has stayed the same as life evolved. The stability of water has the highest priority in life; timeless self organized bookend.

The organics, which are the other side of the coin of life, have the opposite role, in the sense that organics seem to have endless possibilities, due to the four bonds possible with carbon atoms in organic materials. Water does not change but the organics are always changing; synthesis, recycle and creation. Just as water and oil do not mix, this endless variety of organics in water, create unique surface tension profiles in water, adding potential and even gradients to the water matrix stability. The matrix of water, lowering this potential over time, is vector for cradle to grave evolution.

For example, if we mixed lipids in water, the surface tension of the water, will force the lipids to oriented to minimize surface tension, thereby forming a cell membrane; chaos to order. This is not random, but driven by the needs of the strongly bonded water matrix to reform. This repeatable and timeless shape of the lipids defines minimal energy in water. This is not zero energy, so there is lingering potential, that will require the addition of proteins to further lower the potential.

Ions are important, since these help to extend the bandwidth of the water matrix. The two most important ions are Sodium and Potassium, since these two positive ions can compete with the hydrogen bonding of water and extend its bandwidth; both up and down. Sodium is kosmotropic creating more order in the water matrix than pure water will create for itself. While potassium is chaotropic creating more disorder in water than pure water creates for itself. Cells tend to accumulate potassium inside and sodium outside to create two different water zones with two different water needs.

Inside the cell, the potential of the internal water matrix is used to fold and pack protein. The folding begins with the moieties with the most surface tension in water being packed first; hydrophobic. This lowers the water surface tension, the fastest. The folding finishes with the lowest surface tension moieties on the surface. This is highly repeatable, due to the same protein types following the same potential gradient logic. The potassium by making the water more chaotic, adds some slack to the minimal surface tension requirements, so enzymes can flex; Enzymes need conformational changes to work properly.

Outside the cell, the sodium by creating more order in water mimics surface tension; attractant for food. Organic food materials will add surface tension to the outside water, as they approach and collect near the cell. This could force pure water to become too ordered, until it might tries to reverse the surface tension; repelling the food. The Sodium orders the water, outside the cell, so it is easier for even more food to flow toward the membrane; mimic higher surface tension.

Neurons expand 90% of their metabolic energy pumping and exchanging sodium and potassium ions. The firing of neurons causes these cations to reverse. Sodium in and potassium out temporarily reverses the water compartments. It creates more Sodium induced order in the cell, for changes connected to fixed memory. Outside, the potassium prevent a food log jam that could impede the surface flow of ions.
You are instructing a chemist on
the simple basics of water ?

Do you have some tips on the fine points
of Cantonese grammar?
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I think this thread is mostly split between those that either don't understand science or don't want to and those that understand science and hold many different personal beliefs. The most common of which is some form of agnosticism.

Yes, but there is where it gets funny.

We had one poster who claim that the subjective beliefs he held where in fact objective because all his experiences where objective as per observation as in effect no different than the 5 senses and he didn't nothing but science in effect. And he was an atheist and gnostic.
Now I had to put him on ignore, because we decided to put each other on ignore.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
That we can ask the question, "Does God exist?" but we cannot answer this question, demonstrates that it is logically possible that God exists.

That we cannot answer the question also demonstrates that the content of the question excedes the limitations of our understanding. Leaving whatever conclusion we draw to remain suspect.

This question transcends the realm of science.

By giving the "natural world" a transcendent context within which to exist. The same goes for the "blind" man.
Does God want us to live in ignorance or use the senses and intelligence He gifted us with to learn and understand the world around us?

According to you, that I can ask this question demonstrates it is a logical possibility that science is a gift from God.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, but there is where it gets funny.

We had one poster who claim that the subjective beliefs he held where in fact objective because all his experiences where objective as per observation as in effect no different than the 5 senses and he didn't nothing but science in effect. And he was an atheist and gnostic.
Now I had to put him on ignore, because we decided to put each other on ignore.
Not being part of another conversation, I can't say much. But it sounds like a person that has concluded that both their subjective and objective reality are one same and that would be the core of a belief system. I don't think it would fit under the banner of scientism though.

Of course, I could be misunderstanding you.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
His framework is of goal oriented intelligence as it directly relates to empiricism and experimentation.

Sure, but again it is important to be clear what this is. It is about the mechanisms that lead organisms, individually or collectively, to exhibit purposeful behaviour, e.g. a swarm of bees, or a colony of protozoa, or a plant, or whatever. It is not suggesting any kind of supervising or guiding agency external to nature.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I think that’s what is called teleonomy, which is rather different, being concerned with the ability of even quite simple organisms to exhibit apparently purposeful behaviour.

There nothing in that to suggest a purpose behind how life arises, or guiding evolution, for example.
Why would an omnipotent "god" need
to tinker with his creation like it was
@Revoltingest old car, to keep it going?
 
Top