A semantic argument means literally having an argument about the precise meaning of a word or phrase. For communication to effectively occur between any two people, there must be some common understanding about the definitions of the words being used. For example, "mostly peaceful" protestors could also be described as "occasionally violent" rioters, depending on one's own perspective. Some people like to watch grown men put on boxing gloves and beat each other into a bloody pulp, but my idea of great entertainment is to watch a verbal jousting match between two intellectuals about a subject that ought to interest all of us, the origin of life. So, as I watched the debate between organic chemist Lee Cronin and synthetic chemist James Tour on the Unbelievable podcast hosted by Justin Brierly, I naturally expected to hear technical jargon and terminology used in their discussion that would sound foreign to me. While I was worried a phrase like “self-assembly of a nanoscale transition metal cluster” would baffle me, it honestly never occurred to me that these two brilliant scientists would be using words like "life" and "information" in a context that I didn't quite understand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DHvNRK452c After Dr. Tour provided the "textbook" definition of life according to Google (composed of cells, can reproduce, metabolize, etc.), and then said, “Information itself is not life. Would you agree with that? Life has information, but information itself is not life. I can have a piece of paper and write on that piece of paper. That piece of paper … [Read more...]
Selfish genes
According to the scientific definition, a gene is a distinct unit of information, in the form of a specific pattern of nucleotides that comprise part of a chromosome. Roughly translated into English, genes are packets or sequences of DNA (information) that specifically code for one protein, whereas a genome is the full genetic code, or set of rules, for a given organism. For example, the genome of a primate will have specific genes that define the development of fur, arms, and legs, while the genome of a bird will have certain genes that cause development of beaks, feathers, and wings. Both organisms will have genes responsible for developing heart, lungs, eyes, and other internal organs that almost all animals share in common, while also having enough genetic material that a single individual can be uniquely identified out of millions of other people. Only identical twins share the same DNA, but even they can be uniquely identified through their fingerprints. DNA is basically a recipe for how to create an organism from scratch. The average layperson may not be able to recognize an individual gene under a microscope, but any two experts in genetics should be able to identify the specific pattern of a known gene. Most of us have seen enough TV shows like NCIS and CSI delving into forensic police investigative work to know that leaving DNA evidence at the scene of a crime is just about as damning as a voluntary confession—unless the perpetrator can convince the jury that the evidence was planted in an attempt to frame them, the … [Read more...]
A Universe From Nothing
I've been thinking about writing another nonfiction book in the same vein as Divine Evolution and Counterargument for God. The tentative title of this planned new work is God or Good Luck? The difference between this new book and those first two books is that I don't plan on quoting anybody else, only to cite their work and suggest to my readers that they should investigate on their own. No footnotes, or end notes, and no need for a bibliography. In my opinion, not only should you doubt everything I say and investigate it on your own, you should take that approach with anything you read, no matter who wrote it. This time I plan to begin my argument at the beginning and take it straight through to the end in the most coherent manner possible, so the point I'm trying to make is so crystal clear and no one could possibly claim to be confused, not even my harshest critic (who skipped over most of the book he critiqued). Even the title of this proposed new book is pretty self-explanatory...the best explanation of "everything" or anything can be easily boiled down to a dichotomy of only two real choices: it's either God or good luck. Any and every other potential answer can ultimately be shown to be an inferior (and inadequate) substitution for one or the other--whether that suggested alternative is claimed to be science, nature, multiverses, quantum physics, string theory, an invisible wizard who lives in the sky, or even a flying spaghetti monster. Every one of them is a form of good luck, or represents a god. Absent a creator God, the existence of our universe becomes … [Read more...]
Crushing an atheist’s spirit
[EDITOR'S NOTE: After one last scan of the article, it occurs to me the title needs some explanation. This isn't the actual goal of Mr. Doopy--he's trying to convince the other party in their debate that STL actually has a soul that can be crushed. No one was physically harmed in this battle of wits, if that's what this should be called.] Personally, I've begun to shy away from engaging with liberals or atheists in debate on the Internet because it's a tremendous time-suck, I'm not getting any younger, and my books unfortunately won't write themselves. It's just not a very productive use of my time, in my opinion, because the typical online debate adversary tends to assume several things that are inevitably untrue: these include the supposition opposing arguments cannot be supported by evidence, that arguments believed by consensus must be accepted as true, and that modern religious beliefs are only held by uneducated fools. Most often, this anonymous Internet opponent proves to be immune to all logic and reason, and devoid of any common sense. The effort usually strikes me as a colossal waste of valuable time so gradually, I've removed myself from groups where the trolls lurk, never seeming to have anything better to do than try to annoy me with ridiculous, ill-conceived arguments that usually degenerate into nothing more than childish insults or ad hominem. Nobody is ever going to admit, "You're right. I concede that my argument is inferior to yours."--no matter what transpires in the course of the debate, it has been my experience that the opponent never admits … [Read more...]
The price of a soul
What is the intrinsic value of a human soul? Perhaps the better question is, what is your own soul worth to you? Do you even believe you have one? Some people (like me, for example) believe that their soul is their most valuable possession and that it is priceless, meaning it is not available for sale, no matter how much wealth is offered in exchange. Notice that I said wealth, not money. I may not be the smartest person on earth but I'm not stupid, either. A lot of people don't grasp the true concept of what money really is -- a colored piece of paper that only has value if everyone else agrees. If you don't believe me, the next time you're going to the grocery store just reach into your Monopoly game and grab a few hundred dollars, and see how much you can buy with it. Hint: you won't leave the store empty handed. The store manager might allow you to leave with the "currency" you brought with you if he/she believed the ruse was just a prank, but you also could also end up sporting a pair of shiny silver bracelets provided by law enforcement and arrested for counterfeiting and fraud if the management has no sense of humor. But one thing is certain--you can't even buy a bottle of water with money printed by Milton Bradley. So what, you say? So history--after World War I in the Weimar Republic, hyperinflation caused the Papiermark to become worthless. People literally needed a wheelbarrow full of useless currency to buy a loaf of bread. The British probably would have won the Revolutionary War if their plot to destroy the value of the Continental dollar hadn't … [Read more...]
