Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

[wegs]

I do not support sexism or the old patriarchy.

I am indeed guilty of having faith in God.

If people get banned, for expressing their faith, then Atheists and their preachers should be banned as well.

The traffic would severely drop, and this site would loose advertising dollars.

I believe in God, too. Many people on here share their spiritual views, but not to evangelize. In this thread, you’re doing that. But it seems to be accepted now, along with preaching sexism.

 

[Write4U]

There is much dissent against Darwinism in the scientific community.

No there isn't

Many scientists have embraced Intelligent Design as a new paradigm and affiliate with the Discovery Institute of Seattle Washington.

No there aren't.

There is no "irreducible complexity"!

Moreove, a lot of evolved beneficial survival traits are not ideal in design at all. Which is perfectly understandable, being that all evolutionary mutations and natural selections were not derived at by intelligent design but by stochastic mathematical functions in the first place.

Mathematical functions are not intelligent or motivated. Mathematical functions are self-ordering stochastic processes.

In probability theory and related fields, a stochastic or random process is a mathematical object usually defined as a family of random variables. Historically, the random variables were associated with or indexed by a set of numbers, usually viewed as points in time, giving the interpretation of a stochastic process representing numerical values of some system randomlychanging over time, such as the growth of a bacterial population, an electrical current fluctuating due to thermal noise, or the movement of a gasmolecule.

Stochastic processes are widely used as mathematical models of systems and phenomena that appear to vary in a random manner. They have applications in many disciplines including sciences such as biology,[7]chemistry,[8]ecology,[9]neuroscience,[10] and physics[11] as well as technology and engineering fields such as image processing, signal processing,[12]information theory,[13]computer science,[14]cryptography[15] and telecommunications

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process

The reason why all other forms of life rests on mathematics is that all of nature is founded on quasi-intelligent self-referential mathematical structures and dynamic patterns, which are able to perform self-assembly and duplication and thereby confirm Darwinian Evolutionary Mechanics......

p.s. the most peaceful and caring hominids are the Bonobo Chimpanzees. The reason is that they love sex and routinely partake when excited and even use sex to resolve aggressive disputes.
Bonobos use sex to resolve conflict, for fun, and for group security and it is a good thing.......

In the mid-1970s, Japanese primatologist Takayoshi Kano was one of the first to document the central position of females in bonobo society. This contrasts with chimpanzees, where females tend to spend a lot of time marginalised at the edge of the community.

Kano also observed lots of unusual sexual behaviour.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160317-do-bonobos-really-spend-all-their-time-having-sex

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The reason why all other forms of life rests on mathematics is that all of nature is founded on quasi-intelligent self-referential mathematical structures and dynamic patterns, which are able to perform self-assembly and duplication and thereby confirm Darwinian Evolutionary Mechanics......

your words taste like ice cream

I believe in God, too. Many people on here share their spiritual views, but not to evangelize. In this thread, you’re doing that. But it seems to be accepted now, along with preaching sexism.

setialpha6 is a cultist
you can tell by the way they preach instead of debate the subject.
they have been brainwashed
they cant debate
only preach baby suicide vests for cheesus

 

[SetiAlpha6]

No there isn't No there aren't.

There is no "irreducible complexity"!

Moreove, a lot of evolved beneficial survival traits are not ideal in design at all. Which is perfectly understandable, being that all evolutionary mutations and natural selections were not derived at by intelligent design but by stochastic mathematical functions in the first place.

Mathematical functions are not intelligent or motivated. Mathematical functions are self-ordering stochastic processes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process

The reason why all other forms of life rests on mathematics is that all of nature is founded on quasi-intelligent self-referential mathematical structures and dynamic patterns, which are able to perform self-assembly and duplication and thereby confirm Darwinian Evolutionary Mechanics......

Ok, so there should be a purely mathematical chemical process that can also create life without any intelligence involved, defeating entropy like nothing ever discovered, at least that I know of.

What is that chemical process, please?

 

[billvon]

I will show that this generation by generation mutational deterioration of the DNA gives a major blow to the Darwinian evolution hypothesis.

The change, if it's minor, is not an issue.
If there are many minor changes, and they are bad, and they add up to a fatal one, then the organism dies and does not reproduce. This is natural selection.
The change, if it is major and fatal, causes the organism to die and not reproduce. This is natural selection.
The change, if it is major and beneficial, causes the organism to reproduce better. This is also natural selection.

That's how evolution works. Simple.

There is much dissent against Darwinism in the scientific community. Many scientists have embraced Intelligent Design as a new paradigm and affiliate with the Discovery Institute of Seattle Washington.

Only from creationists who feel their faith in God requires them to believe a certain way. Intelligent and impartial scientists do not question the theory of evolution; it has stood up to over 100 years of attempts to invalidate it.

I looked up this guy Bill Nugent. Here's one thing he wrote about evolution:
========
The teacher stands in front of the classroom and says “You’re all descendants of apes. Humans and chimps are descended from a common apelike ancestor that lived several million years ago. Mutations to DNA, natural selection, more mutations, on and on and here you are! Oh, and by the way, there’s no spirit world. The material world is all there is and all there ever will be. When you die, the lights go out and all that you ever experienced; all of your learning and loving and thoughts and deeds will be annihilated. So you have no future! When this brief life is past, you’re done. You have no tomorrows!”
========
'Nuff said.

 

[billvon]

Ok, so there should be a purely mathematical chemical process that can also create life without any intelligence involved, defeating entropy like nothing ever discovered, at least that I know of. What is that chemical process, please?

RNA World synthesis, for one.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

I believe in God, too. Many people on here share their spiritual views, but not to evangelize. In this thread, you’re doing that. But it seems to be accepted now, along with preaching sexism.

I will try and refrain from evangelizing.

Why are you preaching sexism against men again?

 

[wegs]

your words taste like ice cream



setialpha6 is a cultist
you can tell by the way they preach instead of debate the subject.
they have been brainwashed
they cant debate
only preach baby suicide vests for cheesus

I don’t know what to say except that it’s just odd that this is like the fourth sexist (blatant) that I’ve run into since returning to posting, again. I don’t remember so many congregating on this site, in the past.

Bigotry and sexism doesn’t suddenly become okay because you pretend that it’s about “compassion,” or “God’s love.” I’ve seen this display in Christian circles and there was a time when I couldn’t see through it, but now I do.

 

[billvon]

Why are you preaching sexism against men again?

She's not. She is pointing out that you are being sexist. That is not the same as preaching.

 

[wegs]

I will try and refrain from evangelizing.

Why are you preaching sexism against men again?

Please stop. I don’t preach sexism against men. Why do you lie?

 

[Write4U]

Ok, so there should be a purely mathematical chemical process that can also create life without any intelligence involved, defeating entropy like nothing ever discovered, at least that I know of.

What is that chemical process, please?

Abiogenesis.......

 

[wegs]

I will try and refrain from evangelizing.

Okay.

 

[Write4U]

When this brief life is past, you’re done. You have no tomorrows!”

And nothing to be afraid of, nothing at all ! (Anil Seth)

 

[SetiAlpha6]

RNA World synthesis.

So what am I missing?

How do Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen, create life?

Each individual human cell is constructed of approximately 100,000,000,000,000 or 100 trillion atoms.

And it is estimated that the average human body is constructed with 37,200,000,000,000 or 37.2 trillion cells.

Of these there are about 200 different types of cells.

These 200 kinds are all specifically placed, individually designed, and organized in our bodies to build 79 different organs.

These 79 organs are assembled to create interdependent systems and sub-systems and are wired together like a computer only with a biological electrical system (our nervous system) and linked to our brain as a control center.

And we are made both male and female, each with different mechanical engineering design requirements needed for construction.

Beyond mankind there are an estimated 8.7 million additional species living on the Earth, each with their own individually engineered and designed, complex body plans, usually in both male and female.

And then there is all the aesthetic beauty in the design of life we see all around us.

I don’t think you have really explained this, at least so far.

 

[Write4U]

I believe in God, too. Many people on here share their spiritual views, but not to evangelize. In this thread, you’re doing that. But it seems to be accepted now, along with preaching sexism.

It's easy to talk the talk of a self-idealized concept of perfection. It's harder to walk the walk of a self-idealized concept of perfection. I see the concept of God as an idealized version of an imaginary super-human, a true psychological cunundrum of assigning intelligent motive to natural phenomena.

 

[billvon]

How do Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen, create life?

First, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, nitrogen and sulfur reacted during lightning strikes to produce a racemic mixture of amino acids and DNA/RNA nucleobases. This went on for millions of years, until the earth was a soup of the stuff. Nothing there to eat them or otherwise use them. (This was proven by the series of Miller-Urey experiments.)

At this point random molecules would assemble - most short, some long. This self-assembly is easily seen in the lab. Most of them are 100% useless. Some acted as ribozymes and caused other RNA to stick to it and assemble. Most of the RNA created by this process was also useless.

Then one day a random assembly of several smaller pieces of RNA created a ~100 pair long strand of RNA. This strand had a very interesting characteristic; it would tend to assemble a copy of itself if you put it in a soup of RNA bases and amino acids. They were not very stable, and broke apart quickly - but not before creating a few copies of itself. Which would then form additional copies.

From here things grew geometrically. This RNA strand had two critical characteristics - it could inherit things (since it was a copy of the original) and it could reproduce.

(This was proven by UCSD, which created a short self-replicating strand of RNA.)

Then evolution began. A copying error produced an enzyme site that catalyzed production of a certain amino acid that the self-assembly required. This strand could thus assemble new strands more quickly, with fewer raw materials. That was retained. The ability to catalyze proteins developed. That was retained. And soon you had a fragile RNA form of life.

The next step was the formation of DNA. Turns out DNA and RNA copy each other very readily. Once a chance assembly created a complementary strand of DNA with the appropriate terminations, then new RNA life could be copied directly off the DNA. This lent a lot of stability to the protolife, because DNA is a lot more stable than RNA. Genetic changes could be retained more reliably, and the molecule "lived" longer. But it was extremely disorganized; random bits floating around that sometimes did stuff that caused a copy to happen, and sometimes just fell apart.

As soon as we had DNA to store genetic information, evolution became much more rapid. Ribosomes (protein assemblers) appeared. Lipids, byproducts of lightning synthesis, formed little floating bubbles. And when a chance formation put a DNA/RNA pair and a ribosome in the same bubble, the first cell appeared.

 

[Write4U]

So what am I missing?

About twenty years of intensive study of bio-chemistry and it's evolution into functional bio-organisms.

How do Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen, create life?

By their causal dynamical properties. Check out "pseudo-pods" and how single celled organisms acquire motion.

A pseudopod or pseudopodium
(from the Greek word ψευδοποδός, ψευδός "false" + ποδός "foot") is a temporary arm-like projection of a eukaryoticcell membrane. Filled with cytoplasm, pseudopodia primarily consist of actin filaments and may also contain microtubules and
intermediate filaments.[1][2] Pseudopods are used for motility and ingestion. They are often found in amoebas.

Via extracellular cue,
To move towards a target, the cell uses chemotaxis. It senses extracellular signalling molecules, chemoattractants (e.g. cAMP for Dictyostelium cells[10]), to extend pseudopodia at the membrane area facing the source of these molecules.

. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudopodia
i.e. chemical sensing.

Each individual human cell is constructed of approximately 100,000,000,000,000 or 100 trillion atoms.

Irrelevant, in self repeating patterns, the use of the same structures and dynamics are maximized.
Check out microtubules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule

And it is estimated that the average human body is constructed with 37,200,000,000,000 or 37.2 trillion cells.

Of which 90 % are bacterial cells and only 10% are human cells (Bonnie Bassler)

Of these there are about 200 different types of cells.

and they are grouped by chemical values and functions (Robert Hazen)

These 200 kinds are all specifically placed, individually designed, and organized in our bodies to build 79 different organs.

That simplifies the mathematics considerably, no? We're down to 79 specifically different and seperate sets of cellular chemical values and functions.

These 79 organs are assembled to create interdependent systems and sub-systems and are wired together like a computer only with a biological electrical system (our nervous system) and linked to our brain as a control center.

Check out Cytoskeleton and Mitochondrion

Two mitochondria from mammalian lung tissue displaying their matrix and membranes as shown by electron microscopy.

And we are made both male and female, each with different mechanical engineering design requirements needed for construction.

Hardly, the different sexual organs clearly demonstrate a common single sexual precursor

Beyond mankind there are an estimated 8.7 million additional species living on the Earth, each with their own individually engineered and designed, complex body plans, usually in both male and female.

That is proof of principle that a hospitable environment such as exists on earth can and does give rise to the most incredible diversity through evolutionary processes.

And then there is all the aesthetic beauty in the design of life we see all around us.

Oh, and Nature is incapable of perfoming such feats? Ever watched a deep zoom fractal?

I don’t think you have really explained this, at least so far.

Yes I have, and have been chided for it. I believe that I have provided overwhelming evidence that chemical abiogenesis is not a irreducibly complex mechanism, but an expression of the principle of "necessity and sufficiency", i.e. the conditions on earth were such that it necessitated the chemical interactions to try every possible configuration and possible patterns, where upon natural selection weeded out the less successful

Robert Hazen provides "Proof of Principle" of permissibility of abiogenetic processes which via Darwinian evolution and Natural selection lead to progressively greater sophistication of survival skills, just like kitchen viruses become immune to kitchen disinfectants and acquire "quorum sensing", a viral inter-species communication language! (Bonnie Bassler)

Darwinian evolution not only provides proof of principle of abiogenesis on earth, it also also provides proof of principle for prediction of abiogenetic life having emerged elsewhere in the universe.

If our table of Elements is anywhere near correct in identifying universal "common chemistry" we are gaining a pretty good understanding of the rest of the universe by our understanding of the chemical values and functional potentials of the earth and the solar system.

All these subjects have been discussed in this thread as being pertinent to the concept of abiogenesis.

p.s. if we want to throw numbers around. The earth, since its formation, has performed some
2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical interactions of increasing complexity. (Hazen).

 

[Write4U]

Correction; inter-species communication should read intra-species communication.

 

[James R]

SetiAlpha6:

I endorse and trust God.

You didn't answer the question I asked you. Why is that? Here is it again, so you have another chance to try honestly:

"Do you endorse all the reasons God gave in the Old Testament for killing people, then, or just selected ones?"

No!

Stopping evil and creating deterrents is not evil in itself!

Again, you ignored the questions I asked.

But, from what I gather, you're saying that it is acceptable to kill people unnessarily, in the quest to remove evil from God's earth. Is that what you're saying? Remember: you don't have to kill those death row prisoners to make them unable to commit further crimes in the community. If you endorse killing them, you're just adding your evil act to their evil acts.

Evil will be eventually destroyed one way or another.

I call that good!

Don’t you hope for that?

Or do you love evil?

Do you want evil to go on forever?

This is going to be hard for you to understand, but I don't believe in evil. That is, I don't believe in evil as a disembodied "force" in the world, or as the activity of Satan, or whatever it is that you believe in your religion. What I believe is that some people do bad things.

So, no, I don't think that your God will come down from his heaven to end evil any time soon, and I don't hope that he will. Besides, if you think he will end evil, it's valid to ask why he hasn't already done that. Is he just enjoying watching people suffer needlessly?

As for your last two questions, what do you think, really? Here's another chance for you to be honest.

I trust God to do the right thing in the bigger picture.

God isn't deciding to force women to have their rapists' babies. That's on you. When will you stop making excuses and start doing the right thing? God won't fix your evil.

As you know innocents are being killed now by the millions through abortion.

Are you OK with that?

Innocents? You mean innocent people are being killed through abortion. How terrible! Where is this happening?

Are you really saying that women have the right to kill their own children in the womb but the God who made them has no rights? That would be nonsense to me.

Your God is omnipotent, isn't he? What use has he got for rights? He can do whatever he likes, can't he? Who's going to stop him?

I'm saying that women should not be forced to bear their rapists' children, if they choose not to. Why do you want to force them to do that?

Transfer women’s rights to God. I am wondering how you will twist and invert it...

You're pretending. When you say "transfer the rights to God" you really mean "remove women's rights" or, more accurately, transfer their rights to evil men like you, to make their decisions in their place.

Why can't you be honest about what you really want? Why this handballing of the responsibility to your God, all the time. Be a man. Stand up for what you believe. Stop hiding behind your God.

So many great and thoughtful questions! I have already answered some of them, and I only have so much time.

You've missed vast swathes, deliberately in my estimation. You are a poor advertisement for your religion. A man with a fractured moral compass who doesn't see women as people.

 

[James R]

SetiAlpha6:

No! Physicians would certainly be able to come up with merciful, ethical, moral, exemptions to a general blanket Law against abortion. No problem at all. And gray areas would be decided in court like everything else is.

So, the women who has been raped applies to a court and says to the judge "I'd really rather not have to bear my rapist's child."

And the court says "Well, the law is clear about this. No gray area here! The law, as decided by SetiAlpha6, says that you have no choice in the matter, and you must have the child regardless of your own wishes. We, the state, control your body, not you. Case dismissed!"

Meanwhile, round the corner from the courthouse where this is happening, another woman is paying an underworld doctor to carry out an illegal and dangerous backyard abortion, thereby endangering her own life and funding organised crime.

Mutations destroy genetic information over time.

Haven’t you noticed that through all the crap scientists say, where they use unknown to prove unknown to prove unknown to prove even more unknowns, that never seems to end, that evolution is actually destroying life on Earth over time, not creating it?

No, I haven't noticed that, and your point about mutations always being harmful is wrong.

If you want to discuss your misunderstanding of evolution, we can do that in a separate thread. I'm not going to be distracted by your latest attempt at avoiding the topic of this thread.