If God is

DArtagnan said:

You're entertaining when you get all emotional, my young friend.

I think you'll end up being a wise human being, if you can learn to keep your somewhat unstable mind in check. You shouldn't get all excited by trivial disagreements, because it only hampers you ability to look at things from a calm and reasonable position. It's been my experience that you get closer to what seems like the truth that way.

Then again, I think it's best to place you on ignore. I have a feeling you're the sort of person I can get to explode if I invested something in our debates, based on your little tirade here. Best to save you that experience.

Click to expand...

I'm not your friend.

DArtagnan, you are in no position to judge someone else as wise. Every time anyone disagrees with you because of your pathetic excuses for arguments, you retreat inside this aloof shell and refuse to consider that you may be wrong. Anyone who disagrees with you is close minded and vindictive, yet you are the ultimate arbiter of truth and justice here.

I think you'd be a wise human being if you took the stick out of your ass and realized that you aren't special, you're not all that bright, and you're not a Philosopher King. You're a pretentious, arrogant psuedo-intellectual who would get laughed out of any sort of philosophy class.

Please do place me on ignore, DArtagnan. It just shows how close minded, cowardly, and hypocritical you are.

Sorry, junior, the only experience you are saving me from is utter amazement at the drivel that pours out of your mouth. And no, I don't believe you are intelligent. Amazing how you claim to be able to read my mind and know my thoughts!

Funny, I got in a heated debate at another game forum over their no-talk rule about religion and politics. I claimed that it was possible for adults to discuss these issues without the conversation degenerating into personal attacks. I guess I was wrong.

I like the fact that we can discuss these issues here, and I find "no-talk" rules condescending. However, I wish we could preserve basic respect for each other. Not that a little *jab* now and then isn't funny — I love them, sometimes — but this ….?

Besides just the sheer unpleasantness of it, think about how it undermines your credibility. How can you expect people to take your arguments seriously if you can't deal with critical feedback without exploding or ripping into other people? What does that say about the maturity of your perspective?

To me, it's an automatic disqualifier. If you try to speak about God, or spirituality, or human values, or anything like that, and you cannot preserve basic respect for other people while you do it, your opinion is automatically disqualified (imo). A hateful preacher is in error, whether he's a religious man or an atheist.

/sermon

And that's an ad hominem. It doesn't matter if Jesus says it, if Hitler says it, if Joey from friends says it, or if Hillary Clinton says it. The argument is either valid or invalid based on its premises and reasoning.

I'll freely admit I'm an asshole and rude - but then again I don't claim to be anything other than that.

Ok, you're right and I'm wrong. I guess that's it then!

Rithrandil said:

And that's an ad hominem. It doesn't matter if Jesus says it, if Hitler says it, if Joey from friends says it, or if Hillary Clinton says it. The argument is either valid or invalid based on its premises and reasoning.

I'll freely admit I'm an asshole and rude - but then again I don't claim to be anything other than that.

Click to expand...

It only doesnt matter if you dont care whether people read your posts or not. This is generally a mens forum and as men we ignore people who start insulting us.

Damian Mahadevan said:

It only doesnt matter if you dont care whether people read your posts or not. This is generally a mens forum and as men we ignore people who start insulting us.

Click to expand...

Feel free. No skin off my back.

Rithrandil said:

Feel free. No skin off my back.

Click to expand...

But i dont like not reading entire posts when i can. I felt bad for not reading pj's posts before so i am in conflict. But as a man(or boy whatever) i have certain shut down mechanisms when people insult me.

Damian Mahadevan said:

But i dont like not reading entire posts when i can. I felt bad for not reading pj's posts before so i am in conflict. But as a man(or boy whatever) i have certain shut down mechanisms when people insult me.

Click to expand...

Then I apologize for insulting you. If you want some videos on these subjects, I would be happy to provide them to you.

If you want, I can provide you videos on these subjects from other *Christians* who accept modern science. I can also limit that to videos/lectures by those who are scientists and doctors, if you wish.

I can also go look up text/documents/books for you, but most of those would be filled with jargon, extremely long, or you would need to purchase out of your own pocket.

For me evolution is a foregone conclusion, the evidence is truely and simply just overwhelming. Putting that aside though. Coming at this question from a different angle what does the Bible have to say about mass extinctions? Of which there have probably been half a dozen or so in the last billion years.

I know we have the biblical flood which could be construed as a mass extinction in relatively modern times, but what of the others? Did God decide oh not good enough, and just destroy almost everything over and over again with new bouts of creation in between? Incidentally what does this say about God's omnipotence. If omnipotent could He, should He, not have gotten it right the first time?

Belief is one thing but blind belief is quite another. If God did create us, he gave us the ability to reason for a reason, even if that reason questions his creation or even his own existence. Just ignoring the mass of evidence because you say you have belief in God, is really imo, rather an insult to God.

I really am not expecting a coherent reply to this since there is really nothing more to said or debated on a dead subject. Hopefully you will focus on more worthwhile aspects of your religious beliefs, and not waste your time presenting pointless and falacious "Wedge" type of doctrines.

Oh on one somewhat amusing note, perhaps not too some, Creationists were handing out copies of "Origin of Species," with a 15 page introduction debunking the theory presented therein. Now I call that Hubris. Which is a word I don't get a chance to use very often, but here it fits so exactly I could not resist.

ffbj said:

For me evolution is a foregone conclusion, the evidence is truely and simply just overwhelming. Putting that aside though. Coming at this question from a different angle what does the Bible have to say about mass extinctions? Of which there have probably been half a dozen or so in the last billion years.

I know we have the biblical flood which could be construed as a mass extinction in relatively modern times, but what of the others? Did God decide oh not good enough, and just destroy almost everything over and over again with new bouts of creation in between? Incidentally what does this say about God's omnipotence. If omnipotent could He, should He, not have gotten it right the first time?

Belief is one thing but blind belief is quite another. If God did create us, he gave us the ability to reason for a reason, even if that reason questions his creation or even his own existence. Just ignoring the mass of evidence because you say you have belief in God, is really imo, rather an insult to God.

Click to expand...

This is why I have respect for liberal Christians/Muslims/Jews and Deists.

Yeah I think even the Catholic Church recently made some pronouncements concerning the validity of evolution.

For those not familiar with my "Wedge" reference:

The Wedge Manifesto:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Guys, I've been tolerant, but the personal stuff is getting beyond what I'll allow. Consider this a wrist slap which will be followed by more severe action if it persists. ADULTS should be able to argue the issues, NOT the personalities!! If you can't do that, then please don't post!!

Rithrandil said:

Then I apologize for insulting you. If you want some videos on these subjects, I would be happy to provide them to you.

If you want, I can provide you videos on these subjects from other *Christians* who accept modern science. I can also limit that to videos/lectures by those who are scientists and doctors, if you wish.

I can also go look up text/documents/books for you, but most of those would be filled with jargon, extremely long, or you would need to purchase out of your own pocket.

Click to expand...

Yes, please that would be nice, just dont give me everything at once. Give me one field at a time if possible. Though I think that it is impossible for someone who truly understands the bible to be both an "evolutionist" and a Christian.

ffbj said:

I know we have the biblical flood which could be construed as a mass extinction in relatively modern times, but what of the others? Did God decide oh not good enough, and just destroy almost everything over and over again with new bouts of creation in between? Incidentally what does this say about God's omnipotence. If omnipotent could He, should He, not have gotten it right the first time?

Click to expand...

God had to destroy with a global flood most of man specifically (the dead animal species were inconsequential) because there was just too much sinners and if he did let them stay the sinners would overwhelm the believers. The current smaller floods are a result of sin deteriorating the world, sin just doesnt just affect man, it affects the flora, fauna and even the very earth around them.

As for if God should have gotten it right the first time. He did. But that is the result of free will. God could have given us no free will but what purpose would that do, we all would be machines?

Damian Mahadevan said:

Yes, please that would be nice, just dont give me everything at once. Give me one field at a time if possible. Though I think that it is impossible for someone who truly understands the bible to be both an "evolutionist" and a Christian.

Click to expand...

Certainly.

This is a 4-part youtube video series by a a liberal Christian (DonExodus2 - his bachelors was in evolutionary biology and he either finished his doctoral degree or is finishing it now)- it's roughly 40 minutes long, so you can watch the videos in chunks. He's basically going over the evidence for evolution. I think it's a good primer series and it's pretty informative.

Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0&feature=video_response

Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM&feature=video_response

Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbI2diGTJFw

Proof of Evolution - Part 4 Embryology-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ

As an addendum, here's that video I mentioned about the Cheetah disproving Noah's ark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50).

He also has a good series on how evolution itself works, but that would take about 2 hours to watch. I learned a lot from these videos, personally, and it cleared up a lot of misconceptions and confusions I had about this, too.

If you are interested in books, I would recommend "Finding Darwin's God" and "Only A Theory" by Ken Miller. He's a Christian biologist who accepts evolution.

Rithrandil said:

Certainly.

This is a 4-part youtube video series by a a liberal Christian (DonExodus2 - his bachelors was in evolutionary biology and he either finished his doctoral degree or is finishing it now)- it's roughly 40 minutes long, so you can watch the videos in chunks. He's basically going over the evidence for evolution. I think it's a good primer series and it's pretty informative.

Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0&feature=video_response

Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM&feature=video_response

Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbI2diGTJFw

Proof of Evolution - Part 4 Embryology-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ

As an addendum, here's that video I mentioned about the Cheetah disproving Noah's ark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50).

He also has a good series on how evolution itself works, but that would take about 2 hours to watch. I learned a lot from these videos, personally, and it cleared up a lot of misconceptions and confusions I had about this, too.

If you are interested in books, I would recommend "Finding Darwin's God" and "Only A Theory" by Ken Miller. He's a Christian biologist who accepts evolution.

Click to expand...

I watched the 5 videos(though i admit that i skipped most of 4 because it seems mostly rebuttals to creationists, but i will watch again later). My questions is how far along is DNA analysis and can all animals have all DNA hidden somewhere? Also for the common ancestor in the first video, which neandethal was it, "Lucy" for example?

The reason why i ask is, is this the limit dof DNA analysis? Do we know exactly what does what? I noticed that he doesnt use the junk DNA argument which is like diminishing every year, that is good so he is sticking with current arguments.

Damian Mahadevan said:

I watched the 5 videos(though i admit that i skipped most of 4 because it seems mostly rebuttals to creationists, but i will watch again later). My questions is how far along is DNA analysis and can all animals have all DNA hidden somewhere? Also for the common ancestor in the first video, which neandethal was it, "Lucy" for example?

The reason why i ask is, is this the limit dof DNA analysis? Do we know exactly what does what? I noticed that he doesnt use the junk DNA argument which is like diminishing every year, that is good so he is sticking with current arguments.

Click to expand...

Do we know exactly what each gene does? I don't believe so, no. We're good at mapping everything, but we haven't tracked down "X gene does Y" or "these genes contribute to Y" for every single instance - but we're really good at comparing genes between species and things like that.

I'm not sure what you mean about animals all having DNA hidden somewhere - do you mean is there like...DNA in animals we've failed to map thus far? I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

As for the neanderthal DNA, Lucy was Australopithecus afarensis, not a neanderthal, if I am not mistaken. Another source for the Neanderthal stuff is (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501042.html).

DNA analysis lets us compare how much of our DNA we share with other organisms and illustrates certain things (atavistic genes, etc) that only make sense in light of evolution. But we don't know it perfectly I guess.

Rithrandil said:

Do we know exactly what each gene does? I don't believe so, no. We're good at mapping everything, but we haven't tracked down "X gene does Y" or "these genes contribute to Y" for every single instance - but we're really good at comparing genes between species and things like that.

I'm not sure what you mean about animals all having DNA hidden somewhere - do you mean is there like…DNA in animals we've failed to map thus far? I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

As for the neanderthal DNA, Lucy was Australopithecus afarensis, not a neanderthal, if I am not mistaken. Another source for the Neanderthal stuff is (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501042.html).

DNA analysis lets us compare how much of our DNA we share with other organisms and illustrates certain things (atavistic genes, etc) that only make sense in light of evolution. But we don't know it perfectly I guess.

Click to expand...

I am asking exactly how much of the dna have we identified in terms of what it does. Could "junk dna" have all the dna not relevant to the dna of the animal in question? Could there be such a thing as master dna, the dna where all other dna is derived from? This is just guesses, but my point is that until we know what all this junk dna does or verify that it indeed junk dna we cant really make a call on what is possible and what is impossible.

Now fusion of DNA is interesting. I have seen the entire Ken Miller video on it. I dont know much about it, however. This is because they dont make comparisons outside the human/neanderthal(chimp?) comparisons. Another thing is that Ken Miller's videos seem to imply that chromosomal fusion doesnt happen much at all and that each the chromosme count is unique to each animal. But that isnt true. For example mice chromosomes vary from 40 to 22 chromosomes. Foxes vary from 38-78 chromosomes.

Maybe one of these days i will get around to learning how to make a good webpage and make a database oriented "just the facts" site where everythign is linked. Because finding out this other information is ridiculously hard.


What i hate about the debate is creationists and "evolutionists" alike have this tendency to mention half the facts about any issue. And then rest of the facts are impossible to find.

Damian Mahadevan said:

I am asking exactly how much of the dna have we identified in terms of what it does.

Click to expand...

Unsure.

Damian Mahadevan said:

Could "junk dna" have all the dna not relevant to the dna of the animal in question?

Click to expand...

A lot of scientists think it consists of atavistic genes or may be potentially 'useful' in the feature.

Damian Mahadevan said:

Could there be such a thing as master dna, the dna where all other dna is derived from? This is just guesses, but my point is that until we know what all this junk dna does or verify that it indeed junk dna we cant really make a call on what is possible and what is impossible.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're asking.

Damian Mahadevan said:

Now fusion of DNA is interesting. I have seen the entire Ken Miller video on it. I dont know much about it, however. This is because they dont make comparisons outside the human/neanderthal(chimp?) comparisons. Another thing is that Ken Miller's videos seem to imply that chromosomal fusion doesnt happen much at all and that each the chromosme count is unique to each animal. But that isnt true. For example mice chromosomes vary from 40 to 22 chromosomes. Foxes vary from 38-78 chromosomes.

Click to expand...

Can you provide sources on that?

Damian Mahadevan said:

Maybe one of these days i will get around to learning how to make a good webpage and make a database oriented "just the facts" site where everythign is linked. Because finding out this other information is ridiculously hard.


What i hate about the debate is creationists and "evolutionists" alike have this tendency to mention half the facts about any issue. And then rest of the facts are impossible to find.

Click to expand...

But that's the thing, Damian. There IS no debate on this in the scientific community. None whatsoever - there's no "controversy" to teach. That is what I am trying to explain - there is absolutely zero scientific evidence to back up creationism.

Creationism does exist though….



I just witnessed it in my bathroom.

Rithrandil said:

Unsure.

A lot of scientists think it consists of atavistic genes or may be potentially 'useful' in the feature.

Click to expand...

I never said they couldnt be.

I don't understand what you're asking.

Click to expand...

I am asking could there be a master set where all dna originate from. And the rest of the set that is unused could be found in the dna?

For example lets say the master set is this.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

An rat may have
akmqw
The rest of the unused dna may be found in the dna somehwere else
bcdefghijlnoprstuvxyz

You get what i am saying? Can that happen? Can we prove one way or the other? The point is that without proper identification we wont be even able to se one way or another.

Can you provide sources on that?

Click to expand...

http://www.grisda.org/origins/11067.htm

But that's the thing, Damian. There IS no debate on this in the scientific community. None whatsoever - there's no "controversy" to teach. That is what I am trying to explain - there is absolutely zero scientific evidence to back up creationism.

Click to expand...

Isnt that really a sign of an unhealthy scientific method? IMO science needs to be chekced and rechecked. How can it be done if only half the information is available to us.