Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2015, 04:15 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 06:47 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(16-07-2015 06:43 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Your post is evidence that you have little clue about development biology, and how bodies are build , and what factors are involved.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2098-epigenetics

So, you are an admin on another forum and that's the credentials you offer?

Seems that posting this link in your posts over and over is kind of spammy...not getting much action over at heavensgate?

My credentials are irrelevant. What you need to address, is my op.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 04:17 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 07:51 PM)natachan Wrote:  Your personal inability to believe something does not make it untrue.

I tend not to read text blocks of bullshit word salad, so I only skimmed. But I do not recall you offering any evidence of your god. Especially since I didn't see a definition of your god, which I would need in order to have any evidence of it.

Even if we had no idea of how life arose, can you propose an alternate workable method? How, exactly, did your god (who is still undefined, btw) create life? By what mechanism? What physically happened?

How exactly did God create things ? what process was involved ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1794-ho...s-involved

How exactly is a mystery, but does not mean it is not understood by God. In genesis it says God spoke and things came into existence. God is a potent cause with power ( energy ) and his spoken word indicates information. Because we do not understand and in a detailled manner how he created the physical universe, and life, does not mean God does not understand or can't. Mystery to us is not mystery to God, but we do know that God is not limited to His spiritual realm, as he shown with his becoming of flesh in Jesus Christ.

Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment, the words in that first verse are quite remarkable. They are indicative of the incredible mind of God. God says in that first verse everything that could have been said about creation and He says it in such few terms. The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition. A well-known scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter.

Now think about that. Time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 04:24 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
What you're left with is nature.
Its always been nature and natural forces at work.

A storm gathers and lightning sparks.Thunder rolls and the rain falls. There is nothing supernatural here.
Its all forces of nature at work.

It applies to the entire universe

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 04:46 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 08:38 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Really? Life couldn't have begun with simpler DNA/RNA that didn't compact up like this and didn't need to be unpacked? You cited eukaryote processes specifically. Eukaryota are very advanced single-cell organisms, and you have said nothing about the far-more basic bacteria.

The is no way of which prokaryotes could have evolved into eukaryotes, in the same manner as there is no way a beetle could be transformed into a Rolls Royce. So let me get that more specific for you : These nano motors are life essential for eukaryotic cells.

Quote:And now I'm leaning towards "crap he doesn't understand", on the grounds of "he thinks organisms actually choose or want to evolve". Dude, TRUST me. You'll embarrass yourself far less if you actually learn what evolution is, rather than what its detractors and the ID spin doctors maliciously misrepresent it as being.

I know what evolution is, and you have still not provided a explanation why evolution should be the best explanation for emerge of the nano motors in question.

Quote:But we know of no intelligent minds capable of existing PRIOR TO THE ADVENT OF CELL DIVISION.

Knowing in the absolute sense of the term we do not. But a eternal, powerful creator of the univese and life is well conceivable, and makes a lot of sense. Everything coming from nothing, makes no sense to me. And we knot the universe is not eternal.

Quote: They're all dependent upon the exact same processes you dismiss evolution as not being able to produce, or they are inventions of minds that are dependent on those. How does this get us out of your supposed chicken and the egg problem? Can you propose how a mind can exist prior to these supposed problems in biochemistry being addressed...

Why should that be non-logical, or non conceavible ?

Quote:How is this any LESS of a stretch than positing abiogenesis through natural processes?

because abiogenesis is literally IMPOSSIBLE.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1279-ab...impossible

Quote:refusal to provide any testable hypothesis or mechanism for falsification

Have you asked ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1659-do...redictions

Quote:, and generally carrying on like they deserve credit, attention, and respect when they can't even present their ideas as science.

the premise is based on scientific discoveries and facts. The abductional reasoning is essentially philosophical.

Quote:EDIT: In follow-up posts you brought up irreducible complexity and Michael Behe. Irreducible complexity is an example of the neutered models of evolution

No. Its a falsification of Darwins claims.

Quote: I mentioned before. Sometimes evolution cuts out a part rather than grows it, akin to building a stone arch over a pile of sand and then removing the sand.

"Complexity by Subtraction": In Evolutionary Biology, a Devilishly Subversive Suggestion

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/com...71281.html

This is all very revealing. In the geological context, we know very well how, as a starting point, "cliffs or piles of stone" form. It's readily comprehensible how, worn by water or weather, an arch may appear. In the biological context, we do not know how the starting point -- functioning "genes, cells, tissues or organs" -- got there.


...a: parts that have beneficial functions that are not the final function of the item in question,

what beneficial function would have a half eye ? a half arm ? a half leg ? a half circulatory system ? a incomplete photosynthesis apparatus, without the oxygen evolving complex, for example ? or without a proton gradient ? there are many parts and enzymes, which are function specific, and not used in various biological systems, but only in specific ones, as for example the last 7 enzymes in the chlorophyll biosynthesis pathway are unique.....


...b: parts that were eliminated after the complexity was achieved (who says you following the path back means reduction? Ever build an arch?),

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/com...71281.html

This is all very revealing. In the geological context, we know very well how, as a starting point, "cliffs or piles of stone" form. It's readily comprehensible how, worn by water or weather, an arch may appear. In the biological context, we do not know how the starting point -- functioning "genes, cells, tissues or organs" -- got there.

...c: parts with benign attributes that just were not eliminated because the did not reduce reproduction.

first you have to get the parts essential for function.....

Quote: That arch is then irreducibly complex, because you can't remove any stone in the arch and have it still work. But presenting irreducible complexity as something that can't be produced by evolution is blatantly disingenuous, because it ignores the capacity of evolutionary processes to eliminate elements. It's as straw-man as straw-manning gets.

well, first you have to get the elements together.

There are many parts, subunits of enzymes and proteins, co-factos etc. that have no apparent multiple functions and could not be co-opted or be available through horizontal gene transfer, or whatever. One example are the last 8 enzymes used in the biosynthesis pathway of chlorophyll http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1546-ch...is-pathway for what reason would these enzymes emerge naturally , if by their own , and not duly embedded in the whole biosynthesis process, they have no use at all ? and even lets say chlorophyll : why would nature invent such extremely complex pathways to produce such a complex molecule, if, even if ready to go, it is not embedded in the whole process of photosynthesis ? and how could they be embedded in the system, if the light harvesting complex were not present ? please explain. Furthermore, i wonder how nature came up with the information to make the individual parts, the subunits, and providing the right assembly instructions for the individual parts, and the whole thing. As its known, body plans and 3d cell shape does not depend only on genetic information, but also epigenetic information and other unknown factors.

Darwins doubt, pg.268

What natural selection lacks, intelligent design—purposive, goal-directed selection—provides. Rational agents can arrange both matter and symbols with distant goals in mind. They also routinely solve problems of combinatorial inflation. In using language, the human mind routinely "finds" or generates highly improbable linguistic sequences to convey an intended or preconceived idea. In the process of thought, functional objectives precede and constrain the selection of words, sounds, and symbols to generate functional (and meaningful) sequences from a vast ensemble of meaningless alternative possible combinations of sound or symbol. Similarly, the construction of complex technological objects and products, such as bridges, circuit boards, engines, and software, results from the application of goal-directed constraints. Indeed, in all functionally integrated complex systems where the cause is known by experience or observation, designing engineers or other intelligent agents applied constraints on the possible arrangements of matter to limit possibilities in order to produce improbable forms, sequences, or structures. Rational agents have repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to constrain possible outcomes to actualize improbable but initially unrealized future functions. Repeated experience affirms that intelligent agents (minds) uniquely possess such causal powers.  Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information, therefore, exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection and other undirected evolutionary mechanisms that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can determine or select functional goals before they are physically instantiated. [/b]They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities. They can then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant information-rich outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks—by definition—are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality—with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking intelligent design to overcome a vast combinatorial search problem and to explain the origin of new specified information, contemporary advocates of intelligent design are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence.


Quote:As for Michael Behe? The guy's an embarrassment. In court, he showed himself ignorant of the scientific literature that undermined his positions and examples...

bollocks.

Michael Behe :

In the context of my book it is easy to realize that I meant there has been little work on the details of the evolution of irreducibly complex biochemical systems by Darwinian means. I had clearly noted that of course a large amount of work in many books and journals was done under the general topic of "molecular evolution," but that,[b] overwhelmingly, it was either limited to comparing sequences (which, again, does not concern the mechanism of evolution) or did not propose sufficiently detailed routes to justify a Darwinian conclusion. Comparing sequences is interesting but cannot explain how molecular machines arose. Mechanisms (such as gene duplication, domain shuffling, and concerted evolution of multigene families)  are thought to be involved in evolution at the molecular level,  are however not justified in Darwinian terms.  The processes like gene duplication, etc., although very significant, are not by themselves sufficient to understand how any complex biochemical system, may have arisen by Darwinian means.


Behes claim is confirmed through this peer reviewed paper :

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...5/abstract

Quote:almost as if he didn't care whether it existed. He was also forced, under oath, when he finally was facing criminal consequences for continuing in his lies, to admit that he had to completely redefine "science" in order to describe intelligent design as science, and this broader, made-up definition of science included alchemy and astrology.

As Dr Behe said:

Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.

In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 04:52 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 08:41 PM)Grave Wrote:  The Bible says God took the dust of the earth and formed man and breathed the breath of life into him. According to the Bible, man was created by God for God. God made man to serve him, but because he loved man so much he gave us free will so that we aren't forced to obey him or serve him. Man messes up in the Bible so God decides to destroy man because he is a jealous God. God can't coexist with sin so when sin entered into the world God had to start judging mankind. Gods way of saving mankind was by sending Jesus to die on the cross to bear the sins of the world so that we may be forgiven for our sins and coexist with God in heaven. Your sins can be forgiven by believing in Jesus Christ and that he died for your sin and that we can leave our sin on the cross with him. If we do not ask for that forgiveness and strive to no longer sin (although it is impossible to be without sin because sin is in mankind) then we will have to face the punishment of hell because we won't be allowed to coexist with that sin in heaven with God. The whole reason for the virgin birth of Jesus was so the sin nature wouldn't be passed down from man since Jesus was actually God in the form of man. Jesus was the evidence and physical proof of God. He was Gods way of showing his existence. Jesus never did any wrong and never sinned. The reason God isn't on earth showing us his existence is because he cannot coexist with man because of sin. Jesus was 100% human while also 100% God. He was tempted and tried by Satan but he still didn't sin because he was God. He literally became sin for us so that our future generations could be saved. I'm just letting you all know what Christians believe God and Jesus and man is so that you won't have to ask for definitions in the future. Theist don't do a good job of explaining this before attacking the Atheist.

And for what reasons do you not believe that ? Any better world view on hand ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 04:52 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 04:17 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(16-07-2015 07:51 PM)natachan Wrote:  Your personal inability to believe something does not make it untrue.

I tend not to read text blocks of bullshit word salad, so I only skimmed. But I do not recall you offering any evidence of your god. Especially since I didn't see a definition of your god, which I would need in order to have any evidence of it.

Even if we had no idea of how life arose, can you propose an alternate workable method? How, exactly, did your god (who is still undefined, btw) create life? By what mechanism? What physically happened?

How exactly did God create things ? what process was involved ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1794-ho...s-involved

How exactly is a mystery, but does not mean it is not understood by God. In genesis it says God spoke and things came into existence. God is a potent cause with power ( energy ) and his spoken word indicates information. Because we do not understand and in a detailled manner how he created the physical universe, and life, does not mean God does not understand or can't. Mystery to us is not mystery to God, but we do know that God is not limited to His spiritual realm, as he shown with his becoming of flesh in Jesus Christ.

Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment, the words in that first verse are quite remarkable. They are indicative of the incredible mind of God. God says in that first verse everything that could have been said about creation and He says it in such few terms. The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition. A well-known scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter.

Now think about that. Time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence.

I've read. NO mechanism. It's silly to say. I said this at one point, because this in essence is what Genesis actually says:

1. In the beginning God forced the cosmic vacuum to materialize matter on a massive scale that would baffle the infinite improbability drive. Because he has omnipotence, and can change the laws of probability.

2. And all of the universe was an amorphous blob, and God floated above the amorphous blob.

3. And despite there being no active source for electromagnetic radiation and nothing to perceive said radiation, or photons, God created them. They were simply everywhere at once. Because he can totally do that. He had all that matter poofed up already, so why not.

4. And despite there being nothing to obstruct the light in any way, he somehow divided the amorphous blob into darkness and light.

5. And despite the entire universe being one amorphous blob with no distinguishable source for this light he had created, he decided that anywhere there was light, that would be called daytime. Anywhere there was light, it would be called nighttime. This would cause much confusion in future Alaska, where the sun didn't rise for 6 months and they still insisted it be called "day time."

6. And God decided to create a void in the midst of the waters. Oh, did we mention that the entire amorphous blob was water? Because yeah, that's kinda important.

7. And God made this void, which wasn't a vacuum. He forced a series of fusion reactions in this period that created Nitrogen, Oxygen, and other trace gasses without boiling away the water that made up the rest of the universe.

8. And the water that was on top of this gaseous void was called heaven, which later scientists would all conspire to prove wasn't really there by insisting foolishly that they had traveled to the moon and sent satellites to land on comets. Because they were evil heretics who wanted to hide the truth. And despite there still not being any discernible source for the light, this was called the second day.

You can assert all you want that your creation story is viable, but if THIS is all you got to go on, then I get to mock it like this and call it silly. There are perfectly natural and well understood means that the universe came into being.

Logical? This is logical? You sir have seriously perverted that word.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
17-07-2015, 04:54 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 08:50 PM)natachan Wrote:  The "dust of the earth" huh? Ok, how did he take the inorganic matter such as silicone, iron, and quartz and turn it into the incredibly complex human body? Where did the carbon come from? How about the energy needed to break the old chemical bonds and form new ones? How PHYSICALLY was this done? What is this "breath of life?" How did he start the electrical impulses in the brain to control the involuntary controls of the body? Prior to the breath of life how did he keep the neurons from decaying prematurely?

How did we mess up? Because according to the bible we are tossed out of Eden "lest we eat of the tree of life and gain immortality."

What evidence do you have to back up your Jesus myth? What external sources do you have to corroborate it?

you forgot to ask : why should natural mechanisms provide a better explanation of all this ??

Quote:But, here's the big one.

WHAT IS GOD? What are his properties? What are his abilities? What are his limitations? How could we demonstrate this thing?

Who is God ? Attributes of God[/quote]

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1481-wh...tes-of-god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 05:01 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Read your link. I will say this without reservation: your god absolutely does not exist.

I'm not going to say that we don't know. I'm not going to even grant that your god is possible.

Your god does not exist.

By the definition YOU PROVIDED your god is logically impossible. He does not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like natachan's post
17-07-2015, 05:16 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 09:04 PM)Grave Wrote:  Woah, why so aggressive? I'm just letting you know what the Bible says. I have love for mankind. To answer some of your questions though, for a Christian, there is no scientifical evidence needed to prove what the Bible says. Christians choose to believe it by faith and faith alone. Atheist are different. Atheist don't believe things without scientific evidence or at least some scientific possibility. It's okay to disagree about things. According to the Bible, Christians aren't supposed to try and force creationism down anyone's throat, but we are to spread the word. Man messed up by believing the lie of Satan and eating of the forbidden fruit that God told Adam and Eve to never touch. That fruit held the knowledge of good and evil. According to the Bible, man was made with the purpose of serving God and not to be evil or sin. When God gave man the choice, however, to either obey him or not, there had to be good and evil. Yes, he could have created robots to serve him and only do good no matter what, but that wouldn't have satisfied God. God wanted mankind to freely choose to serve him, so there had to be a choice to choose evil (sin). Man chose sin because Satan told Adam and Eve that they would be become like God and because God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent; man wanted that power. So man ate the forbidden fruit and God had to banish them from the perfect sinless garden that he created for them. The amazing part of Gods love for mankind is that he still created us knowing that we would choose sin over him. According the Bible, even though we have that freedom of choice it doesn't change the fact that we were created with the intentions of choosing him and because he is a jealous God and he cannot live with sin, we have to believe in Jesus Christ and ask forgiveness of our sins in order to be able to walk with him in heaven as Adam walked with him in the garden.

Here's a parable for you:

Eva is a mom with borderline personality disorder with some sociopathic personality traits. The whole love me/hate me - "why don't you love me" so she slits her lovers' throats like the Jews would sacrifice a goat.

Eva just wants to be loved. So she has babies. Lots of them. Her first several babies were disobedient, you know how toddlers get, they're so selfish and don't follow the rules. So she drowns them in a bathtub.

She has a bit of change of heart, decides she won't drown any more of her children, and has more babies with the hope that they'll love her.

A while later she decides to bring hope to her remaining children and she gets married. He a real standup guy, charming, cult leader type, let's just call him Jeebus. Will have his followers kill anyone who doesn't follow him and his ways - you know, kinda like if Manson led ISIS.

Eventually the Feds figure out who's been doing all this crazy mass murdering, with some help of Eva's own more educated children, and Jeebus is arrested. He's found guilty by a jury of his peers, is strapped to the execution table, and dies via lethal injection.

Jeebus' followers and are distraught by this, even think they see him, and continue to preach his ways, the cult grows, and more people die needlessly and the followers waste the one life they have on complete and utter damaging bullshit.

The End


In case you couldn't figure it out, Eva is your God and Jeebus is the Christ.


Lets just say I'm not a big fan of the Yahweh character.

"If there's a single thing that life teaches us, it's that wishing doesn't make it so." - Lev Grossman
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Nurse's post
17-07-2015, 05:46 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 09:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  A complete pile of garbage.
The "design" argument is not an argument for a god. in fact science knows how chromosomes developed

LOL... does it ? how ?

Quote:, and most of all an truly omnipotent god could make life happen, no matter how intricate the design is. In fact the (poor) design we see, which often malfunctions 9causing cancer and all sorts of diseases) is exactly the system one would expect if it were not designed.

We know why deseases and suffering exists in the world. Beside this, there are potent repair mechanisms in the body, and if they were not there, no life would be possible. Migoglia cells are a prime example, and evidence amazing design.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2088-mi...rain-cells


Quote:There is no "argument" for a god. Christian Theology teaches, (which you obviously know nothing about)

excuse me ?? For how long do you know me to know what i knod, and do not know? How about you stop making things up about me, and assert things of which you have no understanding ?? Facepalm

Quote:BTW, "godexists" ... if god *exists* then she doesn't "not exist". Therefore, as long as your "existing" god existed, non-existence also was a part of Reality. She couldn't have created the very reality in which she is embedded and required to participate in. She is therefore not "infinite" if reality is larger than she is. Oh well. Time for Plan B.

Since when can something arise from absolutely nothing ?? Laugh out load[/quote]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: