If God is

[JemyM]

Your entire reasoning is postmodernistic and you contradict yourself.
Sceptic yes, method no.

 

[DArtagnan]

No, that's you having a problem categorizing that which you don't understand. Instead of simply not putting me in some tiny box, your limited capacity forces you to do so.

That's what I'm talking about, when I'm talking about not knowing what you think you know.

It's back to no interaction until you're ready, I think

 

[JemyM]

No, that's you having a problem categorizing that which you don't understand. Instead of simply not putting me in some tiny box, your limited capacity forces you to do so.
That's what I'm talking about, when I'm talking about not knowing what you think you know.
It's back to no interaction until you're ready, I think

No wonder you get threads closed you troll. I haven't seen any philosophical maturing from you for ages, so don't claim to be "ready" when you never offered anything. The problem is neither me or Rithrandil, you need to mature and grow up.

Most likely you failed in your philosophy class or never took one. You aren't openminded, you follow no logic or consistency and you have no method of knowledge which is why you don't know the topics you get yourself into.

You aren't critic, you are paranoid. You aren't fit to judge anyone. Yet you are eager to attack people out of the blue and you do not even have the capacity to defend yourself with anything beyond counter-accusations when questioned. All you have is arrogance and narcissism. You believe you possess great wisdom that anyone with basic education identifies as the Socratic method. But you aren't Socrates, you can never offer any sharp arguments or reasonable insights, all you are good at is trolling.

 

[DArtagnan]

Oh my another tirade

I'm not judging you Jemy, and I would never judge anyone based on internet exchanges of this nature. I'm responding to what you say and do here, and as such I'm "judging" your internet persona - but I fully realise that it has little to do with your actual self - or maybe it IS you, I'll just refrain from assuming that.

In any case, if you really react so strongly - when you should simply dismiss me, then maybe you should ask yourself a few questions.

Don't you see that unless you can convince me that you have sound arguments, you'll never have any kind of effect - if that's what you wish.

Having emotional people go at me like you and Rith isn't going to leave much of a mark, really. It's a sign of immaturity that you can't have people disagree without responding like this.

I think you're both intelligent people with a lot of potential as human beings, and I don't see myself as superior or as having more "worth" in any way. I think I might even like you in real life - and though you don't think so right now - you might even like me. But that's besides the point.

I simply disagree with you and see you as closed-minded people who're not really open to the possibility of being wrong about science.

But again, we shouldn't be interacting when this is the result. It's kinda pointless, really.

 

[Rithrandil]

I mean what % of our DNA has been fully identified.

Pibbur would be better able to tell you. I'm unaware, all I know is that 20% of our genes have been patented by corporations.

 

[Zaleukos]

I am not referring to the number of possible combinations however. According to what you said, there are 4 variables and each of those variables differ in size(last part is a guess).

If you want computer analogies they arent variables, the four bases (short names T, A, C, and G) are more like bits in a computers memory, with the difference that they can take on four rather than two values. The DNA is a sequence of base pairs (it consists of two strands, A is paired by T in the other strand, while C is paired by G). Every cell in an organism has the full DNA sequence.

Genes are the parts of DNA that form instructions for producing various proteins. In programming terms I guess they could be considered classes and functions. DNA also contains instructions for when the genes should be activated, and. They can be activated depending on external factors, or depending on what function the cell has (a skin, muscle, or brain cell will need rather different proteins). he DNA molecules are constantly copied and, in spite of self correction and redundancy mechanisms, mistakes (mutations) occur every now and then, randomly flipping the bits in the memory. Mutations are either useful (in which case the individual with the mutation gets an advantage and is likely to produce more offspring and spread the mutation), harmful (which will harm the individuals chances to reproduce or even live) or make no difference at all.

From what I gather the atavistic genes are "old" genes that filled a function in some ancestor organism but have lost their usefulness. If you think of the DNA as recycled computer code (from an ancestor/previous version) then they would be old code that has been commented away. It was a mutation that switched off these genes in the past, and as their absence didnt hurt the mutated organisms managed to produce offspring.

And as Thrasher says the similarities in DNA (the same or very similar genes occuring in vastly different organisms) and the presence of obsolete atavistic genes are strong arguments for shared ancestry.

From a programmers point of view the following questions hint at evolution from shared ancestry:

Why would a program that has been (intelligently) designed from scratch contain old deactivated code?
Why do seemingly unrelated programs (human, yeast, and iguana) share a lot of classes and functions?

I mean what % of our DNA has been fully identified.

Slightly more than 92% has been sequenced (e g we have the "binary code" for that part) according to Wikipedia. I dont know if we've identified all the genes found in those 92% of the DNA. What I do know is that we still have a long way to go before understanding what all the genes do and how they are regulated.

I think that is it from me, I dont really have the time, the knowledge or the pedagogical skills to do much more with this topic

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

If you want computer analogies they arent variables, the four bases (short names T, A, C, and G) are more like bits in a computers memory, with the difference that they can take on four rather than two values. The DNA is a sequence of base pairs (it consists of two strands, A is paired by T in the other strand, while C is paired by G). Every cell in an organism has the full DNA sequence.

Genes are the parts of DNA that form instructions for producing various proteins. In programming terms I guess they could be considered classes and functions. DNA also contains instructions for when the genes should be activated, and. They can be activated depending on external factors, or depending on what function the cell has (a skin, muscle, or brain cell will need rather different proteins). he DNA molecules are constantly copied and, in spite of self correction and redundancy mechanisms, mistakes (mutations) occur every now and then, randomly flipping the bits in the memory. Mutations are either useful (in which case the individual with the mutation gets an advantage and is likely to produce more offspring and spread the mutation), harmful (which will harm the individuals chances to reproduce or even live) or make no difference at all.

From what I gather the atavistic genes are "old" genes that filled a function in some ancestor organism but have lost their usefulness. If you think of the DNA as recycled computer code (from an ancestor/previous version) then they would be old code that has been commented away. It was a mutation that switched off these genes in the past, and as their absence didnt hurt the mutated organisms managed to produce offspring.

And as Thrasher says the similarities in DNA (the same or very similar genes occuring in vastly different organisms) and the presence of obsolete atavistic genes are strong arguments for shared ancestry.

From a programmers point of view the following questions hint at evolution from shared ancestry:

Why would a program that has been (intelligently) designed from scratch contain old deactivated code?
Why do seemingly unrelated programs (human, yeast, and iguana) share a lot of classes and functions?

Which is why i introduced the master DNA set(though it wont be a possibility if most of the DNA has been identified). Also as creationists we believe in decay of our world and that includes our DNA. So future mutations being "harmful/neutral" it isnt a concern for us. However a positive mutatation(without any side harmful mutations) would be an issue for us.

As for seemingly unrelated programs sharing a lot of classes and functions, that would imply for ID advocates that it is the same designer.

Slightly more than 92% has been sequenced (e g we have the "binary code" for that part) according to Wikipedia. I dont know if we've identified all the genes found in those 92% of the DNA. What I do know is that we still have a long way to go before understanding what all the genes do and how they are regulated.

I think that is it from me, I dont really have the time, the knowledge or the pedagogical skills to do much more with this topic

Okay. So whe can see 92% but we dont know what they do for most of the DNA?

EDIT: Thanks for your time, much appreciated.

 

[Thrasher]

Common DNA doesn't imply a creator, per se. Just a common source, like a common organism from which all the variants evolved from.

Slow stepwise evolution doesn't explain to me the huge transitions between plants and animals, and single cellular organisms and multi-cellular organisms. But it could just be a lack of understanding....

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Common DNA doesn't imply a creator, per se. Just a common source, like a common organism from which all the variants evolved from.

Slow stepwise evolution doesn't explain to me the huge transitions between plants and animals, and single cellular organisms and multi-cellular organisms. But it could just be a lack of understanding….

Yeah, i am saying it can be argued both ways.

 

[Rithrandil]

Many religious people interpret it that way (both theist as well as Deists).

Basically, God set things in motion and all of this occurs due to the natural laws established at the creation of the universe - the big bang, evolution, etc was all part of "the plan". This is the stance liberal Christians and the Catholics take.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Many religious people interpret it that way (both theist as well as Deists).

Basically, God set things in motion and all of this occurs due to the natural laws established at the creation of the universe - the big bang, evolution, etc was all part of "the plan". This is the stance liberal Christians and the Catholics take.

I am aware of this.

 

[Relayer]

The bible was written by men. That in itself proves it is flawed evidence for the existence of god.

Not only that but the bible you know today has been edited many times for political reasons.

Not only that but the texts the bible were clearly taken from (look up Ancient Sumer), only re-discovered about a century ago change the context of much of the content in the bible.

The most provocative: that there were many gods, not just one.

It actually astonishes me that the masses will believe every word in the bible but not believe the much older prototypes for the stories contained in the bible.

Of course how DO you all of a sudden make these radical changes to religions that have existed for centuries and whose followers number in the millions?

You don't.

It's the greatest conspiracy of all.

 

[JemyM]

I think it's more of a social phenomenon than an intellectual one.

The Bible is hearsay. It's creation is very well known to us thanks to history and archeaology. It begun among a small tribe of desert nomads that never been to Egypt as we know it, instead Canaan had been egyptian. Archeaology haven't just shown that there were no exodus, the tales that makes out the Torah are inspired by earlier local legends that are similar enough to be recognized, but different enough to show that it's just pagan folklore. The creation of the New Testament and it's inspirations are clear to intellectual history. It mixes the Torah with greek and roman philosophy.

With the foundation of the roman church in the 4th century comes the trinity, the creed, the idea of ancestoral sin, the holy spirit, the Bible canon. We already see the evolution of thinking. How interaction of different ideas within a certain environment melt ideas together and form new ones. Both the time for Jesus birth, easter and the word "God" came into being as late as the 6th century.

Move forth to the 13th century and scholastics was born. Christianity was melded with aristotelian logic and it was possible to study God through reason. 100 years later William of Ockham said no, this was not possible. God is outside natural law. The introduction of Aristoteles also opened up to greek philosophy that was now even more blended with Christianity, a long with major influences from Islam. The progress lead to people beginning to question the Roman Authority. Protestantism was born and a 30 year long war followed. At that point the concept of God had changed multiple times. With the enlightenment the idea of Deism is born. The idea of God as a clockmaker. Natural Theology see the study of nature as a study of Gods work. Findings in nature thus override scripture since God cannot be wrong, only humans can, and humans wrote the bible. This is yet another evolution. Moderates and liberals don't follow the bible anymore, the culture they evolved stand on it's own legs without it. Christians who wish to be good have an idea of Jesus that is a mirror of themselves. Jesus is what they want him to be, not the other way around.

Understanding religion today is best done through social psychology. The movement is not an intellectual one, rather it's a group that lives on social pressure. If faith is held as a virtue then more will try. In Sweden a politician would never get far if they claim that they believe in the resurrection, even the bishops and priests are often atheists or extremely moderate. That's our culture. But if it's the other way around, if you sacrifice something great when you speak against these beliefs, then you are less likely to do so.

We have a whole system in our brains known as the mirror neurons that is meant to copy others behavior. Not everyone have theese but most do. We take after our neighbors subconsciously and try to act like we see others do.

This have more to do with instincts than intelligence and we are all victims of it, both you and I, and everyone in this thread. To begin to question everything you know and everything your culture say is very difficult and comes with a lot of sacrifice. Even if you try the hardest you will not be able to break free entirely because you cannot grasp beyond what your culture have revealed to you.

And religion is NOT the only cultural illusion out there.

 

[ffbj]

Well thanks for compressing a few thousand years of religious thought into a few paragraphs. It really helps so much.

Once again another thread about God turns into a forum for rants against religion, by those who really don't have religious beliefs themselves, and cannot understand those who do, except by calling those who do have such belief fools, idiots, or deluded by a mass conspiracy. Opiate of the masses indeed. It's just all a big hoax so why do keep wasting your fingers away on something that is so obviously wrong, and foolish to follow. Just who are you trying to convince, and what anger are you trying to assuage? What does that have to say about your own psychological state? People will believe what they will, why do you bother? Why do I bother?
Nothing better to do I suppose.

 

[Rithrandil]

You assume that no atheist has experience with religion.

I spent fifteen years of my life being educated religiously. I have a damn good idea of what I am talking about.

Why address religion? Gee, I don't know - maybe because (here in the US) it threatens to destroy scientific and cultural progress? Maybe because it's keeping homosexuals as second class citizens? Religion is dangerous.

People like you who say "if you think it's stupid you shouldn't waste time on it" really don't seem to understand the point. I could care less what you believe - Jesus, Allah, YHWH, Joseph Smith, it's all fine with me. HOWEVER, people try and legislate their beliefs. They force them upon others. They use them to fly planes into the World Trade Center. They use them to justify beating and murdering homosexuals. They get together in groups and molest children.

Or what about here in DC? The Catholic Church is going to stop giving out social services if DC legalizes same sex marriage. They're playing games *with the lives of the poor, sick, and unfortunate* to try and force their political agenda.

To be honest, I think if the Catholics do this, they should lose any and all tax exempt status in the United States. Not only that, but law enforcement should no longer be required to respect the Seal of Confession, and any priests who hear confessions should be sentenced as accomplices to any crimes they fail to report to the police.

Religion is not only wrong, religion not only has no evidence to back up any of its claims, but it is demonstrably harmful. Religion isn't some innocent little lamb sitting in a corner doing nothing, ffbj. You can try and play the victim card if you want, but you're going to fail.

 

[JemyM]

Thankyou ffbj for the thankyou for my summary, if you meant it.

I have nothing to add to Rithrandil's comment, more than I have to say that was a silly question. Of course people question what they think is wrong. And like Rithrandil I also have experience from within religion so I understand perfectly those who live in one.

 

[Zaleukos]

Common DNA doesn't imply a creator, per se. Just a common source, like a common organism from which all the variants evolved from.

Slow stepwise evolution doesn't explain to me the huge transitions between plants and animals, and single cellular organisms and multi-cellular organisms. But it could just be a lack of understanding….

I find the Mitochondria even more amazing an example of (likely) cell collaboration than the existance of multicellular organisms or plants.

 

[Thrasher]

The whole biology of life is amazingly complex. I was referring to large evolutionary steps, rather than complexity.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Well thanks for compressing a few thousand years of religious thought into a few paragraphs. It really helps so much.

Once again another thread about God turns into a forum for rants against religion, by those who really don't have religious beliefs themselves, and cannot understand those who do, except by calling those who do have such belief fools, idiots, or deluded by a mass conspiracy. Opiate of the masses indeed. It's just all a big hoax so why do keep wasting your fingers away on something that is so obviously wrong, and foolish to follow. Just who are you trying to convince, and what anger are you trying to assuage? What does that have to say about your own psychological state? People will believe what they will, why do you bother? Why do I bother?
Nothing better to do I suppose.

You forge that people will ignore valid arguments and say the same exact thing the next time, it works both ways. It always ends up painful to read.

 

[JemyM]

You forge that people will ignore valid arguments and say the same exact thing the next time, it works both ways. It always ends up painful to read.

Feel free to point out some valid arguments for a second review.

I can point out two;
There are no witchcraft that have passed a double blind test.
We know today that sickness comes from bacteria and viruses, not demons.

Who ever wrote down the Bible assumed these existed and that includes Jesus.