https://www.sciencealert.com/volcanoes-may-have-transformed-venus-into-a-blistering-hel...

"Modern-day Venus is a blistering hellscape. The temperature rises above 464 °C (850 °F, 737 °K), which is, as Universe Today readers know, hot enough to melt lead (and spacecraft).

***

"But modern-day Venus might be dramatically different from ancient Venus. Some research shows that ancient Venus had an atmosphere similar to ancient Earth's.

"The planet may also have had substantial quantities of water on its surface. It's possible that simple life existed on Venus at one time, but there's not enough evidence yet to prove or disprove that.

"A new study shows that massive volcanic eruptions over an extended period of time may be responsible for changing the planet into what it is today. If there was simple life on ancient Venus, volcanism was its doom.

"The study also shows how powerful volcanic activity has played a role in shaping Earth's habitability and how Earth only narrowly avoided the same fate as Venus.

***

"Earth has experienced prolonged periods of sustained volcanic eruptions in its history. Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs) are the evidence for the periods, which can last hundreds of thousands of years – maybe even millions of years.

***

"Venus's greenhouse effect is exacerbated by its apparent lack of plate tectonics. Earth's plate tectonics allows heat from the planet's interior to reach the surface by periodically opening the mantle blanket. (my bold)

"It also takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into rock via weathering and subduction.

***

"Life on Earth suffered mightily from powerful and sustained volcanic activity. But it always recovered, and the volcanoes never caused a runaway greenhouse effect, while Venus suffers to this day from the effect. What's the difference?

"The scale of eruptions had something to do with it. Venus's surface is 80 percent covered with solidified volcanic rock. The sulphur in the atmosphere is also evidence of pronounced volcanic activity. And Venus' surface has fewer craters than expected, indicating abundant volcanic activity in the last few hundred million years.

"But the study should make anyone uncomfortable. Though Earth has avoided the runaway greenhouse effect, it may only have narrowly avoided it.

"Untangling the history of volcanism, impacts, and extinctions in Earth's history is challenging because craters get erased. There are scientific efforts to understand the conditions in Earth's mantle that lead to LIPs, but that's also a difficult task.

***

"Earth's volcanic activity is similar to Venus's because the planets are "sister planets." They're very close in size and are both rocky planets in the inner Solar System (my bold)

"But the critical thing they share when it comes to volcanism is their bulk composition. Since they formed in the same region of the Solar System, they have very similar compositions. (my bold)

***

"'[W]e find that the probability of the largest LIP in recorded Earth history overlapping with a similar-sized (in area) event is approximately 30 percent. Multiple simultaneous LIPs may be important drivers of the transition from a serene habitable surface to a hothouse state for terrestrial worlds, assuming they have Earth-like geochemistries and mantle convection dynamics," the paper states.

"There's a point where all of this diverges. While we have fairly complete and reliable data on Earth's LIPs, we don't have anywhere near that for Venus. But the research shows that, even with our lack of detailed data, it's likely that Venus suffered overlapping LIPs that led to its doom."

Comment: seemingly twins at their start they ended up differently. One with plate tectonics, one without. The authors note other differences (my bolds) but my point is this dumb luck or God's guidance? This is another firm aspect of fine-tuning.

https://phys.org/news/2022-11-technique-fine-constant.html

"The fine structure constant is one of the most important natural constants of all. At TU Wien, a remarkable way of measuring it has been found—it shows up as a rotation angle.

"One over 137: This is one of the most important numbers in physics. It is the approximate value of the so-called fine structure constant—a physical quantity that is of outstanding importance in atomic and particle physics.

***

"The fine structure constant describes the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. It indicates how strongly charged particles such as electrons react to electromagnetic fields. If the fine structure constant had a different value, our universe would look completely different—atoms would have a different size, so all chemistry would work differently, and nuclear fusion in the stars would be completely different as well.

"A much-discussed question is whether the fine structure constant is actually constant, or whether it could possibly have changed its value a little over billions of years.

"'Most important physical constants have a specific unit—for example, the speed of light, which can be given in the unit of meters per second," says Prof. Andrei Pimenov from the Institute of Solid State Physics at TU Wien. "It's different with the fine structure constant. It has no unit, it is simply a number—it is dimensionless.'"

***

"A laser beam is polarized linearly—the light oscillates exactly in vertical direction. Then the beam hits a layer of a special material that is only a few nanometers thick. This material has the property of changing the polarization direction of the light.

"'A material rotating the polarization of a laser beam is, by itself, nothing unusual. Different materials can do this; the thicker the material layer, the more the polarization of the laser is rotated. But we are dealing with a completely different effect here," explains Andrei Pimenov. "In our case, the polarization is not rotated continuously—it jumps."

"When passing through the thin film, the polarization direction of the light performs a quantum jump. After passing through, the light wave oscillates in a different direction than before. And when the size of this jump is calculated, an astonishing result appears: the quantum of this angular change is exactly the fine structure constant.

"'We thus have direct access to something quite unusual: a quantum of rotation," says Andrei Pimenov. "The fine structure constant becomes immediately visible as an angle.'"

Comment: a great example of fine tuning.

https://phys.org/news/2022-10-molecular-motor-specialists-deepen-rotary-ion.html

"A team of specialists in nano-sized rotational motors have directly visualized the process of pumping sodium ions, enabling them to explain why there had up until now appeared to be a structural symmetry mismatch between two motors that make up part of the key protein driving the process. Their findings should help develop a better understanding of the mechanisms involved with cellular energy-conversion motors more generally.

***

"Many will remember from secondary-school biology how in complex cells, a protein called ATP synthase—embedded in the membrane of the mitochondria, often described as the powerhouse of the cell—operates sort of like the way that a hydroelectric plant works, but to produce usable energy for an organism. A hydroelectric plant exploits the rush of water coming from the reservoir behind a dam to turn a turbine that drives a dynamo that produces electricity.

"Similarly, the "rotors" of an ATP synthase protein use a rush of protons from a region on one side of the membrane with a high proton concentration to a region on the other side of low concentration (a "proton gradient") to rotate a "stalk" within the ATP synthase that manufactures molecules of adenosine triphosphate (ATP)—the energy currency of the cell that is used to power its activities.

"There is also an "opposite" protein to the ATP synthase called vacuolar ATPase (V-ATPase) that operates as a proton "pump" that uses the energy from ATP to produce a proton gradient. (In a similar way to how some hydroelectric plants that operate like large batteries can work in reverse, using electricity to pump water back up into a reservoir)

"V-ATPases consist of two rotary motors, Vo and V1, and earlier studies had been conducted on model types of V-ATPases to understand how these two motor proteins are able to couple their rotational motions and functions.

***

"Furthermore, V-ATPases can pump not just protons, but also sodium ions (Na+) as well. In the bacterium Enterococcus hirae (E. hirae—which sometimes causes sepsis in humans), its V-ATPase works as an ATP-driven Na+ pump to maintain desired sodium ion concentrations inside the cell.

What was known about the heretofore under-investigated E. hirae V-ATPase is that a unit of the ATP energy currency is "spent" (hydrolyzed), driving rotation of its V1 motor (EhV1; the other motor is called EhVo). But it does this in stepwise fashion. EhV1 rotates only 120° per "expenditure" of ATP, meaning that it takes 3 ATP molecules to rotate a full 360°.

"In addition, previous research by the scientists had found that each 120° step of the EhV1 rotor is further divided into sub-steps of 40° and 80° (adding up to 120°). But the scientists had been unable to clearly resolve quite how steps and related pauses of EhVo in rotation occurred.

"The key mystery was a mismatch between the two motors. ATP hydrolysis generates rotational torque in the EhV1 motor, which is then translated to the EhVo motor. The latter motor also has a subunit composed of a ring of ten subunits (c10-ring), which rotates in the membrane. The sodium ions are transported across the membrane by the rotation of this c10-ring.

"But there's a structural symmetry mismatch here: the ratio between the number of sodium ions transported and the number of ATP spent per rotation," said Ryota Iino, a biophysicist and professor from the Institute for Molecular Science of Japan's National Institutes of Natural Sciences.

"'There are ten sodium ions transported per full turn, and each full turn costs three ATP, or one ATP per 120° step of the EhV1 motor," Professor Iino continued. "Ten divided by three obviously equals 3.3, or one and a third sodium ions. But you can't have a third of a sodium ion. So what's going on?"

***

"Using a 40-nanometer nanoparticle of gold as a probe that could be tracked with a high-speed camera, the researchers found that the binding of sodium ions and binding of ATP to different parts of the protein occur at different angles, and the coupling between the two motors does indeed involve a rigid component. The rigid component in turn requires 13 pauses—resolving the mismatch (and need for a "third" of a sodium ion), as well as occasional backward steps in the process.

The results also confirm that V-ATPases, with their multiple peripheral stalks, are more "rigidly coupled than the ATPases that only have one peripheral stalk and work as ATP synthases."

Comment: a perfect example of irreducible complexity. This cannot be formed by stepwise mutations. It must be formed by a full design step. It is obvious a designer must exist.

https://salvomag.com/article/salvo62/finely-tuned-life

"In Fit for a Purpose: Does the Anthropic Principle Include Biochemistry? Dr. Fazale Rana revisits Henderson’s thesis and examines key biochemical systems to ascertain whether the anthropic principle manifest at the cosmological scale is similarly evident in the world of the microscopic.

"Rana’s working hypothesis is, “f the Creator intentionally designed the universe to be biofriendly, then he wouldn’t have limited the influence of the universe’s physical constants to the processes of star and planetary formation,” but rather would have “designed the physical constants to influence chemical and biological systems as well.”1 Rana points out that Henderson demonstrated over 100 years ago that anthropic principles abounded in chemistry. This was manifested in Henderson’s insightful characterization of the acid-base buffering systems in blood, the cytoplasm of the cell, and other bodily fluids. Henderson had argued that such a perfect system could never have arisen from the unguided processes of natural selection.

'In examining several key biochemical systems (nucleic acid and protein synthesis, cell membrane formation, and energy harvesting pathways), Rana sought to answer three questions: (1) Does a molecular rationale and logic undergird the structure and function of these systems? (2) Are such physicochemical constraints as molecular geometry and hydrophobicity (the property of being repelled by water), dictated by the laws of nature, responsible for the configuration and activity of these systems? (3) When the structural properties and functional features of natural biochemical systems are compared with other conceivable biochemical analogs, do the natural systems display the just-right properties that make them unusually fit for life? If the answer to all three questions is yes, Rana argues, then these biochemical systems manifest anthropic coincidences.

"Rana’s investigation reveals that not only are all three of these criteria met but that they demonstrate optimization—which is not what we would expect from complex systems arising from purely materialistic processes.

"Rana then asks: What are the implications of embracing an anthropic principle for biochemical systems? Does this insight advance knowledge or present new avenues for research?

"Under the naturalistic paradigm, biochemical systems are said to be the consequence of blind processes occurring over geological time. Consequently, research has primarily focused on characterizing or describing their properties. Rana suggests that an anthropic framework opens up new avenues for research because, as questions formerly raised to answer “what” and “how” are advanced to answer “why,” scientists will seek principles informed by such a framework. These principles would be powerful tools for developing new technologies.

"Scientists will likely resist a biochemical anthropic principle (as many did the cosmological one) because methodological naturalism has held sway for so long. Nevertheless, Rana asserts that there are excellent reasons to affirm the biochemical anthropic principle that biological systems demonstrate exquisite fine-tuning with the just-right properties to sustain life—characteristics that by necessity evince a Mind.

Comment: no doubt, a designing mind is requjired.

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/09/life-is-so-wonderfully-finely-tuned-that-its-frightening/

"We can say that something is fine tuned if it’s complex, unlikely to occur by chance. Secondly, if there’s an independent description or specification of the thing that is fine tuned.

"Now there are a number of features within the cells that satisfy these two requirements. The first are proteins. In order for the cell to manufacture proteins, there is an amino acid sequence written in a 20-letter alphabet of amino acids.

"Amino acids form the building blocks of the protein. In order for a protein to work, when these amino acids are manufactured in the ribosomes of the cell, this amino acid string has to be folding in a complicated three-dimensional structure that is specific for each protein. That is necessary for the protein to work. This is a complex structure because, if we look at all possible amino acid sequences of a certain length, there could be a few thousand amino acids that comprise a protein.

"It turns out that [only] a very small fraction of amino acids sequences give us a functioning protein. That is the first definition of fine tuning. It’s complex. It is unlikely to happen by chance, to get a functioning protein. The second part: We should have an independent specification. In this case, the specification is that the protein works. For that reason, a protein is an example of a fine tuned structure in biology.

"Then we could get up to the next hierarchical level and look at complexes of proteins, like molecular machines. The ribosome that manufactures proteins in the cell is itself a molecular machine that consists of many proteins that have to be arranged in a certain structure in order to work.

"Another example is mitochondria in the cell plasma. These are the power stations of the cell that generate ATP. This is also an example of a molecular machine where all parts have to be structured in a certain way. One could say — we talked about this during the first episode — a specific case or a special case of fine tuning are irreducibly complex systems: It consists of many small parts, and all parts must function in order for the whole system to work.

***

"Ola Hössjer: Yes. And another, you could view the whole cell as a cellular city. It has a network of roads, or factories and power stations.

"Robert J. Marks: These are things which display irreducible complexity. You take away one piece, the whole thing falls apart.

"Ola Hössjer: Yes. Because it’s one layer above above the protein complexes. If the parts themselves are the protein complexes, the molecular machines that we talked about are irreducibly complex. Then that will be the case also on the next level. Not by definition, but typically, that is the case.

Comment: A single cell is so fine-tuned its origin requires a designer. At what point of demonstrated complexity of design does one have to accept a designer exists? It is a logical next step in reasoning.

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/11/has-a-computer-algorithm-discovered-the-secret-of-life/

"Origin of life studies have been hampered by the fact that, most often, the researcher is identifying a single, comparatively simple idea, whether it is RNA world or hydrothermal vents, that is supposed to make all the difference. But nothing ties the researcher’s favored idea into the thousands of other factors is any systematic way.

"Could Big Data, which can factor in millions of pieces of information, help? Rana tells us that the Polish Academy of Sciences has developed a computer algorithm called Alchemy that came up with some “rather intriguing results”:

"'This work also shows that, in principle, complex chemical mixtures can give rise to some interesting emergent features that have bearing on chemical evolution and the rise of the chemical complexity and organization required for the origin of life. Nevertheless, we are still a far distance from arriving at any real understanding as to how life could have emerged through evolutionary processes."

"The reason the Beilstein model doesn’t directly answer the question of how life began is that, while it can generate many possibilities, it can’t tell us what the conditions really were. It offers possible models. And just as a map is not the territory, a model is not reality.

"Rana goes on to point out that in the real world, chemical assortments must cope with, for example, unfriendly external atmosphere, toxic concentrations, kinetic effects, and the availability of energy sources. Any failure could prevent further development.

"However, he notes, the massive computer crunch did turn up something quite interesting: A pattern that played itself out repeatedly, which suggests that chemistry might be rigged to produce life:

"'As a case in point, it is provocative that the 82 biotic compounds which formed—a small fraction of the nearly 37,000 compounds generated by the in silico reactions—all share a suite of physicochemical properties that make these compounds unusually stable and relatively unreactive. These qualities cause these materials to persist in the prebiotic setting. It is also intriguing that these 82 compounds display synthetic redundancy, with the capability of being generated by several distinct chemical routes. It is also fortuitous that these compounds possess the just-right set of properties—many of which overlap with the set of properties that distinguish them from the vast number of abiotic compounds—that make them ideally suited to survive on early Earth and useful as building block materials for life."

"In other words, there appear to be constraints on prebiotic chemistry that inevitably lead to the production of key biotic molecules with the just-right properties that make them unusually stable and ideally suited for life. This remarkable coincidence is a bit “suspicious” and highly fortuitous, suggesting a fitness for purpose to the nature of prebiotic chemistry. To put it another way: There is an apparent teleology to prebiotic chemistry. It appears that the laws of physics and chemistry may well have been rigged at the outset to ensure that life’s building blocks naturally emerged under the conditions of early Earth."

Comment: As in all perceived 'fine tuning' is it all wickedly by wild chance or is there a mind's plan behind it?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071

"Abstract
Fine-tuning has received much attention in physics, and it states that the fundamental constants of physics are finely tuned to precise values for a rich chemistry and life permittance. It has not yet been applied in a broad manner to molecular biology. However, in this paper we argue that biological systems present fine-tuning at different levels, e.g. functional proteins, complex biochemical machines in living cells, and cellular networks. This paper describes molecular fine-tuning, how it can be used in biology, and how it challenges conventional Darwinian thinking. We also discuss the statistical methods underpinning fine-tuning and present a framework for such analysis.

"Fine-tuning and design are related entities. Fine-tuning is a bottom-up method, while design is more like a top-down approach. Hence, we focus on the topic of fine-tuning in the present paper and address the following questions: Is it possible to recognize fine-tuning in biological systems at the levels of functional proteins, protein groups and cellular networks? Can fine-tuning in molecular biology be formulated using state of the art statistical methods, or are the arguments just “in the eyes of the beholder”?

***

"The odds against our universe developing were “enormous” – and yet here we are, a point that equates with religious implications,

***

"Behe exemplified systems, like the flagellum bacteria use to swim and the blood-clotting cascade, that he called irreducibly complex, configured as a remarkable teamwork of several (often dozen or more) interacting proteins. Is it possible on an incremental model that such a system could evolve for something that does not yet exist? Many biological systems do not appear to have a functional viable predecessor from which they could have evolved stepwise, and the occurrence in one leap by chance is extremely small. To rephrase the first man on the moon: “That's no small steps of proteins, no giant leap for biology.”

***

"Though proteins tolerate a range of possible amino acids at some positions in the sequence, a random process producing amino-acid chains of this length would stumble onto a functional protein only about one in every 1050 to 1074 attempts due to genetic variation. This empirical result is quite analog to the inference from fine-tuned physics.

***

"Recently Kozulic and Leisola (2015) made careful analyses of these results, and concluded that even with very conservative conditions, the probability of finding ATP binding activity that would function in a cell, would be less than 1 in 10.

***

"...even if the natural laws work against the development of these “irreducible complexities”, they still exist. The strong synergy within the protein complex makes it irreducible to an incremental process. They are rather to be acknowledged as fine-tuned initial conditions of the constituting protein sequences. These structures are biological examples of nano-engineering that surpass anything human engineers have created. Such systems pose a serious challenge to a Darwinian account of evolution, since irreducibly complex systems have no direct series of selectable intermediates, and in addition, as we saw in Section 4.1, each module (protein) is of low probability by itself.

***

"As the complexity of an interacting system increases, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops quickly. Hence, Darwinian explanations of irreducibly complex systems are improbable. Ultimately, this is a question that must be studied both experimentally and by computer simulations. Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity has not been falsified by computer models biochemical or cellular system, “only a variety of wishful speculations”

***

"Protein complexes perform their biological functions in a cooperative manner through their participation in many biological processes and networks, from the nucleus to the cell membrane. Cellular networks are also known to contain feedback loops and cycles.

***

"A major conclusion of our work is that fine-tuning is a clear feature of biological systems. Indeed, fine-tuning is even more extreme in biological systems than in inorganic systems. It is detectable within the realm of scientific methodology. Biology is inherently more complicated than the large-scale universe and so fine-tuning is even more a feature."

Comment: No question fine tuning is seen in living biology. This paper has lots of mathematics as they try to look for statistical systems to clarify the issue. Much more work is needed is their answer. They widely quote the ID folks as a reasonable basis for this view.

Agreed. Why do you confine the three of us to the first two sentences?

dhw: I have the utmost respect for people with religious beliefs, provided those beliefs are not harmful.
TONY: Harmful is a funny topic. Harmful to whom and under what circumstances? […]
dhw: Any religious belief that leads a person to cause physical or mental damage to others is what I mean by “harmful”. For example, I am opposed to a belief that drives someone to plant a bomb or crash a truck or plane in the hope that God will reward him for killing infidels. I have no doubt that you will feel the same way.

TONY: Here in the U.S., and in much of the so-called civilized world, it is considered harmful to spank a child. Now, the bible says that sparing the rod spoils the child and that a father that does not discipline his son actually hates him. So, the question is, do you consider something like spanking to be 'harmful'? And before this gets derailed, I am not talking about beatings. Just good old fashioned spankings.

Ah Tony, you are embarking on an endless game. Why is corporal punishment “the” question? I gave you clear examples of beliefs I considered harmful, and I assumed you would agree. But of course there are grey areas, and so now you can go through every instruction (and individual interpretation of every instruction) in the bible to see whether I consider it harmful or not! However, since you believe corporal punishment to be “the” question, I will give you my purely personal opinion. We never spanked our children, but I’d say that whether spanking is a “good” form of discipline or not depends on the nature of the offence, of the child, and of the spirit in which it is carried out. Assuming that correction is essential, if you spank your children because they do not respond to verbal admonitions, reasoning or, as generally sufficed in our family, an angry flash from the eyes of my beloved late wife, I shan’t have any less respect for your belief in God and in your own interpretation of his wishes.

DHW: Your example does not illustrate the point I was making, which concerned religious belief, not your God’s actions or Armageddon. The short answer to your own question, though, is that the story of Noah’s flood has always appalled me, because I cannot believe for one moment that every single man, woman and above all child – apart from Noah and his family – deserved to be wiped off the face of the earth. As for the point that I was making, you really don’t need me to explain, but I will because you have questioned it. Any religious belief that leads a person to cause physical or mental damage to others is what I mean by “harmful”. For example, I am opposed to a belief that drives someone to plant a bomb or crash a truck or plane in the hope that God will reward him for killing infidels. I have no doubt that you will feel the same way.

Tony: Here in the U.S., and in much of the so-called civilized world, it is considered harmful to spank a child. Now, the bible says that sparing the rod spoils the child and that a father that does not discipline his son actually hates him. So, the question is, do you consider something like spanking to be 'harmful'? And before this gets derailed, I am not talking about beatings. Just good old fashioned spankings.

I did not spank. My father threatened to, but never did. Verbal control is sufficient if handled properly. They were firmly taught. They got small allowances since they had to learn to budget; they helped around the house and yard. They all wanted phone lines in high school. Our house looked like a bookie joint, but they each had a part time job to pay for their own phone. They all went to college on my dime, but I didn't pay for sororities or fraternities in the budgeted monies they were given. They were given vehicles in their senior year of college so when they graduated they had their own transportation. They were told their time at home ended with college graduation. They were to work and support themselves. Later on they all thanked me for teaching them how to handle adult living. Tough love, yes, but the only kind worth it.

TONY:(quoting) "No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it."
DAVID: There were two or more writers of Genesis according to scholars.
TONY: There were undoubtedly many writers that contributed to the bible. However, they are considered divinely inspired writings (by those that believe in them), and as such are considered to have one author: God. Much like a single author using multiple publishers. It doesn't matter who does the printing, the author hasn't changed.

DHW: The quote is from Ecclesiastes, not Genesis, but in any case I very much doubt that it required more than one person to put together those three little sentences. I’m surprised you are focusing on the author(s) rather than on the content of the message, but since both of you have such fixed views about the truth, perhaps you would prefer to ignore that. (Yes, Tony, I am tweaking your beards! )

Well, we all three definitely fit into the category of the first two sentences. Fortunately the three of us at least openly admit that we do not comprehend.

Dhw: I have the utmost respect for people with religious beliefs, provided those beliefs are not harmful.
TONY: Harmful is a funny topic. Harmful to whom and under what circumstances? If the bible is to be believed, Armageddon would likely destroy millions of people, topple governments, and generally destroy society as we know it, much as the flood did in Noah's time. However, in the long term, if it would mean an end to the evils that plague mankind, would you still consider it harmful?

DHW: Your example does not illustrate the point I was making, which concerned religious belief, not your God’s actions or Armageddon. The short answer to your own question, though, is that the story of Noah’s flood has always appalled me, because I cannot believe for one moment that every single man, woman and above all child – apart from Noah and his family – deserved to be wiped off the face of the earth. As for the point that I was making, you really don’t need me to explain, but I will because you have questioned it. Any religious belief that leads a person to cause physical or mental damage to others is what I mean by “harmful”. For example, I am opposed to a belief that drives someone to plant a bomb or crash a truck or plane in the hope that God will reward him for killing infidels. I have no doubt that you will feel the same way.

Here in the U.S., and in much of the so-called civilized world, it is considered harmful to spank a child. Now, the bible says that sparing the rod spoils the child and that a father that does not discipline his son actually hates him. So, the question is, do you consider something like spanking to be 'harmful'? And before this gets derailed, I am not talking about beatings. Just good old fashioned spankings.

dhw: To blame atheism for the slaughter of the Jews seems to me as destructive a distortion as to blame theism for the jihad. You were defending Olasky’s article, and in my view such distortions can only foster prejudice and conflict. I don’t know what you are referring to when you accuse me of “prejudice about religion”.
DAVID: It is my distinct impression that you are highly prejudiced against religion in general.

dhw: I join you in not recognizing the authority of the bible and in not following any organized religion, but I have the utmost respect for people with religious beliefs, provided those beliefs are not harmful. And so if by “religion” you mean dogma and ritual, I agree that like yourself I am anti (call us both prejudiced if you like).
DAVID: You have described my meaning exactly.

dhw: Normally when one person accuses another of being highly prejudiced, it is a criticism, so I wonder why you picked on me when you actually meant both of us. (Actually, I do not regard our shared dislike of dogma and ritual as prejudice, but that’s beside the point.)

I think it is prejudicial.

Dhw: I have the utmost respect for people with religious beliefs, provided those beliefs are not harmful.

TONY: Harmful is a funny topic. Harmful to whom and under what circumstances? If the bible is to be believed, Armageddon would likely destroy millions of people, topple governments, and generally destroy society as we know it, much as the flood did in Noah's time. However, in the long term, if it would mean an end to the evils that plague mankind, would you still consider it harmful?

dhw: Your example does not illustrate the point I was making, which concerned religious belief, not your God’s actions or Armageddon. The short answer to your own question, though, is that the story of Noah’s flood has always appalled me, because I cannot believe for one moment that every single man, woman and above all child – apart from Noah and his family – deserved to be wiped off the face of the earth. As for the point that I was making, you really don’t need me to explain, but I will because you have questioned it. Any religious belief that leads a person to cause physical or mental damage to others is what I mean by “harmful”. For example, I am opposed to a belief that drives someone to plant a bomb or crash a truck or plane in the hope that God will reward him for killing infidels. I have no doubt that you will feel the same way.

I certainly agree.

dhw: I join you in not recognizing the authority of the bible and in not following any organized religion, but I have the utmost respect for people with religious beliefs, provided those beliefs are not harmful. And so if by “religion” you mean dogma and ritual, I agree that like yourself I am anti (call us both prejudiced if you like).
DAVID: You have described my meaning exactly.

Normally when one person accuses another of being highly prejudiced, it is a criticism, so I wonder why you picked on me when you actually meant both of us. (Actually, I do not regard our shared dislike of dogma and ritual as prejudice, but that’s beside the point.)

TONY:(quoting) "No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it."
Dhw: Neither the bible nor the wise people who give us their personal interpretations of the bible, nor the scientists, nor the philosophers - theistic and atheistic - with their unproven and probably unprovable theories can comprehend what goes on, even to the extent that nobody knows if there is any meaning beyond the meaning we as individuals give it. Some of the many authors of the bible were indeed extremely wise, and as an agnostic I can only applaud this unknown author’s insight.

DAVID: There were two or more writers of Genesis according to scholars.
TONY: There were undoubtedly many writers that contributed to the bible. However, they are considered divinely inspired writings (by those that believe in them), and as such are considered to have one author: God. Much like a single author using multiple publishers. It doesn't matter who does the printing, the author hasn't changed.

The quote is from Ecclesiastes, not Genesis, but in any case I very much doubt that it required more than one person to put together those three little sentences. I’m surprised you are focusing on the author(s) rather than on the content of the message, but since both of you have such fixed views about the truth, perhaps you would prefer to ignore that. (Yes, Tony, I am tweaking your beards! )

Dhw: I have the utmost respect for people with religious beliefs, provided those beliefs are not harmful.
TONY: Harmful is a funny topic. Harmful to whom and under what circumstances? If the bible is to be believed, Armageddon would likely destroy millions of people, topple governments, and generally destroy society as we know it, much as the flood did in Noah's time. However, in the long term, if it would mean an end to the evils that plague mankind, would you still consider it harmful?

Your example does not illustrate the point I was making, which concerned religious belief, not your God’s actions or Armageddon. The short answer to your own question, though, is that the story of Noah’s flood has always appalled me, because I cannot believe for one moment that every single man, woman and above all child – apart from Noah and his family – deserved to be wiped off the face of the earth. As for the point that I was making, you really don’t need me to explain, but I will because you have questioned it. Any religious belief that leads a person to cause physical or mental damage to others is what I mean by “harmful”. For example, I am opposed to a belief that drives someone to plant a bomb or crash a truck or plane in the hope that God will reward him for killing infidels. I have no doubt that you will feel the same way.

dhw: To blame atheism for the slaughter of the Jews seems to me as destructive a distortion as to blame theism for the jihad. You were defending Olasky’s article, and in my view such distortions can only foster prejudice and conflict. I don’t know what you are referring to when you accuse me of “prejudice about religion”.
DAVID: It is my distinct impression that you are highly prejudiced against religion in general.

dhw: I join you in not recognizing the authority of the bible and in not following any organized religion, but I have the utmost respect for people with religious beliefs, provided those beliefs are not harmful. And so if by “religion” you mean dogma and ritual, I agree that like yourself I am anti (call us both prejudiced if you like).

David: You have described my meaning exactly.

Harmful is a funny topic. Harmful to whom and under what circumstances? If the bible is to be believed, Armageddon would likely destroy millions of people, topple governments, and generally destroy society as we know it, much as the flood did in Noah's time. However, in the long term, if it would mean an end to the evils that plague mankind, would you still consider it harmful?

dhw: "No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it."

Neither the bible nor the wise people who give us their personal interpretations of the bible, nor the scientists, nor the philosophers - theistic and atheistic - with their unproven and probably unprovable theories can comprehend what goes on, even to the extent that nobody knows if there is any meaning beyond the meaning we as individuals give it. Some of the many authors of the bible were indeed extremely wise, and as an agnostic I can only applaud this unknown author’s insight.

David: There were two or more writers of Genesis according to scholars.

There were undoubtedly many writers that contributed to the bible. However, they are considered divinely inspired writings (by those that believe in them), and as such are considered to have one author: God. Much like a single author using multiple publishers. It doesn't matter who does the printing, the author hasn't changed.

dhw: To blame atheism for the slaughter of the Jews seems to me as destructive a distortion as to blame theism for the jihad. You were defending Olasky’s article, and in my view such distortions can only foster prejudice and conflict. I don’t know what you are referring to when you accuse me of “prejudice about religion”.
DAVID: It is my distinct impression that you are highly prejudiced against religion in general.

dhw: I join you in not recognizing the authority of the bible and in not following any organized religion, but I have the utmost respect for people with religious beliefs, provided those beliefs are not harmful. And so if by “religion” you mean dogma and ritual, I agree that like yourself I am anti (call us both prejudiced if you like).

You have described my meaning exactly.

dhw: "No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it."

Neither the bible nor the wise people who give us their personal interpretations of the bible, nor the scientists, nor the philosophers - theistic and atheistic - with their unproven and probably unprovable theories can comprehend what goes on, even to the extent that nobody knows if there is any meaning beyond the meaning we as individuals give it. Some of the many authors of the bible were indeed extremely wise, and as an agnostic I can only applaud this unknown author’s insight.

There were two or more writers of Genesis according to scholars.

I join you in not recognizing the authority of the bible and in not following any organized religion, but I have the utmost respect for people with religious beliefs, provided those beliefs are not harmful. And so if by “religion” you mean dogma and ritual, I agree that like yourself I am anti (call us both prejudiced if you like). If you meant belief in a god or gods, I am an agnostic, which means I have not made a decision either way. I don’t see how “I can’t decide” constitutes prejudice. I did not set up this website to attack or defend belief in God, but to try to gain insights into questions I am unable to answer. However, if I am offered insights that do not make sense to me, I will always say so and try to explain why. I can't see how this constitutes prejudice either.

TONY: It is my impression that he likes to tweak our beards. When I look at the world, particularly the world of Atheist, I see a certain tendency towards fatalism. Particularly in the hardline materialist versions that both deny free will and subscribe to the at death there is nothing mentality. YOLO, right?
Yes, there are variants on many religions that have the same impact, which is why we see the same results. The line of reasoning that believes in predestination, or a divine will that guides everything tiny detail of what happens in all of creation is every bit as toxic as Atheism, and for exactly the same reason!

I agree that any beliefs, religious or non-religious, which lead to lack of responsibility are toxic. But I don’t know why YOLO should be toxic, unless once again it leads to harmful behaviour. As I keep saying, it’s perfectly possible to be happy and kind to others without believing in an afterlife.

TONY: The bible declares our free will as a gift from God. It shows that we are accountable both to our fellow humans and to our creator for our actions.

Humanism leaves out God/the Creator.

TONY: It shows that our lives are a precious gift and that recklessly endangering them is not only against our best interest but disrespectful and ungrateful.

I don’t know of any atheist who would disagree.

TONY: [...] man will dominate man to his injury, that the love of money is the root of much wickedness.

Agreed.

TONY: Yes, it teaches us that the perfect standard is unattainable, but also that there is compassion and forgiveness for our mistakes provided we not only feel remorse but do our best to make amends and correct ourselves, which also sets the stage for how we should treat others, by pointing out that it is impossible to meet everyone's expectations so we should forgive each other where they fall short.

I don’t think any humanist would disagree with the argument that we should feel remorse for our mistakes and try to make amends. I’m not sure that I would be capable of forgiving someone who raped or murdered my child – but we are all different.

TONY: So yes, some Atheists are good people, and some theists are bad people. That is a fair statement. However, in my humble opinion, Atheism can never measure up to the bible. Not only does it lack the explanatory power, but it also lacks the humility.

Anyone who claims to know the truth – whether theistic or atheistic – lacks intellectual humility. Atheism doesn’t seek to explain anything. It is simply a denial that God exists. All of us, however – theists, atheists and agnostics alike – look for explanations, and may find some more convincing than others, but your quote from Ecclesiastes 8:17 sums it all up beautifully:

"No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it."

Neither the bible nor the wise people who give us their personal interpretations of the bible, nor the scientists, nor the philosophers - theistic and atheistic - with their unproven and probably unprovable theories can comprehend what goes on, even to the extent that nobody knows if there is any meaning beyond the meaning we as individuals give it. Some of the many authors of the bible were indeed extremely wise, and as an agnostic I can only applaud this unknown author’s insight.

Tony: It teaches that imprisoning men is a pointless waste of time, that man will dominate man to his injury, that the love of money is the root of much wickedness.

David: Based on that what is to be done with criminals?

Tony: Biblically, there were only a few courses of action. For most crimes paying restitution at a rate of three, seven, or ten times the amount of loss/damage was pretty standard. For more extreme crimes, it was either exile or death. Essentially, those that were redeemable were able to redeem themselves while still being a productive member of society (no tax burden) and were able to retain a positive, healthy sense of self-esteem without being locked into a negative cycle of poverty and crime. Those that were not were permanently removed from society. The cities of refuge may be considered a type of prison, though the people in them were free to move around and do what they wanted as long as they didn't leave the city. Still, better and cheaper than what we do now.

Thank you for the explanation. In my tour of Israel I didn't see any examples of ancient prisons.

David: What if 'falling short' is a deliberate act against one?

Tony: Forgive, if you can. Forgiveness is a funny thing. For those that have the right heart condition, it will make them ashamed and they will change their ways. For those that don't, it is like dumping hot coals on their head. Either way, you win. Besides, forgiveness isn't just for the other person. It brings peace to the wronged party as well.

Understood, But in my life in a very few incidents, didn't work.

Tony: It teaches that imprisoning men is a pointless waste of time, that man will dominate man to his injury, that the love of money is the root of much wickedness.

David: Based on that what is to be done with criminals?

Biblically, there were only a few courses of action. For most crimes paying restitution at a rate of three, seven, or ten times the amount of loss/damage was pretty standard. For more extreme crimes, it was either exile or death. Essentially, those that were redeemable were able to redeem themselves while still being a productive member of society (no tax burden) and were able to retain a positive, healthy sense of self-esteem without being locked into a negative cycle of poverty and crime. Those that were not were permanently removed from society. The cities of refuge may be considered a type of prison, though the people in them were free to move around and do what they wanted as long as they didn't leave the city. Still, better and cheaper than what we do now.

Tony: Yes, it teaches us that the perfect standard is unattainable, but also that there is compassion and forgiveness for our mistakes provided we not only feel remorse but do our best to make amends and correct ourselves, which also sets the stage for how we should treat others, by pointing out that it is impossible to meet everyone's expectations so we should forgive each other where they fall short.

David: What if 'falling short' is a deliberate act against one?

Forgive, if you can. Forgiveness is a funny thing. For those that have the right heart condition, it will make them ashamed and they will change their ways. For those that don't, it is like dumping hot coals on their head. Either way, you win. Besides, forgiveness isn't just for the other person. It brings peace to the wronged party as well.

David: It is my distinct impression that you are highly prejudiced against religion in general.

It is my impression that he likes to tweak our beards. When I look at the world, particularly the world of Atheist, I see a certain tendency towards fatalism. Particularly in the hardline materialist versions that both deny free will and subscribe to the at death there is nothing mentality. YOLO, right?

I fully agree.

Tony: Ironically, the bible also talks about those who are NOT Christians that follow the Christian laws. (Romans 2:13-15) This would be the group that DHW lumps himself in with: good people who try to live a principled life in a loving manner.

dhw more than lumps. I know his life and he is principled and loving.

Tony: It teaches that imprisoning men is a pointless waste of time, that man will dominate man to his injury, that the love of money is the root of much wickedness.

Based on that what is to be done with criminals?

Tony: Yes, it teaches us that the perfect standard is unattainable, but also that there is compassion and forgiveness for our mistakes provided we not only feel remorse but do our best to make amends and correct ourselves, which also sets the stage for how we should treat others, by pointing out that it is impossible to meet everyone's expectations so we should forgive each other where they fall short.

What if 'falling short' is a deliberate act against one?

dhw: To blame atheism for the slaughter of the Jews seems to me as destructive a distortion as to blame theism for the jihad. You were defending Olasky’s article, and in my view such distortions can only foster prejudice and conflict. I don’t know what you are referring to when you accuse me of “prejudice about religion”.

David: It is my distinct impression that you are highly prejudiced against religion in general.

It is my impression that he likes to tweak our beards. When I look at the world, particularly the world of Atheist, I see a certain tendency towards fatalism. Particularly in the hardline materialist versions that both deny free will and subscribe to the at death there is nothing mentality. YOLO, right?

Yes, there are variants on many religions that have the same impact, which is why we see the same results. The line of reasoning that believes in predestination, or a divine will that guides everything tiny detail of what happens in all of creation is every bit as toxic as Atheism, and for exactly the same reason!

However, a careful study of the bible actually addresses all of those points, which is why among true Christians (i.e. those that study and follow the bible as oppose to those that ignore the bible and follow people) avoid those pitfalls. Ironically, the bible also talks about those who are NOT Christians that follow the Christian laws. (Romans 2:13-15) This would be the group that DHW lumps himself in with: good people who try to live a principled life in a loving manner.

The bible declares our free will as a gift from God. It shows that we are accountable both to our fellow humans and to our creator for our actions. It shows that our lives are a precious gift and that recklessly endangering them is not only against our best interest but disrespectful and ungrateful. It teaches that imprisoning men is a pointless waste of time, that man will dominate man to his injury, that the love of money is the root of much wickedness. Yes, it teaches us that the perfect standard is unattainable, but also that there is compassion and forgiveness for our mistakes provided we not only feel remorse but do our best to make amends and correct ourselves, which also sets the stage for how we should treat others, by pointing out that it is impossible to meet everyone's expectations so we should forgive each other where they fall short.

So yes, some Atheists are good people, and some theists are bad people. That is a fair statement. However, in my humble opinion, Atheism can never measure up to the bible. Not only does it lack the explanatory power, but it also lacks the humility.

Ecclesiastes 8:17 No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it.

dhw: To blame atheism for the slaughter of the Jews seems to me as destructive a distortion as to blame theism for the jihad. You were defending Olasky’s article, and in my view such distortions can only foster prejudice and conflict. I don’t know what you are referring to when you accuse me of “prejudice about religion”.

It is my distinct impression that you are highly prejudiced against religion in general.