Re: Biblical matters
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:15 pm
Me drowning or the glasses?
The Ulternative Alster Fan Club supporting Ulster Rugby!
https://www.uafc.co.uk/
If DNA appears too complicated to explain without a creator, how would you explain an unimaginably complex creator?bazzaj wrote: Again great stuff Bagster you've had a good sleep I can tell.
No but we can't but we look to others who can to help form conclusions as I have done.
I'm never going to understand dna for example but I want to know people's opinion on it who do know more about it..
The problem exists I think when you keep looking in the same place for answers.
Regarding dna with all the things you list in your posts about anti biotics, space travel etc it took the cleverest men centuries to evolve and understand these things.
Dna predates all these things by billions of years yet it is even more complicated.
To the extent that noone still fully understands it.
Life since the big bang has you could argue has evolved to the point we are at now through circumstance by chance.
Its the longest of long shots I gather but dna to me seems very very specific in terms of sequencing.
Too much so to be considered simply chance.
Therefore as I've stated previously to insinute that's it's all just by luck in my opinion would be more ridiculous than to realise there is a superior intelligence behind it all.
Its the most logical conclusion as illogical as it seems.
Oops yeah that!bazzaj wrote:Unimaginably complex.
I saw a video once where a girl nearly drowned in DNA.BR wrote:Is that a good thing?bazzaj wrote:You are definitely a take two glasses to bed with you kind of guy Br.BR wrote:As a person, I find DNA (the chemistry and even the knowledge that we are obtaining about it) to be very impressive. But as the first clause of that sentence indicates, I am not an objective observer. On a cosmic scale, who knows.bazzaj wrote:As a computer person or just a person does dna coding impress or dare I say it, amaze you?
Love the dna chat but sense I am about to drown in it
So you are suggesting that God placed the Earth in an exact rotation around its star, in a very small area where it would have survivable heat from the Sun, with magnetic fields strong enough to deflect the most harmful cosmic wind?bazzaj wrote:Again great stuff Bagster you've had a good sleep I can tell.BaggyTrousers wrote:I understand that Jizzer, whereas I think it leads us to Mike's ancient chemical soup and by the way, did you know that there are an average of 1800 thunderstorms in the atmosphere of Earth at any given moment & 100 lightning strikes hitting the surface of the Earth per second, all day, every day.bazzaj wrote:This is a top post Bagster.BaggyTrousers wrote:Neither Jizzer, as a lover of knowledge & of science and the developments it brings, it's not a magic trick to be impressive or amazing, it is something that has been waiting to be discovered just as penicillin once was, or the hydrogen bomb or god knows how many other discoveries or inventions. Where these developments take us is anyone guess, I'll not be here to find out but rest assured that as long as we remain curious to know even more about ourselves and what's around us, things as impressive as DNA will keep cropping up.bazzaj wrote:As a computer person or just a person does dna coding impress or dare I say it, amaze you?
I find over half a million people flying around in metal tubes at any given time of day equally remarkable, just different, I am impressed that we know that all naturally occurring elements can be identified in the "heavenly bodies" around us, with no wee extras to think about pretty spectacular, I found the ability to land a craft on an asteroid remarkable albeit the hoped-for research went arseshaped. I'm endlessly fascinated by things like radio-carbon dating............... indeed to many things to bore you with.
Which is more important, DNA or penicillin & the subsequent range of antibiotics which have saved millions of lives? Instantly I'd say antibiotics but then we've no idea where DNA takes us other than there are fewer murderers on the street right now as a small example.
That apart I probably know almost as little as you do about DNA though I can think of something recent that may have piqued your fascination.
The difference between us is I think it all leads us directly to a creator.
More than enough to trigger all manner of events in that soup and yet we are a relatively tiny spot in the universe, even some of our near neighbouring planets are lighting up like a light bulb in their atmospheres, by comparison, then think of what goes on in stars, not really much wonder that eventually some bright spark decided we could perhaps harness the power of nuclear fusion, with somewhat mixed results admittedly - ask the Mayor of Hiroshima.
The brain of every living thing communicates through electrical impulses, but until Mick Farraday and others came along afterwards to understand and develop theories - whoddaguest?
Great things Theories Jizzer, especially in scientific endeavour, they potentially explain things that may appear inexplicable, they are not always spot on, they usually evolve on further study & occasionally are found to be bullshit.
The Big Bang Theory (no not the TV show) is a corker that many find unable to grasp, certainly my tiny mind struggles with it, yet we do know that the universe is expanding, hence in all probability, it was much much smaller eons ago, we also know that it is essentially endless for if not, what lies outside it?
The thing I find really hard to grasp is that if people assert that there had to be something there, and in respect of "time" has something always been there too, that's not how time works, how could it just start, what happened before that, and I struggle to comprehend how it can be otherwise, how then can many of the same people insist that GOD has always existed, one follows the same logic, one must understand how ludicrous one's position is if not also applied to God.
One thing's for sure Jizzer, feckwits like us aren't going to provide any answers.
No but we can't but we look to others who can to help form conclusions as I have done.
I'm never going to understand dna for example but I want to know people's opinion on it who do know more about it..
The problem exists I think when you keep looking in the same place for answers.
Regarding dna with all the things you list in your posts about anti biotics, space travel etc it took the cleverest people centuries to evolve and understand these things.
Dna predates all this by miillions of years yet it is even more complicated.
To the extent that noone still fully understands it.
Life since the big bang has you could argue has evolved to the point we are at now through circumstance by chance.
Its the longest of long shots I gather but dna to me seems very very specific in terms of sequencing.
Too much so to be considered simply chance.
Therefore as I've stated previously to insinute that's it's all just by luck in my opinion would be more ridiculous than to realise there is a superior intelligence behind it all.
Its the most logical conclusion as illogical as it seems.
But no one has a PhD in everything.Neil F wrote:Hugh Ross holds a PhD in astronomy. When it comes to anything other than explaining the alignment and behaviour of celestial bodies, he should be seen as nothing other than an enthusiastic amateur. Kind of like when Dawkins starts talking theology...
Agreed - but I'd sooner listen to someone with a PhD in evolutionary biology on evolutionary biology than someone with one in astronomy; and I'd sooner listen to someone with a PhD in cosmology on cosmology than someone with a PhD in astronomy. People like Hugh Ross get away with what they do because they make arguments by authority, despite not really having the authority to do so due to the fact that too many people seem to accept that someone who has a high capacity in one field has high capacities in others. (See also: Richard Dawkins).bazzaj wrote:But no one has a PhD in everything.Neil F wrote:Hugh Ross holds a PhD in astronomy. When it comes to anything other than explaining the alignment and behaviour of celestial bodies, he should be seen as nothing other than an enthusiastic amateur. Kind of like when Dawkins starts talking theology...
So long as an opinion holds water and is educated that will do for me.
A scientist will always tend to have a more significant knowledge of most scientific matters than someone with a wiki based amateur knowledge such as myself.