- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,727
- 52,531
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you believe that's a possibility?But if it turns out Christianity isn't the "true'" theology, then it becomes moot. At which point you'd best hope you haven't ticked off some other supreme deity for following the incorrect belief system.
Of course, your statement is surely debatable. If you understand little cosmology, then you understand that galaxies in relation to one another are not homogeneous in distribution through the universe, you also would know that galaxies, and there are different types, have stars in different locations, for instance the earth is in a stellar arm from the center of the galaxy, which is probably a massive black hole.First, you are begging the question; you are making statements about God without giving any reason why we should accept them. Second, whether the universe began naturally or supernaturally, and whether the first living things were created by a god or originated by a natural process from complex organic compounds, has no bearing on whether stars and planets were formed by the collapse of interstellar clouds, or on whether all primates, including ourselves, are descended from a common ancestor.
Absolute proof ? yes.If information were provided to you that satisfactorily proved there was no god, would you become atheist?
-_- of course it is a possibility. It is just as possible that Islam is the one true religion as Christianity, or Hinduism, or a religion yet to exist in human minds.Do you believe that's a possibility?
If not, mind if I don't either?
To viruses, those without DNA must use a host with DNA to reproduce, correct ?It's debatable, considering that said protocells don't regulate their own division, and as a result "daughter protocells" don't end up with consistent genetic material (RNA). That's why they are called protocells and not cells.
Viruses. There are also viruses capable of going back and forth between the two, and as a result these are thought to be the reason for the transition of the early living cells from being RNA based to being DNA based. Remnant viral genes for the transition remained in these surviving "cells" and converted them. Note that DNA and RNA are extremely similar in terms of chemical makeup, but that any cell that did transition to DNA would have an extreme advantage in the fact that DNA is far more stable.
That life on this planet started with RNA as the genetic material would explain why modern cells need to transcribe DNA segments into RNA in order to produce proteins rather than just using a DNA based system.
-_- in modern cells, no, but RNA has the capacity to run basic functions by itself. That is, it can produce proteins from itself (and even act as one) and replicate.
But again, the DNA instructs nothing. It's more like a template than a blueprint, since the complementary RNA bases get stuck to it until the catalysts separate when they hit a spot they can't stay bonded to, and since the RNA is partly "stuck" to the complex, it separates when it does. It's all chemistry.
All DNA exists for is to be transcribed. It doesn't directly do anything, it is all up to RNA and the proteins produced from the RNA. 100%, if DNA wasn't significantly more stable than RNA, living cells wouldn't use it. It just makes for more consistent RNA than RNA by itself would.
Why would they need to combine with each other necessarily? Most organelles in a cell are just additional lipid bilayer folds with differences in protein and RNA present, and in the case of bacteria, that would apply to all of them. Lipid bilayers fold in sometimes, and proteins would get caught in them. That's all there is to organelle formation. Fyi, ribosomes are made of RNA.
Considering how simple bacteria are, these protocells are just a more stable genome and cell wall away from being very simple bacteria.
Retroviruses, though they convert their RNA into DNA directly. These sorts of viruses often leave bits and pieces of themselves behind in the host genome.
Uh, yes, sort of. The existence of any physical laws beyond, in retrograde, after known physical laws break down is not known and probably is unknowable.No, it isn't; you have got things the wrong way round. The 'Big Bang' cosmology was deduced from the recession of the galaxies, the abundances of the isotopes of hydrogen, helium and lithium, and the cosmic microwave background, all of which provide evidence for the expansion of the universe from an early high-temperature, high-density state. The singularity is a mathematical fiction, not a physical reality; it exists because present knowledge of the laws of physics breaks down before the Planck time, not because there were no laws of physics before that time.
If information were provided to you that satisfactorily proved there was no god, would you become atheist?
Well, in modern day, they have no choice, since all living cells have DNA. Realistically, there's no reason viruses need hosts that have DNA as their genetic material.To viruses, those without DNA must use a host with DNA to reproduce, correct ?
-_- because none of the processes in cells that produce proteins can do it directly from DNA, they have to use RNA intermediates. What translates the RNA into protein is other strands of RNA." All DNA exists for is to be transcribed". Thank you, that is my point. Transcribed for what reason ?
-_- as complicated as the fact that molecules react predictably with each other, I suppose. Again, you were implying that they actually communicate, but they don't. RNA isn't given its properties by the DNA, its properties are the consequence of the chemical structure.Because cellular "information" is communicated by chemical processes, that does;'t make it a lesser method than a computer using electricity for information distribution and direction. In fact it is infinitely more complicated.
Nope. The RNA has entirely different properties from the DNA, and sections of it don't even get transcribed, which is why a single gene in DNA usually is used to produce around 3 different proteins in eukaryotes. Proteins and RNA control the transcription process itself, and in general, proteins and RNA are not particularly representative of the overall sequences used to make them.Yes, it is all chemical reaction, but it is controlled chemical reaction, controlled by the transcribed "data" from the DNA, Correct ?
-_- transcription occurs in the nucleus, right on the DNA. RNA copies are produced by RNA nucleotides attaching to the DNA bases they are most chemically attracted to, which is why the system screws up so much. The only thing stopping the portions of DNA from being transcribed being totally random is that the catalysts are chemically unable to attach to locations without specific sequences. But every time DNA gets exposed for transcription, it does become more liable to be damaged.Please, how and where is this information transcribed ? Thanks !
That’s it, there’s no other option for ID/creos. Arguments from incredulity are absurd, and don’t deserve acknowledgement. And considering the abject lack of ethics from which ID was born, it’s an embarrassment for anyone who uses it.
Only for the survival of the life that developed here. For all we know, we exist on the fringes of the conditions that allow life to form.The location of the earth, i.e. our solar system, is in a more advantageous position for the survival of life than millions and millions of stars located in a different position.
Reality is the truth, and fulfillment and satisfaction are up to you.
Are you glad that line of questioning is behind you now?From my point of view, I'm able to accept things as they are.
The choice is yours.Well, I can see where we already divide in our epistemological appraisals. You apparently think 'reality' and 'truth' are of the same essence; I, on the other hand, do not equivocate or conflate these two terms. So, it looks like no satisfaction is forthcoming to me, no matter whether I'm a theist or an atheist.
Shucks! Darn it!
The choice is yours.
You're not alone.I love questions!
Do you believe that's a possibility?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?