[Hencredible Casanova]

RIP to a great man.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/16...52786.html

[Only One Man]

(12-16-2011 12:52 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

RIP to a great man.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/16...52786.html

Isn't this the dude who wrote that article about the reason that women aren't funny?

[kosko]

The Trails of Henry Kissinger >>>>>

R.I.P to a great author.

[kbell]

Very sad news. Seems he died from esophagal cancer, which may be due to his smoking.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(12-16-2011 12:59 AM)Only One Man Wrote:  

(12-16-2011 12:52 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

RIP to a great man.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/16...52786.html

Isn't this the dude who wrote that article about the reason that women aren't funny?

Yup

[Farmageddon]

I am absolutely devastated. Having read almost everything he has ever written and seen most of his debates, I can say without compunction that we just lost one of the most important minds of the 20th/21st centuries. Truly a mournful day for humanity and a tremendous loss to those of us who value truth and honesty over faith and blind obedience. Without a doubt, the greatest public intellectual of my life.

The most effective debater I have ever had the great fortune to witness. Martin Amis said he would bet the farm on Hitchens in a debate vs. anyone in history.

Watching him effortlessly destroy religious certitude is one of the great joys of life.

RIP, Hitch.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(12-16-2011 02:56 AM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

I am absolutely devastated. Having read almost everything he has ever written and seen most of his debates, I can say without compunction that we just lost one of the most important minds of the 20th/21st centuries. Truly a mournful day for humanity and a tremendous loss to those of us who value truth and honesty over faith and blind obedience. Without a doubt, the greatest public intellectual of my life.

The most effective debater I have ever had the great fortune to witness. Martin Amis said he would bet the farm on Hitchens in a debate vs. anyone in history.

Watching him effortlessly destroy religious certitude is one of the great joys of life.

RIP, Hitch.

Ditto.

[soup]

RIP.

Fuck cancer.

[Hencredible Casanova]

Charlie Rose remembers Christopher Hitchens.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11168

[speakeasy]

Just watched that video above. I'm not a religious person, but I think he comes off as obsessed with hating any facet of religion to the point that I wonder if he was molested by a priest himself as a child.

[Donnington93]

(12-16-2011 02:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Just watched that video above. I'm not a religious person, but I think he comes off as obsessed with hating any facet of religion to the point that I wonder if he was molested by a priest himself as a child.

I met him once, we talked in private. He was more conciliatory behind closed doors. Part of being a great polemicist is taking extreme positions.

[Farmageddon]

Quote:

I think he comes off as obsessed with hating any facet of religion

Then you are obviously not familiar with his vast legacy of work that encompasses politics, literature, philosophy, history and popular culture. He is most notable for being very vocal about his opposition to religion because that garners headlines but he has been a commentator on a swath of subjects for over four decades.

His main theme in almost all of his writings was a quarrel with totalitarianism, and in that regard, he is seen by many has Orwell's successor. Hitchens stated many times that belief in the divine is the origin of the totalitarian impulse in human beings. And that philosophy begins where religion ends, just as chemistry begins where alchemy ends, and astrology ends where astronomy begins. The criticism of religion is the beginning of all criticism.

Quote:

I wonder if he was molested by a priest himself as a child.

Lame cheap shot hardly worthy even of consideration. And it commits the grievous crime of not being funny.

I find Hitchens' highlighting of the continual abuse of children by the Holy See and their criminal attempts to cover it up in his debates and writings much more compelling than your ineffectual pot shot.

[Hencredible Casanova]

I really enjoyed watching him debate. His rhetorical gifts were extraordinary, particularly his wit. He was also a skilled writer and I have a copy of one of his books, God Is Not Great.

One of my favorite Hitchens moments, and there are many, was this interview with Sean Hannity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We7DyKWw61I

Perhaps the two most intellectually mismatched people ever to have a serious conversation.

[Farmageddon]

My favorite Hitchens moment came from a debate with George Galloway on the topic of the Iraq War.

Devastatingly brilliant. How do you recover from something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcvgAMnMne0#t=05m16s

[speakeasy]

(12-16-2011 05:24 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

I really enjoyed watching him debate. His rhetorical gifts were extraordinary, particularly his wit. He was also a skilled writer and I have a copy of one of his books, God Is Not Great.

One of my favorite Hitchens moments, and there are many, was this interview with Sean Hannity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We7DyKWw61I

Perhaps the two most intellectually mismatched people ever to have a serious conversation.

I'm far from a fan of Hannity, but I don't think he did all that bad in the debate. He didn't have an answer to how something came from nothing other than saying, "we look for patterns." Hitchens I think is a bigot against religion. I'm not saying I dislike the guy, I've read some of his work on different topics and find things I like, but he is bigoted. I mean that in the sense that he can only see wrong in his adversaries and never give them any credit for any good they've done. I know people who lived a life of crime and completely straightening their lives out after turning to religion. But listening to him you'd think it can do nothing but harm. Sure, not everyone has to turn to religion to behave well, but if it has helped some people out in that regard, then I'll give it some credit.

[Dash Global]

^^

No one will ever be able to answer how something comes from nothing. Or shall I say they will never be able to produce life from non life.

Just like theists will never be able to prove God.

[Caligula]

(12-16-2011 09:02 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

^^

No one will ever be able to answer how something comes from nothing. Or shall I say they will never be able to produce life from non life.

Just like theists will never be able to prove God.

Actually they're close to figuring out how life came from non-life. One-celled organism appearing out of complex proteins and then it's evolution from there.

How something came from nothing is a bit further off.

[Dash Global]

(12-16-2011 09:48 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(12-16-2011 09:02 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

^^

No one will ever be able to answer how something comes from nothing. Or shall I say they will never be able to produce life from non life.

Just like theists will never be able to prove God.

Actually they're close to figuring out how life came from non-life. One-celled organism appearing out of complex proteins and then it's evolution from there.

How something came from nothing is a bit further off.

They been saying this for years.

Im not gonna hold my breathe.

Everything in the universe is a result of something. So it just wouldnt even be feasible to explain scientifically the "something from nothing" issue imo

And with our advanced technology youd think in a controlled environment they could produce life from non life.

[speakeasy]

(12-16-2011 09:48 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

Actually they're close to figuring out how life came from non-life. One-celled organism appearing out of complex proteins and then it's evolution from there.

How something came from nothing is a bit further off.

If there's no God, then I dunno, maybe this universe was created by being in a parallel dimension, because I just don't see how you get something as complex as a human brain evolving from pond scum. I have to think this was all engineered. The likelihood of us being here is like billions to one. How do we even explain something such as self-awareness? Even though computers may be able to do complex tasks much faster than a human, a computer is not actually aware of itself. It's just following a set of instructions. In the same way, our DNA is biological programming language that creates instructions for life, but from that, yet unlike computers, we are actually able to contemplate ourselves and have aspirations. It's crazy when you really start to think about. It's hard for me to believe DNA just came about spontaneously from a pool of primordial soup on a big rock that just happened to be at just the right distance from just the right sized star, with just the right mix of chemicals. If this new Mars probe finds evidence of ancient bacterial life on the red planet, then maybe I will concede that life just spontaneously happens whenever and wherever the conditions are right for it.

[Dash Global]

Also why is there no other creature that has even half the mental capacity of humans?

You have tons of primitive animals species but just one non primitive species (humans).

[Farmageddon]

Quote:

No one will ever be able to answer how something comes from nothing.

With all due respect Dash, just as when you attempted to discuss religion, you have proven yourself utterly incapable of grasping even basic concepts of what you are attempting to consider.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." - Stephen Hawking

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/s...ng-creator

"How The Universe Came From Nothing" Lecture by world renowned astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss (who has published over 300 peer reviewed scientific papers)

When you get even one peer reviewed scientific paper published get back with me on this subject.

Quote:

Or shall I say they will never be able to produce life from non life.

Except for the fact that scientists already have:

"First truly synthetic organism created using four bottles of chemicals and a computer"

http://www.gizmag.com/first-synthetic-or...ted/15165/

Conditions of the early chemical composition of planet earth have been duplicated in the laboratory and amino acids have been observed to form spontaneously.

"Amino acids are created in laboratory - 1953"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/ent...o53am.html

"...all the ingredients for life existed on Earth from the beginning and that energy from the sun and some unknown process had gotten life started."

Amino acids are the building blocks of DNA. DNA is the building block of self replicating cells. Self replicating cells are the foundations of life.

Done.

Quote:

Also why is there no other creature that has even half the mental capacity of humans?

There are tons of animals with superior subsets of intelligence that FAR exceed human ability.

Here's one example from the Discovery Channel:

"Chimpanzee Memory Beats Human Memory"

The answers to most of your questions are available with a simple and quick Google search. I really don't know why you insist on continually asserting very ignorant positions.

[Dash Global]

@Farmageddon,

The link you provide didnt really explain or prove anything. Merely stated what you stated in that ""Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. - Stephen Hawking"

So because someone says something is possible im to just take that as fact and believe him? I dont think so. Hawking is committing the fallacy known "begging the question" imo.

That is nothing more than a theory that defies scientific logic. see below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introductio...elativity, pertaining to general relativity. It is mentioned in this website 6th line after the title of ‘’Introduction to general relativity’ that the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time. As the phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, is mentioned for general relativity, it gives the implication that there have to be some kind of masses in order to create gravitational attraction through warping of space and time. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity or dark energy could exist prior to the formation of this universe at the absence of masses or objects in order to create something out of nothing. Or in other words, in order that gravitational force or dark energy would exist, there must be masses in this universe to interact in space and time in order to generate gravitational force.

Refer to the above website 17th line after the title of ‘Introduction to general relativity. It is mentioned that general relativity also predicts novel effects of gravity such as, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and an effect of gravity of time known as gravitational time dilation. Let’s examine all these factors, i.e. gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation below:

Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave, pertaining to gravitational waves. It is mentioned in this website 10th line after the title of ‘Gravitational wave’ that the existence of gravitational waves is possibly a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of general relativity since it brings the concept of a limiting speed of propagation of the physical interactions with it. The phrase, Lorentz invariance of general relativity…brings… the physical interactions…, here gives the implication that gravitational waves have to be dealt with physical interactions or masses. As gravitational masses have to be dealt with masses, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which Hawking mentioned that gravitational wave could exist at the presence of substances or masses prior to the formation of this universe. As gravitational waves have to be dealt with substances or masses, it is irrational for Stephen Hawking to use it to support that gravity or dark energy could exist at the absence of masses so as to create something out of nothing.

Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing, pertaining to the gravitational lens. It is mentioned that a gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. The phrase, a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, gives a strong proof for a must to have matters or substances in order to activate a gravitational lens. Thus, gravitational lens in general relativity needs to rely on masses or substances in order to be generated and this opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist at the absence of substance to create something out of nothing.

Refer to website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation..._dilation, pertaining to gravitational time dilation. It is mentioned that gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.

Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential, under the sub-title of ‘Potential energy’ pertaining to gravitational potential. The following is the extract of the formula of gravitational potential:

The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
U = mV
where m is the mass of the object. The potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving the body to its given position in space from infinity. If the body has a mass of 1 unit, then the potential energy to be assigned to that body is equal to the gravitational potential. So the potential can be interpreted as the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving a unit mass in from infinity

From the above formula above, it is obvious that U (the potential energy or dark energy or gravity) has a direct relationship with m (the mass of the object). If m = 0, U (the dark energy would turn up to be 0 since U (the potential energy) would turn up to 0 whatever the number that V has when V is multiplied by m that is equal to 0. Thus, the generation of potential energy in general relativity would certainly have found to have conflict with Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy or gravity could exist at the absence of masses or substances prior to the formation of this universe so as to create something out of nothing.

Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking has abused general relativity to support his quantum theory in which something could be created out of nothing since general relativity demands masses or substances in order to generate dark energy or gravity.

Now on to your Synthetic Cell claim. Not sure where you are getting non life to life with that info.

“He has not created life, only mimicked it,” Dr. Baltimore said.

Dr. Venter’s approach “is not necessarily on the path” to produce useful microorganisms, said George Church, a genome researcher at Harvard Medical School. Leroy Hood, of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, described Dr. Venter’s report as “glitzy” but said lower-level genes and networks had to be understood first before it would be worth trying to design whole organisms from scratch.

In 2002 Eckard Wimmer, of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, synthesized the genome of the polio virus. The genome constructed a live polio virus that infected and killed mice. Dr. Venter’s work on the bacterium is similar in principle, except that the polio virus genome is only 7,500 units in length, and the bacteria’s genome is more than 100 times longer.

Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, denounced the synthetic genome as “dangerous new technology,” saying that “Mr. Venter should stop all further research until sufficient regulations are in place.”

The genome Dr. Venter synthesized is copied from a natural bacterium that infects goats. He said that before copying the DNA, he excised 14 genes likely to be pathogenic, so the new bacterium, even if it escaped, would be unlikely to cause goats harm.

Dr. Venter’s assertion that he has created a “synthetic cell” has alarmed people who think that means he has created a new life form or an artificial cell. “Of course that’s not right — its ancestor is a biological life form,” said Dr. Joyce of Scripps.

Dr. Venter copied the DNA from one species of bacteria and inserted it into another. The second bacteria made all the proteins and organelles in the so-called “synthetic cell,” by following the specifications implicit in the structure of the inserted DNA.

“My worry is that some people are going to draw the conclusion that they have created a new life form,” said Jim Collins, a bioengineer at Boston University. “What they have created is an organism with a synthesized natural genome. But it doesn’t represent the creation of life from scratch or the creation of a new life form,” he said.

The apes memory doesnt explain or prove anything. Apes are still primitive no?

So no the answers to my questions are not available. When these things are TRULY answered / discovered we will all know because it will make national / worldwide headlines.

Until then.....

[Lumiere]

(12-16-2011 10:40 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Also why is there no other creature that has even half the mental capacity of humans?

There is a great deal of evidence that dolphins are more inteliigent than humans.

No wars. No squabbling over religion and, when it comes to relationships, they don't waste any time at all in divorce courts.

[Caligula]

Dash, you grossly underplay the amount of discoveries that have been made in reference to life arising from inorganic matter. Here's a starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

And yes, evolution can explain in a very compelling and elegant way how intelligent life develops from single-cell organisms. Much more wonderful than any half-assed design theory.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(12-16-2011 06:02 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

My favorite Hitchens moment came from a debate with George Galloway on the topic of the Iraq War.

Devastatingly brilliant. How do you recover from something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcvgAMnMne0#t=05m16s

Never knew those two debated. George Galloway is a gangster, too. He made a legendary appearance before the US Senate to address charges related to the Iraq oil for food program. Straight beasted. You might want to just forward to the parts where he's speaking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnflzhtDk...re=related