this again is getting personal.
Making an allegation about my motivation is also getting personal, I think.
I won't debate with you here.
But one thing: please don't post disparaging remarks about me as a person. Thank you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence for a Creator God Who Likes Creating Things
Making an allegation about my motivation is also getting personal, I think.
I won't debate with you here.
But one thing: please don't post disparaging remarks about me as a person. Thank you.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Technically the Moon has enough gravity to hold gases. The escape velocity from the Moon is 2.38 km/s, far below the speed of sound, And the speed of sound is almost the same as the average speed of air molecules. The lack of an atmosphere is more related to your second sentence. It froze solid rather early due to its small size and lost almost all of its magnetic field, if it was ever big enough to have one. Without a magnetic field to protect it the solar wind quickly stripped it of an atmosphere.
No. It is an observation based on what you have posted.
It was a fair observation and a reasonable question. It seems I may have hit upon something here.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Perhaps he should have said that your beliefs are naive. Would that have been any better? He was trying to be polite by pointing out that it was likely that you were not lying.
Then why did you say that you never made those claims when I never said that you did, nor said anything that would indicate that I did? I even said that they are examples.
And it points to the road is wet.
Nothing I have said was a disparaging remark. I am just trying to understand why some Christians feel so threatened by reality.
Suave
Simulated character
The significance of the numeric or semantic message 037 embedded in our genetic code is well-explained as follows:
Information is an innate attribute of something conveyed by patterns/sequential order to something which processes the conveyance of patterns/sequential order into meaningful data. We creatures using a base-10 numbering system would best understand a mathematical message that's been broadcast to us in the language of a base-10 numbering system.
“There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code”
“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”
"The place-value decimal system represented through digital symmetry of the numbers divisible by prime number (PN 037). This arithmetical syntactic feature is an innate attribute of the genetic code. The PN 037 notation with a leading zero emphasizes zero's equal participation in the digital symmetry. Numbers written by identical digits are devised by PN 037*3=111 and 1+1+1=3 and appear regularly [from the figure: 037*6 =222 and 2+2+2=6, 037*9=333 and 3+3+3 =9, 037*4=444 and 4+4+4=12, 037*15=555 and 5+5+5=15, 037*18=666 and 6+6+6=18, 037*21=777 and 7+7+7 =21. 037*24 =888 and 8+8+8=24, 037*27=999 and 9+9+9=27.)"
"There is a complete set of information symbols utilizing the decimal syntax 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999 in the genetic code. Each of these symbols consists uniformly of a carrier (balanced nucleons) and a meaning (the decimal syntax)."
Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov.
The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code
"The first information system emerged on the earth as primordial version of the genetic code and genetic texts. The natural appearance of arithmetic power in such a linguistic milieu is theoretically possible and practical for producing information systems of extremely high efficiency. In this case, the arithmetic symbols should be incorporated into an alphabet, i.e. the genetic code. A number is the fundamental arithmetic symbol produced by the system of numeration. If the system of numeration were detected inside the genetic code, it would be natural to expect that its purpose is arithmetic calculation e.g., for the sake of control, safety, and precise alteration of the genetic texts. The nucleons of amino acids and the bases of nucleic acids seem most suitable for embodiments of digits. These assumptions were used for the analyzing the genetic code.
The compressed, life-size, and split representation of the Escherichia coli and Euplotes octocarinatus code versions were considered simultaneously. An exact equilibration of the nucleon sums of the amino acid standard blocks and/or side chains was found repeatedly within specified sets of the genetic code. Moreover, the digital notations of the balanced sums acquired, in decimal representation, the unique form 111, 222, …, 999. This form is a consequence of the criterion of divisibility by 037. The criterion could simplify some computing mechanism of a cell if any and facilitate its computational procedure.
Reference: Biosystems Volume 70, Issue 3, August 2003, Pages 187-209
"Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code" Author: Vladimir I. shCherbak
Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code - PubMed
"Numerous arithmetical regularities of nucleon numbers of canonical amino acids for quite different systematizations of the genetic code, which are dominantly based on decimal number 037, indicate the hidden existence of a more universal ordering principle. Mathematical analysis of number 037 reveals that it is a unique decimal number from which an infinite set of self-similar numbers can be derived with the nested numerical, geometrical, and arithmetical properties, thus enabling the nested coding and computing in the (bio)systems by geometry and resonance. The omnipresent fractal structural and dynamical organization, as well as the intertwining of quantum and classical realm in the physical and biological systems could be just the consequence of such coding and computing."
Reference: NeuroQuantology | December 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 4 | Page 702-715 Masic, Natasa Nested Properties of shCherbak’s PQ 037 and (Biological) Coding/Computing Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Propertiesof shCherbak’s Prime Quantum 037 as a Base of (Biological) Coding/Computing
Perhaps, we could at least agree the arithmetic in the universal genetic code indicates there is an intelligent creator of our genetic code.
Last edited:
I wanted to make sure you don't think I think like the pother Christians you speak of.
"You are naive" was disparaging, though.
Why would you think that there's a need to degrade Christians? You're getting too personal with how you see Christians.
LOL... I don't believe in luck. Logic, reason, evidence and certainly your posts help me know that you aren't the one for mentoring in critical thinking although there is nothing wrong with your aspirations
what you point to as nature, The believers call this GOD, and He is behind this gravity and how to maintain it. For Sure you will come to know this one day.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
An empty claim. When we study nature we find no need for a god. There appears to be no evidence for a god. Can you explain that?
Stripping by solar wind is important. But weak gravity also plays an important role. The velicity of gas molecules at a given temperature follows what is called the Boltzmann distribution about the root mean square value. Based on this one can calculate the probability of a molecule attaining escape velocity in a given amount of time. For moon that probability us greater than it's current age. So even with no solar wind, the moon would have lost its atmosphere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell–Boltzmann_distribution
The detailed derivation with plots for different planets is shown here
Solar System Astronomy, Lecture Number 13
From what I have read of your posts, you are in dire need of someone to help you out with it. I am glad you are looking.
You may have taken it that way. But it is an observation based on what I have read. It was not offered as an insult. I do find it amusing from a guy that was blaming me for robbing you of time. Something I have no means to carry out. The choice to read my posts and respond is solely your own responsibility and I am not accountable for your choices.
I pulled this definition of critical thinking from the internet and it may help you. It is from the Foundation for Critical Thinking.
"Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action."
This one is simple, but it should help you in your quest to develop critical thinking skills. I found it on Wikipedia.
"Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment."
Good luck.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia
Note how it says under "principle of inference" that the initial observations don't count as evidence for the causal link between the proposed explanation and the observation.
That can not be the case, according to you your very own statements, as gods requires extra-ordinary assumptions - since no such entities can be shown to exist, nor falsified.
Any explanation that doesn't require such assumption, would be more parsimonious.
Having said that, appealing to undemonstrable entities who "did things" without offering up a hypothesis of how they did things, including evidence to support such, is not an explanation at all!
Instead, it's just a bare assertion based on nothing but unjustified assumption.
That makes no sense. Varity on earth is a given. The fact that you was trying to explain.
The explanation is what needs to be falsifiable. And yours isn't. Because you don't even have an explanation. All you have is an undemonstrable, unfalsifiable assertion involving undemonstrable, unfalsifiable gods.
Like the peeing extra-dimensional unicorns who make the road wet.
That would not "faslify" anything.
Do you even understand what "falsifying" means?
Do you understand the difference between data and explanation.
It sounds like you don't.
It is not. Claiming it, does not make it so.
For it to be evidence of X, you would have to have a proper falsifiable, testable hypothesis concerning X which naturally predicts the facts you claim are evidence for it.
This would necessarily involve / include mechanisms that show how variety, preferably the specific variety we see, would be the inevitable result. You have no such hypothesis.
All you have, is a bare assertion. Trying to paint the bullseye around the arrow. No reason, no rhyme, no testable predictions. Just.... plain assertion. Religiously inspired assertion, even.
According to reason.
If you don't have any access to these entities to study and observe them, by definition you have no means to ascribed ANYTHING to them at all.
I wouldn't even know where to look for such a thing. It would have to be some article that states the mega bloody obvious. I'ld expect any article on science to not waste space to declare the mega obvious.
If you don't have access to X to study and observe, or even to only confirm that it actually exists, how on earth could you ever make any claim about it whatsoever concerning what it can and can't do, or what it would or wouldn't do????
It's utterly insane. By definition, it all only plays out in your imagination.
It has no bearing on reality at all, because there is nothing there to study, observe or test.
It was and explained how it was on multiple occasions now.
But clearly you have no interest in learning or correcting your mistakes.
Everybody here, including your fellow christians, are telling you that you are wrong in your reasoning.
Perhaps this is a good time to take a good long hard critical look at your reasoning and take the blinders off.
I don't think there is a need to degrade Christians.
that wasn't the point I asked substanciation for.
Let's remember, you wrote:
"The prediction must point exclusively to the hypothesis."
The claimed exclusivity was my point of contention here.
Now we read in your source.
"Note that a causal relationship between the observations and hypothesis does not exist to cause the observation to be taken as evidence,[1] but rather the causal relationship is provided by the person seeking to establish observations as evidence."
It's not about exclusivity.
This quote does not rule out that the person seeking to establish observation as evidence must rule out that the evidence may point to another direction, too.
You would need to provide a source to back up your claim that solely observations pointing exclusively into one direction can be used as evidence.
you need one only assumption, I think: "a higher force that delights in creating variety exists".
That's why it's parsimonious, in my opinion.
You don't need extra assumptions, I think.
+
I asked for substanciation for such a claim.
Especially for the claim that you have to demonstrate the existence first and possible agency of that entity last.
In my opinion, there is no such requirement in science.
That's why I asked for sources for you to deliver about this order of proving things as a prerequisite for doing science.
Instead you write:
It's a cop-out, I think.
let me rephrase: lasting variety.
Very falsifiable. Theoretically, it could vanish today.
no, it wasn't.
Nobody explained me that:
It's evidence I think.
If there is a person in a house that loves to eat brownies... and if you find the brownies eaten up... it is evidence that that person in fact ate the brownies. It makes sense, it's not silly.
as a comparison to the story that Y might have killed X... was a bs nonsense short story or whatever you called it.
See #234.
I don't believe that people who insult me (without apologizing afterwards) should count as my fellow Christians. Even if they say they are.
I'm not saying they are no Christians either.
I'm not claiming the one thing nor the other.
I'm merely complaining because you call these people "my fellow Christians".
Christians normally don't insult each other among themselves.
This is at least how I see the body of Christ.
Jesus put insulting in the same category as homicide in Matthew 5.