How is the information required for DNA ceated?

Persol, there is an invisible Unicorn that created the Universe, if you consider that everything you imagine already exist, and if in fact the conscience is a Quantum reaction, that would mean that everything you think exist in a universe, because it is a recolection of the said reality. :)

There is a bacteria that I have kept here, that have created a Universe, I tell it, so it is right. :)

So what makes God non-existant, because I claim that everything I think I think it because it exist in some sort of many parallel Universes, and my brain record and record, and I think actually that I am having those ideas when the fact is that I am just chaneling them. ;)
 
Originally posted by stu43t
I have to go now, it's time for me to pray and worship the invisible unicorn, I have to kneel in the direction of NW, and whistle the tune of "Good ship Venus" three times in E flat.
Click to expand...

Hey BUD, I asked that you not lay your STUPID shit on ME.. but entertaining mockery is more than welcome! What else you got?
 
Originally posted by Persol: My theory of the invisible unicorn.

Of course I felt like addressing the issue in an intelligent way, it's a shame you didn't.

Shhhh Persol, I'm still praying to your invisible unicorn...
 
Re: Originally posted by Persol: My theory of the invisible unicorn.

Originally posted by stu43t
Of course I felt like addressing the issue in an intelligent way, it's a shame you didn't.
Click to expand...
So demonstration by example is unintelligent now?
 
Re: Originally posted by Persol: My theory of the invisible unicorn.

Originally posted by stu43t
Of course I felt like addressing the issue in an intelligent way, it's a shame you didn't.

Shhhh Persol, I'm still praying to your invisible unicorn...
Click to expand...

Okay stu, let's be serious.. this is a serious question, no bull: Why do you entertain "abrahamic faith" as more plausible than Persol's unicorn or my ass story? My impression thus far is that you think it's more plausible because "it's lasted for 2000 years" or something to that effect. Is that right?
 
Originally posted by brainuniverse
Persol, there is an invisible Unicorn that created the Universe, if you consider that everything you imagine already exist, and if in fact the conscience is a Quantum reaction, that would mean that everything you think exist in a universe, because it is a recolection of the said reality. :)
Click to expand...
What exactly is a "quantum reaction", in the context you use it? Sounds to me like you're trying to use big words to be impressive.
Originally posted by brainuniverse

There is a bacteria that I have kept here, that have created a Universe, I tell it, so it is right. :)
Click to expand...
Dare to dream brother.
Originally posted by brainuniverse

So what makes God non-existant, because I claim that everything I think I think it because it exist in some sort of many parallel Universes, and my brain record and record, and I think actually that I am having those ideas when the fact is that I am just chaneling them. ;)
Click to expand...

So what if I claim you are retarded for saying that? Ridiculous claims are surely fun to entertain and yours is in a way supported by some solid science... but "because you claim it" doesn't give it much argumentative weight. Your point is easy enough to see, but claims that it is in any way factual is nothing more than conjecture at this point... kind of like the unicorn huh? Sweet. Thank you Persol, for such a pertinent point. Maybe this time even Stu will get it eh? Eh, who am I kidding?!?!?
 
wesmorris, in case you missed that up, my post was a joke from a recycled "illusion" philosophical theories.

As for the Quantum reaction, I suggest you to read some recent studies concerning the possibility that consciensnous may be a "Quantum" reaction, or better, "Quantum" in nature. I is not so friendly from your part to insinuate that I am using big words for the pleasure of using them.

If in fact the brain is Quantum in nature, that would mean a lot, it will mean that we in fact are a part of the Universe that think in itself, and we are just a consequences of those Quantum states, so everything we imagine may just be the fruit of the "Universe" will, of course what I am saying sound to not have sense at all, but I never claimed it had any.
 
Originally posted by brainuniverse
As for the Quantum reaction, I suggest you to read some recent studies concerning the possibility that consciensnous may be a "Quantum" reaction, or better, "Quantum" in nature. I is not so friendly from your part to insinuate that I am using big words for the pleasure of using them.
Click to expand...
I've read a lot of stuff regarding the issue... and I don't remember "quantum reaction" being used, since in the articles I read.. as soon as a quantum state interacts with something, it collapses into the classical realm of physics. I'm not always friendly pardon. I don't think you're using the terminology quite right, but maybe you just read something other than what I read.. so.... I ask. The snide comment was because you seemed to be using shit out of context...
Originally posted by brainuniverse

If in fact the brain is Quantum in nature, that would mean a lot, it will mean that we in fact are a part of the Universe that think in itself, and we are just a consequences of those Quantum states, so everything we imagine may just be the fruit of the "Universe" will, of course what I am saying sound to not have sense at all, but I never claimed it had any.
Click to expand...

I do think it would mean a lot, but I think the conclusions you seem to gather from such an implicaton are completely unwarrented, as your analysis doesn't do anything for me at all. Sure maybe hypothetically you are right, but no more so than the unicorn theory. Just because the brain might make use of "quantum states" for consciousness, you cannot just go and assume that "we are just consequences of those quantum states". You're right, it doesn't sound like it makes sense and all and I'd be interested in reading the material that lead you to that conclusion. I don't think you're copping the context. Multiverse theories don't neccesarily indicate how or what consciousness is. Sure, wild theories are cool and all, but it is ridiculous to assert them as "if this, then that".

Oh, and regardless, christianity is stupid and unless you DO make reality as you go, it's about as plausible as thinking that all eminates from my rectum.
 
Re: Re: Originally posted by Persol: My theory of the invisible unicorn.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Okay stu, let's be serious.. this is a serious question, no bull: Why do you entertain "abrahamic faith" as more plausible than Persol's unicorn or my ass story? My impression thus far is that you think it's more plausible because "it's lasted for 2000 years" or something to that effect. Is that right?
Click to expand...
Sorry bud, I tried and I failed to get my point across...I give in.

These were my personal thoughts on the matter, I wasn't influenced by anyone or anything. I'm stubborn with my belief that the answers to the beginnings of the universe and mankind cannot rule out the possibility of a god. I am fully aware of the scientific theories and I hold the same respect for all.

I viewed my thoughts which were shot down, but that doesn't matter because it doesn't change my opinion one bit, and I'm not going to continue just so I can be a target at an atheists shooting range.

If you don't agree with my views thats fine, what more can I say..
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Originally posted by Persol: My theory of the invisible unicorn.

Originally posted by stu43t
Sorry bud, I tried and I failed to get my point across...I give in.
Click to expand...
Sorry bud, but you haven't actually said what your point is. This isn't a guessing game. If you don't feel like sharing your reasoning with us, just say so.
 
Originally posted by stu43t
Read the above.....
Click to expand...

your (apparent) confusion stu, lies in the difference between "a god" and the "abrahamic god". I don't dispute the plausibility of "a god", but I vehemently dispute the plausibility of an "abrahamic god". i believe persol is attempting to communicate the same thing. please correct me if I'm wrong Persol.

() added on edit
 
Last edited:
You read my opinion correctly wesmorris. While it may be true that A god created the universe (while not provable), it is VERY UNLIKELY that a SPECIFIC god created the universe.
 
brainuniverse:

Once again you missed my point, which was not that there are no homeopathic treatments are efficacious (I agree that there are) but that the homeopathic methodology for determining treatment is unproven.

My understanding of the homeopathy is: a method of treating disease with small amounts of remedies that, in large amounts in healthy people, produce symptoms similar to those being treated.

It is this that I am arguing against, not some notion of dilution or how efficacious a proven drug is at what PPM. As with chiropracty, the central premise of the method has never been proven even though the treatments proscribed are sometimes effective. Regarding homeopathy the success rate seems to be no better than chance.

Your argument actually runs contrary to the paradigm you propose. Homeopathy would suggest that the best determining factor in deciding treatment is the selection of the remedy that most closely matches the symptoms at high dosage. The testing of various remedies for efficacy actually runs contrary to what is proposed which is suggestive that that the method is unreliable in the first place.

~Raithere

(edited for grammar)
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by stu43t
I have to go now, it's time for me to pray and worship the invisible unicorn, I have to kneel in the direction of NW, and whistle the tune of "Good ship Venus" three times in E flat.
Click to expand...
LOL! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top