Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 94

Thread: Chance or Designer

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    Naw, you never said a word. You mean I could of known a millionaire? Like Wow, that is so cool.
    What do you mean millionaire? We are talking billionaire! But since money can change people, mostly for the worse, God's grace saved me from that.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    When I was in the Army, I was part of a team that converted the 2nd Armored Division, from paper accountability forms to computer. We were the first in the Army to tackle doing that. The team consisted of 2 code writers, 6 data analyst, (I worked as one) and then their were 2 guys, which was my primary job who were kind of liaisons between the data analyst, and the company clerks who compiled the information and turned it in on a daily basis. Oops, forgot there were 2 guys out in the vans that actually worked the computers. Nice cushey Air Conditioned Vans.
    So now it all comes out. You have been sand bagging me all this time. Data analyst. Probably like Lt. Cmdr. Data.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    But it still seems that I put the "er" in Dumber on this board anyway. Even got a couple of medals for doing that, no biggy medals but still, it was nice.
    I knew it. You are a hero. I never got any medals, other than the ones everyone else got. But my DD214 is in color! They were happy to get rid of me (but it definitely was an honorable discharge).
    Last edited by Forty9er; 06-08-2018 at 10:16 PM.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    Well, Mr. Ex-Billionaire, I think we kind of like you just the way you are.

    Don't go over board on the medals, like I said no biggy, nothing like those who went to 'Nam. And I make no claims as being on the same par as any of those, in any combat, as those who fought. Not even close.

    And my DD214, I toted that thing so long, it got to where you had to put the pieces together, to see what it was, and never mind reading it. Boy, was it ugly.

    Haven't had the time to scourer the dark net for those elusive youtube, and articles, in support of Creation, due to staying with my MIL everyday, and she doesn't have the internet. No complaints, just stating facts in evidence.

    I do have time to think, though. So, since everything crawled out of the Primordial Soup, should I get Ancestry.com to run my DNA and see how close kin I am to my dog? I wonder sometimes if he wasn't beamed down by Scottie.

    Since we evolved, I also wonder how he evolved to not use toilet paper, and humans did. Which one was the smart one?

    I also wonder at times if he isn't above me in the food chain. Since I have to work for a living and he doesn't.

    Another thought: How does an Oak tree crawl out of the Primordial Soup?

    Thought: Out of all the diagrams of the evolution of man from ape to human, only a single man is shown. It's odd, since in nearly 100% of mammals, it takes a male and female to procreate. That means a male and a female had to evolve at the same rate, at the same time, and both had to be fertile, and not separated by millions of years.

    Wonder how that string of amino acids that formed a single protein, knew it would take to 2 to create one.

    Why didn't it just cause man to split in to, like a cell does, to make another. Cells don't procreate the way humans do, they split. (Man, just think of all the man caves!)

    Where did love come from?

    Maybe I don't need to spent so much time at my MIL's.
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,872

    Default

    Here is an excerpt from a good article that explains what evolutionary "science" really is and why it can't tolerate any idea of intelligent design.

    Most of us think of science as the enterprise of seeking truth by formulating hypotheses and testing them against the evidence. This is empirical science. It has broadened and deepened our understanding of the world, and, together with human creativity, it has contributed to the advances in technology and medicine on which modern civilization depends.


    Sometimes, however, science is defined as the enterprise of providing natural explanations for everything — that is, accounting for all phenomena in terms of material objects and the physical forces among them. Many scientists defend this definition on the grounds of “methodological naturalism” — the view that science is limited to naturalistic explanations because repeatable experiments can be done only on material objects and physical forces. In principle, however, this is only a limitation on method; it is not a claim about reality, which can include entities that defy explanations restricted to material objects and physical forces.


    In practice, however, many scientists assume that they will ultimately find natural explanations for everything. This assumption is not merely methodological. It is equivalent to materialistic philosophy, which regards material objects and physical forces as the only realities; mind, free will, spirit, and God are illusions. Materialistic philosophy also has no place for intelligent design (ID) — the view that some features of the world and of living things are due to an intelligent cause rather than to unguided natural processes. In 1999, biologist Scott Todd wrote a letter to Nature stating that “even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”1


    Obviously, this is not empirical science; it is materialistic science.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/zo...w-materialism/

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    "Materialistic philosophy."

    Isn't that sort of what those smart guys with PhD's where referring to in "Programming of Earth 2"?
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    "Materialistic philosophy."

    Isn't that sort of what those smart guys with PhD's where referring to in "Programming of Earth 2"?
    Yes, but Scripture is true that not many PhD's can see spiritual truth:

    1Cor 1:26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
    1Cor 1:27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    Hey 9er,

    I see there is a thread in the COC about DNA 90% proving all animals appeared about the same time, seems like I read that already....somewhere. LOL And that dissimulo is already making excuses. Well I'm assuming that, haven't read the thread, this time, but see dissimulo is the last poster.

    Since you don't have the "er" designation, I view you as the smart one, so I have a couple of questions.

    1) If the odds are 1 in 10164 for a string of 150 amino acids to fold correctly to form a single protein, by chance, and it takes 300 proteins to make the simplest cell, would that make the odds of all the proteins coming together to form inside a cell 1 in 1049,200?

    2) I'm going to try, and google this, but not sure I will be successful, so will ask if you know: What other kind of constructs can be found in a single cell, and how many are there?

    I know, or think I know there is a DNA double Helix what is coiled up, and if straightened would reach, what 9' (?). And that half of the double helix is given by one parent, and the other half by the other parent.

    3) So can a DNA double helix develop by chance without two, (male, and female) parents?

    4) Do scientist consider a single simple cell to be alive? A living entity? I ask because we know protein is not alive, a living entity, but scientist claim they are the "building blocks of life", and once they come together properly they form a cell, or part of a cell, hence my question.

    5) If the above is true, then why is the single cell in a mothers womb not considered life? When the building blocks of life are there, the DNA double Helix are there? I'm no doctor, but when an egg and sperm come together isn't the first thing that is formed, a cell?

    Ok enough questions from the "er" side of the universe.
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    Hey 9er,

    I see there is a thread in the COC about DNA 90% proving all animals appeared about the same time, seems like I read that already....somewhere. LOL And that dissimulo is already making excuses. Well I'm assuming that, haven't read the thread, this time, but see dissimulo is the last poster.

    Since you don't have the "er" designation, I view you as the smart one, so I have a couple of questions.

    1) If the odds are 1 in 10164 for a string of 150 amino acids to fold correctly to form a single protein, by chance, and it takes 300 proteins to make the simplest cell, would that make the odds of all the proteins coming together to form inside a cell 1 in 1049,200?

    2) I'm going to try, and google this, but not sure I will be successful, so will ask if you know: What other kind of constructs can be found in a single cell, and how many are there?

    I know, or think I know there is a DNA double Helix what is coiled up, and if straightened would reach, what 9' (?). And that half of the double helix is given by one parent, and the other half by the other parent.

    3) So can a DNA double helix develop by chance without two, (male, and female) parents?

    4) Do scientist consider a single simple cell to be alive? A living entity? I ask because we know protein is not alive, a living entity, but scientist claim they are the "building blocks of life", and once they come together properly they form a cell, or part of a cell, hence my question.

    5) If the above is true, then why is the single cell in a mothers womb not considered life? When the building blocks of life are there, the DNA double Helix are there? I'm no doctor, but when an egg and sperm come together isn't the first thing that is formed, a cell?

    Ok enough questions from the "er" side of the universe.
    You definitely don't have an "er" in you.

    In regard to your question #1, you have the math right assuming all of the proteins were identical.

    In regard to your questions about cells, DNA, and reproduction, there are single cell organisms, like bacteria, which reproduce asexually, so they don't require male and female "parents" each contributing DNA. So bacteria and other single cell organism are definitely "alive" but the life sciences aren't my primary thing so I don't think I can go much further than that.

    And yes, I believe that life begins at conception.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    Hey 9er,

    In regard to your question #1, you have the math right assuming
    all of the proteins were identical
    .
    Ok, so then, are all the proteins identical? Second, if not, then the 1 in 10 to the whatever would be higher?

    IF, and I think that would be a big IF, the first original single cell was asexual (being both sides of the parent equation) Then somewhere down through time, from an evolutionist perspective, the asexual cell had to become diverse, and become either male, or female. Actually produce one of each. Since nearly all mammals, fish, birds, etc. need both parents, separate in existence, to reproduce.

    That seems to me, to be a step backwards in the evolutionary cycle, since asexual beings would be able to reproduce without a partner in the same evolutionary cycle as they are.

    I did find some material in my googling. Seems scientist do see cells having life, or are a living entity. Which would be evidence of proof of life, not that they breath air, as a former member proclaimed.

    There is a lot of material about cells, and am reading through, and am beginning to wonder, what are the odds?
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    Hey 9er,

    In regard to your question #1, you have the math right assuming
    all of the proteins were identical
    .


    Ok, so then, are all the proteins identical? Second, if not, then the 1 in 10 to the whatever would be higher?

    IF, and I think that would be a big IF, the first original single cell was asexual (being both sides of the parent equation) Then somewhere down through time, from an evolutionist perspective, the asexual cell had to become diverse, and become either male, or female. Actually produce one of each. Since nearly all mammals, fish, birds, etc. need both parents, separate in existence, to reproduce.

    That seems to me, to be a step backwards in the evolutionary cycle, since asexual beings would be able to reproduce without a partner in the same evolutionary cycle as they are.

    I did find some material in my googling. Seems scientist do see cells having life, or are a living entity. Which would be evidence of proof of life, not that they breath air, as a former member proclaimed.

    There is a lot of material about cells, and am reading through, and am beginning to wonder, what are the odds?
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    Ok, so then, are all the proteins identical? Second, if not, then the 1 in 10 to the whatever would be higher?
    The proteins aren't identical in terms of which and how many amino acids they consist of. And I don't know the minimum, maximum, or average number of amino acids which form proteins so I couldn't estimate what the odds are.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    IF, and I think that would be a big IF, the first original single cell was asexual (being both sides of the parent equation) Then somewhere down through time, from an evolutionist perspective, the asexual cell had to become diverse, and become either male, or female. Actually produce one of each. Since nearly all mammals, fish, birds, etc. need both parents, separate in existence, to reproduce.

    That seems to me, to be a step backwards in the evolutionary cycle, since asexual beings would be able to reproduce without a partner in the same evolutionary cycle as they are.
    I think you have hit on an issue in evolutionary theory. But I'm not sure how they try to resolve it.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    I did find some material in my googling. Seems scientist do see cells having life, or are a living entity. Which would be evidence of proof of life, not that they breath air, as a former member proclaimed.
    I think we have to define what we mean by "life" and being "alive". Complex organisms, like man, are made up of billions of cells. Are individual cells of an organism alive? In a sense they are but when an animal dies and by all normal criteria is considered dead it doesn't mean that at that instant of death all of the cells in their body die immediately as well. I imagine individual cells could remain "alive" for some time after the animal is dead, or they could be kept alive, by artificial means, for a very long time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •