Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Some examples of astronomically unlikely odds for Fish153 to consider.


walterpthefirst

Recommended Posts

  • Super Moderator

Shall I continue, or will you retract your statement, fish?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fish153 said:

sdelsoray--

 

Thanks for the post. Isn't God incredible? The odds (apparent consistencies) of me being me are astronomical. No wonder Jesus said "The very hairs on your head are ALL numbered". DNA actually proves this to be the case. Thanks for the reminder.

 

You could use a lesson in probability theory. Once something has actually occurred, the probability of it occurring is 1.00.

 

One of the reasons you believe as you do is your incessant assignment of agency to events, conditions or properties.  You have used it many many times since you started posting here.  The agency, of course, is your particular group of sky fairies.  This is one reason why I suggested, shortly after your arrival on this forum, that you should learn the difference among and between non-sequitur, coincidence, correlation and causation.  You seem to have missed that lesson so far in your life.

As to your claim that DNA proves (there's that word again) hairs are numbered, I'll just leave that one alone until I learn more about your level of actual knowledge of molecular biochemistry and the relative depths of your intellectual honesty and intellectual dishonesty.  That way, I'll have a better idea as to whether your DNA claim is an example of mindless addictive behavior of making shit up followed by an agency assignment to one of your sky fairies or something more profound.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redneck---

 

Would you agree that knowledge concerning DNA grows each year? In Criminology the knowledge has improved VASTLY in the last 10 years. So before you state that DNA has nothing to do with hair color, or hair count, you should wait a few more years. Do not call your "assumption" FACT until everything has been learned about DNA. And at this time it has not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez Redneck-

You are picking fly crap out of pepper. I googled about DNA and it says it is an exact blueprint for who a person is down to hair color. It doesn't mention hair COUNT, but let's get serious. If it is an exact blueprint for who you are, they just haven't DISCOVERED the "count" YET.

 

If you are going to use that to discredit Jesus statement about "the very hairs on your heads are all numbered" you are grasping at straws. I do not say this to "troll" but as an observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

I googled about DNA and it says it is an exact blueprint for who a person is down to hair color.

 

DNA is not that exact.  There's a probabilistic aspect that determines whether or not a specific allele is "silent" or expressed:  Since DNA is a molecule, it interacts with its chemical environment.  The presence or absence of various chemical compounds can block receptor sites or leave them available for replication.  That's one of the reasons that there are variations in the children born to a specific male/female pair:

 

Quote

Gene expression is a fundamentally stochastic process, with randomness in transcription and translation leading to significant cell-to-cell variations in mRNA and protein levels. This variation appears in organisms ranging from microbes to metazoans and its characteristics depend both on the biophysical parameters governing gene expression and on gene network structure. Stochastic gene expression can have important consequences for cellular function, being beneficial in some contexts and harmful in others. These situations include stress response, pathogenesis, metabolism, development, cell cycle, circadian rhythms and aging.

 

(From "Nature, Nurture, or Chance: Stochastic Gene Expression and Its Consequences," Raj and van Oudenaarden, Cell, Vol. 135, Issue 2, October 17, 2008, Pg. 216-226)

 

I've actually seen this process, BTW - My brother is a microbiologist with a doctorate in genetics, and he's shown me his work in evolving a cell line into two divergent strains by changing their chemical environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Astreja--

 

Not that exact? Geez, it's exact enough to track down killers from cold cases committed 40 years ago. It is exact enough for scientists to say "only one in 2 billion people could have this DNA".

 

As I mentioned to Redneck, they are learning more and more about DNA-- and each discovery gives an even closer look at how intricate it actually is.  I could almost GUARANTEE within a few years they will say DNA tells the amount of hairs on a person's head (of course, people do go bald-- but it could make an accurate count of what a young person had).

 

I say this because crime shows already have scientists predicting TYPE OF HAIR and COLOR OF EYES from DNA extracted from bodies found that are greatly decomposed. Sometimes even from bones if they can find marrow.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Astreja--

 

Not that exact? Geez, it's exact enough to track down killers from cold cases committed 40 years ago. It is exact enough for scientists to say "only one in 2 billion people could have this DNA".

 

The sequence may be unique enough to identify an individual, but that does not mean that the sequence will always behave in the same manner inside that individual's body.  The idea of DNA exactly encoding the number of hairs on a person's head is unadulterated BS.  It. Doesn't. Work. That. Way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Astreja-LOL.

100 years ago if you told someone there would be a way to identify a killer from a cigarette butt people would laugh their heads off.

 

You say BS NOW-- but just give it a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fish,

 

Why don't you ask the Prof what kind of scientist he is and what kind of work he does with DNA?

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fish153 said:

... I didn't realize anal retentive people(not including you in that group by the way)...

 

Again with the disingenuous play-acting and insults.

If that's being filled with the Holy Spirit, I'm quite happy to remain devoid of such.

 

You are so very, very typical.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fish153,  in this discussion I probably know the least. Other than yourself perhaps.

 

Even so, I do understand enough of DNA to know how far you are going in the construction of entire sets of assumptions based on a near-complete lack of knowledge. That much is painfully obvious.

 

In this discussion you are really setting yourself up.

I'm sure you know the old saying: "When you find that you've dug yourself into a deep hole, the first priority is to stop digging".

 

That intense desire to be right..  to propagate your personal set of bias and preconceptions with an almost total disregard for anything else. Including the truth itself. That's the shovel you presently hold in your hands.

 

When you are so very certain that your own position represents honor, goodness, righteousness..

...everything else becomes secondary.

 

Truth > faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alreadygone--

It has nothing to do with being "right". Scientific discoveries almost always progress in understanding.

 

As I mentioned to Astreja, 100 years ago if you told someone that you would one day be able to catch a killer by obtaining one of His cigarette butts, they would laugh you out of town.

 

Since DNA was first discovered the understanding of how it can be used has increased TREMENDOUSLY. Watch any "Crime Show" and you will see this.

 

Not too long ago they caught the "Golden State Killer" by using Ancestral DNA and comparing it with evidence left at the scene 30 years before! They were able to center on one person because of DNA. This was actually an incredible set of events.

 

The point I was trying to make is that what you "laugh at now" and call "BS" may be a reality in a few years.  A couple of people have mocked the idea that DNA gives instructions for how many hairs are on a person's head. I just said not to mock so soon-- it very well may prove true.

 

Why is it that everyone seems to WANT what Jesus said NOT to prove true? "I say unto you, the very hairs on your head are all numbered". Maybe it never will prove true, and this saying will remain a metaphor.  But why such vicious argument against the thought that it may prove true scientifically one day also?

 

What we can discover from DNA is already incredible. We should be glad to see these findings progress and progress. We shouldn't be mocking that which hasn't been disproved yet. I think DNA is exciting to consider. As a Christian I see God's hand once again-- of course, I don't expect you'd see it that way. But DNA science is amazing, and I hope that there are massive increases in knowledge about it in the next few years, just as there have been in the last few years before this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would refer you to Walter's post earlier:

 

"Fish,

 

Why don't you ask the Prof what kind of scientist he is and what kind of work he does with DNA?

 

Walter."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alreadygone--

 

I am not being disingenuous. I think you ARE an anal-retentive person. Not everyone on the board is, so I said to midnite "not that you are part of that group". That's not disingenuous. In fact, I asked Walter how the wrapping candy in cellophane per the precise instructions was coming along.

 

I haven't heard back yet. Are the instructions clear enough? I can always provide a more concise set to folliow-- just let me know. The anal-retentive person wants everything to be "just so" and sees everything literally-- and because of this they are offended easily. But wrapping candies can alleviate some of that tension, and, as I mentioned to Walter, the candies make excellent Christmas gifts.  Just don't forget to put clearly addressed name tags on the gifts ( first and last name is preferred). You want to make sure the correct person receives them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alreadygone-

Does the Prof. work with DNA? That's great. It must be fantastic to work with, and understand the science. I think though the Prof. would be the last one to say "we know everything we can know about DNA". I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt it. There is probably MUCH MORE to be learned about DNA I would surmise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

I would refer you to Walter's post earlier:

 

"Fish,

 

Why don't you ask the Prof what kind of scientist he is and what kind of work he does with DNA?

 

Walter."

 

It's ok, aG.

 

I suspect that Fish is only interested in science when he can interpret it (by faith) to support his beliefs.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fish, you are amusing only to a point...

That sort of highly-acidic sarcasm is not impressive.

 

 
a·nal-re·ten·tive
adjective: anal-retentive
  1. (of a person) excessively orderly and fussy (supposedly owing to conflict over toilet-training in infancy).noun: anal-retentive; plural noun: anal-retentives
  1. a person who is excessively orderly and fussy.

 

Nope, not me.

Though as an engineer I am quite orderly in some things, as that is what got me paid. I had to develop that trait very deliberately, bit by bit over years in order to get paid.

In other matters I let it all lie where it may.

 

And toilet-training was never a problem. Nor do I become constipated more than once every five years or so. Nor am I particularly inhibited about bodily functions or nudity.

 

You can make all the snarky vicious personal attacks you wish, it does nothing for your position as a devout follower of Christ here to help those you believe in need of enlightenment.

 

I'll just go on quietly to hell, 'k?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walter--

That is very untrue. I watch science programs all the time. I was watching NOVA just the other night. And I love nature documentaries also. Science is fascinating. I just see the hand of God in it is all. That doesn't take away from the wonder one finds when considering it. I just look at it from a different angle.

 

I also love STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION when it comes to Science Ficton/Space shows. There are some extremely intriguing story lines on that show at times. And Commander Data isn't (or as he would say "is not") too shabby either-- a wonderful character!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alreadygone---

 

That was hilarious! "Nope, not me"--- after you take the time to cut and paste an exact definition of what "anal-retentive" means. Geez-- that was incredibly funny. Thanks so much for the laugh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Alreadygone---

 

That was hilarious! "Nope, not me"--- after you take the time to cut and paste an exact ...

 

Yeah, that was 12 seconds of my life I won't get back.

As if...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Walter--

That is very untrue. I watch science programs all the time. I was watching NOVA just the other night. And I love nature documentaries also. Science is fascinating. I just see the hand of God in it is all. That doesn't take away from the wonder one finds when considering it. I just look at it from a different angle.

 

I also love STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION when it comes to Science Ficton/Space shows. There are some extremely intriguing story lines on that show at times. And Commander Data isn't (or as he would say "is not") too shabby either-- a wonderful character!

 

You been watching Discovery or Picard over on Paramount+?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alreadygone--

My apologies. I really don't mean to insult. I am a very impatient person, so if someone says "you are an impatient person" I don't get insulted. I say "you're right" after thinking about it for a moment. No one likes to be told negative things.

 

You and Walter are very "exacting". One has to be VERY CAREFUL what you say around the two of you. I am just being honest.

 

If I say "the sky is blue" one of you will probably post: "Actually no-- the sky is NOT blue. It just APPEARS to be blue due to scattered color fragments of blue and violet from the spectrum...." (or something to that effect).

 

I use a generally accepted term (the sky is blue)-- but you want an EXACT scientific statement. Do you see what I'm saying? But I am not insulting-- I am stating what I observe to be the case. So, my apologies if anything I say offends you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While casual expression is fine, deliberate use of language for propaganda is something that is too egregious to hide behind. You only demean yourself when you do so. It isn't so clever that no one here will notice.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

alreadygone--

My apologies.

 

Accepted, with thanks.

I hope you will accept mine as well.

 

I have no intention to be insulting or demeaning.

And sometimes I fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

midnite--

No. I haven't seen any of the new shows yet. I want to though.

Picard: I have to go, Number One".

Riker: "Oh, you have to take a piss? The head is right through that door".

 

I am going to tune in very soon though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.