> On May 20, 9:31 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 18, 5:24 pm, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On May 18, 4:13 pm, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 18, 2:30 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > On 05/18/2012 01:07 PM, Herman wrote:
> > > > > > Some of us have more knowledge, but it seems as though the majority of
> > > > > > the world have less. ... One day closer to Armageddon. ... No place to
> > > > > > run, no place to hide. ... Billions of poor stupid pitiful people in
> > > > > > panic like a nest of roaches uncovered about to be sprayed with Real
> > > > > > Kill.
> > > > > you mean like when the sun supernovas
> > > > > --
> > > > > Dale
> > > > Dale.. Could be.. Could be done a lot of different ways I suppose..
> > > > But the point is, it will be done. If you're not ready, then get ready
> > > > because it will happen.
> > > Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing
> > > can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist
> > > mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll
> > > see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
> > > It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water
> > > allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature
> > > changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
> > > Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that
> > > thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried
> > > throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5
> > > Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the
> > > substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to
> > > be absorbed and used by the body.
> > > Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow
> > > upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to
> > > the top of even the tallest trees.
> > > Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the
> > > winter.
> > > Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our
> > > Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water
> > > and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation
> > > takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are
> > > easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for
> > > vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and
> > > supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and
> > > reused water.
> > Even if water is the only suitable solvent (there are others), water
> > is in many places around the universe. Our solar system is surrounded
> > by a huge ring of icy bodies, which periodically jostle and bump and
> > go flying into other bodies in the inner part of the system (like
> > Earth, the moon, and Mars). Any body sized right and with the correct
> > temperatue range will accumulate quite a bit of water. It would
> > surprise me it turned out that we didn't have one water world per
> > solar system (give or take an order of magnitude), around the galaxy.
It started off as energy, hydrogen, helium, and a trace of lithium and
other lighter elements. Fusion by-products from stars were further
produced and scattered by novae, dispersing heavier elements around
the late star's neighborhood. This more complex environment of
chemicals allowed the formation of water, methane, amino acids, and
other simple compounds.
There wasn't any sea water until there were planets with oceans. The
Earth is one. There probably are others, but that sea water is not
some primal magic ectoplasm from which all substances are borne. You
might as well claim everything is made of wood, or cellophane, or
jelly beans.
And no, neither the bible nor NASA have ever claimed this.
> > On 05/21/2012 01:35 AM, deadrat wrote:
> >> On 5/20/12 9:52 PM, Dale wrote:
> >> <snip/>
> >>> infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> >> "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> >> -- OK, GO
> >> Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> >> otherwise, please explain how.
> >> <snip/>
> > time could not be a continuum, maybe an integer infinity (countable), it
> > could not be an uncountable infinity
> Current thinking says that units of time smaller than the Planck time
> make no sense, so if the universe is of finite duration, time "tickw"
> are not only countable, they're finite. GR treats spacetime as a smooth
> manifold, and its calculations treat time as a continuous variable (and
> thus infinitely divisible) but, of course, GR breaks down below the
> Planck scale.
> That as may be, if time units did form an uncountable infinity, the CH
> would still not enter into things. Why do you think it would? Do you
> even understand what the CH states?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
There is no spacetime. That's a word from Chicken Little to say the
sky is falling. The universe did not start out from a location smaller
than an atom. (with no outside) That don't make a bit of sense, it's
all made up. God established his laws throughout the universe all the
same instant in a geometric structure that contained all the laws of
nature. The structure did expand on a microscopic scale and if you
look away through light years, anything that is there will appear to
be red shifted because of the added microscopic measurements between
the two points from where you stand and where you are looking. The
farther away you look the more red shifted anything becomes. That fits
with what we see and that makes sense in the real world and is so
simple a 12 year old could understand it. This made up theory about
the universe expanding for light years in a split second is science
fiction.
Once you tell a lie, you have to tell a million to get out of it.
That’s exactly what the scientific Big Bang theory has turned into is
a bunch of made up theory.
It’s obvious that God created this super fine tuned universe and
earth as well as life and that’s exactly what Marilyn Adamson is
trying to tell you just as I am. (along with two billion other people)
Now you people can be thick headed and believe anything you choose
along with the rest of the antichrist, but that will not change a
thing in the real world.
> On May 21, 12:35 am, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> > On 5/20/12 9:52 PM, Dale wrote:
> > <snip/>
> > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> > -- OK, GO
> > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> > otherwise, please explain how.
> > <snip/>
> Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
> me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
> either)
4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
cell!!
Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
instruction manual.13
Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
exactly how the person's body should develop.
Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction,
precise information like this, without someone intentionally
constructing it.
> > >>> infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> > >> "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> > >> -- OK, GO
> > >> Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> > >> otherwise, please explain how.
> > >> <snip/>
> > > time could not be a continuum, maybe an integer infinity (countable), it
> > > could not be an uncountable infinity
> > Current thinking says that units of time smaller than the Planck time
> > make no sense, so if the universe is of finite duration, time "tickw"
> > are not only countable, they're finite. GR treats spacetime as a smooth
> > manifold, and its calculations treat time as a continuous variable (and
> > thus infinitely divisible) but, of course, GR breaks down below the
> > Planck scale.
> > That as may be, if time units did form an uncountable infinity, the CH
> > would still not enter into things. Why do you think it would? Do you
> > even understand what the CH states?- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> There is no spacetime. That's a word from Chicken Little to say the
> sky is falling. The universe did not start out from a location smaller
> than an atom. (with no outside) That don't make a bit of sense, it's
> all made up.
We know that the universe was very small, hot, and dense. We are not
yet sure if it was a singularity or something else. The universe is
not constrained by what you are comfortable with or even by what you
can understand.
All the evidence indicates the universe was very small, about 13.75
billion years ago.
> God established his laws throughout the universe all the
> same instant in a geometric structure that contained all the laws of
> nature.
Maybe. If he did, you do not understand them, because your claims are
at odds with observed reality.
> The structure did expand on a microscopic scale and if you
> look away through light years, anything that is there will appear to
> be red shifted because of the added microscopic measurements between
> the two points from where you stand and where you are looking.
That doesn't make any sense. You seem to be thinking of light like a
stretched rubber band.
> The
> farther away you look the more red shifted anything becomes. That fits
> with what we see and that makes sense in the real world and is so
> simple a 12 year old could understand it. This made up theory about
> the universe expanding for light years in a split second is science
> fiction.
That initial inflation was short-lived and has little to do with the
red shift we see. That is because the universe is expanding and has
always been expanding ("always" meaning for all time, or about 13.75
billion years).
There are other reasons to know that the universe is expanding.
> Once you tell a lie, you have to tell a million to get out of it.
> That’s exactly what the scientific Big Bang theory has turned into is
> a bunch of made up theory.
No, it makes successful predictions, such as the discovery of the
cosmic background radiation, the smoothness of the large scale
structures of the cosmos, and others.
> It’s obvious that God created this super fine tuned universe and
> earth as well as life
Except it's not obvious; it's a dubious claim that the universe was
intelligently designed.
Also, why do you think the universe is fine-tuned, and why would that
be significant?
> and that’s exactly what Marilyn Adamson is
> trying to tell you just as I am. (along with two billion other people)
Actually, my college buddy was a devout Christian and taught me some
evolutionary science. Not all Christians deny reality because they are
in love with their own interpretations of their scriptures.
> Now you people can be thick headed and believe anything you choose
Actually, I can't choose to believe anything. I can choose to read a
post, or a book, but given my experiences and hearing the arguments, I
can't choose what to believe. It happens. If you could only show me
persuasive evidence (not, for instance, an Orphan Annie's decoder
ring) such as a successful prediction about particle physics or
cosmology, I would have to believe you were on to something. Heck, at
this point I'd even be impressed if you could describe first semester-
level science in any field.
> along with the rest of the antichrist, but that will not change a
> thing in the real world.
> > > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> > > -- OK, GO
> > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> > > otherwise, please explain how.
> > > <snip/>
> > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
> > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
> > either)
> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
> cell!!
They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
sometimes helps to think of it that way.
> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
> instruction manual.13
Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
mysterious.
> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
> exactly how the person's body should develop.
We actually know quite a bit about this.
> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
> when programmed information is involved.
No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
*it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
"Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
> You cannot find instruction,
> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
> constructing it.
Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
than precise instructions.
<unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 21, 8:03 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 9:15 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > On May 21, 12:35 am, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> > > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
>> > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
>> > > -- OK, GO
>> > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
>> > > otherwise, please explain how.
>> > > <snip/>
>> > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
>> > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
>> > either)
>> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
>> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
>> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
>> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
>> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
>> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
>> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
>> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
>> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
>> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
>> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
>> cell!!
>They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
>sometimes helps to think of it that way.
>> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
>> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
>> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
>> instruction manual.13
>Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
>the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
>mysterious.
>> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
>> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
>> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
>> exactly how the person's body should develop.
>We actually know quite a bit about this.
>> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
>> when programmed information is involved.
>No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
>*it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
>A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
>"Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
An excellent book BTW. I join you in recommending it.
>> You cannot find instruction,
>> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
>> constructing it.
>Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
>One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
>are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
>more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
>than precise instructions.
>Kermit
Marilyn (Herman) confuses the recording mechanism with the information
that's being recorded. Yes, DNA is made of discrete nucleotides, and
triplets of nucleotides represent a discrete genetic code, and it has
a rudimentary error-detection and correction mechanism. These things
are what gives DNA the ability to reproduce itself almost perfectly,
and so in that sense it has similarities to a digital recording.
Beyond that, the computer analogy falls apart.
The information DNA records isn't digital but historical. IOW DNA
information is closer to a musical recording than a program. And DNA
isn't played back as a continuous stream, but as a series of steps
contingent on each other.
When the mechanism of the cell plays DNA, it's replaying the music of
life. The music it plays now determine in part which bits of DNA it's
going to play next. IOW this bit of DNA doesn't play until that bit
of DNA plays first, and that bit doesn't play until yet another bit
plays first. And each step also depends on input from the cell's
environment.
This is true for every individual cell, and for every cell of multi
cellular organisms, and for every species of every cellular organisms,
all the way back to the first collection of chemicals which managed to
get together and reproduce themselves, regardless of how they actually
managed to do it.
> > > > > infinite time requires4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent.
Someone
who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
C. These are arranged in the human cell like this:
CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
cell!!
Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
instruction manual.13
Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
exactly how the person's body should develop.
Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction,
precise information like this, without someone intentionally
constructing it.
> > > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> > > > -- OK, GO
> > > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> > > > otherwise, please explain how.
> > > > <snip/>
> > > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
> > > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
> > > either)
> > 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> > All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
> > who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
> > that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
> > instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
> > know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
> > 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
> > what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
> > made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
> > C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
> > and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
> > cell!!
> They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
> sometimes helps to think of it that way.
> > Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
> > reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
> > program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
> > instruction manual.13
> Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
> the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
> mysterious.
> > Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
> > program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
> > These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
> > exactly how the person's body should develop.
> We actually know quite a bit about this.
> > Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
> > when programmed information is involved.
> No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
> *it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
> A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
> "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
> > You cannot find instruction,
> > precise information like this, without someone intentionally
> > constructing it.
> Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
> One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
> are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
> more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
> than precise instructions.
> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Kermit.. I think she meant,...4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs,
programs a cell's behavior.
All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent.
Someone
who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
C. These are arranged in the human cell like this:
CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
cell!!
Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
instruction manual.13
Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
exactly how the person's body should develop.
Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction,
precise information like this, without someone intentionally
constructing it.
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:51:03 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 21, 8:03 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On May 21, 9:15 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > On May 21, 12:35 am, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> > > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> >> > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> >> > > -- OK, GO
> >> > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> >> > > otherwise, please explain how.
> >> > > <snip/>
> >> > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
> >> > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
> >> > either)
> >> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> >> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
> >> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
> >> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
> >> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
> >> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
> >> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
> >> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
> >> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
> >> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
> >> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
> >> cell!!
> >They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
> >sometimes helps to think of it that way.
> >> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
> >> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
> >> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
> >> instruction manual.13
> >Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
> >the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
> >mysterious.
> >> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
> >> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
> >> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
> >> exactly how the person's body should develop.
> >We actually know quite a bit about this.
> >> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
> >> when programmed information is involved.
> >No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
> >*it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
> >A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
> >"Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
> An excellent book BTW. I join you in recommending it.
> >> You cannot find instruction,
> >> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
> >> constructing it.
> >Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
> >One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
> >are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
> >more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
> >than precise instructions.
> >Kermit
> Marilyn (Herman) confuses the recording mechanism with the information
> that's being recorded. Yes, DNA is made of discrete nucleotides, and
> triplets of nucleotides represent a discrete genetic code, and it has
> a rudimentary error-detection and correction mechanism. These things
> are what gives DNA the ability to reproduce itself almost perfectly,
> and so in that sense it has similarities to a digital recording.
> Beyond that, the computer analogy falls apart.
> The information DNA records isn't digital but historical. IOW DNA
> information is closer to a musical recording than a program. And DNA
> isn't played back as a continuous stream, but as a series of steps
> contingent on each other.
> When the mechanism of the cell plays DNA, it's replaying the music of
> life. The music it plays now determine in part which bits of DNA it's
> going to play next. IOW this bit of DNA doesn't play until that bit
> of DNA plays first, and that bit doesn't play until yet another bit
> plays first. And each step also depends on input from the cell's
> environment.
> This is true for every individual cell, and for every cell of multi
> cellular organisms, and for every species of every cellular organisms,
> all the way back to the first collection of chemicals which managed to
> get together and reproduce themselves, regardless of how they actually
> managed to do it.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I think that Marylyn was saying, "What made this memory and what
programmed it?" Not only for one species but for over 500, million
DIFFERENT species. I think that you and kermit need to answer this
question first since it's impossible for it to form by chance.
> > >> > > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> > >> > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> > >> > > -- OK, GO
> > >> > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> > >> > > otherwise, please explain how.
> > >> > > <snip/>
> > >> > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
> > >> > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
> > >> > either)
> > >> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> > >> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
> > >> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
> > >> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
> > >> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
> > >> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
> > >> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
> > >> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
> > >> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
> > >> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
> > >> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
> > >> cell!!
> > >They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
> > >sometimes helps to think of it that way.
> > >> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
> > >> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
> > >> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
> > >> instruction manual.13
> > >Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
> > >the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
> > >mysterious.
> > >> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
> > >> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
> > >> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
> > >> exactly how the person's body should develop.
> > >We actually know quite a bit about this.
> > >> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
> > >> when programmed information is involved.
> > >No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
> > >*it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
> > >A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
> > >"Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
> > An excellent book BTW. I join you in recommending it.
> > >> You cannot find instruction,
> > >> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
> > >> constructing it.
> > >Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
> > >One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
> > >are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
> > >more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
> > >than precise instructions.
> > >Kermit
> > Marilyn (Herman) confuses the recording mechanism with the information
> > that's being recorded. Yes, DNA is made of discrete nucleotides, and
> > triplets of nucleotides represent a discrete genetic code, and it has
> > a rudimentary error-detection and correction mechanism. These things
> > are what gives DNA the ability to reproduce itself almost perfectly,
> > and so in that sense it has similarities to a digital recording.
> > Beyond that, the computer analogy falls apart.
> > The information DNA records isn't digital but historical. IOW DNA
> > information is closer to a musical recording than a program. And DNA
> > isn't played back as a continuous stream, but as a series of steps
> > contingent on each other.
> > When the mechanism of the cell plays DNA, it's replaying the music of
> > life. The music it plays now determine in part which bits of DNA it's
> > going to play next. IOW this bit of DNA doesn't play until that bit
> > of DNA plays first, and that bit doesn't play until yet another bit
> > plays first. And each step also depends on input from the cell's
> > environment.
> > This is true for every individual cell, and for every cell of multi
> > cellular organisms, and for every species of every cellular organisms,
> > all the way back to the first collection of chemicals which managed to
> > get together and reproduce themselves, regardless of how they actually
> > managed to do it.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I think that Marylyn was saying, "What made this memory and what
> programmed it?" Not only for one species but for over 500, million
> DIFFERENT species. I think that you and kermit need to answer this
> question first since it's impossible for it to form by chance.- Hide quoted text -
5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is
constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of
people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists
that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting
something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do
that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for
those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was
completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I
challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if
they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free
from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers
that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be
free to go about my life.
I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily
on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to
find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention
that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself
and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was
as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In
fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began
with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists
are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively
pursuing them.
I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge,
socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that
somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he
remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted
even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of
Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted
that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most
dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."
Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result
of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully
admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I
became amazed by his love for me.
>On May 21, 6:04 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:51:03 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 8:03 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 21, 9:15 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> > On May 21, 12:35 am, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
>> >> > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
>> >> > > -- OK, GO
>> >> > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
>> >> > > otherwise, please explain how.
>> >> > > <snip/>
>> >> > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
>> >> > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
>> >> > either)
>> >> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
>> >> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
>> >> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
>> >> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
>> >> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
>> >> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
>> >> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
>> >> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
>> >> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
>> >> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
>> >> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
>> >> cell!!
>> >They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
>> >sometimes helps to think of it that way.
>> >> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
>> >> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
>> >> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
>> >> instruction manual.13
>> >Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
>> >the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
>> >mysterious.
>> >> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
>> >> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
>> >> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
>> >> exactly how the person's body should develop.
>> >We actually know quite a bit about this.
>> >> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
>> >> when programmed information is involved.
>> >No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
>> >*it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
>> >A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
>> >"Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
>> An excellent book BTW. I join you in recommending it.
>> >> You cannot find instruction,
>> >> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
>> >> constructing it.
>> >Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
>> >One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
>> >are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
>> >more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
>> >than precise instructions.
>> >Kermit
>> Marilyn (Herman) confuses the recording mechanism with the information
>> that's being recorded. Yes, DNA is made of discrete nucleotides, and
>> triplets of nucleotides represent a discrete genetic code, and it has
>> a rudimentary error-detection and correction mechanism. These things
>> are what gives DNA the ability to reproduce itself almost perfectly,
>> and so in that sense it has similarities to a digital recording.
>> Beyond that, the computer analogy falls apart.
>> The information DNA records isn't digital but historical. IOW DNA
>> information is closer to a musical recording than a program. And DNA
>> isn't played back as a continuous stream, but as a series of steps
>> contingent on each other.
>> When the mechanism of the cell plays DNA, it's replaying the music of
>> life. The music it plays now determine in part which bits of DNA it's
>> going to play next. IOW this bit of DNA doesn't play until that bit
>> of DNA plays first, and that bit doesn't play until yet another bit
>> plays first. And each step also depends on input from the cell's
>> environment.
>> This is true for every individual cell, and for every cell of multi
>> cellular organisms, and for every species of every cellular organisms,
>> all the way back to the first collection of chemicals which managed to
>> get together and reproduce themselves, regardless of how they actually
>> managed to do it.
>I think that Marylyn was saying, "What made this memory and what
>programmed it?" Not only for one species but for over 500, million
>DIFFERENT species. I think that you and kermit need to answer this
>question first since it's impossible for it to form by chance.
It's a nonsense question, which presumes something needs to have made
it and programmed it.
> >> >> > > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> >> >> > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> >> >> > > -- OK, GO
> >> >> > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> >> >> > > otherwise, please explain how.
> >> >> > > <snip/>
> >> >> > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
> >> >> > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
> >> >> > either)
> >> >> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> >> >> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
> >> >> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
> >> >> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
> >> >> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
> >> >> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
> >> >> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
> >> >> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
> >> >> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
> >> >> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
> >> >> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
> >> >> cell!!
> >> >They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
> >> >sometimes helps to think of it that way.
> >> >> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
> >> >> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
> >> >> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
> >> >> instruction manual.13
> >> >Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
> >> >the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
> >> >mysterious.
> >> >> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
> >> >> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
> >> >> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
> >> >> exactly how the person's body should develop.
> >> >We actually know quite a bit about this.
> >> >> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
> >> >> when programmed information is involved.
> >> >No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
> >> >*it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
> >> >A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
> >> >"Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
> >> An excellent book BTW. I join you in recommending it.
> >> >> You cannot find instruction,
> >> >> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
> >> >> constructing it.
> >> >Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
> >> >One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
> >> >are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
> >> >more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
> >> >than precise instructions.
> >> >Kermit
> >> Marilyn (Herman) confuses the recording mechanism with the information
> >> that's being recorded. Yes, DNA is made of discrete nucleotides, and
> >> triplets of nucleotides represent a discrete genetic code, and it has
> >> a rudimentary error-detection and correction mechanism. These things
> >> are what gives DNA the ability to reproduce itself almost perfectly,
> >> and so in that sense it has similarities to a digital recording.
> >> Beyond that, the computer analogy falls apart.
> >> The information DNA records isn't digital but historical. IOW DNA
> >> information is closer to a musical recording than a program. And DNA
> >> isn't played back as a continuous stream, but as a series of steps
> >> contingent on each other.
> >> When the mechanism of the cell plays DNA, it's replaying the music of
> >> life. The music it plays now determine in part which bits of DNA it's
> >> going to play next. IOW this bit of DNA doesn't play until that bit
> >> of DNA plays first, and that bit doesn't play until yet another bit
> >> plays first. And each step also depends on input from the cell's
> >> environment.
> >> This is true for every individual cell, and for every cell of multi
> >> cellular organisms, and for every species of every cellular organisms,
> >> all the way back to the first collection of chemicals which managed to
> >> get together and reproduce themselves, regardless of how they actually
> >> managed to do it.
> >I think that Marylyn was saying, "What made this memory and what
> >programmed it?" Not only for one species but for over 500, million
> >DIFFERENT species. I think that you and kermit need to answer this
> >question first since it's impossible for it to form by chance.
> It's a nonsense question, which presumes something needs to have made
> it and programmed it.
By the way, not that it matters really, but
it seems to be an article that Marilyn Adamson wrote, or first wrote, in 2003, or earlier.
(I haven't scrutinised it for contrary references
e.g. "Obama won, I was wrong, there is no God."
Maybe she voted for him. Maybe not next time.)
I considered claiming that she died in 2005 -
apparently she didn't, she's fine, if she is a real person and not a fake identity written by a male pastor. And how much would it matter
to us here if she wasn't real? Or was dead?
> > > >>> infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> > > >> "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> > > >> -- OK, GO
> > > >> Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> > > >> otherwise, please explain how.
> > > >> <snip/>
> > > > time could not be a continuum, maybe an integer infinity (countable), it
> > > > could not be an uncountable infinity
> > > Current thinking says that units of time smaller than the Planck time
> > > make no sense, so if the universe is of finite duration, time "tickw"
> > > are not only countable, they're finite. GR treats spacetime as a smooth
> > > manifold, and its calculations treat time as a continuous variable (and
> > > thus infinitely divisible) but, of course, GR breaks down below the
> > > Planck scale.
> > > That as may be, if time units did form an uncountable infinity, the CH
> > > would still not enter into things. Why do you think it would? Do you
> > > even understand what the CH states?- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > There is no spacetime. That's a word from Chicken Little to say the
> > sky is falling. The universe did not start out from a location smaller
> > than an atom. (with no outside) That don't make a bit of sense, it's
> > all made up.
> We know that the universe was very small, hot, and dense. We are not
> yet sure if it was a singularity or something else. The universe is
> not constrained by what you are comfortable with or even by what you
> can understand.
> All the evidence indicates the universe was very small, about 13.75
> billion years ago.
> > God established his laws throughout the universe all the
> > same instant in a geometric structure that contained all the laws of
> > nature.
> Maybe. If he did, you do not understand them, because your claims are
> at odds with observed reality.
> > The structure did expand on a microscopic scale and if you
> > look away through light years, anything that is there will appear to
> > be red shifted because of the added microscopic measurements between
> > the two points from where you stand and where you are looking.
> That doesn't make any sense. You seem to be thinking of light like a
> stretched rubber band.
> > The
> > farther away you look the more red shifted anything becomes. That fits
> > with what we see and that makes sense in the real world and is so
> > simple a 12 year old could understand it. This made up theory about
> > the universe expanding for light years in a split second is science
> > fiction.
> That initial inflation was short-lived and has little to do with the
> red shift we see. That is because the universe is expanding and has
> always been expanding ("always" meaning for all time, or about 13.75
> billion years).
> There are other reasons to know that the universe is expanding.
> > Once you tell a lie, you have to tell a million to get out of it.
> > That’s exactly what the scientific Big Bang theory has turned into is
> > a bunch of made up theory.
> No, it makes successful predictions, such as the discovery of the
> cosmic background radiation, the smoothness of the large scale
> structures of the cosmos, and others.
> > It’s obvious that God created this super fine tuned universe and
> > earth as well as life
> Except it's not obvious; it's a dubious claim that the universe was
> intelligently designed.
> Also, why do you think the universe is fine-tuned, and why would that
> be significant?
> > and that’s exactly what Marilyn Adamson is
> > trying to tell you just as I am. (along with two billion other people)
> Actually, my college buddy was a devout Christian and taught me some
> evolutionary science. Not all Christians deny reality because they are
> in love with their own interpretations of their scriptures.
> > Now you people can be thick headed and believe anything you choose
> Actually, I can't choose to believe anything. I can choose to read a
> post, or a book, but given my experiences and hearing the arguments, I
> can't choose what to believe. It happens. If you could only show me
> persuasive evidence (not, for instance, an Orphan Annie's decoder
> ring) such as a successful prediction about particle physics or
> cosmology, I would have to believe you were on to something. Heck, at
> this point I'd even be impressed if you could describe first semester-
> level science in any field.
> > along with the rest of the antichrist, but that will not change a
> > thing in the real world.
> True that.
> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
The only evidence that the universe was once smaller than it is today
is that it is expanding. Because it is expanding is not evidence that
it has been expanding since the beginning and it is not evidence that
the universe was not compressed into a location smaller than an atom.
All of that stuff is made up and anyone with half a brain would know
that.
As far as the universe being 13.5 billion years old, that’s
debatable too.
“If the universe originated 10-15 billion years ago, then no
objects within it can be older than that. Yet the deduced ages of
globular clusters of stars in our own galaxy do appear somewhat older
than that, perhaps 16-18 billion years old.”
“The age problem is a bit more severe in the case of superclusters
of galaxies. These huge structures would take perhaps 100 billion
years to form, given the typical relative speed of galaxies10. The
same problem applies to "great walls" of galaxies, which are even
vaster structures. There is no clear way to form structures on such
large scales in the time available unless relative velocities were
much higher in the past. But higher past velocities would require a
dissipation mechanism which would have released tremendous energy.
There is no credible evidence at present for the operation of such an
enormous energy sink as would be required to resolve this dilemma.
Therefore, this test presently favors static universe models, which
have essentially unlimited time to form the observed structures
through normal processes.”
> God established his laws throughout the universe all the
> same instant in a geometric structure that contained all the laws of
> nature.
Maybe. If he did, you do not understand them, because your claims are
at odds with observed reality.
No, My claims are in tune with observed reality. And besides, they
are not my claims even though I agree 100% with them. The Claims that
I use came from the Bible. What the Bible tells us is not in tune with
your big bang theory that you won’t let go of even though it’s way out
of date with what we know and see.
> The structure did expand on a microscopic scale and if you
> look away through light years, anything that is there will appear to
> be red shifted because of the added microscopic measurements between
> the two points from where you stand and where you are looking.
That doesn't make any sense. You seem to be thinking of light like a
stretched rubber band.
What would a stretched rubber band have to do with what I just said?
If you line up anything the same size, end to end and expand each one
of them , the distance between the first object and the last object
will add up according to how many objects you have in line. With a
microscopic structure that would be a lot of objects and when you
stretch them out for light years, it would be observed as a red shift
with the end object. I don’t think you understand that or never took
the time to think about it.
> The
> farther away you look the more red shifted anything becomes. That fits
> with what we see and that makes sense in the real world and is so
> simple a 12 year old could understand it. This made up theory about
> the universe expanding for light years in a split second is science
> fiction.
That initial inflation was short-lived and has little to do with the
red shift we see. That is because the universe is expanding and has
always been expanding ("always" meaning for all time, or about 13.75
billion years).
No, that’s what the big bang theory says and along with a large number
of other things , it’s wrong and stupid. The information that I posted
above shows that the universe might be well over 100 billion years
old, so all that garbage is way out of date. (Thank God)
You said,…“There are other reasons to know that the universe is
expanding.”
I just give you reasons and you did not bother to read them. You
CHOOSE to believe a stupid lie.
> Once you tell a lie, you have to tell a million to get out of it.
> That’s exactly what the scientific Big Bang theory has turned into is
> a bunch of made up theory.
No, it makes successful predictions, such as the discovery of the
cosmic background radiation, the smoothness of the large scale
structures of the cosmos, and others.
Successful predictions is right. How they became successful is beyond
me.
The smoothness of the Cosmic background radiation does not fit with
your big bang theory.
“Although this all sounds great, there's one observation that can't be
explained by theory. The amount of CMB radiation spotted near clusters
of galaxies is greater than expected. According to theory, CMB photons
should interact with these clusters, getting kicked to higher
energies. WMAP cannot detect these higher energy photons, so there
should be a deficit
...
> > > > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> > > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> > > > -- OK, GO
> > > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> > > > otherwise, please explain how.
> > > > <snip/>
> > > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
> > > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
> > > either)
> > 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> > All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
> > who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
> > that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
> > instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
> > know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
> > 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
> > what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
> > made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
> > C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
> > and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
> > cell!!
> They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
> sometimes helps to think of it that way.
> > Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
> > reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
> > program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
> > instruction manual.13
> Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
> the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
> mysterious.
> > Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
> > program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
> > These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
> > exactly how the person's body should develop.
> We actually know quite a bit about this.
> > Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
> > when programmed information is involved.
> No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
> *it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
> A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
> "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
> > You cannot find instruction,
> > precise information like this, without someone intentionally
> > constructing it.
> Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
> One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
> are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
> more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
> than precise instructions.
> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You said, … Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
than precise instructions.
Then name some errors and name some of the Junk DNA and while you’re
at it, explain how the first cell evolved with all of this info
programmed in it.
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:51:03 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 21, 8:03 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On May 21, 9:15 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > On May 21, 12:35 am, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> > > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> >> > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> >> > > -- OK, GO
> >> > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> >> > > otherwise, please explain how.
> >> > > <snip/>
> >> > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
> >> > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
> >> > either)
> >> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> >> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
> >> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
> >> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
> >> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
> >> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
> >> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
> >> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
> >> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
> >> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
> >> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
> >> cell!!
> >They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
> >sometimes helps to think of it that way.
> >> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
> >> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
> >> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
> >> instruction manual.13
> >Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
> >the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
> >mysterious.
> >> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
> >> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
> >> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
> >> exactly how the person's body should develop.
> >We actually know quite a bit about this.
> >> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
> >> when programmed information is involved.
> >No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
> >*it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
> >A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
> >"Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
> An excellent book BTW. I join you in recommending it.
> >> You cannot find instruction,
> >> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
> >> constructing it.
> >Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
> >One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
> >are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
> >more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
> >than precise instructions.
> >Kermit
> Marilyn (Herman) confuses the recording mechanism with the information
> that's being recorded. Yes, DNA is made of discrete nucleotides, and
> triplets of nucleotides represent a discrete genetic code, and it has
> a rudimentary error-detection and correction mechanism. These things
> are what gives DNA the ability to reproduce itself almost perfectly,
> and so in that sense it has similarities to a digital recording.
> Beyond that, the computer analogy falls apart.
> The information DNA records isn't digital but historical. IOW DNA
> information is closer to a musical recording than a program. And DNA
> isn't played back as a continuous stream, but as a series of steps
> contingent on each other.
> When the mechanism of the cell plays DNA, it's replaying the music of
> life. The music it plays now determine in part which bits of DNA it's
> going to play next. IOW this bit of DNA doesn't play until that bit
> of DNA plays first, and that bit doesn't play until yet another bit
> plays first. And each step also depends on input from the cell's
> environment.
> This is true for every individual cell, and for every cell of multi
> cellular organisms, and for every species of every cellular organisms,
> all the way back to the first collection of chemicals which managed to
> get together and reproduce themselves, regardless of how they actually
> managed to do it.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
The question is, how did the first Nucleotides evolve?
> >> >> > > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> >> >> > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> >> >> > > -- OK, GO
> >> >> > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> >> >> > > otherwise, please explain how.
> >> >> > > <snip/>
> >> >> > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
> >> >> > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
> >> >> > either)
> >> >> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> >> >> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
> >> >> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
> >> >> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
> >> >> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
> >> >> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
> >> >> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
> >> >> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
> >> >> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
> >> >> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
> >> >> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
> >> >> cell!!
> >> >They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
> >> >sometimes helps to think of it that way.
> >> >> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
> >> >> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
> >> >> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
> >> >> instruction manual.13
> >> >Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
> >> >the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
> >> >mysterious.
> >> >> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
> >> >> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
> >> >> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
> >> >> exactly how the person's body should develop.
> >> >We actually know quite a bit about this.
> >> >> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
> >> >> when programmed information is involved.
> >> >No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
> >> >*it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
> >> >A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
> >> >"Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
> >> An excellent book BTW. I join you in recommending it.
> >> >> You cannot find instruction,
> >> >> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
> >> >> constructing it.
> >> >Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
> >> >One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
> >> >are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
> >> >more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
> >> >than precise instructions.
> >> >Kermit
> >> Marilyn (Herman) confuses the recording mechanism with the information
> >> that's being recorded. Yes, DNA is made of discrete nucleotides, and
> >> triplets of nucleotides represent a discrete genetic code, and it has
> >> a rudimentary error-detection and correction mechanism. These things
> >> are what gives DNA the ability to reproduce itself almost perfectly,
> >> and so in that sense it has similarities to a digital recording.
> >> Beyond that, the computer analogy falls apart.
> >> The information DNA records isn't digital but historical. IOW DNA
> >> information is closer to a musical recording than a program. And DNA
> >> isn't played back as a continuous stream, but as a series of steps
> >> contingent on each other.
> >> When the mechanism of the cell plays DNA, it's replaying the music of
> >> life. The music it plays now determine in part which bits of DNA it's
> >> going to play next. IOW this bit of DNA doesn't play until that bit
> >> of DNA plays first, and that bit doesn't play until yet another bit
> >> plays first. And each step also depends on input from the cell's
> >> environment.
> >> This is true for every individual cell, and for every cell of multi
> >> cellular organisms, and for every species of every cellular organisms,
> >> all the way back to the first collection of chemicals which managed to
> >> get together and reproduce themselves, regardless of how they actually
> >> managed to do it.
> >I think that Marylyn was saying, "What made this memory and what
> >programmed it?" Not only for one species but for over 500, million
> >DIFFERENT species. I think that you and kermit need to answer this
> >question first since it's impossible for it to form by chance.
> It's a nonsense question, which presumes something needs to have made
> it and programmed it. - Hide quoted text -
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 6:53:46 AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 17:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> > >On May 21, 6:04 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:51:03 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
> > >> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >On May 21, 8:03 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On May 21, 9:15 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > On May 21, 12:35 am, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> > >> >> > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> > >> >> > > -- OK, GO
> > >> >> > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> > >> >> > > otherwise, please explain how.
> > >> >> > > <snip/>
> > >> >> > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
> > >> >> > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
> > >> >> > either)
> > >> >> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> > >> >> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
> > >> >> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
> > >> >> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
> > >> >> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
> > >> >> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
> > >> >> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
> > >> >> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
> > >> >> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
> > >> >> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
> > >> >> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
> > >> >> cell!!
> > >> >They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
> > >> >sometimes helps to think of it that way.
> > >> >> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
> > >> >> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
> > >> >> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
> > >> >> instruction manual.13
> > >> >Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
> > >> >the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
> > >> >mysterious.
> > >> >> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
> > >> >> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
> > >> >> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
> > >> >> exactly how the person's body should develop.
> > >> >We actually know quite a bit about this.
> > >> >> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
> > >> >> when programmed information is involved.
> > >> >No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
> > >> >*it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
> > >> >A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
> > >> >"Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
> > >> An excellent book BTW. I join you in recommending it.
> > >> >> You cannot find instruction,
> > >> >> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
> > >> >> constructing it.
> > >> >Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
> > >> >One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
> > >> >are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
> > >> >more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
> > >> >than precise instructions.
> > >> >Kermit
> > >> Marilyn (Herman) confuses the recording mechanism with the information
> > >> that's being recorded. Yes, DNA is made of discrete nucleotides, and
> > >> triplets of nucleotides represent a discrete genetic code, and it has
> > >> a rudimentary error-detection and correction mechanism. These things
> > >> are what gives DNA the ability to reproduce itself almost perfectly,
> > >> and so in that sense it has similarities to a digital recording.
> > >> Beyond that, the computer analogy falls apart.
> > >> The information DNA records isn't digital but historical. IOW DNA
> > >> information is closer to a musical recording than a program. And DNA
> > >> isn't played back as a continuous stream, but as a series of steps
> > >> contingent on each other.
> > >> When the mechanism of the cell plays DNA, it's replaying the music of
> > >> life. The music it plays now determine in part which bits of DNA it's
> > >> going to play next. IOW this bit of DNA doesn't play until that bit
> > >> of DNA plays first, and that bit doesn't play until yet another bit
> > >> plays first. And each step also depends on input from the cell's
> > >> environment.
> > >> This is true for every individual cell, and for every cell of multi
> > >> cellular organisms, and for every species of every cellular organisms,
> > >> all the way back to the first collection of chemicals which managed to
> > >> get together and reproduce themselves, regardless of how they actually
> > >> managed to do it.
> > >I think that Marylyn was saying, "What made this memory and what
> > >programmed it?" Not only for one species but for over 500, million
> > >DIFFERENT species. I think that you and kermit need to answer this
> > >question first since it's impossible for it to form by chance.
> > It's a nonsense question, which presumes something needs to have made
> > it and programmed it.
> By the way, not that it matters really, but
> it seems to be an article that Marilyn Adamson
> wrote, or first wrote, in 2003, or earlier.
> (I haven't scrutinised it for contrary references
> e.g. "Obama won, I was wrong, there is no God."
> Maybe she voted for him. Maybe not next time.)
> I considered claiming that she died in 2005 -
> apparently she didn't, she's fine, if she is a
> real person and not a fake identity written by
> a male pastor. And how much would it matter
> to us here if she wasn't real? Or was dead?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
So the bottom line is, you don't anything about you posted.
> > > > > > infinite time requires4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent.
> Someone
> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this:
> CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
> cell!!
> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
> instruction manual.13
> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
> exactly how the person's body should develop.
> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
> when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction,
> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
> constructing it.
> you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> > > > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> > > > > -- OK, GO
> > > > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> > > > > otherwise, please explain how.
> > > > > <snip/>
> > > > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
> > > > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
> > > > either)
> > > 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> > > All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
> > > who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
> > > that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
> > > instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
> > > know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
> > > 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
> > > what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
> > > made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
> > > C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
> > > and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
> > > cell!!
> > They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
> > sometimes helps to think of it that way.
> > > Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
> > > reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
> > > program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
> > > instruction manual.13
> > Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
> > the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
> > mysterious.
> > > Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
> > > program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
> > > These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
> > > exactly how the person's body should develop.
> > We actually know quite a bit about this.
> > > Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
> > > when programmed information is involved.
> > No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
> > *it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
> > A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
> > "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
> > > You cannot find instruction,
> > > precise information like this, without someone intentionally
> > > constructing it.
> > Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
> > One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
> > are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
> > more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
> > than precise instructions.
> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Kermit.. I think she meant,...4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs,
> programs a cell's behavior.
> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent.
> Someone
> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program?
Actually, not very much like it.
I happen to write code now and then. Here are some differences:
1. When I write a subroutine that is useful, I often use it in other,
unrelated programs.
2. I am not confined to using modified version of whole programs. I
can write from scratch, or rearrange sections of unrelated programs
into an entirely new one.
3. I comment my code - I summarize what the following few lines do; I
sign and date changes; I make references to other coed that the
commented section depends on.
4. On rare occasions I make sure to cover pertinent legal bases, such
as if I were to use open source code, or third party proprietary code.
5. I sometimes do use older programs and rewrite them, with
modifications. But those modifications have a clear goal, and when I
am finished, I clear out unused lines to minimize clutter.
Whereas in life we find (compare to above):
1. In metazoans, horizontal gene transfer is not the norm.
2. All genomes are modified from earlier genomes.
3. No comments of any kind to be found. Almost as though the
programmer doesn't want to be found, or even that there never was a
programmer.
4. No IP laws are seen in nature; no indication of a gene programming
culture.
5. Lots and lots of junk DNA. It's easier for errors in reproductive
processes to simply turn off a section of code than it is to clean it
up and get rid of it.
So, no. DNA doesn't look anything like design, but rather accidental
changes that survived because of environmental circumstances.
> As you may
> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this:
> CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
> cell!!
> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
> instruction manual.13
What is the computer? IF DNA is the code, what is the computer?
Answer - there isn't any. DNA is a macromolecule that produces
chemical reactions of various sorts, given a normal developmental
environment, that result in a living organism. There is no machine to
follow the instructions from the invisible programmer who seems
compelled to act as though he were simply natural processes at work
over a very, very long time.
> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
> exactly how the person's body should develop.
Yes. All acting as normal chemical behavior.
No indication that there is anybody communicating anything, nor
intending anything.
More complicated than, but no more unnatural than, evaporation and
rainfall.
> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
> when programmed information is involved.
Not true. There are several books for the layman presenting an
introduction to this subject.
And what programmed information? The chemistry is more complex, but
the chemistry of life is no more unnatural or suggestive of intent
than is iron ore rusting in the rain.
> You cannot find instruction,
> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
> constructing it.
Any evidence for this assertion? You seem to be denying that this DNA
"coding" (a metaphor) is indeed natural and mindless because...
someone is always responsible. We know somebody constructed it
because somebody always constructs it.
>> >> >> > > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
>> >> >> > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
>> >> >> > > -- OK, GO
>> >> >> > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
>> >> >> > > otherwise, please explain how.
>> >> >> > > <snip/>
>> >> >> > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
>> >> >> > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
>> >> >> > either)
>> >> >> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
>> >> >> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
>> >> >> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
>> >> >> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
>> >> >> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
>> >> >> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
>> >> >> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
>> >> >> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
>> >> >> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
>> >> >> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
>> >> >> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
>> >> >> cell!!
>> >> >They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
>> >> >sometimes helps to think of it that way.
>> >> >> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
>> >> >> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
>> >> >> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
>> >> >> instruction manual.13
>> >> >Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
>> >> >the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
>> >> >mysterious.
>> >> >> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
>> >> >> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
>> >> >> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
>> >> >> exactly how the person's body should develop.
>> >> >We actually know quite a bit about this.
>> >> >> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
>> >> >> when programmed information is involved.
>> >> >No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
>> >> >*it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
>> >> >A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
>> >> >"Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
>> >> An excellent book BTW. I join you in recommending it.
>> >> >> You cannot find instruction,
>> >> >> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
>> >> >> constructing it.
>> >> >Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
>> >> >One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
>> >> >are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
>> >> >more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
>> >> >than precise instructions.
>> >> >Kermit
>> >> Marilyn (Herman) confuses the recording mechanism with the information
>> >> that's being recorded. Yes, DNA is made of discrete nucleotides, and
>> >> triplets of nucleotides represent a discrete genetic code, and it has
>> >> a rudimentary error-detection and correction mechanism. These things
>> >> are what gives DNA the ability to reproduce itself almost perfectly,
>> >> and so in that sense it has similarities to a digital recording.
>> >> Beyond that, the computer analogy falls apart.
>> >> The information DNA records isn't digital but historical. IOW DNA
>> >> information is closer to a musical recording than a program. And DNA
>> >> isn't played back as a continuous stream, but as a series of steps
>> >> contingent on each other.
>> >> When the mechanism of the cell plays DNA, it's replaying the music of
>> >> life. The music it plays now determine in part which bits of DNA it's
>> >> going to play next. IOW this bit of DNA doesn't play until that bit
>> >> of DNA plays first, and that bit doesn't play until yet another bit
>> >> plays first. And each step also depends on input from the cell's
>> >> environment.
>> >> This is true for every individual cell, and for every cell of multi
>> >> cellular organisms, and for every species of every cellular organisms,
>> >> all the way back to the first collection of chemicals which managed to
>> >> get together and reproduce themselves, regardless of how they actually
>> >> managed to do it.
>> >I think that Marylyn was saying, "What made this memory and what
>> >programmed it?" Not only for one species but for over 500, million
>> >DIFFERENT species. I think that you and kermit need to answer this
>> >question first since it's impossible for it to form by chance.
>> It's a nonsense question, which presumes something needs to have made
>> it and programmed it. - Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>Then explain how it evoved by chance?
If you actually meant to wrote "explain how this memory evolved by
chance?", then the answer is simple. It didn't evolve by chance.
Nothing evolves by chance. Evolution is the opposite of chance.
Also your question implies that if I can't explain evolution to your
satisfaction, that you don't have to explain your designer. This is
incorrect. Arguments against evolution are not arguments for design.
There are more than two possibilities.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:23:58 -0700 (PDT), Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com>
wrote:
[...]
>The only evidence that the universe was once smaller than it is today
>is that it is expanding. Because it is expanding is not evidence that
>it has been expanding since the beginning and it is not evidence that
>the universe was not compressed into a location smaller than an atom.
>All of that stuff is made up and anyone with half a brain would know
>that.
And people who use their whole brain know the best evidence shows the
universe has been expanding since the beginning of time. And some of
that evidence come from those Hubble pictures you say you like so
much.
> As far as the universe being 13.5 billion years old, that’s
>debatable too.
> “If the universe originated 10-15 billion years ago, then no
>objects within it can be older than that. Yet the deduced ages of
>globular clusters of stars in our own galaxy do appear somewhat older
>than that, perhaps 16-18 billion years old.”
> “The age problem is a bit more severe in the case of superclusters
>of galaxies. These huge structures would take perhaps 100 billion
>years to form, given the typical relative speed of galaxies10. The
>same problem applies to "great walls" of galaxies, which are even
>vaster structures. There is no clear way to form structures on such
>large scales in the time available unless relative velocities were
>much higher in the past. But higher past velocities would require a
>dissipation mechanism which would have released tremendous energy.
>There is no credible evidence at present for the operation of such an
>enormous energy sink as would be required to resolve this dilemma.
>Therefore, this test presently favors static universe models, which
>have essentially unlimited time to form the observed structures
>through normal processes.”
Did you run out of material already? This is the same creationist
screed you posted before. It's as wrong now as it was then. It
doesn't help your case to pretend this hasn't already been answered.
> > > > >>> infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> > > > >> "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> > > > >> -- OK, GO
> > > > >> Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> > > > >> otherwise, please explain how.
> > > > >> <snip/>
> > > > > time could not be a continuum, maybe an integer infinity (countable), it
> > > > > could not be an uncountable infinity
> > > > Current thinking says that units of time smaller than the Planck time
> > > > make no sense, so if the universe is of finite duration, time "tickw"
> > > > are not only countable, they're finite. GR treats spacetime as a smooth
> > > > manifold, and its calculations treat time as a continuous variable (and
> > > > thus infinitely divisible) but, of course, GR breaks down below the
> > > > Planck scale.
> > > > That as may be, if time units did form an uncountable infinity, the CH
> > > > would still not enter into things. Why do you think it would? Do you
> > > > even understand what the CH states?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > There is no spacetime. That's a word from Chicken Little to say the
> > > sky is falling. The universe did not start out from a location smaller
> > > than an atom. (with no outside) That don't make a bit of sense, it's
> > > all made up.
> > We know that the universe was very small, hot, and dense. We are not
> > yet sure if it was a singularity or something else. The universe is
> > not constrained by what you are comfortable with or even by what you
> > can understand.
> > All the evidence indicates the universe was very small, about 13.75
> > billion years ago.
> > > God established his laws throughout the universe all the
> > > same instant in a geometric structure that contained all the laws of
> > > nature.
> > Maybe. If he did, you do not understand them, because your claims are
> > at odds with observed reality.
> > > The structure did expand on a microscopic scale and if you
> > > look away through light years, anything that is there will appear to
> > > be red shifted because of the added microscopic measurements between
> > > the two points from where you stand and where you are looking.
> > That doesn't make any sense. You seem to be thinking of light like a
> > stretched rubber band.
> > > The
> > > farther away you look the more red shifted anything becomes. That fits
> > > with what we see and that makes sense in the real world and is so
> > > simple a 12 year old could understand it. This made up theory about
> > > the universe expanding for light years in a split second is science
> > > fiction.
> > That initial inflation was short-lived and has little to do with the
> > red shift we see. That is because the universe is expanding and has
> > always been expanding ("always" meaning for all time, or about 13.75
> > billion years).
> > There are other reasons to know that the universe is expanding.
> > > Once you tell a lie, you have to tell a million to get out of it.
> > > That’s exactly what the scientific Big Bang theory has turned into is
> > > a bunch of made up theory.
> > No, it makes successful predictions, such as the discovery of the
> > cosmic background radiation, the smoothness of the large scale
> > structures of the cosmos, and others.
> > > It’s obvious that God created this super fine tuned universe and
> > > earth as well as life
> > Except it's not obvious; it's a dubious claim that the universe was
> > intelligently designed.
> > Also, why do you think the universe is fine-tuned, and why would that
> > be significant?
> > > and that’s exactly what Marilyn Adamson is
> > > trying to tell you just as I am. (along with two billion other people)
> > Actually, my college buddy was a devout Christian and taught me some
> > evolutionary science. Not all Christians deny reality because they are
> > in love with their own interpretations of their scriptures.
> > > Now you people can be thick headed and believe anything you choose
> > Actually, I can't choose to believe anything. I can choose to read a
> > post, or a book, but given my experiences and hearing the arguments, I
> > can't choose what to believe. It happens. If you could only show me
> > persuasive evidence (not, for instance, an Orphan Annie's decoder
> > ring) such as a successful prediction about particle physics or
> > cosmology, I would have to believe you were on to something. Heck, at
> > this point I'd even be impressed if you could describe first semester-
> > level science in any field.
> > > along with the rest of the antichrist, but that will not change a
> > > thing in the real world.
> > True that.
> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> The only evidence that the universe was once smaller than it is today
> is that it is expanding.
I would say that's pretty good evidence, yes. The evidence that it is
expanding is from several classes of evidence.
> Because it is expanding is not evidence that
> it has been expanding since the beginning and it is not evidence that
> the universe was not compressed into a location smaller than an atom.
Correct. Two related but different questions, BTW.
Many mainstream scientists are not yet convinced that it was a point.
Most are convinced that it was the beginning of time. Note that
claiming that i snot claiming that there was never any time or
universes "elsewhere".
For instance: if you put your mukluks on and start walking north,
eventually you go as far north as one can go. And it's not because of
simple obstacles; you have plumb run out of north. No more theoretical
north to go to. But if you go back down closer to the equator, you can
point to the north star and say "What is that way?". Out north
doesn't take us that far, can't get their from our planet.
So too, time seems to only go back 13.75 BY, but only in our universe.
There may very well be or "have been" unimaginable numbers of other
universes. but we can't get there by mukluks or time machine.
We're not sure yet. And when (if ever) they *are fairly sure, you and
I will not have the math to understand their reasoning.
> All of that stuff is made up and anyone with half a brain would know
> that.
> As far as the universe being 13.5 billion years old, that’s
> debatable too.
Not if your arguments depend on ignorance or "common sense". Our
brains evolved to understand human society, and poisonous snakes, and
leopards, not quantum physics and relativity. Hell, even very simple
Newtonian physics throws people off - look at how some human drive!
> “If the universe originated 10-15 billion years ago, then no
> objects within it can be older than that. Yet the deduced ages of
> globular clusters of stars in our own galaxy do appear somewhat older
> than that, perhaps 16-18 billion years old.”
Yes. There is something we are missing. That doesn't mean that all
alternative assertions are equally likely.
For instance, when Darwin was working out his theories, based on the
nested hierarchy of morphology, breeding, and the fossil record,
physicists were entering the modern era. Physicists like Rutherford
estimated the sun's mass and its energy output, and said that it was
ten million years old, twenty at tops. He knew what the most energetic
chemical reactions could do, and how long the sun could burn stuff.
Darwin knew that this was not enough time to produce all of modern
life and the history implicit in the fossil record. The geologists
agreed with Darwin; they knew how old some of the geological
formations were that they were looking at. Nobody thought anyone
conerned was incompetent, but they were at a loss to reconcile this.
When Einstein came along and revealed the energy in atomic reactions,
physicists realized what the sources of the sun's energy was, and the
age of the sun was adjusted, and the two camps reconciled.
That will eventually happen with these inconsistencies.
What we do *not do is throw out all observations, nor say "Well,
anything goes then."
> “The age problem is a bit more severe in the case of superclusters
> of galaxies. These huge structures would take perhaps 100 billion
> years to form, given the typical relative speed of galaxies10. The
> same problem applies to "great walls" of galaxies, which are even
> vaster structures. There is no clear way to form structures on such
> large scales in the time available unless relative velocities were
> much higher in the past. But higher past velocities would require a
> dissipation mechanism which would have released tremendous energy.
> There is no credible evidence at present for the operation of such an
> enormous energy sink as would be required to resolve this dilemma.
> Therefore, this test presently favors static universe models, which
> have essentially unlimited time to form the observed structures
> through normal processes.”
There are still holdouts for a static universe - my father-in-law is
one - although he and the others are less enthusiastic. The
accumulating evidence indicates otherwise.
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:23:58 -0700 (PDT), Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com>
> wrote:
> [...]
> >The only evidence that the universe was once smaller than it is today
> >is that it is expanding. Because it is expanding is not evidence that
> >it has been expanding since the beginning and it is not evidence that
> >the universe was not compressed into a location smaller than an atom.
> >All of that stuff is made up and anyone with half a brain would know
> >that.
> And people who use their whole brain know the best evidence shows the
> universe has been expanding since the beginning of time. And some of
> that evidence come from those Hubble pictures you say you like so
> much.
> > As far as the universe being 13.5 billion years old, that’s
> >debatable too.
> > “If the universe originated 10-15 billion years ago, then no
> >objects within it can be older than that. Yet the deduced ages of
> >globular clusters of stars in our own galaxy do appear somewhat older
> >than that, perhaps 16-18 billion years old.”
> > “The age problem is a bit more severe in the case of superclusters
> >of galaxies. These huge structures would take perhaps 100 billion
> >years to form, given the typical relative speed of galaxies10. The
> >same problem applies to "great walls" of galaxies, which are even
> >vaster structures. There is no clear way to form structures on such
> >large scales in the time available unless relative velocities were
> >much higher in the past. But higher past velocities would require a
> >dissipation mechanism which would have released tremendous energy.
> >There is no credible evidence at present for the operation of such an
> >enormous energy sink as would be required to resolve this dilemma.
> >Therefore, this test presently favors static universe models, which
> >have essentially unlimited time to form the observed structures
> >through normal processes.”
> Did you run out of material already? This is the same creationist
> screed you posted before. It's as wrong now as it was then. It
> doesn't help your case to pretend this hasn't already been answered.
> And BTW, this is CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.- Hide quoted text -
>On May 21, 6:04 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:51:03 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 8:03 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 21, 9:15 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> > On May 21, 12:35 am, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
>> >> > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
>> >> > > -- OK, GO
>> >> > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
>> >> > > otherwise, please explain how.
>> >> > > <snip/>
>> >> > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
>> >> > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
>> >> > either)
>> >> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
>> >> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
>> >> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
>> >> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
>> >> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
>> >> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
>> >> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
>> >> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
>> >> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
>> >> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
>> >> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
>> >> cell!!
>> >They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
>> >sometimes helps to think of it that way.
>> >> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
>> >> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
>> >> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
>> >> instruction manual.13
>> >Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
>> >the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
>> >mysterious.
>> >> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
>> >> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
>> >> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
>> >> exactly how the person's body should develop.
>> >We actually know quite a bit about this.
>> >> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
>> >> when programmed information is involved.
>> >No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
>> >*it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
>> >A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
>> >"Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
>> An excellent book BTW. I join you in recommending it.
>> >> You cannot find instruction,
>> >> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
>> >> constructing it.
>> >Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
>> >One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
>> >are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
>> >more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
>> >than precise instructions.
>> >Kermit
>> Marilyn (Herman) confuses the recording mechanism with the information
>> that's being recorded. Yes, DNA is made of discrete nucleotides, and
>> triplets of nucleotides represent a discrete genetic code, and it has
>> a rudimentary error-detection and correction mechanism. These things
>> are what gives DNA the ability to reproduce itself almost perfectly,
>> and so in that sense it has similarities to a digital recording.
>> Beyond that, the computer analogy falls apart.
>> The information DNA records isn't digital but historical. IOW DNA
>> information is closer to a musical recording than a program. And DNA
>> isn't played back as a continuous stream, but as a series of steps
>> contingent on each other.
>> When the mechanism of the cell plays DNA, it's replaying the music of
>> life. The music it plays now determine in part which bits of DNA it's
>> going to play next. IOW this bit of DNA doesn't play until that bit
>> of DNA plays first, and that bit doesn't play until yet another bit
>> plays first. And each step also depends on input from the cell's
>> environment.
>> This is true for every individual cell, and for every cell of multi
>> cellular organisms, and for every species of every cellular organisms,
>> all the way back to the first collection of chemicals which managed to
>> get together and reproduce themselves, regardless of how they actually
>> managed to do it.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>The question is, how did the first Nucleotides evolve?
No, that's not the question. You're conflating evolution and
abiogenesis. That's a common and dishonest anti-evolutionist tactic.
Now if you want to discuss abiogenesis, here are a few articles you
might want to read:
Now it's your turn. You insist that something or somebody had to have
designed life on Earth. By that same reasoning, what or who designed
your designer? And no, you can't just say your designer is eternal.
And no you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible is telling the
truth.
> > > > > >>> infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> > > > > >> "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> > > > > >> -- OK, GO
> > > > > >> Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> > > > > >> otherwise, please explain how.
> > > > > >> <snip/>
> > > > > > time could not be a continuum, maybe an integer infinity (countable), it
> > > > > > could not be an uncountable infinity
> > > > > Current thinking says that units of time smaller than the Planck time
> > > > > make no sense, so if the universe is of finite duration, time "tickw"
> > > > > are not only countable, they're finite. GR treats spacetime as a smooth
> > > > > manifold, and its calculations treat time as a continuous variable (and
> > > > > thus infinitely divisible) but, of course, GR breaks down below the
> > > > > Planck scale.
> > > > > That as may be, if time units did form an uncountable infinity, the CH
> > > > > would still not enter into things. Why do you think it would? Do you
> > > > > even understand what the CH states?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > There is no spacetime. That's a word from Chicken Little to say the
> > > > sky is falling. The universe did not start out from a location smaller
> > > > than an atom. (with no outside) That don't make a bit of sense, it's
> > > > all made up.
> > > We know that the universe was very small, hot, and dense. We are not
> > > yet sure if it was a singularity or something else. The universe is
> > > not constrained by what you are comfortable with or even by what you
> > > can understand.
> > > All the evidence indicates the universe was very small, about 13.75
> > > billion years ago.
> > > > God established his laws throughout the universe all the
> > > > same instant in a geometric structure that contained all the laws of
> > > > nature.
> > > Maybe. If he did, you do not understand them, because your claims are
> > > at odds with observed reality.
> > > > The structure did expand on a microscopic scale and if you
> > > > look away through light years, anything that is there will appear to
> > > > be red shifted because of the added microscopic measurements between
> > > > the two points from where you stand and where you are looking.
> > > That doesn't make any sense. You seem to be thinking of light like a
> > > stretched rubber band.
> > > > The
> > > > farther away you look the more red shifted anything becomes. That fits
> > > > with what we see and that makes sense in the real world and is so
> > > > simple a 12 year old could understand it. This made up theory about
> > > > the universe expanding for light years in a split second is science
> > > > fiction.
> > > That initial inflation was short-lived and has little to do with the
> > > red shift we see. That is because the universe is expanding and has
> > > always been expanding ("always" meaning for all time, or about 13.75
> > > billion years).
> > > There are other reasons to know that the universe is expanding.
> > > > Once you tell a lie, you have to tell a million to get out of it.
> > > > That s exactly what the scientific Big Bang theory has turned into is
> > > > a bunch of made up theory.
> > > No, it makes successful predictions, such as the discovery of the
> > > cosmic background radiation, the smoothness of the large scale
> > > structures of the cosmos, and others.
> > > > It s obvious that God created this super fine tuned universe and
> > > > earth as well as life
> > > Except it's not obvious; it's a dubious claim that the universe was
> > > intelligently designed.
> > > Also, why do you think the universe is fine-tuned, and why would that
> > > be significant?
> > > > and that s exactly what Marilyn Adamson is
> > > > trying to tell you just as I am. (along with two billion other people)
> > > Actually, my college buddy was a devout Christian and taught me some
> > > evolutionary science. Not all Christians deny reality because they are
> > > in love with their own interpretations of their scriptures.
> > > > Now you people can be thick headed and believe anything you choose
> > > Actually, I can't choose to believe anything. I can choose to read a
> > > post, or a book, but given my experiences and hearing the arguments, I
> > > can't choose what to believe. It happens. If you could only show me
> > > persuasive evidence (not, for instance, an Orphan Annie's decoder
> > > ring) such as a successful prediction about particle physics or
> > > cosmology, I would have to believe you were on to something. Heck, at
> > > this point I'd even be impressed if you could describe first semester-
> > > level science in any field.
> > > > along with the rest of the antichrist, but that will not change a
> > > > thing in the real world.
> > > True that.
> > > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > The only evidence that the universe was once smaller than it is today
> > is that it is expanding.
> I would say that's pretty good evidence, yes. The evidence that it is
> expanding is from several classes of evidence.
> > Because it is expanding is not evidence that
> > it has been expanding since the beginning and it is not evidence that
> > the universe was not compressed into a location smaller than an atom.
> Correct. Two related but different questions, BTW.
> Many mainstream scientists are not yet convinced that it was a point.
> Most are convinced that it was the beginning of time. Note that
> claiming that i snot claiming that there was never any time or
> universes "elsewhere".
> For instance: if you put your mukluks on and start walking north,
> eventually you go as far north as one can go. And it's not because of
> simple obstacles; you have plumb run out of north. No more theoretical
> north to go to. But if you go back down closer to the equator, you can
> point to the north star and say "What is that way?". Out north
> doesn't take us that far, can't get their from our planet.
> So too, time seems to only go back 13.75 BY, but only in our universe.
> There may very well be or "have been" unimaginable numbers of other
> universes. but we can't get there by mukluks or time machine.
> We're not sure yet. And when (if ever) they *are fairly sure, you and
> I will not have the math to understand their reasoning.
> > All of that stuff is made up and anyone with half a brain would know
> > that.
> > As far as the universe being 13.5 billion years old, that s
> > debatable too.
> Not if your arguments depend on ignorance or "common sense". Our
> brains evolved to understand human society, and poisonous snakes, and
> leopards, not quantum physics and relativity. Hell, even very simple
> Newtonian physics throws people off - look at how some human drive!
> > If the universe originated 10-15 billion years ago, then no
> > objects within it can be older than that. Yet the deduced ages of
> > globular clusters of stars in our own galaxy do appear somewhat older
> > than that, perhaps 16-18 billion years old.
> Yes. There is something we are missing. That doesn't mean that all
> alternative assertions are equally likely.
> For instance, when Darwin was working out his theories, based on the
> nested hierarchy of morphology, breeding, and the fossil record,
> physicists were entering the modern era. Physicists like Rutherford
> estimated the sun's mass and its energy output, and said that it was
> ten million years old, twenty at tops. He knew what the most energetic
> chemical reactions could do, and how long the sun could burn stuff.
> Darwin knew that this was not enough time to produce all of modern
> life and the history implicit in the fossil record. The geologists
> agreed with Darwin; they knew how old some of the geological
> formations were that they were looking at. Nobody thought anyone
> conerned was incompetent, but they were at a loss to reconcile this.
> When Einstein came along and revealed the energy in atomic reactions,
> physicists realized what the sources of the sun's energy was, and the
> age of the sun was adjusted, and the two camps reconciled.
> That will eventually happen with these inconsistencies.
> What we do *not do is throw out all observations, nor say "Well,
> anything goes then."
> > The age problem is a bit more severe in the case of superclusters
> > of galaxies. These huge structures would take perhaps 100 billion
> > years to form, given the typical relative speed of galaxies10. The
> > same problem applies to "great walls" of galaxies, which are even
> > vaster structures. There is no clear way to form structures on such
> > large scales in the time available unless relative velocities were
> > much higher in the past. But higher past velocities would require a
> > dissipation mechanism which would have released tremendous energy.
> > There is no credible evidence at present for the operation of such an
> > enormous energy sink as would be required to resolve this dilemma.
> > Therefore, this test presently favors static universe models, which
> > have essentially unlimited time to form the observed structures
> > through normal processes.
> There are still holdouts for a static universe - my
> >> >> > > > infinite time requires you deal with Cantor's continuum hypothesis
> >> >> > > "Here we go, here we go, here we go again"
> >> >> > > -- OK, GO
> >> >> > > Infinite time does not require "dealing" with the CH. If you think
> >> >> > > otherwise, please explain how.
> >> >> > > <snip/>
> >> >> > Infinite time is infinite time. It does not have anything to do with
> >> >> > me dealing with anything. Maybe God dealing with it, but not me. (you
> >> >> > either)
> >> >> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> >> >> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone
> >> >> who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know
> >> >> that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed
> >> >> instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may
> >> >> know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this:
> >> >> 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program
> >> >> what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's
> >> >> made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and
> >> >> C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT
> >> >> and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human
> >> >> cell!!
> >> >They are molecules, not actual code, Marilyn (Herman), although it
> >> >sometimes helps to think of it that way.
> >> >> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific
> >> >> reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered
> >> >> program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full
> >> >> instruction manual.13
> >> >Nature is grand, yup. That's why most scientists got started studying
> >> >the real world; they find it beautiful and wonderful and fun and
> >> >mysterious.
> >> >> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information
> >> >> program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals.
> >> >> These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way
> >> >> exactly how the person's body should develop.
> >> >We actually know quite a bit about this.
> >> >> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation
> >> >> when programmed information is involved.
> >> >No, not really. Marilyn, i you truly loved nature you'd be looking at
> >> >*it, instead of telling everyone how wonderful your view of God is.
> >> >A good place to start on this particular subject (Evo-Devo) is
> >> >"Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carrol.
> >> An excellent book BTW. I join you in recommending it.
> >> >> You cannot find instruction,
> >> >> precise information like this, without someone intentionally
> >> >> constructing it.
> >> >Sure you can, In nearly every living cell, in fact.
> >> >One wanders what Marilyn means by "precise instruction", when there
> >> >are so many errors and so much of the genome is junk DNA. It's much
> >> >more like imperfect reproduction and execution chosen by circumstance
> >> >than precise instructions.
> >> >Kermit
> >> Marilyn (Herman) confuses the recording mechanism with the information
> >> that's being recorded. Yes, DNA is made of discrete nucleotides, and
> >> triplets of nucleotides represent a discrete genetic code, and it has
> >> a rudimentary error-detection and correction mechanism. These things
> >> are what gives DNA the ability to reproduce itself almost perfectly,
> >> and so in that sense it has similarities to a digital recording.
> >> Beyond that, the computer analogy falls apart.
> >> The information DNA records isn't digital but historical. IOW DNA
> >> information is closer to a musical recording than a program. And DNA
> >> isn't played back as a continuous stream, but as a series of steps
> >> contingent on each other.
> >> When the mechanism of the cell plays DNA, it's replaying the music of
> >> life. The music it plays now determine in part which bits of DNA it's
> >> going to play next. IOW this bit of DNA doesn't play until that bit
> >> of DNA plays first, and that bit doesn't play until yet another bit
> >> plays first. And each step also depends on input from the cell's
> >> environment.
> >> This is true for every individual cell, and for every cell of multi
> >> cellular organisms, and for every species of every cellular organisms,
> >> all the way back to the first collection of chemicals which managed to
> >> get together and reproduce themselves, regardless of how they actually
> >> managed to do it.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >The question is, how did the first Nucleotides evolve?
> No, that's not the question. You're conflating evolution and
> abiogenesis. That's a common and dishonest anti-evolutionist tactic.
> Now if you want to discuss abiogenesis, here are a few articles you
> might want to read:
> Now it's your turn. You insist that something or somebody had to have
> designed life on Earth. By that same reasoning, what or who designed
> your designer? And no, you can't just say your designer is eternal.
> And no you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible is telling the
> truth.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Hold on a minute,… You say that I can’t say the designer is eternal
and you can’t say the bible proves the Bible is Truth. … Where did
these rules come from?…. Jillery? …. Logic tells us the Truth is
eternal. … How could the Truth be created? … Explain how the Truth
could be created or evolve? … This I would love to hear.
