If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All cars have round rubber tires not because of evolution, but because their creators know that round rubber tires work.

Yet it took your incompetent "creator" 4 billion years and 99.9% failure rate to arrive at thousands of different locomotive methods of land animals we see today. Maybe this is not the conparison you want to make, shaman. It shows that either your creator is a moron, or that there just isnt one. Not sure either result suits you.

Your inconpetent creator , apparently, tri3d square wheels first, then scratched his head and watched as they didn't work. Haha, what a fool. Not even a 4 year old would make that mistake.

 

[Frannie]

Which great ape can humans interbreed with?

I am not your assistant. Just make your point. Were you about to say something wrong, like all great apes should be able to interbreed? Please, proceed.

A dog can breed with a wolf, because they are the same species, an ape can not breed with a human because they are not the same species. Detailing the common genes between an ape and a human means nothing because the same genes are found in all mammals and on down to fruit flies.

All cars have round rubber tires not because of evolution, but because their creators know that round rubber tires work.

But you go on believing that you came from a muddy pond like Darwin babbled without ever seeing a gene

PS. Never actually needed an assistant...……….

People die in tornadoes because the gods created the rotation of the planet and convection currents when combined result in twisters.

People are malformed and die from disease because the gods created DNA that is subject to various forms of “breakage”

The gods are really horribly incompetent designers. .

Actually though what you say is true, the human population of the Earth is spiraling out of control and it is nearing the time to use the wisdom that the Lord God gave us to find a new planet to seed with life the way God did here a long time ago. Any idea what that would make the human race?

World Population Clock: 7.7 Billion People (2019) - Worldometers

 

[Frannie]

A dog can breed with a wolf, because they are the same species, an ape can not breed with a human because they are not the same species. Detailing the common genes between an ape and a human means nothing because the same genes are found in all mammals and on down to fruit flies.

So what? That is not relevant in the least. Nobody claimed that all great apes are the same species. Nor would any informed person make such an error.

Aaaand...that's all you have. An irrelevant error produced by your own, abject ignorance of this material. It appears that the most robust scientific theory in history remains quite safe from you, haha

1. I do find it hard to argue that you are not born of a mud puddle
2. If humans descended from apes then there are no apes because we replaced them.
3. Humans did interbreed with Neandertals and replaced them.
4. Theory is not fact, never, not even once for a second. The moment a theory becomes fact the theory vanishes like your brain is vanishing now.

 

[Frannie]

All cars have round rubber tires not because of evolution, but because their creators know that round rubber tires work.

Yet it took your incompetent "creator" 4 billion years and 99.9% failure rate to arrive at thousands of different locomotive methods of land animals we see today. Maybe this is not the conparison you want to make, shaman. It shows that either your creator is a moron, or that there just isnt one. Not sure either result suits you.

Your inconpetent creator , apparently, tri3d square wheels first, then scratched his head and watched as they didn't work. Haha, what a fool. Not even a 4 year old would make that mistake.

I have never stated when God created life, I have only stated that the code in DNA could not spontaneously generate. Pasteur disproved that concept, it's in every biology book yet supposed scientist babble about life spontaneously generating in a pond yet they teach that spontaneous generation is impossible. This actually rises to mental incompetence

1.1C: Pasteur and Spontaneous Generation

 

[ViewFromAbove]

Define consciousness? Is a leaf that turns to the sun conscious

I have no idea. I readily admit that I don't know what consciousness is. But until someone can convince me they do, I don't accept any claim they might make regarding it.

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine and an atheist to boot, has to say about consciousness:

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science."

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.​

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

Ding likes to cherry-pick his material that he somehow thinks supports his religious “God did it” view.

There are Nobel laureates who actially studied CONSCIOUSNESS and believe it is directly associated with biological processes.
Francis Crick and Gerald Edelman are two of them.

Of course, it’s convenient for him to ignore those more-recent acclaimed scientists.

Crick and Wald were contemporaries. I don’t believe Crick was ever a Nobel Laureate.

Both Francis Crick and James Watson received a Nobel for their research on DNA’s structure.
Crick went on to pursue research in biophysics, neuroscience, and brain correlates with consciousness.
The Francis Crick Institute was named after him, and is the largest biomedical laboratory in Europe.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

Can you explain who created Universe?
Surely not?
Therefore I believe in God as its creator

I believe no one can explain in ANY detail how our “universe” was created. I believe astrophysicists have come the closest, but their speculative details are still very fuzzy.
Your God belief can’t be more fuzzy with little or no rational detail.

Either way, we really don’t know, do we?
I am simply honest about my ignorance.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

Here is how I have always viewed it, and I was surprised a famous French philosopher 100's of years ago stated essentially the same, I had never seen his quote before I formed my opinion.

I don't know if there is a God, but, I would rather believe and embrace the positive influence of God in my life and risk that there ISN'T a God, rather than not believe in God and suffer upon my death because I was wrong.

It's difficult to believe in God when you've been through what I've been through, I was FAB, and certain agencies continued to destroy me, I still fight, trying to find peace. I couldn't get through this without God. My former Atheist, then Agnostic self would have a much more difficult path if I questioned this.

If your belief in a personal God helps you emotionally in a positive way, I certainly will not counter that, except to say I don’t see it the same way “intellectually”.
Myself, I have confidence in my belief that upon my death, I will not suffer. My consciousness will be gone forever then!

 

[Frannie]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

Can you explain who created Universe?
Surely not?
Therefore I believe in God as its creator

I believe no one can explain in ANY detail how our “universe” was created. I believe astrophysicists have come the closest, but their speculative details are still very fuzzy.
Your God belief can’t be more fuzzy with little or no rational detail.

Either way, we really don’t know, do we?
I am simply honest about my ignorance.

How have astrophysicist come close with the big bang when none of the cosmological math adds up, and as a result now they claim that the universe is simulated?

 

[Frannie]

I have no idea. I readily admit that I don't know what consciousness is. But until someone can convince me they do, I don't accept any claim they might make regarding it.

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine and an atheist to boot, has to say about consciousness:

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science."

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.​

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

Ding likes to cherry-pick his material that he somehow thinks supports his religious “God did it” view.

There are Nobel laureates who actially studied CONSCIOUSNESS and believe it is directly associated with biological processes.
Francis Crick and Gerald Edelman are two of them.

Of course, it’s convenient for him to ignore those more-recent acclaimed scientists.

Crick and Wald were contemporaries. I don’t believe Crick was ever a Nobel Laureate.

Both Francis Crick and James Watson received a Nobel for their research on DNA’s structure.
Crick went on to pursue research in biophysics, neuroscience, and brain correlates with consciousness.
The Francis Crick Institute was named after him, and is the largest biomedical laboratory in Europe.

They discovered DNA and deserved the acclaim. Unfortunately now that epigenics is discovered it is now clear that there are layers of code in DNA that are not understood, in fact epigenics shows that we have no clue how DNA functions

 

[ViewFromAbove]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

Can you explain who created Universe?
Surely not?
Therefore I believe in God as its creator

I believe no one can explain in ANY detail how our “universe” was created. I believe astrophysicists have come the closest, but their speculative details are still very fuzzy.
Your God belief can’t be more fuzzy with little or no rational detail.

Either way, we really don’t know, do we?
I am simply honest about my ignorance.

How have astrophysicist come close with the big bang when none of the cosmological math adds up, and as a result now they claim that the universe is simulated?

What cosmological math? The math related to atomic structures?
The theorized singularities reflect “infinite” gravitational force that may represent pure quantum energy in a “neutral state”, or ...
One can only theorize, if one understands physics!

 

[ViewFromAbove]

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine and an atheist to boot, has to say about consciousness:

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science."

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.​

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

Ding likes to cherry-pick his material that he somehow thinks supports his religious “God did it” view.

There are Nobel laureates who actially studied CONSCIOUSNESS and believe it is directly associated with biological processes.
Francis Crick and Gerald Edelman are two of them.

Of course, it’s convenient for him to ignore those more-recent acclaimed scientists.

Crick and Wald were contemporaries. I don’t believe Crick was ever a Nobel Laureate.

Both Francis Crick and James Watson received a Nobel for their research on DNA’s structure.
Crick went on to pursue research in biophysics, neuroscience, and brain correlates with consciousness.
The Francis Crick Institute was named after him, and is the largest biomedical laboratory in Europe.

They discovered DNA and deserved the acclaim. Unfortunately now that epigenics is discovered it is now clear that there are layers of code in DNA that are not understood, in fact epigenics shows that we have no clue how DNA functions

Scientists have lots of knowledge about how DNA, RNA, and proteins function. DNA expression via epigenetic processes is an interesting & fruitful area of research.
So, what’s your point?

 

[Frannie]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

Can you explain who created Universe?
Surely not?
Therefore I believe in God as its creator

I believe no one can explain in ANY detail how our “universe” was created. I believe astrophysicists have come the closest, but their speculative details are still very fuzzy.
Your God belief can’t be more fuzzy with little or no rational detail.

Either way, we really don’t know, do we?
I am simply honest about my ignorance.

How have astrophysicist come close with the big bang when none of the cosmological math adds up, and as a result now they claim that the universe is simulated?

What cosmological math? The math related to atomic structures?
The theorized singularities reflect “infinite” gravitational force that may represent pure quantum energy in a “neutral state”, or ...
One can only theorize, if one understands physics!

The cosmological constant math that determines that 85 percent of the mass needed to fuel an increasing not slowing expansion is missing. Simplified the big bang fails mathematically

 

[Frannie]

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

Ding likes to cherry-pick his material that he somehow thinks supports his religious “God did it” view.

There are Nobel laureates who actially studied CONSCIOUSNESS and believe it is directly associated with biological processes.
Francis Crick and Gerald Edelman are two of them.

Of course, it’s convenient for him to ignore those more-recent acclaimed scientists.

Crick and Wald were contemporaries. I don’t believe Crick was ever a Nobel Laureate.

Both Francis Crick and James Watson received a Nobel for their research on DNA’s structure.
Crick went on to pursue research in biophysics, neuroscience, and brain correlates with consciousness.
The Francis Crick Institute was named after him, and is the largest biomedical laboratory in Europe.

They discovered DNA and deserved the acclaim. Unfortunately now that epigenics is discovered it is now clear that there are layers of code in DNA that are not understood, in fact epigenics shows that we have no clue how DNA functions

Scientists have lots of knowledge about how DNA, RNA, and proteins function. DNA expression via epigenetic processes is an interesting & fruitful area of research.
So, what’s your point?

When an organism can epigenically create clearly beneficial mutations in the same generation when the need arises, the theory that all change is the result of random mutations over time becomes psychobabble

 

[Frannie]

There is no evidence that evolution beginning with a single celled organism and resulting in you and I happened.

Okay, now I understand your position. You are a dishonest, deluded freak. All the evidence ever collected shows that evolution is true. Sorry freak, I dont have time for crazy people like you.

Evolution within species is true. Not one bit of evidence collected shows or even indicates that evolution turns one species into another. Or do you believe that if you go swimming enough that you will grow gills like Kevin Costner in waterworld

Actually, speciation has been observed.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Speciation has never been observed. Proof, whoever's did it won a Nobel prize

 

[ViewFromAbove]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

Can you explain who created Universe?
Surely not?
Therefore I believe in God as its creator

I believe no one can explain in ANY detail how our “universe” was created. I believe astrophysicists have come the closest, but their speculative details are still very fuzzy.
Your God belief can’t be more fuzzy with little or no rational detail.

Either way, we really don’t know, do we?
I am simply honest about my ignorance.

How have astrophysicist come close with the big bang when none of the cosmological math adds up, and as a result now they claim that the universe is simulated?

What cosmological math? The math related to atomic structures?
The theorized singularities reflect “infinite” gravitational force that may represent pure quantum energy in a “neutral state”, or ...
One can only theorize, if one understands physics!

The cosmological constant math that determines that 85 percent of the mass needed to fuel an increasing not slowing expansion is missing. Simplified the big bang fails mathematically

Just because scientists don’t yet perceive the dark mass/energy, it does not mean “failure” (giving up) like the “God did it” belief.
As mentioned in previous posts, the universe has billions of black hole singularities that can’t be measured, but may represent the “missing” mass/energy in quantum states.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

Ding likes to cherry-pick his material that he somehow thinks supports his religious “God did it” view.

There are Nobel laureates who actially studied CONSCIOUSNESS and believe it is directly associated with biological processes.
Francis Crick and Gerald Edelman are two of them.

Of course, it’s convenient for him to ignore those more-recent acclaimed scientists.

Crick and Wald were contemporaries. I don’t believe Crick was ever a Nobel Laureate.

Both Francis Crick and James Watson received a Nobel for their research on DNA’s structure.
Crick went on to pursue research in biophysics, neuroscience, and brain correlates with consciousness.
The Francis Crick Institute was named after him, and is the largest biomedical laboratory in Europe.

They discovered DNA and deserved the acclaim. Unfortunately now that epigenics is discovered it is now clear that there are layers of code in DNA that are not understood, in fact epigenics shows that we have no clue how DNA functions

Scientists have lots of knowledge about how DNA, RNA, and proteins function. DNA expression via epigenetic processes is an interesting & fruitful area of research.
So, what’s your point?

When an organism can epigenically create clearly beneficial mutations in the same generation when the need arises, the theory that all change is the result of random mutations over time becomes psychobabble

Please feel free to replace science with your psychobabble, but don’t expect rational people to take you seriously.

 

[Frannie]

Can you explain who created Universe?
Surely not?
Therefore I believe in God as its creator

I believe no one can explain in ANY detail how our “universe” was created. I believe astrophysicists have come the closest, but their speculative details are still very fuzzy.
Your God belief can’t be more fuzzy with little or no rational detail.

Either way, we really don’t know, do we?
I am simply honest about my ignorance.

How have astrophysicist come close with the big bang when none of the cosmological math adds up, and as a result now they claim that the universe is simulated?

What cosmological math? The math related to atomic structures?
The theorized singularities reflect “infinite” gravitational force that may represent pure quantum energy in a “neutral state”, or ...
One can only theorize, if one understands physics!

The cosmological constant math that determines that 85 percent of the mass needed to fuel an increasing not slowing expansion is missing. Simplified the big bang fails mathematically

Just because scientists don’t yet perceive the dark mass/energy, it does not mean “failure” (giving up) like the “God did it” belief.
As mentioned in previous posts, the universe has billions of black hole singularities that can’t be measured, but may represent the “missing” mass/energy in quantum states.

Weighing the universe?

Guess them physicist never considered that.

Black holes, more theory that everyone who does not bg think accepts as fact

 

[Frannie]

Crick and Wald were contemporaries. I don’t believe Crick was ever a Nobel Laureate.

Both Francis Crick and James Watson received a Nobel for their research on DNA’s structure.
Crick went on to pursue research in biophysics, neuroscience, and brain correlates with consciousness.
The Francis Crick Institute was named after him, and is the largest biomedical laboratory in Europe.

They discovered DNA and deserved the acclaim. Unfortunately now that epigenics is discovered it is now clear that there are layers of code in DNA that are not understood, in fact epigenics shows that we have no clue how DNA functions

Scientists have lots of knowledge about how DNA, RNA, and proteins function. DNA expression via epigenetic processes is an interesting & fruitful area of research.
So, what’s your point?

When an organism can epigenically create clearly beneficial mutations in the same generation when the need arises, the theory that all change is the result of random mutations over time becomes psychobabble

Please feel free to replace science with your psychobabble, but don’t expect rational people to take you seriously.

Actually its all documented fact

Fearful memories haunt mouse descendants

Enter hole now

 

[james bond]

All cars have round rubber tires not because of evolution, but because their creators know that round rubber tires work.

Yet it took your incompetent "creator" 4 billion years and 99.9% failure rate to arrive at thousands of different locomotive methods of land animals we see today. Maybe this is not the conparison you want to make, shaman. It shows that either your creator is a moron, or that there just isnt one. Not sure either result suits you.

Your inconpetent creator , apparently, tri3d square wheels first, then scratched his head and watched as they didn't work. Haha, what a fool. Not even a 4 year old would make that mistake.

I think you met your match in Frannie. She is running circles around you.

 

[Frannie]

All cars have round rubber tires not because of evolution, but because their creators know that round rubber tires work.

Yet it took your incompetent "creator" 4 billion years and 99.9% failure rate to arrive at thousands of different locomotive methods of land animals we see today. Maybe this is not the conparison you want to make, shaman. It shows that either your creator is a moron, or that there just isnt one. Not sure either result suits you.

Your inconpetent creator , apparently, tri3d square wheels first, then scratched his head and watched as they didn't work. Haha, what a fool. Not even a 4 year old would make that mistake.

I think you met your match in Frannie. She is running circles around you.

Think less and know more