@philokalia saidJust remember it. That should suffice.
OK, cool, not sure how to refer back to that.
@philokalia saidYeah, the "Mention Buddhism Card". Yeah.
It is possible to deny any personal god and still engage in what amounts to religious thinking. This would describe some schools of Buddhism.
@divegeester saidMaybe
Would listening to a YouTube soundtrack of the sea washing on the shore count while counting imaginary jumping fish be a “religious thinking” in your frame of reference?
Maybe not
@philokalia saidScience is a tool which is used to investigate everything. Your limits will not be respected.
To deduce anything about God from the creation itself is a form of very religious thinking.
Science should only be engaged in the process of describing the universe and nature.
@avalanchethecat saidLol, do you think science is inclined to philosophy and theology?
Science is a tool which is used to investigate everything. Your limits will not be respected.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Yeah, the "Mention Buddhism Card". Yeah.
Years ago there were some atheists who decided to start a new religion.
They proposed to call it "Zero".
The atheists are not religious card no longer works.
This is evidenced by the rise of atheist churches.
Maybe you're in denial.
ATHEIST CHURCHES TAKING OVER??
&t=98s&ab_channel=WhaddoYouMeme%3F%3F
@philokalia saidLol, do you think that the things you think are divorced from the machine that thinks them?
Lol, do you think science is inclined to philosophy and theology?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Could some one use their imagination and answer me this?
Go to roughly 1:20 in the video below. Look at the blue machine called Helicase spinning as fast as a jet engine.
I would like to know how many years do you think separated the very FIRST random spin ONCE of Helicase and when it evolved to spin so many thousands of times a minute.
Also estimate how long was the time when the first bit of strand of DNA was outputted from Helicase and when it evolved to do so continuously.
A million years?
A hundred million?
Use your imagination.
How much time elapsed between the first accidental roll to its "learning" to continously construct that side of the DNA strand?
Your Body's Molecular Machines
&ab_channel=Veritasium
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Use your imagination.
The Kinetochore is used to the chromatides in cell division.
How long did the principles of natural selection take between one microtubule being attached on one side to one being attached on the opposite side?
A thousand years maybe?
Ten millions years of trial and error maybe?
How many years did it take of survival of the fittest to go from ONE microtubial on the left and ONE on the right to, say, ten on either side?
Go roughly to 3:48 on this video.
Your Body's Molecular Machines
&ab_channel=Veritasium
@avalanchethecat said... OK, so maybe scientists should do philosophy.
Lol, do you think that the things you think are divorced from the machine that thinks them?
But let's not call them philosophers because, remember, science is about not respecting the natural boundaries of science.
These philosophers needs be scientists.
@sonship saidI don't think ancient Hebrew mythology, Jesus, St. Paul, Witness Lee and sonship's theories about becoming a "God-man" are going to answer any of these questions.
How long did the principles of natural selection take between one microtubule being attached on one side to one being attached on the opposite side?
A thousand years maybe?
Ten millions years of trial and error maybe?
How many years did it take of survival of the fittest to go from ONE microtubial on the left and ONE on the right to, say, ten on either side?
@sonship saidIf you can show me what supernatural and superhuman creator and/or controlling power they believe in and worship, then you might be able to persuade me.
Years ago there were some atheists who decided to start a new religion.
They proposed to call it "Zero".
The atheists are not religious card no longer works.
This is evidenced by the rise of atheist churches.
Maybe you're in denial.
@sonship saidBy not using Quote & Reply, you can pretend you're in a conversation. The on-topic response I gave you has been sidestepped as you, instead, seemingly ask nobody in particular to imagine something for you.
I was hoping someone who believes that no plan and no design or purpose meandered molecules into the molecular machines animated for us in the video, would help estimate the time elapse.
I invited you to use your imagination.
No one has even done that yet.
No one disputes that your religious beliefs give you a sense of "plan" and "design" and "purpose", but your speculation and conjecture about the supernatural do not generate "knowledge".
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@FMF
Yea. Well I think that you don't use your imagination to even guess the time distances between what I proposed has more to do with recognizing the weakness of gradualism to explain it.
With Darwin who only saw the cell as a blob of jelly like substance, that was more excusable. Today in 2021 with our knowledge of microbiology the weaknesses of gradualism on a cell level are more glaring.
I do not expect old minds to change their minds. Too many are too proud for that, having invested their whole professional lives with certain beliefs. I expect as usual old scientific minds will simply die off. Younger upcoming scientists will look for new and better explanations and theories.