The Blind Watch-Watchers or Smell the Cheese

Edip_Yuksel

God is the first cause.
God is eternal.
God is the source of information.
God created everything.
God created life.

Who created God - defeats your argument doesn't it?
Occams's Razor again?

There is a particular amount of mass in the universe, let's say, N amount; why is it N amount, not more not less?

Total amount mass (and hence the energy) in the Universe must be zero. Because God created everything out of nothingness wink

Regards,

Dear Lote-Tree

Occam's Razor is a good tool but not that sharp tool. It attracts many novices like you and while they play with it they cut their ears and noses with it. D

First, Occam's Razor does not cut here, since you did not compare two alternative explanation. You rejected the ONLY explanation. Occam's Razor suggest of picking the "simplest" explanation out of alteranative multiple explanation.

So, for the laws of the universe that has lead to life and human intelligence provide me with your explanation.

God explanation is merely getting out of the box when we see that the cause of the events CANNOT fit in the box.

Why God? Since, either the laws are eternal and universe as a hole is God, or the laws and the things in the universe were created by something/someone else who is not constrained by the laws and dimensions of the universe. As long as you cannot provide an alternative explanation for the first cause, you have no right of pulling out a razor from your pocket. Your razor will simply fail to cut.

Once I read an excellent article published in the SKEPTC magazine critical of misuse of Occam's Razor. I have the magazines in my library but I do not have time to find that particular issue.

Peace,
Edip

unknownuser

Hello Mr. Yuksel,

Long time no see -)

I hope all is well with you.

I am still waiting for your Reformist Translation of the Quran. I hope it is already out. It may help in our discussions here.

Occam's Razor is a good tool but not that sharp tool. It attracts many novices like you and while they play with it they cut their ears and noses with it.

Ha ha, yes that is for sure -)
But it is a good way of getting attention from the people you want to speak to -)

And in philosophy it is good to be a Novice since you can ask the most important of questions, the questions that expert Philosophers sometimes overlook perhaps. A novice is like being an outsider but being an outsider is not always bad because it can give you an unique perspective wink

First, Occam's Razor does not cut here, since you did not compare two alternative explanation. You rejected the ONLY explanation.

But you must be aware of the two explanations already?

Occam's Razor suggest of picking the "simplest" explanation out of alteranative multiple explanation.

Yes, that is what Occam's Razor is.

God explanation is merely getting out of the box when we see that the cause of the events CANNOT fit in the box.

But we can't get out of the Box to know this for sure.

Why God? Since, either the laws are eternal and universe as a hole is God, or the laws and the things in the universe were created by something/someone else who is not constrained by the laws and dimensions of the universe.

So which is it? Universe as a whole is God or God is outside of the Universe? and how can you be sure since you can never get out of the Box?

As long as you cannot provide an alternative explanation for the first cause, you have no right of pulling out a razor from your pocket. Your razor will simply fail to cut.

Yes, the First Cause. Human minds seem to always seems to come to this conclusion. But if Universe is self-contained and everything is interconnected as the newest Holographic Theory suggests or the no-boundary Proposals by Stephen Hawking is borne out by observation then - what need of a creator?

All I am saying is that our understanding of the Universe is still very very minute...

It was a good article -)

Regards,

p.s

Total amount mass (and hence the energy) in the Universe must be zero. Because God created everything out of nothingness wink

You did not comment on the above? So it is zero isn't it?

Regards,

bmbmm

How do account for the fossil record Dr bmbmm Phd?

Salam LT,

Through my research and understanding of science, I will not account for the fossil record. It does not hold water.

bmbmm

How do account for the fossil record Dr bmbmm Phd?

Salam LT,

Through my research and understanding of science, I will not account for the fossil record. It does not hold water.

But if you examine the fossil record you will find that amoeba type creatures came first. There were no complex lifeforms at this stage. How do you account for that?

I think the fossil record is not 100% complete. There might be complex lifeforms which are not yet recorded in the record

Anyway our most advance/and most correct understanding of genetics today reject the evolution as it was presented before.

Peace

unknownuser

Through my research and understanding of science, I will not account for the fossil record. It does not hold water.

You mean Dr. bmbmm Phd, YOU CAN'T and therefore you ignore it wink

Science would not have progressed very much if all scientist had this attitude my good Doctor -)

I think the fossil record is not 100% complete. There might be complex lifeforms which are not yet recorded in the record

Yes it is not complete and the scientific search continues... -)
But what we have so far suggests that coelacanth fishes did not coexists with amoebas from the begining wink

Regards,

bmbmm

But what we have so far suggests that coelacanth fishes did not coexists with amoebas from the begining

Well may be it did my humble LoteTree, we don't know D
What we know is the impossibility of the geneflux in this direction protein>RNA>DNA, and how can/we deny this you holyness LoteTree D

By the way between 1-100 points what will you give fossil records (technique lol ) and to the advance Molecular Biology technique in finding out the truth behind any biological entity? Me personally will give the fossil record 1 and Molecualr Biology 100. What about you?

unknownuser

But what we have so far suggests that coelacanth fishes did not coexists with amoebas from the begining

Well may be it did my humble LoteTree, we don't know

Well Dr. bmbmm Phd if you can show us that this is the case then I am sure you will be rewarded the Nobel Prize in Science now!!!-) and you would have upturned 200 hundered years of scientific research in one fell swoop. And just like Einstein proved Newton wrong, you can prove Darwin wrong!!! Isn't that something Doctor? What an achievement will that be for you!!-)

But empirical science my Dear Doctor does not work with "MAY BE's" and you should know that! but on available observable evidence and the evidence we have is the fossil record, and in that record there are no coelacanth fishes swiming with amoebas. Fossils record may be incomplete but rock layers are not. Rocks are our time keepers. Rocks don't lie wink

You, Dr. bmbmm Phd may not want to account for the fossil record and that is upto you. You can IGNORE it and perhaps that is your limitation as a scientist who knows...

But account for the Fossil record my good Doctor not with MAY BE's but what you can observe from the fossil records or you can ignore it. wink

Regards,

bmbmm

Hi LT,

I have decided to ignore ROCK studies. You can carryon lol I can only show you the most advanced knowledge that we have to reject evolution. You are not know, as I have debated with Professors about this. Good luck with your qust with rock-science

By the way between 1-100 points what will you give fossil records (technique ) and to the advance Molecular Biology technique in finding out the truth behind any biological entity? Me personally will give the fossil record 1 and Molecualr Biology 100. What about you? ?

unknownuser

Hi LT,
I have decided to ignore ROCK studies.

Because you can't account for fossil record can you Dr. Bmbmm Phd? wink So whether you ignore it or sit on it, thats upto you Doctor -)
But Scientific research will continue without you -)

You are not know, as I have debated with Professors about this.

Appealing to your past professors will not help you here Doctor wink

Account for the fossil records Dr. Bmbmm Phd or stand aside let others continue their proper empirical scientific work.

Good luck with your quest with rock-science.

And good luck with your search for finding coelacanth fish amongst amoebas in the fossil records wink I am sure scientific community will be waiting with baited breath for such a breathrough from yourself!!! -)

Advance Molecular Biology technique in finding out the truth behind any biological entity?

Molecular biology? -)

OK. So tell me Dr.Bmm Phd, how do you account for the beta hymoglobin
gene in Apes to have 100% match with Humans?

Regards,

bmbmm

By the way between 1-100 points what will you give fossil records (technique ) and to the advance Molecular Biology technique in finding out the truth behind any biological entity? Me personally will give the fossil record 1 and Molecualr Biology 100. What about you?

Just to remind you the top question.

Hey is that all you got ops ?

By the way there is also a 100% sequence homology of Octopus rhodopsin kinase and Squid rhodopsin kinase that I cloned! Also you know the hydrogen in the sun is 100% identical to hydrogen on earth.

beta hymoglobin??? Are you talking about beta globulin or haemoglobin?

unknownuser

By the way between 1-100 points what will you give fossil records (technique ) and to the advance Molecular Biology technique in finding out the truth behind any biological entity? Me personally will give the fossil record 1 and Molecualr Biology 100. What about you?

Just to remind you the top question.

Above question is irrelvant to what we are discussing.

Hey is that all you got ops ?

I got nothing. You are the one with Phd wink

beta hymoglobin??? Are you talking about beta globulin or haemoglobin?

If you knew this then you would have guessed from my bad spelling.
beta haemoglobin -)

So Dr. how do you account for it?

Regards,

bmbmm

95.2% identity in 147 residues overlap; Score 746.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 1 MVHLTPEEKSAVTALWGKVNVDEVGGEALGRLLVVYPWTQRFFESFGDLSTPDAVMGNPK
UserSeq2, 1 MVHLTPEEKNAVTTLWGKVNVDEVGGEALGRLLVVYPWTQRFFESFGDLSSPDAVMGNPK

UserSeq1, 61 VKAHGKKVLGAFSDGLAHLDNLKGTFATLSELHCDKLHVDPENFRLLGNVLVCVLAHHFG
UserSeq2, 61 VKAHGKKVLGAFSDGLNHLDNLKGTFAQLSELHCDKLHVDPENFKLLGNVLVCVLAHHFG

UserSeq1, 121 KEFTPPVQAAYQKVVAGVANALAHKYH
UserSeq2, 121 KEFTPQVQAAYQKVVAGVANALAHKYH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------40.0% identity in 20 residues overlap; Score 40.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 59 PKVKAHGKKVLGAFSDGLAH
UserSeq2, 125 PQVQAAYQKVVAGVANALAH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------35.0% identity in 20 residues overlap; Score 32.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 125 PPVQAAYQKVVAGVANALAH
UserSeq2, 59 PKVKAHGKKVLGAFSDGLNH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------41.2% identity in 17 residues overlap; Score 30.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 18 KVNVDEVGGEALGRLLV
UserSeq2, 96 KLHVDPENFKLLGNVLV

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------41.2% identity in 17 residues overlap; Score 29.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 96 KLHVDPENFRLLGNVLV
UserSeq2, 18 KVNVDEVGGEALGRLLV

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------33.3% identity in 21 residues overlap; Score 24.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 10 SAVTALWGKVNVDEVGGEALG
UserSeq2, 50 SSPDAVMGNPKVKAHGKKVLG

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------38.9% identity in 18 residues overlap; Score 23.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 46 FGDLSTPDAVMGNPKVKA
UserSeq2, 119 FGKEFTPQVQAAYQKVVA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------50.0% identity in 6 residues overlap; Score 21.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 2 VHLTPE
UserSeq2, 97 LHVDPE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------50.0% identity in 6 residues overlap; Score 21.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 97 LHVDPE
UserSeq2, 2 VHLTPE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------35.3% identity in 17 residues overlap; Score 19.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 3 HLTPEEKSAVTALWGKV
UserSeq2, 118 HFGKEFTPQVQAAYQKV

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------36.4% identity in 11 residues overlap; Score 19.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 77 AHLDNLKGTFA
UserSeq2, 63 AHGKKVLGAFS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------42.9% identity in 7 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 5 TPEEKSA
UserSeq2, 124 TPQVQAA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------60.0% identity in 5 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 91 ELHCD
UserSeq2, 96 KLHVD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------60.0% identity in 5 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 96 KLHVD
UserSeq2, 91 ELHCD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------33.3% identity in 18 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 119 FGKEFTPPVQAAYQKVVA
UserSeq2, 46 FGDLSSPDAVMGNPKVKA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------60.0% identity in 5 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 142 LAHKY
UserSeq2, 115 LAHHF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------35.7% identity in 14 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 57 GNPKVKAHGKKVLG
UserSeq2, 17 GKVNVDEVGGEALG

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------41.7% identity in 12 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 126 PVQAAYQKVVAG
UserSeq2, 59 PKVKAHGKKVLG

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------60.0% identity in 5 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 115 LAHHF
UserSeq2, 142 LAHKY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------28.6% identity in 14 residues overlap; Score 17.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 79 LDNLKGTFATLSEL
UserSeq2, 76 LNHLDNLKGTFAQL

Here you go holytree! Top sequence is Human and Bottom sequence is Ape. Buy the way where did you get 100% similarity? Now convince me how good the stone-record is. And please give it a score between 1-100.

bmbmm

Hi Tree,

The squid rhodopsin kinase that I cloned has 100% sequency homology with the octopus rhodopsin kinase. The take home message for you today is we cannot say one is evolved from the other with this data or the stone data lol lol . What we can see here is God found it appropriate to use the same peace of information (DNA) for both species wink

unknownuser

Here you go holytree! Top sequence is Human and Bottom sequence is Ape. Buy the way where did you get 100% similarity? Now convince me how good the stone-record is. And please give it a score between 1-100.

Sorry Doctor I am not a biochemist like yourself. So gene sequence post does nothing for me. There is a 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin between apes and humans - how do you account for that Doctor?

Regards,

bmbmm

No more comment.

unknownuser

No more comment.

Why my Good Doctor? Has the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin between apes and humans - made a monkey out of you? wink -)

How do you account for it?

Regards,

bmbmm

Oh ya I am a monkey now, since you know better about science. I think I might need to do another PhD. Hence, I wil reply when I got my second doctorate. You can have my future Nobel prise for free roll

sawtooth

The style of that article sounds more than familier. I do believe I may have come across your work in college. very interesting but hard to finish in one sittling in front of a computer screen.

unknownuser

Oh ya I am a monkey now, since you know better about science.

Dear Doctor I think you missed the joke in my comments. The 100% match between apes and human suggests that we have shared same ancestor in the past. This indeed does make a "monkey" out of us wink -)

Molecular studies shows that all life forms on Earth share a common ancestor. Even the leading creation scientist Dr Micheal Behe (his a biochemist) agrees with this view.

Regards,