recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
You’ve rounded off the probability a little more than the slightly more accurate probability I provided, but it’s also suitable for the purpose here.
But the problem here is that you are assigning special value to a particular outcome, apparently imagining it’s some kind of ‘gotcha’. Back in reality, any order of the cards has the same probability.
recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
Sea breeze:
No they don't. Successful businesses and lives don't work like this at all.
Your response is entirely wrong at every level. Every shuffled deck of cards that currently exists is in an order that is 1 in 8x10^67. Every one of them is an improbable event. And that’s just cards.
You are confused between improbable events and specific desired outcomes.
What this means is that every time that a deck of cards has EVER been shuffled, since cards were invented, the order that they ended up was the first time they were ever in that order, or ever will be.
Wrong again. It means it’s extremely unlikely that two decks would be the same, but there is no mechanism to ensure that every outcome is actually unique.
Also, the order of a deck of cards does not favour any particular patterns as more stable, so it also is not directly comparable to chemical or biological systems.
recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
The chance of a pack of playing cards being in any particular order is 8x10^67. By creationist ‘logic’, any shuffled deck of cards cannot exist because the probability of it happening is ‘too low’. The chance of a randomly shuffled deck being ‘in order’ (which you could think of loosely as a beneficial mutation) is exactly the same as the deck being in any other random order. Assigning special meaning to a specific order has no bearing on the actual probability of that order. It is only the probability of a predicted order that is low. Once it has already happened, the probability that it happened is exactly one.
Improbable events occur all the time. And when conditions are more favourable for particular combinations of improbable events over other less favourable conditions, it is inevitable that complexity will arise. This is particularly the case in chemistry (and by extension, biology), where particular combinations are more stable than others, making them more likely than just ‘random chance’. This is long before you get to the concept of ‘natural selection’ in more complex biological systems.
i have a question to the board.. if someone asks you the below question, how do you respond?
please reflect on why you think the question was asked.
(background... the spouse was talking to dubs about 6000 yrs and wanted to tell them that it was proved false).
The question as phrased in the thread is ambiguous. It could mean “have humans not yet existed for 6000 years” or “have humans existed for longer than 6000 years”. Assuming the latter, the briefest and correct answer would be “yes” (though “I don’t know” would be a convenient shortcut to terminate the discussion amicably).
In the context of responding to your spouse, just saying “it doesn’t matter” without elaboration is probably the worst possible response. Pre-supposing a specific reply to a response that essentially shut down the line of inquiry might have seemed enigmatic but was doomed to fail.
i have a question to the board.. if someone asks you the below question, how do you respond?
please reflect on why you think the question was asked.
(background... the spouse was talking to dubs about 6000 yrs and wanted to tell them that it was proved false).
TD:
I might be tempted to point out that negatives can't be proven,
It’s not really the case that ‘negatives can’t be proven’. (Saying 1+1 doesn’t equal 3 is just as provable as 1+1 equals 2.)
Though perhaps you’re just using this as shorthand for ‘the burden of proof lays with the person making the assertion’.
i have a question to the board.. if someone asks you the below question, how do you respond?
please reflect on why you think the question was asked.
(background... the spouse was talking to dubs about 6000 yrs and wanted to tell them that it was proved false).
It seems that either the question is misreported or something is missing from the context. If the question were asking whether ‘they’ have proved that humans had existed for MORE than 6000 years, then it was almost certainly a religious question. Though if it is about a discussion with JWs, then it’s almost certainly a religious question (with only incidental relevance to science) anyway. Perhaps the question is meant to say “only” instead of “not”?
I’m not aware of any statistically significant view suggesting humans have existed for less than 6000 years (though there are minor and sometimes purely conjectural views that everything could have been made ‘as is’ only a very short time ago), and it’s unlikely that a JW would be discussing those views.
But the other aspect is that if the person specifically asked for information about proving a view false, the response that “It doesn’t matter” isn’t particularly helpful and might understandably elicit some irritation. Perhaps “I don’t know” would have been a better response if you couldn’t (or didn’t want to) provide any helpful information.
does using uncle ben’s food products offend you?.
are you offended if you see a flag?
what about a confederate flag?.
minimus:
Jeffro is happy the woke culture got rid of Aunt Jemima. I never looked at syrup and thought of slavery but I’m not woke either.
There you go deciding what I think again. 🤣 I’m not aware that the product range in question has ever been available in my country, so it doesn’t affect me in any way. Though I’m not convinced that the branding of food products actually affects you in any real way either. You’re just whinging about trivial nonsense.
does using uncle ben’s food products offend you?.
are you offended if you see a flag?
what about a confederate flag?.
LongHairGal:
I see what you are getting at but tell me: whose picture should be on the package? ..Should it be a little blonde girl with pig tails?
Also, what about other pictures on other merchandise? Just WHOSE pictures should be on everything? Or, just to satisfy everybody should there NEVER be a depiction of any human being on anything?
With some irony, this would appear to be a case of black-and-white thinking, with just a hint of reductio ad absurdum. (I do hope that it's not really that hard to work out that you can have pictures of black people on things that don't have connotations of slavery involved.)
i can not find this ,does anyone know?
thanks.
.
Previous edit was while on the move, but here are some quotes. Note that after the 1990s, the topic is largely ignored so as not to attract attention to the (apparently controversial) issue:
Insight, vol. 2, p. 362:
Those for Whom Christ Is Mediator. The apostle Paul declares that there is “one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all”—for both Jews and Gentiles. (1Ti 2:5, 6) He mediates the new covenant between God and those taken into the new covenant, the congregation of spiritual Israel. (Heb 8:10-13; 12:24; Eph 5:25-27) Christ became Mediator in order that the ones called “might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance” (Heb 9:15); he assists, not the angels, but “Abraham’s seed.” (Heb 2:16) He assists those who are to be brought into the new covenant to be ‘adopted’ into Jehovah’s household of spiritual sons; these eventually will be in heaven as Christ’s brothers, becoming a part with him of the seed of Abraham. (Ro 8:15-17, 23-25; Ga 3:29) He has transmitted to them the promised holy spirit, with which spirit they are sealed and are given a token of what is to come, their heavenly inheritance. (2Co 5:5; Eph 1:13, 14) The total number of those who are finally and permanently sealed is revealed in Revelation 7:4-8 as 144,000.Insight, vol. 2, p. 858:
Moses prophetically foreshadowed Jesus Christ, the great Mediator for anointed Christians, as they approach heavenly Mount Zion.The Watchtower, 15 January 2015, p. 16:
Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant, and loyal anointed ones taken into it receive a heavenly inheritance.The Watchtower, 1 September 1996, p. 14:
This small, spirit-anointed group of Christians would later be joined by “a great crowd” from all nations who would also seek to worship Jehovah. (Revelation 7:9, 10; Zechariah 8:23) While not party to the new covenant, these too would be bound by law.The Watchtower, 15 August 1989, p. 30–31:
Questions From ReadersThe Watchtower, 1 January 1985, p. 19:
□ Is Jesus the Mediator only for spirit-anointed Christians or for all mankind, since 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 speaks of him as the “mediator” who “gave himself a corresponding ransom for all”?
[Entire article; short answer, yes.]
Jesus Christ is the Mediator of the new covenant and anointed Christians in it are called to inherit the Kingdom.The Watchtower, 1 April 1979, p. 31:
Questions From ReadersOf course, it can't be demonstrated that any of this is actually real, so it's not worth worrying about too much. But it is certainly the case that JWs officially believe that Jesus is mediator (at the very least, in some 'fullest sense') to only the 'anointed'.
● Is Jesus the “mediator” only for anointed Christians?
[Entire article; short answer, yes.]
