Quote# 14350

If you choose to believe that atoms happen (randomly) to order themselves into complex right handed and left handed amino acids, and create knotted protein structures and high efficiency chemical self replicating machines and then evolve through happenstance (random) processes only governed by "survival" - well, that is you religion.

Mine is that there is a simple compound God unknowable in essence behind all these things. That is after all the simplist explanation.

AndyHolland, Raving Atheist Forums 34 Comments [8/30/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Tenspace

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom


unfortunately for you, Andy, in the real world \"simplist\" excludes supernatural causes. Pretty much by definition.

8/30/2006 8:11:36 PM


Simple explanations for simpletons.

8/30/2006 8:12:24 PM

Star Cluster

The simplest explanation is rarely the correct explanation. That being said, it is easier for me to believe that molecules become compounds become amino acids, etc., than to believe there is one supreme being that mad e and controls everything in the universe. {b]That[/b] just takes a complete suspension of any logic and thought.

8/30/2006 8:19:21 PM

Anna Ghislaine

You're attacking a straw man, Andy. Atoms do not randomly order themselves into amino acids. The laws of chemistry and physics exert an unbreakable hold on how molecules can form. The formation may be unpredictable, but it is not random.

8/30/2006 8:27:17 PM

David D.G.

1. Physics and chemistry are not random.

2. The postulation that an eternal, omniscient superbeing is the cause of the universe just creates bigger questions than it solves. It is hardly the \"simplest\" explanation -- just the most simpleminded.

~David D.G.

8/30/2006 8:50:36 PM


Miller-Urey, anyone?

8/30/2006 9:02:58 PM


In the future, perhaps there will be a device called \"the learning stick.\" With it, you can actually educate people by violently beating them over the head.

What wonders the future may bring...

8/30/2006 9:47:28 PM


simple explanations for simple minds
if ignorance is bliss, you must be so fucking happy

8/30/2006 9:51:10 PM

Napoleon the Clown

Too bad they've proven that their theory actually functions.

8/30/2006 9:51:33 PM


Amos, the \"learning-stick\" you describe would probably only be appropriate for ordinary, passively ignorant (just never encountered knowledge) idiots. For a true, actively ignorant (goes out of their way to avoid gaining knowledge) fundie, I'd recommend the 'enhanced' version - still a stick, but with nails hammered through it then dipped in ergot. Maybe electrified too.

Please forgive my abnormal viciousness, but I'm not feeling so great and it relieves stress to fantasize about brutal mayhem - I think I may play some MDK or something later.

8/30/2006 10:19:15 PM

Mister Spak

\" . . . and create knotted protein structures and high efficiency chemical self replicating
machines and then evolve through happenstance (random) processes only governed by \"survival\" - well, that is
you religion. \"

No, its yours because that idea does not appear in the theory of evolution.

8/30/2006 10:23:54 PM


That is, until you develop the courage to ask yourself where God came from. Then you'll find it explains nothing.

8/31/2006 2:23:39 AM


Riiiight, because everyone knows the weak nuclear force is a jealous and vengeful weak nuclear force!

8/31/2006 3:23:48 AM


... well, that is you religion.

No, as it does not involve worship or acknowledgement of a deity, it is not a religion.

And it's not \"random\", it's the laws of physics.

That is after all the simplist explanation.

Your explanation: 1 unproven entity
Our explanation: 0 unproven entities

Sorry, you lose.

8/31/2006 3:30:09 AM

Mary Sunshine

\"complex right handed and left handed amino acids\"

Wow. I never knew that amino acids were ambidextrous. You learn something every day.

Oh, and please clarify \"simple compound God.\" Is it like \"simplistic fundie crappola\"?

8/31/2006 6:01:03 AM


If you are only interested in simple 'explanations' than I can see why you chose to believe in myths and fairy tales. That is, after all, much simpler than learning the truth.

8/31/2006 7:37:55 AM

Wolf O'Donnell (SWHQ)

Idiot. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which talks about entropy (I think) actually favours amino acids forming chains that then fold to form proteins. It increases the entropy of the system, so there is no violation of Thermodynamics here.

8/31/2006 10:28:19 AM

Nezu Chiza

No, the simplest explanation is that nobody created us, we're a huge cosmic accident. Because to say that someone creating us is the simplest explanation has to inherently imply that something created who or whatever created us, and then something created them/that, ad infinitum.

8/31/2006 11:11:09 AM


Why does everyone think science is a religion? It involves no deity or beliefs at all. That's like saying chemestry is a religion.

8/31/2006 5:43:34 PM

David D.G.

A further comment: AndyHolland, you obviously haven't a clue what science is, or even what religion is, if you cannot tell the two apart.

In this, you are much like many fundies, who project their faith-based personalities on everyone else, unable to grasp the idea that many people use REASON instead of faith. That use of reason is what enables you to live in a technologically advanced society and post your nonsense for all the world to see -- not the best use of it, perhaps, but science is only a tool. At least it is REAL and objectively supportable, unlike the object of religious faith.

~David D.G.

8/31/2006 6:22:06 PM


Mary, amino acids do have differences which are referred to as being right- or left-handed, though some show no handedness at all. The fundy claim is that life only uses left-anded amino acids, which couldn't have happened by chance.

No explanation, of course, of why God would prefer left-handed amino acids.

9/1/2006 4:50:36 AM

atheist, not raving

Wrong, science IS the simplest answer, and no belief is required.

9/3/2006 5:37:25 AM


First of all, Andy, molecules don't come together by chance.

Now that that's done, I have a few questions.

1. How did God create the universe?
2. How did God create planets?
3. How did God create life?
4. How did God customize the universe so that it appeared the way he wanted it to?

If your idea can't answer the \"how\" questions, it's not an explanation at all.

You seem to be stuck asking \"Who did it?\" or in some cases \"What happened?\" In order to get anywhere, however, you need to ask \"How did it happen?\" If you can't describe how things work, you'll never know what happened in the past.

9/11/2006 10:57:12 AM


The "simplest" explanation is the one that makes the fewest assumptions. Bringing in an entity that is almost entirely composed of presuppositions and leaps of faith tends to put the kibosh on that.

1/13/2008 7:21:33 PM

Allegory for Jesus

What is this God compound that you speak of? Yes, it is indeed a simplistic explanation. Or at least simplistic.

By the way, protein structures "knot" themselves depending on their chemical environment, all organic compounds go through essentially "random" reactions that can change the molecules involved, and any already established self-replicating system that is capable of change would need to trend towards higher efficiency over time by necessity. These observed processes extrapolated over time are eminently more reasonable as an explanation than your belief in a strictly hypothetical, unobserved compound. Let alone a compound that is also sentient (chortle, chortle).

10/2/2010 8:58:15 PM

1 2 | top: comments page