C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
God works in mysterious ways, DNARose.
- Status
T
The_DNA_Rose
Guest
But does God support the atheist theory of primordial soup like you are doing?God works in mysterious ways, DNARose.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
The primodial soup theory is just a model which leaves God out of it. We don’t know exactly HOW God created the world, he might have done it that way. The truth is the world did not create itself, but it might LOOK like it created itself to an atheist.
G
Gorgias
Guest
ThinkingSapien:
My previous message is plain and clear so you might like to reconsider changing your user name since it doesn’t appear to be factual.My last post is objective and factual too. I don’t have the time to continue onward with this topic.
Sapien,
I think that Logistics thinks you’re arguing for pantheism and/or panentheism, rather than having simply identified that they are the only possible ways that we could give Rose the benefit of the doubt that she’s making any sort of sense.
T
The_DNA_Rose
Guest
Look Christine, I really hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the primordial soup theory of life, declares that God was not needed, and that there is no God. You are clearly confused, and should stop endorsing atheism. if you truly believe in the Lord God.
academicatheism.tumblr.com/post/17828345667/7-theories-on-the-origin-of-life-primordial-soup
The primordial soup theory…
It’s not a true theory, since we don’t have enough evidence backing it up - it would be more accurate to call it the abiogenesis hypothesis. What it basically states is that life arose naturally from the warm, chemical-rich primordial oceans. Experiments have shown how the building blocks of life could have assembled on their own, and how those blocks could have assembled into some of the structures necessary for life (like RNA). Other experiments have shown that RNA can have enzymatic activity (meaning that the first life wouldn’t have needed proteins - it could have gotten by on RNA alone).
The important thing to remember is that the hypothesis doesn’t claim that life emerged fully-formed from the primordial soup. The first life would have been almost indistinguishable from the chemical reactions going on all willy-nilly in the early oceans, and would have been far, far simpler than even the simplest modern bacteria. Not a sudden transition from non-life to life (which would be closer to spontaneous generation), but a gradual transition from complex chemical reactions to true life.
It’s built around a lot of “could have’s”, meaning that it’s a solid hypothesis, but hasn’t acquired enough supporting evidence to be considered a theory.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Thanks for identifying that (possible) misunderstanding. I considered that as one of the possibilities for what had motivated the message, but it seems my attempt to get things cleared up through a request completely failed.
Sapien,
I think that Logistics thinks you’re arguing for pantheism and/or panentheism, rather than having simply identified that they are the only possible ways that we could give Rose the benefit of the doubt that she’s making any sort of sense.
No, I am not presenting an argument for pantheism or panentheism, though I have met people that can be described by this label. You’ve correctly interpreted my intent identifying the theistic dispositions of which I know that may have compatibility with the God-in-DNA proposition.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Listen, DNARose, (by the way are you a man or a woman?), I already told you what I meant. It may look like the world created itself without God, but it didn’t. It might look like life emerged spontaneously from this soup, but God created the soup. Then it could have happened in the sequence above, or maybe not, what do I know? All I am saying is that scientists think they can take God out of the creation, and I say no. But I don’t say the world was created in 6 days either. Okay? So quit quibbling with me.
Anyway, how do you think God created the world?
G
grannymh
Guest
Technically, I am free to choose any intention for a post as long as I stay on topic. Post 110 includes information from post 1. No problem there.
There is no problem with this sentence from post 115. “It is not necessary for DNA Rose to participate in this discussion.” This is correct because the OP does not have a strict obligation to reply to every post.
Using the Deductive Method of Reasoning gives a fresh approach to the issues in this thread. Please note that I first correctly offered DNA Rose the opportunity to choose an “approach” in post 95.
It is not necessary for anyone to participate in post 115. Those who are interested in the proposed fresh approach are welcomed to comment and/or ask questions.
T
The_DNA_Rose
Guest
Christine, I do not believe in the primordial soup, you do, I corrected your error. I believe that God created life. Just admit that you made a mistake, and move on.
T
The_DNA_Rose
Guest
Sheesh, do you actually understand anything about DNA?Technically, I am free to choose any intention for a post as long as I stay on topic. Post 110 includes information from post 1. No problem there.
There is no problem with this sentence from post 115. “It is not necessary for DNA Rose to participate in this discussion.” This is correct because the OP does not have a strict obligation to reply to every post.
Using the Deductive Method of Reasoning gives a fresh approach to the issues in this thread. Please note that I first correctly offered DNA Rose the opportunity to choose an “approach” in post 95.
It is not necessary for anyone to participate in post 115. Those who are interested in the proposed fresh approach are welcomed to comment and/or ask questions.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
DNA Rose, I admit I really knew nothing about that theory, but I have no beefs about it except that it leaves God out. When I referred to the primordial soup I was meaning the stuff of life, the earth, the dust, (maybe even the DNA). I’m sure there are many scientific theories that try to explain the way the world was created and evolved. I’m not an expert on any of them, by any means, but they could all have some truth in them. Actually, I prefer the poetic explanation of God breathing life into Adam and forming him out of the earth. But scientists will be scientists!
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
My husband said you two were jumping rope while talking about me! I don’t know Rose. You both failed science!
Sapien,
I think that Logistics thinks you’re arguing for pantheism and/or panentheism, rather than having simply identified that they are the only possible ways that we could give Rose the benefit of the doubt that she’s making any sort of sense.
ThinkingSapien;12581746:
Thanks for identifying that (possible) misunderstanding. I considered that as one of the possibilities for what had motivated the message, but it seems my attempt to get things cleared up through a request completely failed.
No, I am not presenting an argument for pantheism or panentheism, though I have met people that can be described by this label. You’ve correctly interpreted my intent identifying the theistic dispositions of which I know that may have compatibility with the God-in-DNA proposition.
Your observations were tainted with colored glasses. Open up your eyes! I never once agreed with Rose’s statements nor do I like or agree with your speculations. Furthermore, Thinking Sapien there are no catholic and non-catholic parents with children that support your statement for pantheism or panentheism. I meant what I said on the previous page and wish people would take the time to read it.I’ll repeat this as well:
Scientifically-speaking, God does not exist inside DNA:
Nature Education
"DNA Is a Structure That Encodes Biological Information .
"What do a human, a rose, and a bacterium have in common? Each of these things — along with every other organism on Earth — contains the molecular instructions for life, called deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA. Encoded within this DNA are the directions for traits as diverse as the color of a person’s eyes, the scent of a rose, and the way in which bacteria infect a lung cell.
"DNA is found in nearly all living cells. However, its exact location within a cell depends on whether that cell possesses a special membrane-bound organelle called a nucleus. Organisms composed of cells that contain nuclei are classified as eukaryotes, whereas organisms composed of cells that lack nuclei are classified as prokaryotes. In eukaryotes, DNA is housed within the nucleus, but in prokaryotes, DNA is located directly within the cellular cytoplasm, as there is no nucleus available.
“But what, exactly, is DNA? In short, DNA is a complex molecule that consists of many components, a portion of which are passed from parent organisms to their offspring during the process of reproduction. Although each organism’s DNA is unique, all DNA is composed of the same nitrogen-based molecules. So how does DNA differ from organism to organism? It is simply the order in which these smaller molecules are arranged that differs among individuals. In turn, this pattern of arrangement ultimately determines each organism’s unique characteristics, thanks to another set of molecules that “read” the pattern and stimulate the chemical and physical processes it calls for.”
. . .]
nature.com/scitable/topicpage/DNA-Is-a-Structure-that-Encodes-Information-6493050
F
foghorn_leghorn
Guest
G
Gorgias
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)My husband said you two were jumping rope while talking about me! I don’t know Rose. You both failed science!
F
foghorn_leghorn
Guest
Aristotle prayed to Zeus and Athena…
He also said the following, did Thomas agree?
In Politics, Aristotle said “men are cut out by nature to rule and women are cut out by nature to be ruled. Husbands are heads of families and men run the polis.”
But hey if Aristotle said so, it mustard be truth.
Or Aristotle was a sexist fool?
I pick the latter.
He also said the following, did Thomas agree?
In Politics, Aristotle said “men are cut out by nature to rule and women are cut out by nature to be ruled. Husbands are heads of families and men run the polis.”
But hey if Aristotle said so, it mustard be truth.
Or Aristotle was a sexist fool?
I pick the latter.
B
Beryllos
Guest
Like Icarus, the DNA rose and fell.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Seeing as this thread has been decapitated I don’t expect it to continue. I’m making some remarks for clarity and closure on an earlier interaction.
While 「The DNA Rose」self-identified as Catholic I was open to considering that s/he might have adopted some ideas outside of Catholicism and was seeking a possible disposition from which to understand her/his viewpoint.
I hope this has reduced the potential for misunderstandings.
Nor do I.
I’ve not shared my knowledge of science here. I’m not sure how you made that assessment of me, but at best I can only acknowledge it as your speculations about my acedemic performance. That’s fine with me.You both failed science!
I don’t agree with them either. I was trying to understand them. But understanding doesn’t imply agreement.
Okay, I acknowledge that you don’t like or agree with what I have shared of my considerations for what may have possibly motivated a previous message (if that is the speculation to which you refer).
I’m ironing out a potential ambiguity. It’s possibly you understood what I meant to express but I want to reduce the possibility of misunderstanding. The statements were not for Pantheism/Panentheism (as in “in support of”, expression of a wish, “in favor of”). I do not argue for either. If by “for” you meant “in attribution/reference to” then that is more compatible with my intended usage) They were about how compatible a common viewpoint of those religious families are with the proposition that “God exist inside of human DNA.” I mentioned those because they seem to be the most compatible of the various religious -isms of which I know (there may be one that is a better fit). If it’s not clear I’ll plainly state that I do not assert that God exists inside of human DNA. Nor am I a pantheist or panentheist.
While 「The DNA Rose」self-identified as Catholic I was open to considering that s/he might have adopted some ideas outside of Catholicism and was seeking a possible disposition from which to understand her/his viewpoint.
I read it the first time that you posted it. My mention of panentheism and pantheism is not in anyway an expression of disagreement with what you shared about DNA.
I hope this has reduced the potential for misunderstandings.
G
grannymh
Guest
Guess no one is up to accepting a challenge. Looks like there is more than one decapitated.
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
You along with others decapitated the topic"Does God exist inside of human DNA" when off-topic remarks were made outside the topic which I had to bring in a SCIENCE article from Nature. Basically, DNA is considered a SCIENCE topic so the website I used was for educating the public at large which includes children as I earlier mentioned on the previous page. I highly suggest people use the link I earlier provided and explore that website. Also, as a scientist I am against Pseudoscience!
B
Beryllos
Guest
The article you posted is fine, but there was so much more to discuss. We were talking about DNA, God, souls, the Incarnation, the Hand of God, love, existence, and eternity. We can discuss such things in the Philosophy forum.You along with others decapitated the topic"Does God exist inside of human DNA" when off-topic remarks were made outside the topic which I had to bring in a SCIENCE article from Nature. Basically, DNA is considered a SCIENCE topic so the website I used was for educating the public at large which includes children as I earlier mentioned on the previous page. I highly suggest people use the link I earlier provided and explore that website. Also, as a scientist I am against Pseudoscience!
Then we had some side discussions, like How do we know what we know? Where did that information come from? What does the word “catechism” mean? What does it mean to be a Catholic? The compatibility of Faith and Science. The evolution/creation controversy. Use of the word sheesh. And the OP addressed me and some others as “Son.” I unsubscribed and recommended others unsubscribe, and look at me, I’m back! Anyway, sure, we all could have done without these distractions and time wasters, but this is CAF and sometimes we’re just going to be this way.
Peace and Blessings to All, even the Banned.
- Status