3 Assumptions Evolutionists Make

[David777]

Here you go neuroscience.

From vision learning (website),
"Polar and nonpolar covalent bonding

There are, in fact, two subtypes of covalent bonds. The H2 molecule is a good example of the first type of covalent bond, the nonpolar bond. Because both atoms in the H2 molecule have an equal attraction (or affinity) for electrons, the bonding electrons are equally shared by the two atoms, and a nonpolar covalent bond is formed. Whenever two atoms of the same element bond together, a nonpolar bond is formed.

A polar bond is formed when electrons are unequally shared between two atoms. Polar covalent bonding occurs because one atom has a stronger affinity for electrons than the other (yet not enough to pull the electrons away completely and form an ion). In a polar covalent bond, the bonding electrons will spend a greater amount of time around the atom that has the stronger affinity for electrons. A good example of a polar covalent bond is the hydrogen-oxygen bond in the water molecule."

There you are neuroscience, did you think that i would leave you in your ignorance. Once again, this is not a personal insult. This is correction.

 

[David777]

Further.

Since you are not qualified to discuss Science, why do you act as though you have a right to question someone who has. This I find difficult to understand. I told you already that I studied a Bsc, this is the truth. Since when did you get the idea that because you looked it up you must be correct.

 

[David777]

We are approaching Truth.

You are not alone neuroscience, it is a rare person who understands that in most areas they are ignorant. We know because we are told, we rely on previous information and ideas. When would we know enough to make valid decisions regarding choices we are faced with?

Are these choices free or forced by cognitive behaviour. Well now is your chance to provide information on a subject that you are familiar with.

 

[Neuroscience101]

There you are neuroscience, did you think that i would leave you in your ignorance. Once again, this is not a personal insult. This is correction.

Never mind David. Just never mind. My original post is of course available to you via email alert, but I know it's not going to make a difference. I cannot physically bring myself to argue this issue on intermolecular hydrogen bonds anymore. I - literally - cannot bring myself to do it.

If you want to, fine. However, I can't continuously beg you to see the answer that it is known as hydrogen bonding. You either will or you won't, and no amount of prodding from me will change that. I also admit that it's entirely possible that I'm wrong and if that's the case then I'm sorry for the confusion.

FINAL EDIT: David, I see where we may have missed each other. You were arguing about the bonds between one molecule of water, correct? I was not. I was not, because the "water to wine" thing you quoted was in reference to the entire "water"; I think we both understand that there are hydrogen bonds in "water", but I think you were getting at it in a "single molecule" sense while I was focused on the macro.

 

[Neuroscience101]

David, the reason why I'm curious as to whether or not you're referring to a single molecule or water in the previously specified context is because it presents us with a very discomforting dilemma.

It means that either 1) You truly didn't understand that I wasn't referring to a water molecule when I mentioned the water-to-wine miracle, even though I thought it was self-evident.

Or 2) You did understand that I wasn't referring to a water molecule, and you're trying to circumvent the completely valid expectation that Jesus needed to break hydrogen bonds by pointing out the mute point that a single water molecule has polar covalent bonds that make up the molecule.

In the former, it means that you just weren't thinking straight - which I completely understand; this dispute had me so heated because I was aware that water has hydrogen bonds and I'm positive that led me to say or imply completely incorrect things.

However, it's the latter and I find that to be a bit intellectually dishonest; if it's the latter, then you would have to know that water has hydrogen bonds and you're purposely trying to make an unrelated point. That disturbs me, David.

 

[David777]

The truth.

Me thinks you think too much. I thought you were referring to the molecule of water. If Jesus turned water into wine, then of course He would break the covalent bonds within the h2o molecules, then reform the larger carbon based compound of alcohol plus.

" In chemistry, an alcohol is any organic compound in which a hydroxylfunctional group (-OH) is bound to a carbon atom, usually connected to other carbon or hydrogen atoms.
An important class are the simple acyclic alcohols, the general formula for which is CnH2n+1OH. Of those, ethanol (C2H5OH) is the type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages, and in common speech the word alcohol refers specifically to ethanol."

I borrowed this from wiki to illustrate the reductionist, empiricist approach that science follows. Chemistry is concerned with the changes in a molecular sense, not so much with the multiplication of each within the resulting solution (wine).

What does intellectual dishonesty mean?

 

[David777]

Hello again neuroscience.

I was looking up atheism to try and further understand this position.
What are your opinions on this quote:

"According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero we are willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity...

Dawkins also identifies two categories of agnostics; Temporary Agnostics in Practice (TAP's), and Permanent Agnostics in Principle (PAP's). Dawkins considers temporary agnosticism an entirely reasonable position, but views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice.""

 

[Neuroscience101]

Me thinks you think too much. I thought you were referring to the molecule of water. If Jesus turned water into wine, then of course He would break the covalent bonds within the h2o molecules, then reform the larger carbon based compound of alcohol plus.

I do think too much. It's a curse really...

I think that's where we went totally wrong, so I sincerely apologize for the issue that (I think) we can now clarify.

I wasn't referring to a single molecule; it seemed redundant to me at the time. I was only referring to the strong H-Bonds between the numerous water molecules in a glass of water, and the fact that - in order for water to be turned to wine - Jesus had to disrupt those bonds (among others) due to the hydration mechanism with hydrocarbons.

I'm glad that we're both on the same footing now, and hopefully I've demonstrated that I'm not just blowing hot air (although I fully admit that while arguing I said a few things which are completely not true. I could blame automatic processing or the situation, but I fully admit that I overlooked those issues the more involved it got. My apologies).

As for the ethanol bit, I'm aware of the hydroxyl functional groups for alcohols (this year was a crash course in the entire thing for me), but I thought that chemistry was interested in the entire bits of atomic interaction? Obviously not so much quarks and the idea of anti-hydrogen, but surely intermolecular bonds are important? If they're not, I'm going to have a few choice words for my Chemistry professors :wink:

What does intellectual dishonesty mean?

Wiki has a great page on it which I fully support: "Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. " An example would be: "the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context." -- Which is incidentally the one I was worred about.

No worries though! Sorry for any incorrect insinuations I may have made. It was uncalled for, and I'm glad we could reach an understanding on it :thumbs_up

What are your opinions on this quote: (Quote omitted)

I would agree with Dawkins to a point; it's true that a distinction between agnosticism and atheism isn't really necessary in most respects (which is strange because Dawkins is one of those people I would think is of the belief there is no God, not simply a lack of belief in God).

Dealing strictly with his agnosticism (separate from atheism), I again agree to a point, but I think that idea of PAPs has more to do with any situation and whether or not something can be shown to be true or not true. I don't agree with the idea that it's "intellectual cowardice" though; I don't think it's cowardly to say "I don't know which is true" in any dichotomy when both sides fail to establish a semblance of truth.

 

[David777]

Here we go again.

I agree with your post, puzzling. There was a distinction between temporary and permanent agnostics. I think this was the seperation Dawkins was highlighting.

What is information?

What is truth?

 

[Neuroscience101]

What is information?

What is truth?

Now who's thinking too much? :wink:

There's already so much philosophy on the subject, but it's never really interested me. In fact, the complex, convoluted arguments often bore me to tears.

One argument I always love to hear about comes from an old YouTube debate in which a point was made about Epistemology. The original article said that, from an epistomological sense, there's not reason to think that the hand at the end of your arm is real.

The respondent said some nice things, and ended with, "but this is where I part ways with philosophy for the fact remains that neither the professor, you or I would put our hands into a meat grinder."

It's an interesting issue. The idea of "truth" in an objective sense is interesting, but honestly not interesting enough to consider on a daily basis.