Are we made in God's image?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Apr 23, 2020.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I think you need to think this through. Seems you are confusing the axopodia with filum.

    Actinosphaerium nucleofilum Barrett, 1958

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Actinosphaerium nucleofilum – a habitus; b nucleus – Ferry Siemensma, 1991

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Actinosphaerium nucleofilum – a specimen with strongly bend axopodia; b detail; c specimen with preyed rotifer; d A. eichhornii compared with e A. nucleofilum – drawing Ferry Siemensma, 1991

    https://www.arcella.nl/actinosphaerium-nucleofilum/
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I've really been trying to avoid using the term. But when we speak about purely chemical dynamical pseudo-living behaviors, it's unavoidable.

    It's the curse of being absolutely fundamental to the homeostasis of living organisms.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    But when we speak about purely chemical dynamical pseudo-living behaviors, it's unavoidable

    BUT we are not posting about the above

    OR

    It's the curse of being absolutely fundamental to living organisms. A "common dynamic electro-chemical information processor". MTs can't help being part of (or causal to) abiogenesis

    but more posting about

    Are we made in God's image?

    I admit I stray from the straight and narrow at times but not to the extent of (as this post of mine is) of charging the thread

    While not keeping track my gut says I pull myself up (or James nudges ✓) and I toddle back to the thread subject

    However since no answers have been forthcoming for a number of post I will suggest
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_&_Friends

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    as a god image who stays on track

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Define what's in god's image....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Are we made - in god's image

    :

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I have no clue, never met the guy, and I say guy, because no woman would ever screw things up the way this guy has (stolen from the philosopher George Carlin).

    On second thought, if God created man in his image, then when the question is posed if we are made in god's image by god, it would be appropriate to discuss what we are made of and how we got here, starting from a dynamic reciprocal chemical reaction which produced the first instance of motility and potential for life, to a single celled pseudo-living organism able to move and capture prey by chemical signals, to modern day near infinite variety of evolutionary biological expressions just in the past 4 b years on Earth alone, not counting the untold species thriving on other Cinderella planets in far flung regions of the universe, before we could begin to image God in relation to the human species.

    God has many images and Death is one of them. Do humans resemble that image? You bet we do.

    Darwin demonstrated the evolution of man and in doing so, painted God's image in the process....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What part of this evolutionary chronology shaped our image and how would that equate to god's image?
    Is God is an evolved abstract being, or a mathematically evolving atomic pattern occupying some dynamic local spacetime coordinate pattern?
    Are humans?
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Don't think so

    Question ask about IMAGE, not ingredients or assembly, IMAGE

    So first we need to find a accurate image of god for comparison. That should be easy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    As for the US we would have a few billion to choose from

    Most of the depictions (images) I have seen fit into 4 groups
    • baby
    • young man
    • dead elderly man
    • old man
    There are other depictions but 4 good enough for me

    I contend the 4 groups can be cut down to 1 (young man) based on depictions of Adam

    Google Biblical Adam first man
    you get Adam Mk 001

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Good enough for me

    Apparently the above was made from

    Google Mud images

    you get this

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Don't think this is Adam Mk 002 since us puny Minions make our offspring far easier, and have not got abiogenesis up and running - YET

    So far have covered
    • image and
    • composition (not a Microtubule in sight)
    All needed now is to average out the few billion, currently alive males, and hope any image obtained matches up to the depiction posted here

    Any volunteers?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

    Attached Files:

    • Adam.png
      Adam.png
      File size:
      506.5 KB
      Views:
      1
    • Mud.png
      Mud.png
      File size:
      537.2 KB
      Views:
      1
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Is it me or does Adam 001 depiction look a little 'off'?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    A fine question, to be certain, but off-topic↗. This thread was actually created specifically to get away those considerations:

     
    Write4U likes this.
  13. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Yes. It isn't just the theists, that's one of the ways I might define it as well.

    It isn't necessary to conceive of God in an 'Abrahamic' manner, derived from ancient Hebrew mythology. It isn't necessary to base everything on the Bible. Atheists certainly shouldn't always behave as if they are crypto-Christians.

    Yes, very true. The God of natural theology is basically whatever it is that performs certain metaphysical functions. Many people probably find that kind of God too intellectualized and difficult to relate to emotionally. It isn't clear why one would Worship it, for example. It isn't clear why we should consider it Holy or associate it with Good.

    So there's part of the answer to your question right there. People will tend to bestow their concept of the divine with qualities that they find emotionally resonant. And that might be a big part of the motivation for imagining God as a person. People are instinctively primed by their evolutionary history to be able to relate emotionally to other people. We are, by our nature, social animals.

    Maybe. The philosophical theologians would probably point to the fact that whatever the reason is for the universe being orderly and rational (something that physics just assumes as a-priori) must itself be at least equally rational. If the universe seems to behave in accordance with logic, then whatever the Source of the universe is must be the origin of logic as well.

    Human beings are able to use language, able to reason in abstractions, able to comprehend mathematics. So in that sense we seem to have something in common not only with the universe, but (arguably) with whatever the universe's Source is. These ideas were very big in the Platonic tradition that gave rise to so much Christian and Islamic philosophical theology. It's a big part of what motivated the idea of man as the uniquely rational animal and why the philosophical theologians thought that reason was a feeble and easily corrupted image of divinity in man.

    Another big part of it is the idea that human beings have some sense of right and wrong. Our sense of right and wrong is imperfect certainly, and easily defeated. But if we really want to think of God as the Good, as many of the Christian and Islamic Neoplatonists did, and if humans really do have some intuitive appreciation for good, then that's arguably another image.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Yep, here we run into selection of interpretation. Which definition to use with a certain term;
    image, noun
    Psychology.
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/image
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I like his shaved legs, and that well turned ankle, and that demure countenance,
    very elegant....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Mentally and/or Physically ?
     
  18. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Wow, talk about an exemplar of Dunning-Kruger. Apparently you can't even manage to listen to what the video you cited says.
    From your video:
    01:13 The protozoan, Echinospherum nucleofilum is a model system for the investigation of microtubules.
    01:21 This is a multinucleate organism, measuring about a hundred microns in diameter.
    02:02 The Echinospherum feeds on other protozoa or on rotifers. ​
    Echinospherum is a protozoa and a multinucleated organism. Note: the Echinospherum feeds, not its filum, which are essentially just the arms of the living organism Echinospherum.
    Protozoa (also protozoan, plural protozoans) is an informal term for single-celled eukaryotes, either free-living or parasitic, which feed on organic matter such as other microorganisms or organic tissues and debris.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protozoa
    So yes, Echinospherum are eukaryotes.

    Since a filum is a "threadlike anatomical structure", it should be obvious to any intelligent person that Echinospherum nucleofilum are the threadlike anatomical structures of Echinospherum. The multinucleated eukaryote certainly isn't a "threadlike anatomical structure". All of the protrusions from the eukaryote are axopodia.
    Again, as per your own video:
    01:34 A large number of slender, rigid but elastic structures called axopodia project from the spherical body. ​
    The axopodia are the filum, which contain microtubules enveloped in cytoplasm.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(genus)
    Chaos is a genus of amoebae, in the family Amoebidae. The largest and best-known species, the so-called "giant amoeba" (Chaos carolinense), can reach lengths of 5 mm, although most specimens fall between 1 and 3 mm.​
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba
    An amoeba or ameba (/əˈmiːbə/; rarely spelt amœba; plural am(o)ebas or am(o)ebae /əˈmiːbi/),[1] often called an amoeboid, is a type of cell or unicellular organism which has the ability to alter its shape, primarily by extending and retracting pseudopods.​
    So everything you've offered, so far, are already living organisms.

    Completely non sequitur to your ignorant claim that Echinospherum are neither eukaryotes nor alive.

    Oh, now you admit that eukaryotes are alive, huh?

    Yet no one has created a eukaryote. Hence your claims are ignorant bs. Trying to hedge your bets, with unscientific crap like "barely alive" and trying to conflate living bacteria with non-living viruses, is just demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.

    You've proven your opinion to be woefully uneducated.

    We don't need to ask because, as shown, your ignorance is the only reason you ask.

    Again, you're just ignorant of the science you try to tout. Echinospherum is a multinucleated eukaryote (living organism) that has axopodia (filum) composed of microtubules.


    Sure, I'll try to explain it to you again, using another species as example.

    Axopodia are filum. Go take an actual class on the subject.
    Actinosphaerium nucleofilum is a living species of actinophryids.
    The actinophryids are an order of heliozoa. They are the most common heliozoa in fresh water and can also be found in marine and soil habitats. Actinophryids are unicellular and roughly spherical in shape, with many axopodia that radiate outward from the cell body. Axopodia are a type of pseudopodia that are supported by hundreds of microtubules arranged in a needle-like internal structure. These axopods adhere to passing prey and assist with cell movement, as well as playing a part in cell division and cell fusion.
    ...
    This behavior has been documented in many species, including Actinosphaerium nucleofilum, Actinophrys sol, and Raphidiophrys contractilis.
    ...
    There are several genera included within this classification. Actinophrys are smaller and have a single, central nucleus.[9] Most have a cell body 40-50 micrometer in diameter with axopods around 100 μm in length, though this varies significantly. Actinosphaerium are several times larger, from 200-1000 μm in diameter, with many nuclei[9] and are found exclusively in fresh water.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actinophryid
    I'll repeat that bit for your benefit:
    Actinophryids are unicellular and roughly spherical in shape, with many axopodia that radiate outward from the cell body. Axopodia are a type of pseudopodia that are supported by hundreds of microtubules arranged in a needle-like internal structure.​

    Sinking in yet? Actinophryids are unicellular, spherical organisms. They have many axopodia. And those axopodia are supported by microtubules.
    Actinophryids nor Echinospherum are microtubules nor only filum. They are living organisms that you are stupidly trying to claim as evidence of life from the inanimate.

    Try to actually learn something about the science you parrot without comprehension.
     
  19. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Bumped for Write4U's benefit. Since he indicated missing the above >here.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    While you are bumping my posts, why don't you answer the question posed in the OP title. You claim to have the answer, so enlighten me instead of trying to discredit me.

    The blurry line between life, nonlife.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Iron oxide, which gives the water and rocks its red hues, may be more than a mere mineral, according to geobiologists. (NASA) By Colin Nickerson
    Globe Correspondent / January 12, 2009

    Geobiology
    http://archive.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/01/12/the_blurry_line_between_life_nonlife/

    So where in this Geobiology does the image of God appear?
     
  22. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    As we have not created life in the lab it seems so the accumulated science means nothing however we can outline the two beliefs as to how life started...on the one hand via chemistry which has already has shown compelling reasons to think abiogenesis is most certain or on the other we can take it from a book written by folk who did not know where the Sun went at night that their invented but unevidenced God somehow created life in some non specific magical way..although we do have more detail for the creation of a human, that being that this unevidenced god modelled that human out of clay and "breathed" life into it...two ideas, two approaches...if I had to bet my house on which is the most likely I don't think I would be listening to the guys who did not know where the Sun went at night.
    You won't get a definition of God presumably because old laughing gorilla does not wish to talk about himself.
    Alex
     
    Write4U likes this.
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Would we even know when something biochemical becomes a living thing? Pure biochemistry can certainly be dynamic. We "know" there is a transition from pure chemistry to bio-chemistry and from there biology and we know the mechanism how this happens. We just don't know for sure when a dynamical biochemical pattern becomes a biological lifeform or what are the absolute minimum functional requirements to be "fully" alive.

    Is a virus alive? Technically it is not a living organism.
    Are viruses dead or alive?
    Clearly, viruses are an intermediate biological pattern, not really alive but exhibiting some same behaviors as living organisms.

    Can there be more convincing evolutionary evidence for abiogenesis than a virus? A virus is not alive, it is a quasi-living pattern.
    Life: Quasi-Life
    http://www.scienceforthepublic.org/things-to-know/life/life-quasi-life

    As Hazen posits, there may be several different paths how the transition from purely non-living chemical to living bio-chemical patterns happens, but from the available data, they should all follow a common evolutionary process", from quasi-living micro patterns to complex living macro patterns.
    https://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/studies/invertebrates/kingdoms.html
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2020

Share This Page