Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
VC: I know a guy like you will see his god every where
Click to expand...

I’m telling you if you don’t believe in God, that’s fine by me. Everybody gets to choose what they believe. I’m telling you that we should have respect for rationality and intellectual freedom among all people. I’m telling you when people look at the scientific evidence for their beliefs (either way), there will be some who think the evidence says more than it does, but that evidence cannot scientifically prove their beliefs to be true. I am telling you that people should endeavor to learn about the issues, and keep a deliberate self-discipline about what they can and cannot say about such evidence.

And that horse**** response is the best you could come up with.

And oh yes, I am also telling you that the amino acid presented at the binding site in a ribosome is determined solely by the structure of the aaRS, not the structure of the codon. And in response you try to pull off some weird bluff with some videos that you apparently don’t understand. You are needlessly making a fool of yourself.

HERE is a link.

The link goes to the NCBI website (The National Center for Biotechnology Information). The link directs you to “BIOCHEMISTRY: 5th EDITION” (a collegiate textbook).

At the top of the page you’ll see Section 29.2 which is entitled “Aminoacyl-Transfer RNA Synthetases Read the Genetic Code” Now, don’t be fooled by their use of the word “Read”, they don’t mean there is something reading the DNA will tiny eyeballs, they mean “read”, more like the head on an old tape player.

What is it they say about the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRSR) in the first two sentences of the text:

The linkage of an amino acid to a tRNA is crucial for two reasons. First, the attachment of a given amino acid to a particular tRNA establishes the genetic code.
Click to expand...

WHAT?!?!?!? IS THIS A TEXTBOOK OR A SUNDAY HYMNAL???

When an amino acid has been linked to a tRNA, it will be incorporated into a growing polypeptide chain at a position dictated by the anticodon of the tRNA. Second, the formation of a peptide bond between free amino acids is not thermodynamically favorable. The amino acid must first be activated for protein synthesis to proceed.
Click to expand...

One arrangement of matter (the codon) evokes the effect, while a second arrangement of matter (the aaRS) establishes what that effect will be.

Give it a rest, VC. In case it hasn’t occurred to you yet – I haven’t said anything false to you, and I have no reason to. Not one word.

That’s all in your head.
 
I think this thread has been hijacked into a battle of the symbolic meta language that is apparently encoded in DNA/RNA as a pathway to God. For crying out loud guys DILLIGAF !!

Must I defer to Mitchell and Webb for a sanity check?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tisme said:
I think this thread has been hijacked into a battle of the symbolic meta language that is apparently encoded in DNA/RNA as a pathway to God. For crying out loud guys DILLIGAF !!

Must I defer to Mitchell and Webb for a sanity check?

Click to expand...


Classic !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is another scientific discussion here

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...17955&page=357&p=896515&viewfull=1#post896515

and I don't see any God mentioned.

You make the statement true, VC, that atheists spend all their time talking about a God they don't believe in.

Just as you have your scientific opinion, so do others, and trying to silence them does nothing for the Science.

I like to hear all views, unlike you it seems.

As has been mentioned many times, remember where the scientific method began.
 
Tink said:
Just as you have your scientific opinion, so do others, and trying to silence them does nothing for the Science.

.
Click to expand...

Do you think science is based on an opinion?

Do you think a flat earth opinion is equally valid as a spherical earth opinion?
 
I see you only take a portion of my post.

There is a difference between scientists and science.

You keep pushing YOUR religion.

Why don't you go in the other scientific discussion thread and shut it down, since that is how you think and how you work.
People should be imprisoned for not listening to you.
 
War on Christianity is fuelled by ignorance

It's not the haters who will kill Christianity. It’s the ignorant, who have no clue how we non-Christians will suffer.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...e/news-story/7b5e539b63b1bbb77a40c11123a74cf5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We must strive to be worthy of an inheritance that we did not create, and to amend it only when we have first understood it." - Roger Scruton.

"Without the sacred, man lives in a depersonalised world: a world where all is permitted, and where nothing has absolute value"

Remember, good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created.


https://www.facebook.com/ArchMMXII/videos/1061241223947272/?pnref=story
 
Tink said:
War on Christianity is fuelled by ignorance

It's not the haters who will kill Christianity. It’s the ignorant, who have no clue how we non-Christians will suffer.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...e/news-story/7b5e539b63b1bbb77a40c11123a74cf5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We must strive to be worthy of an inheritance that we did not create, and to amend it only when we have first understood it." - Roger Scruton.

"Without the sacred, man lives in a depersonalised world: a world where all is permitted, and where nothing has absolute value"

Remember, good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created.


https://www.facebook.com/ArchMMXII/videos/1061241223947272/?pnref=story
Click to expand...

You don't need Christian mythology to have a good society or be a good person, tink.

Asking "what will take religions place once it's gone" is like asking what will take the cancers place once you're cancer free, the answer is nothing, you just live on without the cancer, as a healthier person.
 
Value Collector said:
You don't need Christian mythology to have a good society or be a good person, tink.
Click to expand...

But being a true christian, might just put you at the top of the good person ladder.

I would suggest we all (mostly)look at ourselves as good, yet others will probably see us as lacking in some way.
 
If a religion inspires people to do good, it is a good religion, if it inspires people to do evil, it is an evil religion.

SirR 2016
 
Tisme said:
But being a true christian, might just put you at the top of the good person ladder.

I would suggest we all (mostly)look at ourselves as good, yet others will probably see us as lacking in some way.
Click to expand...

So what's a "true Christian"?

I would think even the Christians have problems deciding that, hence the 10,000 or more different brands of Christianity.

SirRumpole said:
If a religion inspires people to do good, it is a good religion, if it inspires people to do evil, it is an evil religion.

SirR 2016
Click to expand...

The problem with religion is that it inspires people to be amoral rather than moral.

Rather than reaching a conclusion based on a reasoned debate of the facts, they take short cuts, and "Because the Bible/god/pope said" becomes a basis for their ideas on morality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some times you can observe amoral people doing good things, this doesn't mean their ideas that inform their actions are good or that they are good people, they are just following orders, and next week might follow some bad orders, and won't be able to tell the difference between the good orders and the bad.

For example.

Take two separate families out for dinner both with children sitting eating dinner quietly and having polite conversation, from the outside you may think both sets of children are good kids who respect the restaurant and the people around them.

However, the two groups of children's "good" behaviour can be informed by different things, and one groups teachings can be amoral while the other based on moral ideas.

eg if one families children are behaving "good" because they were threatened with a smack if they caused a fuss and bribed with desert if they are quiet, these are amoral instructions, and the same threat or reward could get him to throw a pie in some ones face if instructed.

If the other child is "good" because he has been raised to understand the negative effects of his actions on others and behaves himself out of consideration for others these are moral ideas that and they become hard to corrupt.

religions often teach the first set of ideas, rather than actually building moral thought processes.
 
Value Collector said:
The problem with religion is that it inspires people to be amoral rather than moral.
Click to expand...

I presume you are suggesting that Christians do charity work in the hope of a reward in heaven rather than because they think it's the moral thing to do ?

That maybe true for some, but the point is that they are doing it, so what's the problem with that ?
 
SirRumpole said:
I presume you are suggesting that Christians do charity work in the hope of a reward in heaven rather than because they think it's the moral thing to do ?

That maybe true for some, but the point is that they are doing it, so what's the problem with that ?
Click to expand...

I think all sorts of people do charity work for all sorts of reasons.

I think its flawed see a particular religion doing something you think is "good" and then say "There you go that's X religion, see X religion is good"

---------------------------------------------

I don't mind people doing good charity work for any reason, I feel that the Religions get far to much credit though when

1, There is loads of non religious charity work going on that is often more effective.
2, The reason people enjoy their charity work (even if they identify as religious) is probably not religious or biblical.
3, Often the really religious charities have nasty side effects, and are the least effective.

----------------------------------------------

My original point is that of religious Amorality though, and the way it can give off the impression that the person is moral and knows how to make moral assessments, when in reality they are following orders and when given the instruction to pie some ones face, will honestly think they are doing the right thing, because "Mum" told me too, and she said I wouldn't get desert unless I pied you.
 
Top