Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
God's image
Topic Started: 9 Oct 2011, 05:38 PM (2,123 Views)
Luemas
Member Avatar
DELICIOUS!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
How do I intend to prove that there are more selfless humans than squirrels?
What's always the answer?
42!
Er... i mean, Jesus!
Very rarely will a man die for a righteous man, let alone for a sinful man. Jesus died for every sinful man. If that isn't selfless, what is?
Posted Image
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Midst Of Vampy
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, that there is an opinion. Kind of. No solid proof, no fact. People can disagree or agree on it, it's an opinion.
So he may or may not have.
TIMEY-WHIMEY SKITTLES!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yeah, I think he did it for the publicity :P
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luemas
Member Avatar
DELICIOUS!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think he did it for the lulz. Wait wha?

And by opinion, you mean validated by the truest book in the world?
I love making unsubstantiated claims. For kicks and giggles.
Posted Image
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The truest book in the word is your algebra book. Its truth value is just below the Great Book of Skittles!
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

an absoulute truth omg is there even such a thing ? :o
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luemas
Member Avatar
DELICIOUS!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
God is an absolute truth, is he not? Then isn't his word an absolute truth as well?

(And Concolor, as much as I love algebra and math, the way math is going nowadays is getting disappointing. They don't even teach square roots anymore! Calculators are such a buzz kill.)
Posted Image
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Midst Of Vampy
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Luemas- No, maybe to Chrisitans. Not to all people.
TIMEY-WHIMEY SKITTLES!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

@Vamp Helllllllllllllooooooo :) :) :)

Granted as a Christian I make the statement that Gods word is an absoulute truth
He spoke the world into exsistence his language converts into life like a computor translates our language programming into organised information.
organised information of life = DNA -our best scientist explanation
My claim is Gods word is the plausible explanation of how vast amounts of complex specified information in the simplest simplest of simplest self-replicating organisms can self assemble & organise itselfs from non-life !!!!!

250 odd genes needed in the simplest of these so called simple one cell life forms cant even hypothetically survive ?
but lets just pretend it can already each minimum genome needs 400+protein-coding & 44RNA-coding genes so even this simple of simplest bug already has way way too much speacilised info to evolve by chance without the help of mutation-but mutation happens thru natural selection which cant help explain how these simple bugs replicated themselves by themselves because it supposes that these bugs already can self replicate ?
:ermm: yea

therefore if the truest book in the world is your algebra book you are familiar with how mathematically impossible it would be for a single cell organisims DNA to be a random occurance...yea shit happens... but this dumb shit happens to be a complex functional design thats intelligent its smart,its clever,its ORGANIZED
dont even get me started then on the why & how sexual reproduction would evolve from a self replicating organisim by chance -I mean thats taking shooting yourself in the foot too far !

Theres always the flying spagettti monster if you dont like a God as an option....

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Arazec:
Quote:
 
My claim is Gods word is the plausible explanation of how vast amounts of complex specified information in the simplest simplest of simplest self-replicating organisms can self assemble & organise itselfs from non-life
Interestingly abiogenesis and following natural selection fits better with the evidence we see in the world today.
Quote:
 
250 odd genes needed in the simplest of these so called simple one cell life forms cant even hypothetically survive ?
I'm not quite sure what that sentence means, but I can assure you that only the most speciesist of humans claim that single celled lifeforms are "simple". They have evolved for just as long time as the rest of us have and are, in their own way, highly adapted and complex.
Quote:
 
even this simple of simplest bug
Why would you call it "simple"? Just because it is small it does not mean it is not complex.
Quote:
 
but mutation happens thru natural selection
What? NO! I thought I'd sent you loads of info about evolution? Here we go again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

Mutation happens through a vast amount of different mechanisms (such as radiation from the sun or simple copying-faults). These mutations create a natural variation. Different varieties will interact differently with the environment. Some will be better suited, others less well suited. Those better suited will (by definition) have more offspring and so these genes will spread more than those of the less well suited. And THAT is natural selection.
Quote:
 
natural selection which cant help explain how these simple bugs replicated themselves
Natural selection is a consequence of self-replicating units, not a prerequisite. Evolution by natural selection is simply the theory for the mechanism behind the observed development of the self replication units we find in nature, it says nothing about the transition from non-replicating units to self replicating units (that would be abiogenesis).
Quote:
 
therefore if the truest book in the world is your algebra book you are familiar with how mathematically impossible it would be for a single cell organisims DNA to be a random occurance
Why on earth would anyone suppose that DNA simply appeared by random chance? That would be somewhat of a miracle - more the kind of story one would find in a religion where Gods snap their fingers and create things out of nothing.
Quote:
 
but this dumb shit happens to be a complex functional design thats intelligent its smart
Smart? Really? Why do our appendices get infected and burst? Why are there viruses that make us ill? Smart? no. Sufficient for self-replicating? Yup.
Quote:
 
its ORGANIZED
In some ways yes, but in other ways no. Most of the organization of nature is a system of description that we as humans have tried to compartmentalize nature in to. Yet it's never a perfect fit. Organization is a human preferance of which nature has little concern.
Quote:
 
dont even get me started then on the why & how sexual reproduction would evolve from a self replicating organisim by chance
So you don't want any information about the theories of how sexual reproduction evolved?
Quote:
 
-I mean thats taking shooting yourself in the foot too far !
Why?
Quote:
 
Theres always the flying spagettti monster if you dont like a God as an option
Or thousands upon thousands of others (Allah, Athman, Ahura Mazda, Odin, Mercury etc.), or none at all.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Midst Of Vampy
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Arzy- Hello! :D I must say, I have to agree with Concolor.
TIMEY-WHIMEY SKITTLES!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Concolor
 
Natural selection is a consequence of self-replicating units, not a prerequisite.


:D :D Natural selection is a consequence of self-replicating units, God being the prerequisite if not God what prerequisite do you suggest ?

Concolor
 
Evolution by natural selection says nothing about the transition from non-replicating units to self replicating units (that would be abiogenesis).
Clever sentence however abiogenesis is based on mutations working toward favourable advancement as you described by the process of natural selection abiogenesis offers no evidence on how life came from no life other than stanely Miller & Harold Urey testing Oparins hypothesis in the 50"s trying to recreate the enviormental gases were present in the days of this theroy of the origin s of early life -they came up with tar like protiens of left and right handed amino acids The amino acids that comprise living proteins are of the left-handed form
Nature & no known naturalistic mechanisms were ever discovered which could segregate the left-handed forms needed for life from the righthanded forms !
Further if the gases that scientists now believe were present on the early earth were to be used in the correct proportion not even amino acids are produced as a result- let alone ones that can organise themselves to have the left hand form seperated evidenced for self replicating life.

Concolor
 
Why on earth would anyone suppose that DNA simply appeared by random chance? That would be somewhat of a miracle -
I agree so then without God its inexplicable how the Left form amino acids became correctly ordered with the proper peptide bonds to form proteins. You would need a miracle to obtain even a single protein
I was refering to your very question when I said Simple Bugs - the very first living single cell organisim was ORGANIZED to form into a living cell requires hundreds of these specialized proteins precisely coordinated to produce DNA, RNA & a cell membrane the first 1 celled living organisim needs to be intelligent enough to have all thses in place & arranged into their correct locations to perform their respective functions
Concolor
 
Smart? Really? Why do our appendices get infected and burst? Why are there viruses that make us ill? Smart? no. Sufficient for self-replicating? Yup.
On the 1 hand you agree and concede that to self replicate order,organisation & the composition of the first living cell is complex allowing it to replicate & therefore survive yet your example is a demonstration againest your own theory....is evolution towards more complex life forms just got it wrong ? from simple to complex & higher intelligence with the ability to adapt is for no reason ? Nature just got it wrong all this time ? all you needed to be able to self replicate to the point you can evolve into a high a high order organisim with all the complexcities of an actual liver only to have it burst or die from a virus.
[quote =concolor] Most of the organization of nature is a system of description that we as humans have tried to compartmentalize nature in to. Yet it's never a perfect fit. Organization is a human preferance of which nature has little concern [/quote] This would be true if Nature did not evolve into more complex organisims over time-therefore nature having little concern for organisation is unsubstantiated.Higher order organisation of living cells is the result of natural selection.If this Statement is incorrect please provide evidence to the contrary?


Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luemas
Member Avatar
DELICIOUS!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Arazec, I love you. As a sister, now I don't have to argue. I mean what?

Evolution makes the most sense given the fossil record and whatnot aye?
How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? That's always wowed me. We go from "simple" molecular invertebrates, to vertebrates out the wazoo!
Posted Image
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

:king:

All thats fasinating about it to me is that Punctuated Equilibrium puts more odds againest development of species rather than creation by God-even more improbability of us being here !
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Lue:
Quote:
 
How do you explain the Cambrian explosion?
Not really sure why rapid evolution would be an argument against evolution? But here's info on the Cambrian: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

@ARAZEC:
Quote:
 
Natural selection is a consequence of self-replicating units, God being the prerequisite if not God what prerequisite do you suggest
Why would I suggest a prerequisite?
Quote:
 
however abiogenesis is based on mutations working toward favourable advancement as you described by the process of natural selection
Really? Why would that be how abiogenesis happened? The transition from non-replicating units to replicating units could have been a lot of things, but natural selection is something that happens
Quote:
 
after
self-replicating units come by.
Quote:
 
abiogenesis offers no evidence on how life came from no life
Well it's hard to come by evidence of extremely microscopic chemicals from billions of years ago. I guess we could always blame it on the geologists? Abiogenesis is a very young scientific field, and though there are many hypotheses made, they are hard to test without a planet to test it in and billions of years to test it.
Quote:
 
stanely Miller & Harold Urey testing Oparins hypothesis in the 50"s trying to recreate the enviormental gases were present in the days of this theroy of the origin s of early life -they came up with tar like protiens of left and right handed amino acids
You should update your sources: Since then we've found amino acids in comets http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stardust/news/stardust_amino_acid.html
Quote:
 
The amino acids that comprise living proteins are of the left-handed form
Nature & no known naturalistic mechanisms were ever discovered which could segregate the left-handed forms needed for life from the righthanded forms !
Why would you need such a mechanism? You don't need to go from right-handed to left-handed, you just need to stick to left-handed forms. Now if you have left- and right-handed amino-acids and they only work together with their own handed form, then you basically have a situation where any replicators would be either left- or right-handed. Now if they are left handed, and the only ones they can use are other left-handed amino acids, then of course the next generation will also be left-handed, leaving the right handed untouched or destroyed. If all other life is based on these first left-handed replicators then all life will be based on left-handed amino acids. It makes perfect sense.
Quote:
 
Further if the gases that scientists now believe were present on the early earth were to be used in the correct proportion not even amino acids are produced as a result- let alone ones that can organise themselves to have the left hand form seperated evidenced for self replicating life.
See answer above: amino-acids are plentiful around the universe.
Quote:
 
I agree so then without God its inexplicable how the Left form amino acids became correctly ordered with the proper peptide bonds to form proteins
Nope. See explanation above.
Quote:
 
the very first living single cell organisim was ORGANIZED to form into a living cell requires hundreds of these specialized proteins precisely coordinated to produce DNA, RNA & a cell membrane
No. You are talking about modern-single celled animals that have evolved for billions of years. To be a replicator you need few, or none, of the abilities of modern single-celled animals apart from the ability to replicate.
Quote:
 
the first 1 celled living organisim needs to be intelligent enough to have all thses in place & arranged into their correct locations to perform their respective functions
See now when you talk about the first replicators as "intelligent" you're not really helping my hopes that I'll ever get through to you with these facts about biology.
Quote:
 
On the 1 hand you agree and concede that to self replicate order,organisation & the composition of the first living cell is complex
When did I say that they had to be complex? In that case I must apologize for the misunderstanding. They need only to replicate. No complexity needed beyond this.
Quote:
 
is evolution towards more complex life forms just got it wrong
Evolution is not inherently towards greater complexity. In fact many species have lost many parts, abilities and mechanisms that would have been unnecessary for them in their present form (most land animals no longer have gills, most whales no longer have legs etc.)
Quote:
 
from simple to complex & higher intelligence with the ability to adapt is for no reason?
What do you mean by reason? The whole point of natural selection is that life evolves according to pressures from the environment. If more intelligence is beneficial any animal that moves in such a direction may thrive. If other abilities are more important for an animals replications then it will move in a different direction. Evolution has no "goal", it's a continuous process. High intelligence is no more a "high point" of evolution than fast running is.

And complexity is barely the measure of anything other than itself. Humans have 46 chromosomes, Adders-tongue fern has 1200 chromosomes, fruit flies have 8 chromosomes. Are anyone of these more the high point of complexity than the others?
Quote:
 
Nature just got it wrong all this time ?
Why would it be wrong? Life is a constantly changing thing. We have no reason to say that that today's life forms are "better" than they were 100 million years ago, any more than we can say that life forms 100 million years from now will be "better" than today. They will be adapted to their environment just like life forms today are, and just like life forms 100 million years ago were.
Quote:
 
all you needed to be able to self replicate to the point you can evolve into a high a high order organisim with all the complexcities of an actual liver only to have it burst or die from a virus
That's kinda the point. The reason why we keep evolving is that all the other life forms around us are evolving too. The antelope evolves to run faster and the cheetah evolves to run faster, our immune system evolves to fight more intruders and viruses evolve to hide from our defenses.
Quote:
 
This would be true if Nature did not evolve into more complex organisims over time
That's not the only path. See answer above.
Quote:
 
therefore nature having little concern for organisation is unsubstantiated.Higher order organisation of living cells is the result of natural selection.If this Statement is incorrect please provide evidence to the contrary?
Please see examples above. Both more, and less, complicated arrangements are the results of natural selection. Again, nature doesn't move the way we feel like it should. It moves the way it moves, and it's up to us to carefully observe to see where and how it moves if we want to understand it.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic »
Add Reply