Laminin is Proof of Jesus?

[Titan]

If, if, if ... seems to me that every point you are trying to make rests on an assumption. I could as easily argue that if there's a flying spaghetti monster then some molecule with lots of branches it was proof of the validity of Pastafarianism, or molecules with a single chain proof of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Being brutal the whole Laminin proves the existence of god (or even supports it in some way) is total garbage.

I KNOW!!!!!! I have said that REPEATEDLY!!!! Please try to listen to me! Laminin DOESN'T EVEN COUNT AS EVIDENCE FOR GOD! BUT, hypothetical situations let us explore people's ideologies as they come across actual or theoretical events. I was merely saying that it was wrong to say that Laminin was absolutely, positively a coincidence in its shape. If you were certain about that you would have to be certain about there being no God, if you were certain about there being no God you would have to be omniscient, thus...you would be God.

Please please PLEASE read this carefully:

When arguing for internal cohesion within a doctrine one must first assume that the doctrine is true MERELY to be able to address the problem. This will not inevitably prove the doctrine, it merely allows intellectual discourse to be furthered. Look, if you find a blatant contradiction in the Bible that cannot be resolved then the Bible is false based on the law of non-contradiction, but if you are unwilling to accept this premise I have stated you would never be able to find out because you would never allow the person to address the issue.

Alphabet Argument

The Alphabet is a religious doctrine. Let us say that A is akin to a question about the reality of what we observe (such as "I think therefore I am" as it extends into reality as a whole). B is a question about whether there is a higher power or not. C concerns the nature of the deity or deities (monotheistic or polytheistic). D concerns the nature of the deities or deity (kind, genial, fearsome, judgmental, fair, evil, etc). This trend continues until the letters around N and O are questions about questions of morality and/or doctrinal contradictions within the specific religion.

Now, in this argument A is necessary for B, B is necessary for C, C is necessary for D and so on, but NOT the other way around. What we observe must be a reality for us to make a judgment on whether there is a God or not, but whether there is a God or not does not mean that what we observe is real. Do you follow?

Furthermore, let us say that you have found a perceived problem with religious concept N, which has an internal contradiction. In order to address N you must assume A - M just to be able to address it fairly. If you establish that N is not a contradiction then you provide concrete evidence that the religious orientation does not self-destruct at point N. However, if point N is false then the concept as a whole must be false. So in the interest of DISPROVING the religion you actually must allow assumptions to be made for a brief moment.

What you get, in this hypothetical situation then is that: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P .... is the alphabet where the bold letters are not self-contradictory but still based on the previous ones. Now, doing this has only allowed us to show that the religious idea doesn't fall apart at N, we STILL must prove that A - M are true. Do you understand?

[Kyuuketsuki]

If, if, if ... seems to me that every point you are trying to make rests on an assumption. I could as easily argue that if there's a flying spaghetti monster then some molecule with lots of branches it was proof of the validity of Pastafarianism, or molecules with a single chain proof of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Being brutal the whole Laminin proves the existence of god (or even supports it in some way) is total garbage.

I KNOW!!!!!! I have said that REPEATEDLY!!!! Please try to listen to me! Laminin DOESN'T EVEN COUNT AS EVIDENCE FOR GOD! BUT, hypothetical situations let us explore people's ideologies as they come across actual or theoretical events. I was merely saying that it was wrong to say that Laminin was absolutely, positively a coincidence in its shape. If you were certain about that you would have to be certain about there being no God, if you were certain about there being no God you would have to be omniscient, thus...you would be God.

Who argued that Laminin was the shape it is by coincidence? I'm just saying it bears no relevance to any religious claims.

I am not certain there is no god, I am pretty sure that none of the current claims to deity have any validity.

Kyu

[Titan]

Excellent, I think I can leave this discussion now. I just wanted to point out those things. I appreciate you saying that you are "pretty sure" because I've met atheists and theists who say they are absolutely certain of "X" and that just bugs me.

[DennisK]

Excellent, I think I can leave this discussion now. I just wanted to point out those things. I appreciate you saying that you are "pretty sure" because I've met atheists and theists who say they are absolutely certain of "X" and that just bugs me.

Now you know how a lot of atheists feel about the proclamations of a large number of theists.  They know god exists.  Why?  "Because he does."  If you objectively look at the situation, I think you will find more 1's on Dawkins' scale of agnosticism than 7's.  Why is this?  Because most atheists need proof of god's existence and absolute proof that he does not exist.  Therefore, being of scientific thought, it is likely that god cannot be 100% disproved.  As far as religions go, time takes care of them for us.

[Titan]

Yeah, I get just as pissed with Christians who are that close minded. I actually have a Bible class with all Christians and everyonce in a while I'll just throw out an objection to Christianity just so they start thinking. Where everyone agrees, ignorance breeds.

You are right, God cannot be absolutely disproved, which is why he shouldn't be introduced into science classrooms (much to my sides chagrin), nor can you prove him. But like many things we have to go with evidence.

What do you mean by time takes care of religions?

[Kyuuketsuki]

You are right, God cannot be absolutely disproved, which is why he shouldn't be introduced into science classrooms (much to my sides chagrin), nor can you prove him. But like many things we have to go with evidence.

More interestingly. although your god or any other can't be disproved (and nor can the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn or an invisible flying purple people eater) a lot of evidence strongly implies that gods and such do not exist (the jury rigged nature of many things in nature is a good example), no scientific explanation in the last 50 years requests or requires the action of deity and indeed if "god dun it" were allowed into science as a valid explanation it would represent far more problems for science than it would solve (and would likely end up destroying science as a valid methodology).

What do you mean by time takes care of religions?

I would assume he means that all religions have a time, a cycle, they rise and fall, are replaced by others. There is nothing to indicate that Christianity, Islam or Judaism are anythign more than any previously existing cyclical religion, that they are based on any thing more substantial than those dead religions were, that their claims are in any way more realistic, that they are any less mythical.

Look at it this way ... if you were born 1000 years ago in America you'd likely believe in the happy hunting ground, if you were born in Iran you'd likely believe in Allah and if you were born in that area 3000 years ago you'd likely believe in Osiris or Mithras, if you were born in South America 1500 years ago you'd likely believe in Quetzalcoatl. Religious belief, the belief you happen to subscribe to has (as Dawkins says) more in common with epidemiology than anything else ... you happen to have been born in the US (?) today or (presumably) Christian parents so the chances were good that you caught the disease of Christianity.

Kyu

[DennisK]

Kyu,

Better said than I. Thanks.

[Titan]

More interestingly. although your god or any other can't be disproved (and nor can the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn or an invisible flying purple people eater) a lot of evidence strongly implies that gods and such do not exist (the jury rigged nature of many things in nature is a good example), no scientific explanation in the last 50 years requests or requires the action of deity and indeed if "god dun it" were allowed into science as a valid explanation it would represent far more problems for science than it would solve (and would likely end up destroying science as a valid methodology).

Quick question:
I'm not familiar with the term jury rigged but I want to know what you mean. Do you mind explaining that in layman's terms for me?
Hypothetically:
If atheism never did have the answer because it simply wasn't true, again hypothetically, would you ever come to the "truth" from this vantage point? Doesn't the position that "the truth will eventually come to us" rule out the possibility of atheists realizing that they are wrong?

I would assume he means that all religions have a time, a cycle, they rise and fall, are replaced by others. There is nothing to indicate that Christianity, Islam or Judaism are anythign more than any previously existing cyclical religion, that they are based on any thing more substantial than those dead religions were, that their claims are in any way more realistic, that they are any less mythical.

Considering that Hinduism and Judaism have been around for a VERY VERY long time how can you prove that they are part of the cycle?

[curiosityandthecat]

Quick question:
I'm not familiar with the term jury rigged but I want to know what you mean. Do you mind explaining that in layman's terms for me?

It's actually a reference to an old racist term, "Nigger rig," meaning work done shoddily by African Americans.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jerry-rig

I've never heard "jury rig" before, though. It's a good idea to, if it's a common phrase in usage, avoid it if possible.  

[Kyuuketsuki]

Quick question: I'm not familiar with the term jury rigged but I want to know what you mean. Do you mind explaining that in layman's terms for me?

OK ... jury-rigged means something of temporary design implying makeshift or improvisation. Jerry-built means to build cheaply, shoddily or flimsily.

The origins of the two terms are obscure and many people get the two confused referring to Jerry-rigged which is, in essence, wrong (all citations of this phrase are from 20th century, whereas the other two are seen much earlier) but has become part of the language.

What I was referring to was the jury-rigged design of organisms, organs and other things in nature ... many things in nature show appallingly bad design because evolution does not construct things from scratch but from what was already there; in other words new design features are virtually always modifications of existing ones. Apparently this is referred to as "historical constraint".

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

It's actually a reference to an old racist term, "Nigger rig," meaning work done shoddily by African Americans.

I'm not convinced this is true, certainly the searches I did on the internet don't say that and I've always thought it referred to Jerry (German), even the link you gave only put the other reason at position number 6 in their explanations.

Kyu

[curiosityandthecat]

It's actually a reference to an old racist term, "Nigger rig," meaning work done shoddily by African Americans.

I'm not convinced this is true, certainly the searches I did on the internet don't say that and I've always thought it referred to Jerry (German), even the link you gave only put the other reason at position number 6 in their explanations.

Kyu

Hah, how about that. "Jury rig" came first as a sailing term. I learned something today.   Shows you what growing up in America will do to ya.

[Titan]

OK ... jury-rigged means something of temporary design implying makeshift or improvisation. Jerry-built means to build cheaply, shoddily or flimsily.

The origins of the two terms are obscure and many people get the two confused referring to Jerry-rigged which is, in essence, wrong (all citations of this phrase are from 20th century, whereas the other two are seen much earlier) but has become part of the language.

What I was referring to was the jury-rigged design of organisms, organs and other things in nature ... many things in nature show appallingly bad design because evolution does not construct things from scratch but from what was already there; in other words new design features are virtually always modifications of existing ones. Apparently this is referred to as "historical constraint".

Thank you for bearing with me. What kind of organism or organ appears jury-rigged?

[Kyuuketsuki]

What kind of organism or organ appears jury-rigged?

* Whale flippers are evolved hands.
* Some snakes still have rudimentary legs.
* Whales have a rudimentary pelvic girdle and thigh bones that are hidden in their flesh, unattached to their spinal column (indeed 1 in 400 Minke whales examined have complete sets of hind legs not mere femurs but also tibias and fibulas).
* Rabbits (and other animals) eat their own faeces (coprophagy).
* Largely aquatic animals like sea turtles, Galapagos iguanas, sea snakes, crocodilians, water birds including penguins, phocids (seals, sea lions, and walruses), and cetaceans (dolphins and whales) that have to come up to the surface for air.

Those are just a few but finally a humorous (though very pointed) quote:
"When looking at human anatomy, would an intelligent engineer create a situation where a sewer line runs right through the middle of a recreation area?" Skeptical Inquirer

Kyu

[Titan]

* Whale flippers are evolved hands.
* Some snakes still have rudimentary legs.
* Whales have a rudimentary pelvic girdle and thigh bones that are hidden in their flesh, unattached to their spinal column (indeed 1 in 400 Minke whales examined have complete sets of hind legs not mere femurs but also tibias and fibulas).
* Rabbits (and other animals) eat their own faeces (coprophagy).
* Largely aquatic animals like sea turtles, Galapagos iguanas, sea snakes, crocodilians, water birds including penguins, phocids (seals, sea lions, and walruses), and cetaceans (dolphins and whales) that have to come up to the surface for air.

Why are whale flippers having hand anatomy a jury rigged example?
Don't rabbits only eat their faeces if there is little or no food around and isn't that because there are still some nutritional remnants and/or the food simply helps stave off hunger pains?
What about the belief held by many evangelicals that evolution was a part of God's creation plan and that these are an end result?