Appearance and DNA mismatch

[questfortruth]

Who told you that you are a genius?

I am stupid? Stupidity or Geniality, no other gods out there.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I am stupid? Stupidity or Geniality, no other gods out there.

Your question does not make any sense. Just because someone ask you to explain who told you that you are a genius does not suddenly mean you are stupid.

But to be honestly i don't see a genius in you

 

[questfortruth]

But to be honestly i don't see a genius in you

I am genius. Why? Either Stupidity or Geniality, no other gods out there.
God is spirit, there are two spirits: either Stupidity or Geniality.
Many ones appear to have both, but I am special: ``I am not possessed by a demon'' John 8:49.

 

[questfortruth]

Many ones appear to have both, but I am special.

"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. John 8:49

 

[Spirit of Light]

I am genius. Why? Either Stupidity or Geniality, no other gods out there.
God is spirit, there are two spirits: either Stupidity or Geniality.
Many ones appear to have both, but I am special.

Would a genius proclame " i am special? Wouldn't a genius know and understand that comments like that make them seem self absorbed?

 

[questfortruth]

Would a genius proclame " i am special? Wouldn't a genius know and understand that comments like that make them seem self absorbed?

Do not withhold the word when it can help: Sirach 4:30.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Do not withhold the word when it can help: Sirach 4:30.

Has it helped you when you proclaim to be a genius ? Seems like it has given you more problem than recognition

 

[questfortruth]

Do not withhold the word when it can help: Sirach 4:30.

I am a humble genius, for there is:

Sirach 4:30, ``Do not withhold the word when it can help.''

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hovind's PhD is "the true PhD" to you? Don't you also claim to have a PhD? You're quite the mystery. You claim to derive mathematical proofs and show us what you consider proof with a litany of flawed arguments you call proof of God, and call yourself a genius.



I'd say that a good reason to avoid Christianity. You seem to think that Christianity holds the moral high ground, but I don't. You mentioned love, but the depiction of love in Christianity is bizarre.

You should not love Hovind. Hovind is a white collar criminal and domestic abuser. He deserves to be condemned as immoral and shunned from society beginning with prison. Neither you nor questfortruth, both zealous Christians, seem to be able to make sound moral judgments.



Yes, sad, but I find them valuable to read. One of the chief benefits of posting in forums like this is to see the spectrum of thoughts coming from monotheists, humanists, and others like the dharmics, the pagans (I'm including Druids, followers of Zeus, Wiccans, Satanists, and the like) to get a better sense of how religion affects people, with humanists being the control group (no religion). Monotheism is where we find the most misguided minds. No humanists or dharmics or pagans post like the two zealous Christians in this thread. The Christians and Muslims who are most like humanists in theii educations and ability to think critically and make sound moral judgments are also the ones that seem to be the least affected by their theism.

And we can generalize beyond religion to all faith-based thought, as with the antivaxxers and climate deniers. The more they rely on faith to decide what is true, the further they get from truth. I don't know where else it would be possible to learn these things but on a forum where people can post with anonymity for years each. I know the Christians on RF much better than the ones I encounter in person. We don't discuss religion at all. If we did, everybody would have to censor themselves, and the discussion would end with that meal or whatever brought us together.

So sad, yes, but also helpful.



I'm guessing that you believe that were evolutionary theory falsified, that it would be evidence in support of your theistic beliefs. Why else would theists keep making arguments against evolution? But if you're a Christian, would that be your god?

Falsifying evolution doesn't make the evidence formerly supporting it go away. I just needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying find added to that older mountain of evidence. It then constitute evidence for a deceptive, very powerful intelligent designer, one capable of faking the geological column of strata, capable of creating human chromosome 2 and inserting it into the entire human race, and capable of strategically inserting ERVs into the tree of life to simulate that evolution had occurred.

Moreover, even then a god is unlikely as an explanation for this deception, which would more parsimoniously be accounted for by positing an advanced extraterrestrial race of naturalistic origin (abiogenesis followed by biological evolution).

Even if it were a god, it's closer to the chief demon in Christianity, who is associated with lying and deception - not its god.



The only Greek I know comes from science and my interest in etymologies and word roots. I learned the alphabet learning math.

But I could read that and recognized the Greek root, which appears in the word hamartoma: "A hamartoma (from Greek hamartia, meaning “fault, defect,” and -oma, denoting a tumor or neoplasm) is a benign (noncancerous) tumorlike malformation made up of an abnormal mixture of cells and tissues found in areas of the body where growth occurs." These are exceptionally bizarre tumors that can contain hair and teeth. This one was removed from an ovary:

View attachment 63874

I didn't say "moral high ground". I meant "Christians can love their enemies."

If I'm not to love Hovind, should I hate him? What will you do? "Be neutral"? If you don't hate him, why are you pointing to his flaws?

 

[questfortruth]

If you don't hate him, why are you pointing to his flaws?

Because there are many deceivers and liars, and Hovind is not one of them.

 

[wellwisher]

You have a theory? Are you sure? What reasonable test could refute it?

The theory I proposed could be tested, for refutation, by looking at the DNA of all the known cell types in a single animal's body; rabbit. The goal would be to see if all these cells have the same DNA. They all began from a single fertilized egg, that duplicates over and over, so differences should be minor.

However, this will not refute my theory, because this is observed. In criminal forensics, any type of tissue in a crime scene will have the DNA of a specific person. It can come from skin, saliva or any tissue.

The DNA is like the hard drive of a computer. It contains all the data that we use, when running the computer, offline. The hard drive does not determine what song you will play or which set of pics you will show your friend, at any given time. This particular data, on the hard drive, is chosen in another way; by consciousness and the brain.

Mature red blood cells, for example, lose their DNA, but will live on and function successfully for several weeks, controlled by the cell body and its protein organization; protein grid. The DNA is not needed for there red blood cells to function, since the cell body and the protein grid act like secondary or RAM memory. The DNA is more needed for replication, and for calling up any additional data, that may be needed in dynamic situations. Once the protein is added to the grid, it add to the RAM.

When mother cells replicate, the DNA is duplicated. To do so, the DNA has to be taken off line, so the cell body does not miss any part of the DNA when it is duplicated. The mother cell's body still works, via RAM memory, without the DNA, while the DNA is packed into chromosomes. The protein material capacitance in the two daughter cells; RAM, that is given by the mother cell, helps them differentiate their new DNA; final unpacking form, so the two daughter cells look and behave like the mother.

In multicellular life, like humans, since nerve tissue and the brain are smart tissue, that is conveniently located near most cells of the body, it makes sense that these have an impact on cell control. It adds to the RAM of the individual differentiated cell bodies, so the environment cannot cause the cell bodies to drift too far. The brain has a backup copy of how thing should be; function of time, and tries to maintain control.

Will and choice, which is connected to the top of the control system, via the brain and consciousness can also have an impact on cellular drift. For example, compulsive alcohol consumption; from consciousness and the brain, adds an extra reduction potential to the blood supply; alcohol, which feeds all cels including the neurons. The neurons can drift; wet brain, and with them other cells, that also see the reduction potential in the blood. This can lead to a range of long term health issues. But quitting via will power and choice can alter the blood potential and allow the brain to begin system restore.

The placebo affect also shows how even a sugar pill, if taken with faith, can induce healing, since the brain and consciousness is engaged, with an image of health and healing, that can sometimes works as well as a chemical. One may not see any medicine but the goal still appears.

The placebo affect may be partially due to placebo disease. A placebo disease is where the power of suggestion leads people to use their consciousness to induce negative control; sickness, for the fun and profit of others. This type of sickness can be healed with witch doctoring, where consciousness is induced in ways to reverse the inductions and restore positive control; exorcise the placebo demon. There are hypochondriacs who learn the details of each new disease and try to simulate for attention. Covid was made worse by political placebo inductions, since these were needed for power and money.

It would be easier to refute the current imaged of DNA as the head of the control system. But the bureaucracy of science does not care, since this large ship of life science is about money and control at the level of the money givers. Science would change but the funds will not be there; unknowns.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I didn't say "moral high ground".

No, I did. You just implied it.

I meant "Christians can love their enemies."

And that is how you implied it. You consider loving enemies a virtue. I do not. You offer it as a point of pride, of moral excellence, of a standard to aspire to. I consider it an error. Enemies mean you harm and should be excluded from one's life. I reserve my love for others. I can only think of two people that were enemies, that is, actively tried to harm me. I never looked at either of them again once I understood that. That's an appropriate response. If love thy enemies means more than that, it's bad advice, not the moral high ground.

If I'm not to love Hovind, should I hate him? What will you do? "Be neutral"? If you don't hate him, why are you pointing to his flaws?

I neither love nor hate him. I disapprove of him. He's a criminal three times over and a charlatan posing as an academic.

 

[ChristineM]

This is not about “playing” nor creating controversy, I am simply saying what scientists say (but is not always clear in popular sources)

You are saying what you believe scientists say, there is a difference

 

[ChristineM]

see @SkepticThinker ? that is the point that I tried to made.

Normal and reasonable people reject both people like Hovid and people like Dawkins because we know they don’t have the authority nor the credentials nor the evidence that shows that they are qualified to “disprove” Evolution / philosophical arguments for God respectively.

But internet fanatics like “ Christine “ would support their people no matter what



Strawman, my point is that Dawkins is not qualified to “refute” philosophical arguments for the existence of God. In the same way Hovind is not qualified to “refute” the theory of evolution.

Actually Dawkins does have, he has contributed evidence for evolution. However "prove/disprove" is the strawman here, the word is not relevant to science

 

[leroy]

You are saying what you believe scientists say, there is a difference

Well can you quote a specific claim where I wrongly accepted that this is what scientists claim?............ of course not, because you are just trolling for the sake of trolling.

 

[leroy]

Actually Dawkins does have, he has contributed evidence for evolution. However "prove/disprove" is the strawman here, the word is not relevant to science

The strawman is yours. What I said is that Dawkins has no authority to “refute” philosophical arguments for the existence of God (like Aquinas 5 ways) in the same way Hovid has no authority to “refute evolution”

 

[ChristineM]

Well can you quote a specific claim where I wrongly accepted that this is what scientists claim?............ of course not, because you are just trolling for the sake of trolling.

You made the claim that you can back up so who is trolling.

Just because i cannot be bothered with your nonsense does not make me a troll

 

[leroy]

You made the claim that you can back up so who is trolling.

Just because i cannot be bothered with your nonsense does not make me a troll

I made several claims, quote the specific claim that you think is not consistent with what scientists claim /

 

[ChristineM]

The strawman is yours. What I said is that Dawkins has no authority to “refute” philosophical arguments for the existence of God (like Aquinas 5 ways) in the same way Hovid has no authority to “refute evolution”

What you said was.

...people like Dawkins because we know they don’t have the authority nor the credentials nor the evidence that shows that they are qualified to “disprove” Evolution

So would you like to go back and try your post again?

 

[ChristineM]

I made several claims, quote the specific claim that you think is not consistent with what scientists claim /

As I said you made the claim, you sort out your own mess