https://reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/RNL_May-Jun_2024...

"The scene touches on the profound differences between limited humans and our limitless
Creator. Answering prayers requires perfect wisdom, knowledge, power, and love. It also
requires the ability to hear and respond to myriad petitions simultaneously. In his book Beyond the Cosmos, Hugh Ross ponders God’s supernatural abilities through a scientific lens. As Hugh explains, humans are constrained to “a single, unidirectional, unstoppable timeline,” which forces us “to communicate with other individuals (or groups) sequentially.” God operates outside of this constraint. Hugh posits that God could extend a timeline perpendicular to ours, thus allowing God to give undivided attention to multiple prayers at once.

"Not only is God capable of hearing all prayers, but he also cares deeply for the needs and
concerns of his children (1 Peter 5:7). Bruce Almighty represents prayers as objects that
can be, and often are, ignored (think of all your unread emails). Scripture reveals that the
prayers of God’s people are kept ever present in his throne room as incense in golden bowls
(Revelation 5:8; 8:3–4)."

Comment: this is in distinct contrast to how I believe. Adler says God's attention to us is 50/50. There is a vast spread of beliefs about God as this comparison shows, because everyone choses the God He wishes to believe in. dhw rales at me for doing exactly that. When you arrive at belief, as I did, after much reading, you must pick the sort of God you wish to believe in. I chose the prevailing Western mono-theistic all-everything version. But I never could adopt the God is dhw's vivid imagination.

dhw picks very a humanized God who has needs for entertainment in the free-for-all concept dhw offers. And dhw's God has to experiment which means his God is not all-powerful. In the discussion of the issue of boredom as a factor in our reality dhw's God does not wish to be bored. dhw's God is a Siamese twin with him.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-biologists-inheritance-gene-silencing-rna.html

"...recent research has shown that, in some species, parents' life experiences can alter their offspring. Being underfed, exposed to toxins or stricken by disease can cause changes in a parent's gene expression patterns, and in some cases, these changes can be passed down to the next generation. However, the mechanisms that cause this effect—known as non-genetic inheritance—are a mystery.

"For the first time, developmental biologists have observed molecules of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA)—a close cousin of DNA that can silence genes within cells—being passed directly from parent to offspring in the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans. Importantly, the gene silencing effect created by dsRNA molecules in parents also persisted in their offspring.

***

"'This is the first time we've seen a dsRNA molecule passing from one generation to the next," said Antony Jose, an assistant professor in the UMD Department of Cell Biology and Molecular Genetics and senior author on the study. "The assumption has been that dsRNA changes the parent's genetic material and this altered genetic material is transmitted to the next generation. But our observations suggest that RNA is cutting out the middle man."

"In a surprising turn of events, some of the dsRNA molecules could not silence genes in the parent because the dsRNA sequence did not match any of the parent's genes. But the dsRNA molecules did silence genes in the offspring, when the new worm gained a copy of the matching gene from its other parent. This suggests that, in some cases, gene silencing by dsRNA might be able to skip an entire generation.

"'It's shocking that we can see dsRNA cross generational boundaries. Our results provide a concrete mechanism for how the environment in one generation could affect the next generation," Jose said. "But it's doubly surprising to see that a parent can transmit the information to silence a gene it doesn't have."

"Jose and his colleagues did not expect dsRNA to play such a direct role in the transmission of information across generations. Because dsRNA factors into the life cycle of many viruses, Jose explained, it is reasonable to assume that a living cell's natural defenses would prevent dsRNA from invading the next generation.

"'It's very surprising. One would think the next generation would be protected, but we are seeing all of these dsRNA molecules being dumped into the next generation," Jose added. "Egg cells use the same mechanism to absorb nutrients as they prepare for fertilization. The next generation is not only getting nutrition, it's also getting information." (my bold)

"There are hints that similar things could be happening in humans. We know that RNA exists in the human bloodstream. But, we don't know where the RNA molecules are coming from, where they're going or exactly what they're doing," Jose said. "Our work reveals an exciting possibility—they could be messages from parents to their offspring."

Comment: Genetic mechanisms pass information. That is accepted now. This new epigenetic mechanism discovery shows that it can be predicted more methods for passage of information between generations will be found. Lamarck will be vindicated.


> David: I've reviewed the site. My own reaction is that Lipton is correct to large degree about epigenetics. -Serendipity at work: new findings of how epigenetics may be inheritable:-"The new Cambridge study initially discovered how the DNA methylation marks are erased in PGCs, a question that has been under intense investigation over the past 10 years. The methylation marks are converted to hydroxymethylation which is then progressively diluted out as the cells divide. This process turns out to be remarkably efficient and seems to reset the genes for each new generation. Understanding the mechanism of epigenetic resetting could be exploited to deal with adult diseases linked with an accumulation of aberrant epigenetic marks, such as cancers, or in 'rejuvenating' aged cells.
 
However, the researchers, who were funded by the Wellcome Trust, also found that some rare methylation can 'escape' the reprogramming process and can thus be passed on to offspring -- revealing how epigenetic inheritance could occur. This is important because aberrant methylation could accumulate at genes during a lifetime in response to environmental factors, such as chemical exposure or nutrition, and can cause abnormal use of genes, leading to disease. If these marks are then inherited by offspring, their genes could also be affected."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130124150808.htm

bbella: Speaking of genes, belief and cells...
> 
> Dr. Lipton claims that belief not genes control biology. I'm sure David has heard this before, but I did think it interesting and I do believe that Dr Lipton is way ahead of his time. He did not wait for science to approve his findings knowing science would not make money from his findings, so he took his findings straight to the public.
> 
> 
> Genetics, Epigenetics, and Destiny
> 
> Interview with Dr. Bruce Lipton
> 
> http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/interview-dr-bruce-lipton-I've reviewed the site. My own reaction is that Lipton is correct to large degree about epigenetics. And certainly the plasticity of the brain will bring individual changes in that person's brain by his conscious activity. And we all know evidence of changing how our body feels when we have a thought, lets, say a sense of joy. He also invokes Rupert Sheldrake, a favorite of mine who has shown there is human species consciousness we all tap into.-On the other hand Lipton is implying more than is currently proven, and with all theories we don't know at this point how much will turn out to be true. But I'll bet he is a fine motivational speaker. And folks need that kind of stuff.


> Tony: Isaiah 47:9 That Babylon would fall in a single day. (Confirmed by Josephus)-Isaiah dates to the 8th Century BC. Josephus was born a few years before Jesus died (33 AD) All you have proven is Josephus was a good reader. The first fall of Babylon was about 520 BC. with several falls aferward. I admire you faith but you are twisting facts to support it. Look at this discussion by a scholar of the OT.-http://www.dabar.org/semreview/fallbabyprob.html-
Let's drop the subject. I don't want to upset you or your faith.

TONY: If a hundred scientist all wrote papers in a particular field, and they all agreed with each other as to the overall big picture, and they were all verified repeated by outside experiments, would you question the credentials of each and every one?
> 
> DHW: What experiments? The only "big picture" in the bible is the story of one version of God, which cannot be verified by outside experiments.
> -Not at all. The "Big Picture" is a chain of events as well. The hypotheses were the prophecies, which were tested in the laboratory of life, and confirmed. The repeat experiments are in the form of archaeology and history which confirm that these are true, despite the attempts of nay-sayers to poo poo them. - --> TONY: ...let me pose this question to both you and David: What would you accept as valid evidence? What brings you from the non-belief to the point of belief, regardless of the subject being discussed? 
> 
> It can't be "regardless of the subject being discussed"! The (non-)existence of God is a unique subject. But I will try to answer each of the following arguments:
> -The non-existence of god is no more unique than Abiogensis, String theory, Evolution, or any other theory for which we have no DIRECT OBSERVATION. So, again, what is your criteria?--> DHW: Do you, then, like the Rev. E.B. Pusey, think all non-Christian historians, archaeologists and scientists are prejudiced, trying to delude others, and "know well" that they are ignoring historical truths? -Not all, certainly, but some most definitely. I have actually quoted non-christian/non-jewish historians and archaeology that confirms my points. Why would I do that if I thought all of them were biased or trying to delude others?->DHW:History and archaeology: No doubt some events reported by some biblical authors are historical. History may be fact, but presentation and interpretation of history depend on subjective, fallible historians. Even eye-witness accounts vary considerably, and when the historian is not an eye-witness, he/she can only rely on the unreliable subjectivity of others. -
Aside from the obvious fact that Shakespeare was not writing a history, I understand your point. However, when such rich details of accounts have been verified by multiple accounts from respectable sources, do you not give them credibility?->DHW: Prophecies: I'm in no position to judge the authenticity of the biblical texts that contain prophecies, or the extent to which prophecies have come true, but (a) I have an open mind on many psychic matters, and would by no means dismiss experiences authenticated by independent third parties (as in NDEs and OBEs); (b) even if Gipsy Rose gets it right, I do not see that as proof that Gipsy Jane will also get it right. -
But if Gipsy Rose has a perfect track record for all the ones that have happened already, shouldn't you be more inclined to perk up when she is telling you what is going to happen in the future?->DHW: Science: Please give me one piece of objective, scientific evidence that God exists.
> -David has given us so much evidence that it would be near insulting for me to try and top his efforts. The most basic though, is the Law of Biogenesis that has never been disproven, and the fact that without information, physical life can not exist(i.e. information must proceed physical life)->DHW: What would I accept as valid evidence? I suspect that BBella is right, and it would need a personal experience to convince me. The overriding impression that has emerged from all our discussions is that arguments relating to the existence and nature of God are based on subjective interpretation of whatever information is available to us. You have agreed that belief is a matter of faith, and yet you get frustrated when someone tells you that your subjectively interpreted "evidence" requires faith to be believed!-It is faith insomuch as I have not directly observed God. You are correct in that. I have also never directly observed an atom, or a strand of DNA. I've never seen Jupiter with my own eyes or walked on the surface of the Red Planet to take air samples. Instead, I must rely on the reports and interpretations of data that other people that have, who may or may not have their own agenda or bias that is slanting their views. So much of our lives is relegated to trusting someone else's subjective interpretation. I am always surprised when that is thrown up as a defense. There is no response to that argument, and there never can be.


> dhw:What would I accept as valid evidence? I suspect that BBella is right, and it would need a personal experience to convince me. The overriding impression that has emerged from all our discussions is that arguments relating to the existence and nature of God are based on subjective interpretation of whatever information is available to us. You have agreed that belief is a matter of faith, and yet you get frustrated when someone tells you that your subjectively interpreted "evidence" requires faith to be believed!-Your discussion and mine with Tony is frustrating. He thoroughly believes that what he considers evidence is 'real' truth. It isn't. It requires interpretation of ancient texts, based on hearsay, and then an interpretation of the future events which may or may not have been foretold. The Jews in exile certainly planned to get back to Jeruselem, and they expressed wishes for that event, and they did get back. So? We all wish for things that finally come true. You are right to ask for a scientific proof. That is what I am attempting to show.


> Tony: Much of Daniel actually translates itself, so it is not so much my interpretation. As for history, check out the Cyrus Cylinder and the Nabonidus Cylinder. These are straight from the tap, as it were.-I've read them. I don't see any connection that helps me see your point. I know the Jews returned to the Holy Land later, and even if it was said they would return eventually, that hardly makes it a holy prophesy.

David: I know what you believe and what you have presented as truth. But the Biblical record is mainly hearsay, and the historian record likewise. I've looked at what Catholics call miracles, and I am just as skeptical there. The ossuary containing James bones, supposedly brother of Joshua (Jesus), is apparently a fake. There is no absolute solid evidence that Jesus existed except the stories about him. I happen to believe they are true, but I cannot prove my belief. Josephus' mention of Jesus is said to be a fraudulent entry, not Josephus' writings. Some scholars claim this. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know for sure what to believe. If your 'prophecies' were crystal clear valid, there wouldn't be all this debate. They are interpretations. You are happy with them. I am not.-Much of Daniel actually translates itself, so it is not so much my interpretation. As for history, check out the Cyrus Cylinder and the Nabonidus Cylinder. These are straight from the tap, as it were.


> Tony: When I have presented quotes from historians, they historians credentials and sources were discarded. When I have presented fulfilled prophecies, they have been discarded. When I have presented archaelogical evidence, it has been discarded. When science provides evidence, it is discarded. So, the question becomes, what is acceptable as valid evidence if not history, science, archaeology, or an accuracy rating that smashes the Law of Probabilities?-I know what you believe and what you have presented as truth. But the Biblical record is mainly hearsay, and the historian record likewise. I've looked at what Catholics call miracles, and I am just as skeptical there. The ossuary containing James bones, supposedly brother of Joshua (Jesus), is apparently a fake. There is no absolute solid evidence that Jesus existed except the stories about him. I happen to believe they are true, but I cannot prove my belief. Josephus' mention of Jesus is said to be a fraudulent entry, not Josephus' writings. Some scholars claim this. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know for sure what to believe. If your 'prophecies' were crystal clear valid, there wouldn't be all this debate. They are interpretations. You are happy with them. I am not.

DHW: But the sources of their information, and their credentials for announcing to us the nature of God, his motives for past actions, and his future intentions are unknown and uncheckable.
> TONY: That is why the prophecies and histories are so important. The historical accuracy gives confidence in their credentials. They have never been proven inaccurate.
> 
> Whose credentials? Even if I were to give credence to some of these ancient texts, does an accurate prophecy in Daniel mean I must believe the prophecies of St John the Divine? The bible is a collection of books by different, fallible, human authors (and sometimes we don't even know who they were), put together by a group of men with an agenda of their own, who somehow or the other have succeeded in promoting the idea that their selection is "the Word of God".
> -Ok, so think of it this way. If a hundred scientist all wrote papers in a particular field, and they all agreed with each other as to the overall big picture, and they were all verified repeated by outside experiments, would you question the credentials of each and every one? The criteria that we impose on science is much less rigorous than the scrutiny to which the bible has been subjected, and for the bible has been under such scrutiny for thousands of years. Yet, you seem much more trusting of a bunch of scientist whose hypotheses and theories have been overturned on a regular basis. -
> TONY: Whose justice should coincide with whose?
> 
> DHW: God has the last word. And supposing ... purely for argument's sake, of course ... he decides that murderers, fornicators and agnostics are equally deserving of eternal death, I can't argue. That's why it's scary.
> -It is only scary if you are afraid of death. I don't WANT to die, but it holds no fear for me. Sadness, sure; fear, not at all. ->DHW: As I have tried to make clear many times, I distinguish between belief, non-belief and disbelief. Belief in God = I think God exists; disbelief = I think God does not exist; non-belief = I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. Absence of belief is non-belief, not disbelief. In talking to a theist, I explain why I do not believe in God. In talking to an atheist, I explain why I do not disbelieve in God. This distinction is very important for the understanding of what I mean by agnosticism.
> ----Ok, so then let me pose this question to both you and David: What would you accept as valid evidence? What brings you from the non-belief to the point of belief, regardless of the subject being discussed?-When I have presented quotes from historians, they historians credentials and sources were discarded. When I have presented fulfilled prophecies, they have been discarded. When I have presented archaelogical evidence, it has been discarded. When science provides evidence, it is discarded. So, the question becomes, what is acceptable as valid evidence if not history, science, archaeology, or an accuracy rating that smashes the Law of Probabilities?

tony: Flavius says:-If you are quoting Josephus, how did he know for sure what he related in his histories? They wre mostly oral stories.

DHW: Tony, I fear this may lead to more frustration for you. I don't want you to spend your time on such matters unless you feel they are of interest to you too.
> -There is nothing to fear. If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't spend my time on it. In fact, I quite enjoy it, honestly. Frustration is not a bad thing any more than pain is. Frustration, much like pain, is a warning sign that whatever it is we are doing, we are going about it the wrong way. So, in a sense, getting frustrated with our discussions at times is a learning experience for me, and as such is actually greatly appreciated!! Believe me, if I did not have immense respect for the people on this board, and did not find some benefit in discussing these topics, I would not be posting here. -
> DHW: I have answered both points. I have defined evil as "deliberate actions which cause unnecessary suffering to others", so that e.g. we can separate good pain from bad. I do not blame God for human actions. I am suggesting to you, through my subjective view of the earth's history, that the mixed nature of humans may mirror the mixed nature of the God who you think created us.-And I have agreed, repeatedly, that God is a mix of our nature. The prime difference, aside from physical differences and scale, is motivation. We have both agreed that motive is the primary component for something to be construed as evil/wicked. -
>DHW: But the sources of their information, and their credentials for announcing to us the nature of God, his motives for past actions, and his future intentions are unknown and uncheckable.
> -That is why the prophecies and histories are so important. The historical accuracy gives confidence in their credentials. They have never been proven inaccurate. The prophecies give confidence in their credentials as sources of divine inspiration by breaking the Law of Probabilities to pieces in a verifiable way. In this sense it is like science. You get a theory, that makes a lot of predictions. The more of those predictions that come true, the more faith you put in the theory until the point where you call it a Law! -
> DHW: If he exists, I have to agree as far as the scale is concerned. Love and mercy are encouraging, anger and power are scary, and justice makes them even scarier since we do not know whether his idea of justice coincides with our own.
> -Whose justice should coincide with whose?--As for the rest..-This is what I get for including the whole quote and citing the source instead of just the relevant part. The only part I was concerned with was that it is impossible to overcome disbelief externally, regardless of the amount or nature of the evidence. I meant no insult. The truth of the matter is that no matter what I show you, I can not make you (dis)believe. As we ALL said in the conversation with Bella, it is something you come to through your own experiences. If you can not get to the point where you are at least WILLING to (dis)believe, then no one, not I nor anyone else on this earth, could make you (dis)believe anything at all. That is not meant to be derogatory nor is it non-sense. People disbelieve things all the time, irregardless of anything presented to them. --> DHW: Naturally I see them as a rational and coherent counter to the subjectivity underlying the "evidence" as it is presented by both sides. They are not, however, expressions of belief or disbelief. I do not (dis)believe God is a "tyrannical asshole". I do not (dis)believe God is all good. I do not even (dis)believe in God. According to whatever subject is under discussion, I can only explain why I do not believe whatever my interlocutor does believe. Agnosticism can only be negative, and so it might be seen as a testing ground for belief. That is all I can offer ... at least until such time as something tips the balance!-You contradict yourself here... I do not (dis)believe, I do not (dis)believe, I do not (dis)believe .... I can only explain why I do not believe..-What is disbelief but the absence of belief?