How close are you in believing ?

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: scojak

But that's just it, the complexity of DNA precludes that.

"You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance. In any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 600 million years, it’s just not possible" -Francis Crick

This is a terrible analogy. We know how a jumbo jet was assembled. We know who created them, and we know they aren't natural objects in the universe. We also know that jumbo jets cannot evolve from smaller jets into jumbo jets as they don't reproduce.

There is so much wrong with the irreducible complexity argument that it's beyond absurd that people even bring it up still... In other words you are comparing apples to oranges here.

PS: Just because some smart guy said something once, doesn't make it true. It still falls on you to fact check that info, which you never did.

Thanks for reminding me.

Francis Crick isn't just "some smart guy", I thought I made it clear that he was the discoverer of DNA. That sort of association with a scientific development tends to lend particular credibility to a comment.

Irrelevant! The point is you say things with EVIDENCE. Not someone's opinion. All quoting an opinion does is just shows that someone else agrees with you. That doesn't tell anyone anything though. Get some empirical evidence to prove your point, THEN we can talk. Until then you just look like any other desperate Creationist trying to push logical fallacies to "disprove" science.

a reply to: uncommitted

There is over an hour of video in which to review which may help in a greater understanding of the greater whole. Yet within minutes there are a multitude of responses.

I'd like everyone who dropped their knee jerk responses and watch all 8 videos first then reread what I wrote first annd then please reply. Pro, Con, Fringe etc.

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I disagree.

A shame we can not grab a beer and talk.

Well we COULD be talking, except all you responded with was "I disagree". I really don't have much to go on from that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This space is unsuitable, for that discussion to take place
Slayer- this space is unsuitable, for that discussion to take place.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: SLAYER69

Even i can see that. This is a great point to make and i think it fits well in the conspiracy forum. There is far to wide of a divide between "science" and "spirituality/religion". At least as far as they are considered in the media aspect, and that is how people are educating themselves in the sciences. With media. Social or otherwise. I hear so many people with barely a highschool education, call themselves scientists.


From the uneducated "science deniers" pov, it does seem that anouncements from the scientific community are being upturned all the time.

People who get their "scientific education" with a religious bent, are likewise befuddled when they dig into actual science.

That is not to say that religious people can't understand science. But i think it is fair to say that people with a deity based world view are less likely to seek out answers or to accept certain accepted pardigms like evolution.

One thing that everyone can agree with is that the patterns seen in the very fabric of material existence are at best, dubiously coincidental, and at worst, seem to be designed in some way. Which doesn't neccesarily lead to a designer, but would seem to be a common thought on this planet.

I am more of the mind that the patterns are naturally occurring. If that is the case, i think it is very important to try to understand them as best we can.

Thanks for posting this vid.

When the 2 can work together alot will change. Oh wait, the Vatican does have astronomers and scientists. And alot of basically private texts and only a few know what else. And the Vatican works with several Governments worldwide. Makes it easy for alot of people to ask questions. And to question the few answers we are given. Maybe we are meant to never get the biggest answers and have faith in what our guts tell us... Great comment woodcarver, and great post from op.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: uncommitted

I could be wrong. I don't want speak for the OP but, Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule) was adamant that the complexity of DNA (all DNA, not just human) was not the sort of thing that could spontaneously emerge. He believed in panspermia.

With a lot of respect I find that dubious. Why? Mainly because it ignores a fairly straight line from life coming into existence on Earth, through to the genetic links human kind has with so many other branches of life on this planet. If you mean did some seed from another world ignite the whole thing for any life........... it's a theory, but what does that tell us? If it didn't spontaneously emerge here, where did it spontaneously emerge - and that debate could - hypothetically - go around in circles for several ice ages of debate.

If you mean it was designed somewhere else and made its way here, then aren't we into divine creator territory? And if here, how did said seed know that with tectonic plates, iron core, our planets chemical combination etc. then we were best placed to follow such an evolutionary path?

For me, the question may as well be if the most civilised society that had ever evolved on this planet had been that of the termite, or a bee, or an ant, would we as a planet been any lesser to a designed path? You know what? Possibly not.

He was saying that all life is based on DNA and that its structure has certain minimum levels of internal order. Very few (if any) of these delicate interoperable components could function outside of their symbiotic place in the system.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: scojak

But that's just it, the complexity of DNA precludes that.

"You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance. In any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 600 million years, it’s just not possible" -Francis Crick

This is a terrible analogy. We know how a jumbo jet was assembled. We know who created them, and we know they aren't natural objects in the universe. We also know that jumbo jets cannot evolve from smaller jets into jumbo jets as they don't reproduce.

There is so much wrong with the irreducible complexity argument that it's beyond absurd that people even bring it up still... In other words you are comparing apples to oranges here.

PS: Just because some smart guy said something once, doesn't make it true. It still falls on you to fact check that info, which you never did.

Thanks for reminding me.

Francis Crick isn't just "some smart guy", I thought I made it clear that he was the discoverer of DNA. That sort of association with a scientific development tends to lend particular credibility to a comment.

Irrelevant! The point is you say things with EVIDENCE. Not someone's opinion. All quoting an opinion does is just shows that someone else agrees with you. That doesn't tell anyone anything though. Get some empirical evidence to prove your point, THEN we can talk. Until then you just look like any other desperate Creationist trying to push logical fallacies to "disprove" science.

Wow dude.

a reply to: SLAYER69


Religion states we are flawed, we are born in sin. Destined to do sinner stuff and all the consequences. Flawed beings cannot pull their collective butts into a state of perfection. Observational evidence suggests this is the case, greed lust etc.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: uncommitted

There is over an hour of video in which to review which may help in a greater understanding of the greater whole. Yet within minutes there are a multitude of responses.

I'd like everyone who dropped their knee jerk responses and watch all 8 videos first then reread what I wrote first annd then please reply. Pro, Con, Fringe etc.

I can answer my own thoughts quite simply. Whatever views are expressed in the video you posted are opinions - they really cannot be anything other than that as they cannot give a definitive 'answer' to what perhaps is the ultimate question. While I respect everyone having an opinion, why would I give particular credence to people who have posted a video on the subject?

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: uncommitted

I could be wrong. I don't want speak for the OP but, Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule) was adamant that the complexity of DNA (all DNA, not just human) was not the sort of thing that could spontaneously emerge. He believed in panspermia.

With a lot of respect I find that dubious. Why? Mainly because it ignores a fairly straight line from life coming into existence on Earth, through to the genetic links human kind has with so many other branches of life on this planet. If you mean did some seed from another world ignite the whole thing for any life........... it's a theory, but what does that tell us? If it didn't spontaneously emerge here, where did it spontaneously emerge - and that debate could - hypothetically - go around in circles for several ice ages of debate.

If you mean it was designed somewhere else and made its way here, then aren't we into divine creator territory? And if here, how did said seed know that with tectonic plates, iron core, our planets chemical combination etc. then we were best placed to follow such an evolutionary path?

For me, the question may as well be if the most civilised society that had ever evolved on this planet had been that of the termite, or a bee, or an ant, would we as a planet been any lesser to a designed path? You know what? Possibly not.

He was saying that all life is based on DNA and that its structure has certain minimum levels of internal order. Very few (if any) of these delicate interoperable components could function outside of their symbiotic place in the system.

I am really struggling to understand your reasoning. What are you actually trying to say? Are you (he) saying that DNA was created to withstand what the evolving planet we call Earth could maintain and prosper with? If so, then arguably if that was the case the multitudes of species now extinct that of course also had DNA didn't, or that they evolved to better meet their environment - homo sapiens being but one example............. and that is somehow different from existing theory in what way?

BTW, just so you don't think I'm some kind of creationist, I see no conflict between a divine creator/architect (in theory) and evolution.

a reply to: SLAYER69

I believe in a creator or "designer" but not in religion at all.

Great thread.. I have so many questions about the big bang.

I wish someone could describe in Lehman terms wtf it was, and why it makes any sense. Nothing existed but gasses right and they were all compressed into a real tight ball until it exploded right? And that created space and time and planets and stars .

That is my basic understanding . Why were there gasses? What was all around this tight ball of compressed gasses? what were these gasses floating around in before they became compressed?

It had to be space right? I mean it wasn't bricks. What was right here before the big bang? nothing? or just empty space? And what is the difference?

It almost has to be by design IMHO, Almost like someone flipped a switch on a computer.

a reply to: SLAYER69

I am a believer, i have no other choice, because i have met the "gods", and the "demigods",
and the ones claiming to be them, but they are not.

They explained everything to me in great detail. But i have forgotten most of it, we are not supposed to/can not know/understand.
Science is a small part of it all, and all results are always relative to the instruments that are being used, this is a problem.

The vids are awesome, i have watched them a couple of times.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: uncommitted

I could be wrong. I don't want speak for the OP but, Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule) was adamant that the complexity of DNA (all DNA, not just human) was not the sort of thing that could spontaneously emerge. He believed in panspermia.

With a lot of respect I find that dubious. Why? Mainly because it ignores a fairly straight line from life coming into existence on Earth, through to the genetic links human kind has with so many other branches of life on this planet. If you mean did some seed from another world ignite the whole thing for any life........... it's a theory, but what does that tell us? If it didn't spontaneously emerge here, where did it spontaneously emerge - and that debate could - hypothetically - go around in circles for several ice ages of debate.

If you mean it was designed somewhere else and made its way here, then aren't we into divine creator territory? And if here, how did said seed know that with tectonic plates, iron core, our planets chemical combination etc. then we were best placed to follow such an evolutionary path?

For me, the question may as well be if the most civilised society that had ever evolved on this planet had been that of the termite, or a bee, or an ant, would we as a planet been any lesser to a designed path? You know what? Possibly not.

He was saying that all life is based on DNA and that its structure has certain minimum levels of internal order. Very few (if any) of these delicate interoperable components could function outside of their symbiotic place in the system.

I am really struggling to understand your reasoning. What are you actually trying to say? Are you (he) saying that DNA was created to withstand what the evolving planet we call Earth could maintain and prosper with? If so, then arguably if that was the case the multitudes of species now extinct that of course also had DNA didn't, or that they evolved to better meet their environment - homo sapiens being but one example............. and that is somehow different from existing theory in what way?

BTW, just so you don't think I'm some kind of creationist, I see no conflict between a divine creator/architect (in theory) and evolution.

I'm agnostic myself which may be why I enjoy the subject so much. :-)

Panspermia was (and is) a controversial idea that goes back hundreds of years or more.

What he is positing is this; All life, including the most basic first form, would have to have had a functioning DNA molecule.

That's it. Crick was an atheist himself but, his modern interpretation of panspermia in the context of his discovery was what makes it so powerful.

originally posted by: SLAYER69

I'm watching...

I can't say I'm a fan of numerology but, I can suspend disbelief and enjoy the speculation.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
a reply to: SLAYER69


Religion states we are flawed, we are born in sin. Destined to do sinner stuff and all the consequences. Flawed beings cannot pull their collective butts into a state of perfection. Observational evidence suggests this is the case, greed lust etc.

I guess where I separate myself from Religion and being a 'Believer" is that I don't follow "Their" dogma.

a reply to: solve

So in effect, you responded to this thread to let us know you won't be responding to the thread?

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: scojak

But that's just it, the complexity of DNA precludes that.

"You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance. In any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 600 million years, it’s just not possible" -Francis Crick

This is a terrible analogy. We know how a jumbo jet was assembled. We know who created them, and we know they aren't natural objects in the universe. We also know that jumbo jets cannot evolve from smaller jets into jumbo jets as they don't reproduce.

There is so much wrong with the irreducible complexity argument that it's beyond absurd that people even bring it up still... In other words you are comparing apples to oranges here.

PS: Just because some smart guy said something once, doesn't make it true. It still falls on you to fact check that info, which you never did.

Thanks for reminding me.

Francis Crick isn't just "some smart guy", I thought I made it clear that he was the discoverer of DNA. That sort of association with a scientific development tends to lend particular credibility to a comment.

Irrelevant! The point is you say things with EVIDENCE. Not someone's opinion. All quoting an opinion does is just shows that someone else agrees with you. That doesn't tell anyone anything though. Get some empirical evidence to prove your point, THEN we can talk. Until then you just look like any other desperate Creationist trying to push logical fallacies to "disprove" science.

Wow dude.

Is that all you have to say? No evidence? Just exclamation that I'm being so blunt with you?

PS: While Panspermia MAY be adequate to explain how life started on planet Earth, it by no means explains how life arose in the universe. Panspermia could be true for Earth, but abiogenesis probably DID happen somewhere in the cosmos.

Hell some scientists think that both Panspermia AND Abiogenesis are true and that the Earth actually reseeded itself several times from asteroid collisions. So what makes a non-astronomer so correct about life's origins just because he discovered DNA? Does he magically know everything there is to know about DNA? Hell no. He merely discovered it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So, are you asking me to provide evidence of panspermia? I was just pointing out the idea. It may even be a little off topic as this thread is really about numerology and sacred geometry.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So, are you asking me to provide evidence of panspermia? I was just pointing out the idea. It may even be a little off topic as this thread is really about numerology and sacred geometry.

I was asking you to back up Frick's claims.