|
| Thread: poll: Should we believe in God or no? (inspired by french mathematician Pascal) |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
posted August 18, 2001 05:18 PM |
|
|
Zune...
I see...
But isn't that one of the main differences between Catholic and Protestants?
I mean the idea of sin and how do you live with it and who goto heaven?
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted August 19, 2001 08:08 AM |
|
|
and the discussion continues
Ichon I appreciate your replies.
As to why the TV preachers (not that all TV preachers are bad in my opinion ) are successful...well I think for a few of reasons.
One they mix a lot of truth with a little deception, which many corrupt people, in both religious and secular circles, tend to do. It is hard for those who are less educated and less studied (gullible) to recognize the deception.
Also they preach a message some people want to believe in...such as “name it claim it” or if you give me money you can have what you desire as a blessing from God (which in my understanding is very incorrect theology).
Lastly they can even preach a Biblically correct message but their motivation appears not to be to give God the glory but to increase their own vanity, power, and possessions.
The Bible I believe is not a corrupt book, but we as imperfect humans are always going to have to struggle with what the text was actually trying to state. Today there are very sophisticated methods of translating/interpreting its words. I think we have a pretty close idea...perfect no, but enough to agree upon and follow. I think we all should pursue Biblical interpretation with rational investigation, faith, and humbleness.
What you describe as Christians intolerance seems unjustified. All people in all walks of life follow what they believe to be true and at the same time assume others who disagree or follow a different path are excluded or wrong.
Are others in the secular world accused of the same thing? Exclusionary thinking happens all the time from the political world (capitalist, communist, socialist, etc.) to the medical world (smoking causes cancer, a balanced diet leads to longer health, stem cell research, etc), etc. When a doctor says that if you are fat you will die younger are they being intolerant of fat people or are they stating a truth? True it easier to demonstrate “truth” of physical realities then spiritual realties, but does that mean that since somehting isn’t easily proven that it is necessarily incorrect?
So what is the difference if someone’s spiritual beliefs state that the only way to heaven is to have faith in Jesus. Why is that intolerant especially since the Christian’s goal is not to be self righteous but to actually allow the other person to have the same eternal life that they have???
If you knew a way to save someone from pain would you not tell them or do you have to water it down so as to not exclude anyone??? It would be quite exclusionary if Christians said "hey the only way to heaven is through Jesus but you can’t ever get there cause he doesn’t want you". But the message of the Bible is that he wants NONE to perish...how is that exclusionary?
Yes two ministers can disagree...but at least in mainstream Christianity there is a saying...now I am forgetting the exact wording but basically it states: in the essentials unity, in non essentials freedom, but in all things charity. So yeah there are going to be some disagreements, but in the essentials there should be unity.
Yes some of the church was corrupt for a time back before the reformation (usually when it became aligned with a political purpose)...just as today there are aspects of the church that are also corrupt (when humans are involved aspects of corruption will enter). That does not mean the whole church is corrupt or that reasonable Christian minds can agree about whether something is corrupt or not.
I find it ironic that the measuring rod so many people apply to Christians they rarely apply to themselves or to the world in general. Because some car dealers are corrupt does that mean every car dealer is corrupt? Because some people have used the concept of capitalism to take advantage of the disadvantaged does that mean all capitalism thought is corrupted? Because some have used communism to kill millions of people does that mean that Marx was corrupt?
By true church...I mean two things. One the church universal which is commonly thought to be all the believers in Christ since the beginning of time, and secondly the church today that values the message of love and salvation.
I don’t think I have 100% correct beliefs...I am a life time student and will continue to earnestly seek the truth throughout my life. I have and will continue to question my beliefs. I think my beliefs are not completely accurate but that I am on the right path...only in heaven will I know the complete truth. Call me self righteous if you please but then please also apply the same measuring rod to yourself, to scientists, to atheists, etc.
And no I don’t think the catholic church is corrupt...I think all churches have segments that are incorrect and some that are corrupt, but in my opinion both the catholic and the protestant church on the whole is true to the Biblical message.
|
|
thunderknight
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted August 19, 2001 09:43 AM |
|
|
Woo, it's a long thread with some stuff that I cannot fully understand and so can't say a thing about it.
Back to the poll: Should we believe in God or no ?
My answer is no.4: I don't care about it. 
Pascal's wager. Hmm, an interesting argument. But is belief out of fear the true belief ? I personally don't have such a dilemma. Life is a big gambling. Let's just cast the dice. 
My questions are:
1). Does God truely exist ? The world can be made out of random anyway, though the possibility is remote but still POSSIBLE !
2). If yes, in what form ? Why are you so sure God described in Bible is right? Why not Muslim ? Why not Buddism ? Why not Hindu................ ?????? Or maybe that's just different interpretation from different culture.
Yes, Christianity seems to the "most reasonable" explanation to things happened. But things I don't like about Christianity is its "exclusiveness": I am the only one right. That sounds like BS to me.
____________
Choose what you love
and love what you choose.
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 19, 2001 08:59 PM |
|
Edited By: Ichon on 19 Aug 2001
|
Not bad
Quote:
As to why the TV preachers (not that all TV preachers are bad in my opinion ) are successful...well I think for a few of reasons.
One they mix a lot of truth with a little deception, which many corrupt people, in both religious and secular circles, tend to do. It is hard for those who are less educated and less studied (gullible) to recognize the deception.-
So why does the true church tolerate these decievers?
-Also they preach a message some people want to believe in...such as “name it claim it” or if you give me money you can have what you desire as a blessing from God (which in my understanding is very incorrect theology).-
How different is that idea from the confession? Washing away your sins with a few humble words, I don't think it's that easy.
-Lastly they can even preach a Biblically correct message but their motivation appears not to be to give God the glory but to increase their own vanity, power, and possessions.-
Hmm... so you believe even if their motivations are base and secular, they can preach a profound spiritual messege? Not sure how to reply to that, there are so many saints around, how many of them were the same as these deciving ministers?
-The Bible I believe is not a corrupt book, but we as imperfect humans are always going to have to struggle with what the text was actually trying to state. Today there are very sophisticated methods of translating/interpreting its words. I think we have a pretty close idea...perfect no, but enough to agree upon and follow. I think we all should pursue Biblical interpretation with rational investigation, faith, and humbleness.-
Well, you say there are fairly sophisticated methods for translating the Bible today, yet how different is the messege? I think it is not different, just the parts focused on, and shouldn't the Bible be taken on faith? You seem to be mixing in a few other things with your
"rational investigation" and "sophisticated methods of translating/interpreting" rather than relying on faith.
-What you describe as Christians intolerance seems unjustified. All people in all walks of life follow what they believe to be true and at the same time assume others who disagree or follow a different path are excluded or wrong.-
Of course, it's an accusation that can be applied to anyone, but does that make it less true? But, Christians are percieved this way by almost all non-christians? Whereas many other religions(not all, Islam is also this way, as are the Hebrews)are not. I wonder why?
-Are others in the secular world accused of the same thing? Exclusionary thinking happens all the time from the political world (capitalist, communist, socialist, etc.) to the medical world (smoking causes cancer, a balanced diet leads to longer health, stem cell research, etc), etc. When a doctor says that if you are fat you will die younger are they being intolerant of fat people or are they stating a truth? True it easier to demonstrate “truth” of physical realities then spiritual realties, but does that mean that since somehting isn’t easily proven that it is necessarily incorrect?-
So let me get this straight? Your defense is that other people do it too? That's like the bank robber accusing the banks of his own crime to justify it.
There is a difference also, fat people don't go out trying to convert thin people to become fat.
-So what is the difference if someone’s spiritual beliefs state that the only way to heaven is to have faith in Jesus. Why is that intolerant especially since the Christian’s goal is not to be self righteous but to actually allow the other person to have the same eternal life that they have???-
As a personal belief it is not much more intolerant than anything else, however when someone takes their private personal beliefs and tries to crusade with them, changing the world for everyone else, that is where it becomes self righteous. Lead by example, not force. That was the messege of Christ afterall, his whole life was an example.
-If you knew a way to save someone from pain would you not tell them or do you have to water it down so as to not exclude anyone??? It would be quite exclusionary if Christians said "hey the only way to heaven is through Jesus but you can’t ever get there cause he doesn’t want you". But the message of the Bible is that he wants NONE to perish...how is that exclusionary?-
I didn't say Christ was exclusionary, most of his messge wasn't but there are some passages in the Bible where he appears to be very exclusionary, but that is another topic. Now we are coming to the problem I have the largest disagreement with; the saving power of belief in Christ. I know that prior to the New Testament and the new convenant, the people who lived are considered as innocents if they weren't Hebrews, but what about the billions who lived and never heard of Christ since then? I don't think there is a need to spread the good news if God has found a way to deal with those, if he hasn't, then I want no part of him anyway.
-Yes two ministers can disagree...but at least in mainstream Christianity there is a saying...now I am forgetting the exact wording but basically it states: in the essentials unity, in non essentials freedom, but in all things charity. So yeah there are going to be some disagreements, but in the essentials there should be unity.-
Should be... the key words. Not always, and in fact lately not even often it seems.
-Yes some of the church was corrupt for a time back before the reformation (usually when it became aligned with a political purpose)...just as today there are aspects of the church that are also corrupt (when humans are involved aspects of corruption will enter). That does not mean the whole church is corrupt or that reasonable Christian minds can agree about whether something is corrupt or not. -
One man's reason is another's unreason. I am not sure how you can seperate the good from the bad here, if the Church is the body of Christ, then if one part is corrupt how is the whole body not corrupt?
-I find it ironic that the measuring rod so many people apply to Christians they rarely apply to themselves or to the world in general. Because some car dealers are corrupt does that mean every car dealer is corrupt? Because some people have used the concept of capitalism to take advantage of the disadvantaged does that mean all capitalism thought is corrupted? Because some have used communism to kill millions of people does that mean that Marx was corrupt?-
Do you trust any car dealers? I don't. There might be some who aren't corrupt, but if they are in the business it is to make money, not be nice.
I don't find it ironic that the measuring rod applied to Christians is not applied to others. Christians are the ones going around saying how we should live, and that they know the true path. If that is correct, then there is no reason not to apply a harsher rod on them, than on those who merely try to mind their own business and aren't preaching anything.
-By true church...I mean two things. One the church universal which is commonly thought to be all the believers in Christ since the beginning of time, and secondly the church today that values the message of love and salvation.-
What part of the Church won't claim to value love and salvation? Of course, of all the claims how many are true? I dislike the Church as an organization more than anything, those gulliable people you mentioned earlier aren't the cause of the problem, but they are the ones who make the problem worse. I don't have anything against individual Christians whom live their lives as they believe, and don't try to force it upon others. In fact I respect those who actually remain true to their beliefs, but they are so few, whether Christians , or any religious persons, or in fact any person who has a belief structure that they conciously recognize.
-I don’t think I have 100% correct beliefs...I am a life time student and will continue to earnestly seek the truth throughout my life. I have and will continue to question my beliefs. I think my beliefs are not completely accurate but that I am on the right path...only in heaven will I know the complete truth. Call me self righteous if you please but then please also apply the same measuring rod to yourself, to scientists, to atheists, etc.-
That's good for you, but why don't more Christians have a similiar perspective? I think scientists can be self righteous, as for athiests, they are really nihilists and so can't be self anything. Myself? I don't claim to know the big answers, and I am comfortable waiting to find out, so no, I don't hold myself to the same standard as those who claim to know the truth. If you really believe what you say, you will live your life by it, yet many proffessed believers do not do that.
-And no I don’t think the catholic church is corrupt...I think all churches have segments that are incorrect and some that are corrupt, but in my opinion both the catholic and the protestant church on the whole is true to the Biblical message.-
On the whole? Well, those missing parts can send an aweful lot of people to hell. So did you only name the Catholic and Protestant churches as they are the ones you are familiar with, or are those really the only two churches you believe hold the truth in suffecient amount to be called uncorrupted?
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 23, 2001 10:49 AM |
|
|
and a good discussion continues:)
Ichon stated “So why does the true church tolerate these deceivers”
The church doesn’t tolerate these deceivers...they speak against them, but since it isn’t a military type environment what exactly can they do? Most protestant churches don’t have a strong hierarchy as there is so much abuse when a hierarchy is established. Thus the “church” remains powerless except to pray and speak out against it.
Ichon stated “How different is that idea from the confession? Washing away your sins with a few humble words, I don't think it's that easy."
Name it claim it theology is about possessions and materialims, confession (to God in my belief system not a priest) is not necessary in my belief system (and most protestant's belief system) but is helpful.
Basically forgiveness is given upon belief. According to the scriptural world view (in my understanding)...no one can earn salvation cause we are corrupt to a greater or less extent, so the only thing that saves us is our belief in Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins.
This doctrine is not suppose to encourage a disregard for a good life...but instead recognizes...well to use 12 step terminology...our powerlessness in that no matter how hard we try we will still never be perfect. Thus we need the perfect sacrifice (Jesus). Confession or more accurately belief in Jesus' perfect sacrifice is not easy...it is very hard for prideful mankind to acknowledge their despair and inability to obtain salvation by their own efforts. The gift is easy to receive but difficult to accept due to our arrogance (mine included).
Ichon stated “shouldn't the Bible be taken on faith? You seem to be mixing in a few other things with your
"rational investigation" and "sophisticated methods of translating/interpreting" rather than relying on faith”
The message of the Bible cannot ever be proven 100% by reason alone…so thus faith is essential. But the Creator also gave us a mind and intelligence and expects us to use it to discern the meaning of the Bible and how to apply it in our day to day life.
Ichon stated “Of course, it's an accusation that can be applied to anyone, but does that make it less true? But, Christians are perceived this way by almost all non-Christians? Whereas many other religions(not all, Islam is also this way, as are the Hebrews)are not. I wonder why?”
Well the why, in my understanding, is due to the fact that Christianity is one of the most well known religions and most people who disagree with it are angry that it does teachs “a way” to salvation not “many ways”. Many people seem to want a religion that fits their lifestyle and does not require any true struggle and change.
Any system (religious or secular) that sets a standard is going to be abrasive to those that would rather live life on their own terms and desires. I mean who wants to follow a system that teaches premarital sex is not what was designed for our good....”hey sex is lots of fun and I want to do it when and where I please”...thus Christianity seems intolerant of the lifestyle that most people would like to partake in.
Earlier I stated “Are others in the secular world accused of the same thing? Exclusionary thinking happens all the time from the political world (capitalist, communist, socialist, etc.) to the medical world (smoking causes cancer, a balanced diet leads to longer health, stem cell research, etc), etc.” Ichon replied “So let me get this straight? Your defense is that other people do it too? That's like the bank robber accusing the banks of his own crime to justify it."
I think on this point you misunderstood me more then any other. My point was that life is full of exclusionary thinking in a multitude of environments/systems. So if that premise is correct, why do people so viciously attack Christianity and not other systems? It seems very hypocritical when people apply one standard to “secular” exclusionary belief systems and a very harsher standard to Christianity.
Ichon stated “however when someone takes their private personal beliefs and tries to crusade with them, changing the world for everyone else, that is where it becomes self righteous. Lead by example, not force. That was the message of Christ afterall, his whole life was an example.
Well here I guess I would need a definition of terms...what exactly do you mean by “force”?. Crusading in my opinion is not “forcing” anything, but a humble plea to those that might be headed toward devastation to turn around. In a similar vein, I don’t think those who crusade against drunk driving are trying to force anything but trying to save lives. Yes we need to lead by example...but does that mean that Christians should be denied their right to freedom of speech to try and encourage others to turn towards a path that would possibly benefit and save others in the end?
Ichon stated “Now we are coming to the problem I have the largest disagreement with; the saving power of belief in Christ. I know that prior to the New Testament and the new convenient, the people who lived are considered as innocents if they weren't Hebrews, but what about the billions who lived and never heard of Christ since then? I don't think there is a need to spread the good news if God has found a way to deal with those, if he hasn't, then I want no part of him anyway.
I agree that it is a difficult thing regarding those who may have never heard of Christ. According to the Bible (in my understanding) everyone is held accountable for what they have been given.
On the other hand Christians were commissioned in the Bible to “spread the Good news”, so to ignore those who may not of heard about Christ would be disobedience. Additionally, it is a common teaching in the Bible that life is better, not easier, with a faith in Christ. Therefore teaching Christ to others is not only for their eternal salvation, but to meet their daily needs.
Ichon stated “Christians are the ones going around saying how we should live, and that they know the true path”
Well first off...if you look around the world everyone is preaching a message (i.e. “be young, be healthy, be capitalist, be family orientated, drugs sex and rock n roll, be educated, be white, be tolerent, be open minded, be self actualized, be rational, etc.,etc. etc”) So I disagree with the premise that most of the world is not preaching anything. Additionally, those who believe that you shouldn’t preach a specific belief system are actually preaching a belief system called relativism. So in the end EVERYONE is preaching in a one way or another, not just Christains.
Secondly, if you, Ichon, believed in your heart of hearts that there was only one way to save another person from a severe consequence wouldn’t you be the first to speak up?
In my opinion, no caring person in the world wants others to go through a torturous experience, so if Christians (correctly or incorrectly) believe they are saving people from eternal damnation why do people fault them? It would be inhuman for Christians to not try to help others if they truly believed that others were destined towards intense suffering without turning their hearts to Christ.
Just my thoughts Enjoying the conversation
|
|
Shae_Trielle
Honorable
Famous Hero
of Heroes
|
|
posted August 23, 2001 12:51 PM |
|
|
History is one of those things where very little can be proven and disproven. Time has a way of distorting the actual truth until people can warp history to their own ideals and beliefs. I think that the same can be applied to the idea of Jesus, Son of God. I am not doubting the existance of a man named Jesus, what I do honestly doubt is that he was the Son of God. Do you have any idea how many other 'son's of god' came before Jesus? Everyone with the slightest lineage to David (and then some) were claimed to be the Son of God. What made Jesus different was that he, as a politician and revolutionary, made the greatest impact upon the flourishing Roman Empire and was crucified because they saw him as a potential rabble rouser. He had the ability to create an uprising in Jerusalem, to lead the Jews back to their country and expel the Romans.
The mere idea of God has existed long before the idea of Christianity. In fact Christianity itself is full of symbolism and rituals from religions which predate Christ by thousands of years. Christianity is a collection of ideas and beliefs which have been brought together with the Bible.
I agree with Ichon strongly on this issue and I see down the same lines which he does. I was brought up as a Catholic, I was led to believe in God for so many years until my mother developed cancer and died. All the priests and the fathers that I spoke to gave me the same answer when I asked them 'why?'. And to be honest, none of those answers made much sense to me at all. The more I questioned, the less sense the Catholic religion made to me. I came to the understanding that it was merely an organization. One of the biggest and insidious organizations that history has ever seen. Everything that these religious leaders preach eventually leads to some form of monetary support. The first thing people see when they walk into a church is the 'donation' box. Why is that? Why do most sermons end in the money case being handed down the isles? What is it with this western religion and their fixation upon money?
It is because the whole pretense of the church is founded upon a basis which I believe is to profit from the masses of people who are lacking in spirituality. I might come off sounding a bit insane here, but God exists everywhere. I do not need to go to a church to speak to god. I do not need to buy a cross to feel safe. I should not have to purchase a bible in order to read one. I should not have to pay to get married in front of a father. Until someone explains these things to me in full and absolute sense, then maybe I might have a little bit of faith in the church again.
All I see when I look at religion is intolerance. This applies to most religions around the world. People are intolerant of other peoples ideas and what they think/feel God really is. And this intolerance leads to war and to murder and destruction. Religion has led to more wars than politics ever could, and I think most politics are fuelled by religious causes. The premise of love and eternal life is blackened by death and money when it comes to religion. And I don't know about you, but the term 'Holy War' has to be one of the most Anti-Religious terms that I've ever heard, LOL.
I knew a guy once who lived in a mission. Everybody in this mission lived rent and food free. The only thing he had to pay for were the clothes on his back and small everyday things. The church funded this mission and the 100 people who lived within it. They funded him to travel from New Zealand to North America and from there over to Australia. They paid for him to take a visit to Fiji and a year later, paid for him to go to Scotland. When I aked him how he got to go on all of these cool trips, he replied to me that he just had to try and convert people of other religions over to Christianity. That to me sounded like a definite crusade, to have a church actually fund tens of millions (if not hundreds or thousands) of dollars into the DELIBERATE conversion of people who are very content with the choice of their own religion.
Religion itself is not a bad thing. I think the need for it arises out of our own insecurity about our life and ultimately, our death, and having something to believe in somehow gives us a sense of direction and belonging. One of the most frightening things in life is to know that once you're dead, there's nothing else after it. If that were the case, then I think the human race would be vastly different.
But a person who's content with their beliefs and happy to live out his/her days with the knowledge that they will rise into heaven once they die and abide by certain ethics and commandments is in my opinion, honourable. People who don't fully believe in their own religion and try to convert other, happy people, are liars and as dishonourable as people get.
The guy I knew in the mission was such a person. He swore, he stole, he had pre-marital sex, he cheated on his friends and lied to his own mother, but still went overseas under the pretense that he was a faithful missionary. Why is that?
I met another guy from the same mission a few years later. He said that he had been forced to work 12 hour days in a factory and donate ALL of his wage earnings to the mission with a measly 30 dollar allowance every week to pay for his public transport and occaisional cafeteria lunches. He did this for THREE YEARS. He said that he turned his back on the mission because when he needed them the most, they told him that they were broke and had nothing to give him. I laughed and said that they probably used the money to send everyone overseas on Missionary Holidays. He's now happier than ever, living his own life, and believing in God in his own way.
If God is so mighty and righteous then he would never allow any of his children to suffer even a single INCH. The fact that suffering is allowed attests to a limit to his power and/or an absense of him altogether.
The Church to me is like a block of cheese. Made from fermented milk, it stinks like hell and everytime you look at it, it's always full of holes. But geee, doesn't it taste good?
To a blind man with a blocked nose maybe!
*smile*
|
|
Cheesus
Known Hero
The Untouchable
|
|
posted August 23, 2001 01:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The Church to me is like a block of cheese. Made from fermented milk, it stinks like hell and everytime you look at it, it's always full of holes. But geee, doesn't it taste good?
Don´t mess with the cheese, cheese is holy. Cheese is my god, therefor i am Cheesus.
____________
Win or lose, it doesn't matter. The way it happens is what is important
|
|
Shae_Trielle
Honorable
Famous Hero
of Heroes
|
|
posted August 23, 2001 01:49 PM |
|
|
I hope you have a good dose of deodorant then!
|
|
Cheesus
Known Hero
The Untouchable
|
|
posted August 23, 2001 01:56 PM |
|
|
I have the axe effect
____________
Win or lose, it doesn't matter. The way it happens is what is important
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 23, 2001 05:10 PM |
|
|
Wow, just when I thought the thread was dead!
Quote:
What is it with this western religion and their fixation upon money?
I dare you to find a relgion that doesn't happily accept/solicit donations...
Quote:
And I don't know about you, but the term 'Holy War' has to be one of the most Anti-Religious terms that I've ever heard, LOL.
Figure it's on the same level as "peace-keeping troops"
Quote:
(various anecdotes about missionaries by Shae)
Well, since we're sharing missionary stories, I'll give one that I swear to Yog is true.
I had this friend while I was living in Bangladesh (long story) who's dad was a missionary. I suppose he was one, too, technically, although he wasn't very good at it... (the only thing he convinced me of was that the missionaries hadn't actually read the bible...). Anyway, over the summer one year, his mom got really sick and delerious. Naturally, the conclusion was that she was possessed (first thing I think when somebody gets a fever!). The dad and another "minister" decide an exorcism is necessary. Apparently, this involves "beating the devil" out of her. The dad is now in a California jail for manslaughter. You know what the kicker is? Did this incident cause him to lose faith? NO! The guy become even more of a zealot after his religion had killed his mom! Go figure.
|
|
Avallach
Hired Hero
Disputo ergo sum.
|
|
posted August 23, 2001 05:47 PM |
|
|
bort:
Quote:
Anyway, I think my example is still valid, since I showed how, through 1. duplication and 2. Single Nucleotide mutations, seemingly new function would be gained.
Sure, the example is valid if you're arguing for the possibility of beneficial mutations. But, it doesn't really address the sort of increase in genetic information that evolution requires.
Quote:
as your example of entirely new muscle/skeletal structure being very difficult develop, you're absolutely right. I think if anything, this is evidence FOR evolution rather than against. Look at all animals with a skeleton. The skeletons look pretty much the same, don't they? Since this is a fantasy game site, let's ask the question - where are the centaurs or dragons? Well, that requires extra limbs, which, as you say would be an evolutionary leap. It probably only managed to happen once or twice in the billions of years that the earth has existed.
Firstly, I think you missed the point of my example . Just as there is no known mechanism that could result in the development of differently functioning muscles now, there is no known mechanism that could have resulted in the development of those that already exist. Random mutation, even with a few billion years into the bargain, isn't going to result in anything new for Natural Selection to act on. It's just going to result in randomness. At a high level, evolution is certainly an elegant and appealing theory. At a lower level though, I just don't think it works.
As for your argument based on similar skeletal structures, I concede that such similarities (so much as they do actually exist) are consistent with evolution. It could also be said to be common design though, so it's not strictly evidence either way. One problem for evolutionary theory though comes from what's called 'convergent evolution'. That's when we find different species that have no close evolutionary relationship, and yet have remarkably similar physical features. The evolutionist has to say that random (and I'll stress again, random) mutations, have just happened to hit upon the same design multiple times, as there is no reason to suppose any fundamental 'necessity' of that particular design. For example, take placental and marsupial dogs. The Thylacine (or Tasmanian Tiger) would be close to indistinguishable from a placental dog based on skeletal structure alone, yet there can be no close biological relationship between the two. This is but one example of many, and seems more indicative of a common Designer than of random evolution.
Quote:
Why do humans develop back problems? They couldn't redesign their skeleton for fully effecient bipedal walking rather than walking on all fours.
Or maybe it's because they're not designed for sitting at computers all day . In general though, I think the genetic makeup of our bodies, as a race, has deteriorated over time. As one would expect from the occurrence of random mutations.
Quote:
Life as we know it seems to involve more scotch tape and chicken wire than well thought out design.
I think that's a pretty rash statement to make. When you look inside even the simplest, crudest of organisms you'll find complexity on a vast scale. I don't think there'd be much evidence of MacGyvering anywhere.
I always enjoy discussing evolution (hey, I wouldn't have started otherwise), and I'm happy to debate it further if you'd like to continue... but within limits. A few more good sized posts is fine, maybe more if it's getting interesting, but it's all too easy for these discussions to go on forever, which I don't have time for right now. Really, most of the threads like this I've been in have only ended, ususally after a few hundred posts, when the moderator found and closed them.
Dargon, good post there .
Shae:
Quote:
History is one of those things where very little can be proven and disproven. Time has a way of distorting the actual truth until people can warp history to their own ideals and beliefs. I think that the same can be applied to the idea of Jesus, Son of God.
Ah yes, The Wheel of Time turns, memories become legend, legend fades to myth etc. Time does distort things, and looking broadly at the claims of Christianity it's no surprise that you'd take this to explain it. When you start to look at the evidence though, that explanation doesn't fit quite so well though. The problem is that the accounts we have of Jesus' life are not ones that were handed down for generations before finally being recorded. They were recorded by Jesus' own contemporaries. The evidence is strong that we have the same accounts today as were written almost 2000 years ago, which the ravages of time can do nothing to distort. But lets forget that for the moment, and focus on one doctrine that was most certainly there right from the beginning of Christianity, and one that is no less contentious than any other: the resurrection. We know that this was taught by people who claimed to be witnesses, who had seen Jesus alive after the Crucifixion. I suppose they could have been lying, making it up to exalt the memory of a beloved Teacher. But there's at least one major flaw with that theory. History records that eleven of the twelve disciples (John being the exception) were killed for their refusal to stop preaching this, dying cruel deaths. Now I'm no psychologist, but it doesn't take a psychologist to know that people aren't going to die like that for a lie, for something that they know to be a lie. If it was something they'd just made up, for whatever reason, and if they'd had the choice to renounce it or die a horrible death, can you doubt what they'd have chosen? In our materialistic/naturalistic culture I know it's hard to even consider that a supernatural event like that could actually be true, a real historical fact... but there is no rational reason to consider it necessarily impossible. The evidence for it is pretty strong, and it just... fits. But I haven't yet seen an alternative explanation for the events it would seem to have precipitated that does not defy reason.
Quote:
Do you have any idea how many other 'son's of god' came before Jesus? Everyone with the slightest lineage to David (and then some) were claimed to be the Son of God.
Evidence? Relevance?
Quote:
What made Jesus different was that he, as a politician and revolutionary, made the greatest impact upon the flourishing Roman Empire and was crucified because they saw him as a potential rabble rouser.
If you say what we know of Jesus has been distorted by time, how do you know this? Anything that can tell us about him ultimately dates back 2000 years.
Quote:
The mere idea of God has existed long before the idea of Christianity. In fact Christianity itself is full of symbolism and rituals from religions which predate Christ by thousands of years. Christianity is a collection of ideas and beliefs which have been brought together with the Bible.
What sort of argument is that? Just as God is said to have always existed (ie long before Christianity), so would people's knowledge of God have existed. While that knowledge did eventually become distorted, except where God revealed Himself to the Jews, in the various other religions we can still find varying amounts of the truth. Christianity is based on the belief that the Bible is God's direct revelation, not His only one but the one to which He was building up. We should not be surprised to find some similarities with the Bible in pagan religions - rather we should be surprised if we did not. Christ's life was the fulfillment of all that had gone before.
Quote:
I was brought up as a Catholic, I was led to believe in God for so many years until my mother developed cancer and died. All the priests and the fathers that I spoke to gave me the same answer when I asked them 'why?'. And to be honest, none of those answers made much sense to me at all.
Firstly, I'm sorry for your loss. My mother has cancer too, but thankfully it's not being very aggressive at the moment.
The question of why bad things happen is not an easy one to answer, but I think an answer does exist in the Bible, and I think it makes sense. If you like, I could try discussing it. But tell me, do you think that someone grieving the loss of a mother could have accepted any answer about why it happened? It's easy, sometimes too easy, to talk about suffering, to rationalise it, when we're not experiencing it ourselves. But I think that when someone is suffering, having someone who isn't talk to them about it, no matter how rationally, is just going to sound hollow.
Quote:
The more I questioned, the less sense the Catholic religion made to me. I came to the understanding that it was merely an organization. One of the biggest and insidious organizations that history has ever seen. Everything that these religious leaders preach eventually leads to some form of monetary support. The first thing people see when they walk into a church is the 'donation' box. Why is that? Why do most sermons end in the money case being handed down the isles? What is it with this western religion and their fixation upon money?
The Bible itself speaks of a love of money being the root of evil, and it's something that has the potential to corrupt any organisation. I think that many churches, and perhaps in part the catholic church as a whole, have been corrupted by it. You mustn't judge Christianity by its corrupted members though. It's not about the churches, and it's not about the televangelists - it's about God, and about His Word that He's given us. Judge it by that, not by the flawed people who claim to, and even those who truly try to, follow it. None of us, after all, is perfect. And as for 'western religion and their fixation upon money', wouldn't you say that it's western culture as a whole that has a fixation on money? What you're seeing is more cultural than religious.
Quote:
It is because the whole pretense of the church is founded upon a basis which I believe is to profit from the masses of people who are lacking in spirituality. I might come off sounding a bit insane here, but God exists everywhere. I do not need to go to a church to speak to god. I do not need to buy a cross to feel safe. I should not have to purchase a bible in order to read one. I should not have to pay to get married in front of a father. Until someone explains these things to me in full and absolute sense, then maybe I might have a little bit of faith in the church again.
You talk here of 'the church' by which I guess you mean the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), but it would be better to think of Christianity as a whole. Catholicism is but one denomination within it, and one that has some pretty strange doctrines, at that. While it can be petty for Christians to criticise each other for different beliefs, I do nonetheless think that the RCC has gone somewhat astray. It's a consequence of what you observed yourself, that it is in essence an organisation, and a large one at that. In the past it was also a very powerful one, that wielded a great deal of political power. Power corrupts, and so I think it did with the RCC (as it may potentially do in any other religion or denomination). Christianity is founded entirely upon the Bible, but many doctrines were introduced by the RCC that are not biblical. As you say, God is everywhere, and you're right that it doesn't matter whether you're in church, or at home, or at work, God will hear you just the same. You don't need to confess your sins to a Priest and have him intervene for you. We're all equal in God's eyes, and He listens to everyone just the same. No, you shouldn't have to pay to read the Bible. Ultimately of course someone does have to pay for copies to actually be made, but there are charities such as Gideon Bibles that give them away. No, you do not need a cross to feel safe. Does the Catholic church actually teach that? In any case it's horribly, horribly wrong. The Bible nowhere teaches that there's any sort of power in the physical representation of the cross - it's a symbol, that's all, to remind us of what Christ did for us. I can't speak with authority on paying for a pastor to marry you, as I've never had cause to enquire, but I'd be very surprised if the Pastor at my local church would charge for doing so.
Quote:
All I see when I look at religion is intolerance. This applies to most religions around the world. People are intolerant of other peoples ideas and what they think/feel God really is. And this intolerance leads to war and to murder and destruction. Religion has led to more wars than politics ever could, and I think most politics are fuelled by religious causes. The premise of love and eternal life is blackened by death and money when it comes to religion. And I don't know about you, but the term 'Holy War' has to be one of the most Anti-Religious terms that I've ever heard, LOL.
Intolerance... well, that's the usual charge that's levelled at Christianity, as was mentioned earlier. But depending on how you actually define intolerant, I'd say that it's actually quite rare, or that it's not really that bad a thing. Lets also stick with the earlier example, and use pre-marital sex as an instance. Is believing it to be wrong intolerant? What about saying openly that it's wrong? If these are intolerance, I'd say that there's nothing wrong with this sort of intolerance. Most people believe, and would say openly that murder is wrong, and we would find nothing wrong with them doing so. The only difference comes if you in fact consider that pre-marital sex is not wrong. But that's a factual issue, not one of tolerance. What I would call intolerance then is villifying a person, abusing them, or to get down to the foundation of it, wishing them harm because of what they're doing or believe. That's where the evil lies, not in telling someone what they're doing is wrong because you believe that by doing so they are harming themselves. As for religious wars, I think the issue was more often political than religious, sometimes subtly so and sometimes not. But anyway, I do agree that waging war in the name of religion is a terrible thing. Fighting to protect your right to believe and worship as you wish is one thing, killing people because they believe and worship differently is another altogether.
Quote:
That to me sounded like a definite crusade, to have a church actually fund tens of millions (if not hundreds or thousands) of dollars into the DELIBERATE conversion of people who are very content with the choice of their own religion.
They're not forcing people to convert. That would be wrong. Going out and telling people about what you believe, even trying to convince them of what you believe to be true, is not. If you believed, truly believed that there was one way to be saved, one that would have eternal consequences, would you hold back from telling people that just because they were content with whatever beliefs they already had? If you assume Christianity is wrong, then sure, missionary work will seem wrong, or at least a waste of effort and money that could be put to better use. But if for a moment you assume that it is really correct, could you say that there is anything more important?
Quote:
Religion itself is not a bad thing. I think the need for it arises out of our own insecurity about our life and ultimately, our death, and having something to believe in somehow gives us a sense of direction and belonging. One of the most frightening things in life is to know that once you're dead, there's nothing else after it. If that were the case, then I think the human race would be vastly different.
You can say that there are psychological reasons why people might be religious, and I could say the same of atheists - that they just don't want to believe that they are accountable for their actions in this life. It has no bearing at all though on the question of whether Christianity, atheism, or whatever else is actually right. That can only be done by looking at the evidence for and against.
Quote:
But a person who's content with their beliefs and happy to live out his/her days with the knowledge that they will rise into heaven once they die and abide by certain ethics and commandments is in my opinion, honourable. People who don't fully believe in their own religion and try to convert other, happy people, are liars and as dishonourable as people get.
I agree entirely, and it's sad to see people of the second type within religion, who simply exploit it. But what would you say about a third group of people who do fully believe, but believing that there's only one way to Heaven, still tell no one about it for fear of being labelled an intolerant bigot, or whatever?
Quote:
The guy I knew in the mission was such a person. He swore, he stole, he had pre-marital sex, he cheated on his friends and lied to his own mother, but still went overseas under the pretense that he was a faithful missionary. Why is that?
Because people are sinful. But that does not mean that everyone, or even many people are doing what he did.
Quote:
If God is so mighty and righteous then he would never allow any of his children to suffer even a single INCH. The fact that suffering is allowed attests to a limit to his power and/or an absense of him altogether.
No, it doesn't. Your use of the word 'righteous' partly hit on it, but only partly. It's something I'll come back to later though, if you'd still like to discuss it. Right now I'm getting pretty tired, and my fingers have had just about enough typing for the night... morning... whatever.
Quote:
The Church to me is like a block of cheese. Made from fermented milk, it stinks like hell and everytime you look at it, it's always full of holes. But geee, doesn't it taste good?
To a blind man with a blocked nose maybe!
Ech, what sort of cheese are you eating?!? I'd recommend Bega So-Light, myself: no holes, no stink, and it's great in jaffles .
____________
"Death slew him not, but he made death his ladder to the skies"
- Edmund Spenser, on the death of Philip Sidney
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
posted August 23, 2001 06:20 PM |
|
|
Must admit...
I kinda agree with that girl in the green corner...
I had very much same kind of thoughts about church about few years ago. I think it was because I had heard so much crap in religion classes that my brains could have exploded. I never was taken of any classroom during my schooltime because I usually shut my mouth, religion was exception.
You know most of finns don't go to church and only few are really religious. It's sickening fact that christianity is "preached" in religion classes and other religion are put down. This was of course mainly because of teachers I had and I understood it when I resigned from my church when I went to highschool. Teacher in highschool teached both religion and kinda philosophy for those who didn't read religion. Even she had firm believe to christian God you could talk to her rationally and I liked that. It was personal believe for her and she said that everyone will find their own religion and faith when the time comes. After that I haven't had such an aggression towards church as some people have. Church as organization is probably needed in peoples life but I don't need it. Also the church as building doesn't give me any feeling at all. Before it was symbol of Christianity that I was disgusted for me but now it is just big building with some people going there speaking to something that doesn't exist for me.
Still I won't go for crusade to change peoples views about christianity as long as nobody is interfering my life and saying what to speak, what to do and so on and so on.
Bible is very good book but just book for me. I don't believe there is no single proof for God or against him. It's your believe that decides whether he exist or not.
Jesus is historical or maybe even fictional character. As said we don't know about what happened and I trust those proofs about Jesus being son of God as much as proof that Aliens are living among us.
However I want to ask one thing?
Does the Bible say that Humans are above other animals or not? Yes, I know about that being "God's Image" and "protector of nature" but I mean direct references?
Do you thing also you need to believe into all the things mentioned in Bible to be able to believe really and goto heaven? I like the idea of that "world is my church and thought is my pray" but does christianity support those ideas or not?
Just interested...
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 24, 2001 01:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sure, the example is valid if you're arguing for the possibility of beneficial mutations. But, it doesn't really address the sort of increase in genetic information that evolution requires.
Well, that wasn't exactly my point. My point was that the "increase" in genetic information probably doesn't occur in the linear manner that you seem to think evolution theory consists of.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your point is along the lines of the following:
"A partially built protein is more or less useless. If a new protein, with a new function is needed, it cannot be built up slowly, say one codon at a time since the partially built protein would provide no survival advantage and would in fact probably be detrimental. If the protein were more than 10 or so amino acids long, it would take several trillion years to arrive at the correct protein by sheer chance. And that's just for 1 protein, to say nothing about the entire batch of gene products! Similarly, the protein cannot come into existence all at once, in a single mutation , since that would require hundreds of nucleotides spontaneously organizing themselves into the correct order and then inserting themselves into the genome!"
I hope that I've represented at least part of your argument accurately. If so, you are absolutely right. My point is that that's not how evolution works. My example was meant to illustrate that the "new" genetic information is more than likely not "new" after all. The various genomic and proteomic projects are, if nothing else, showing how similar in structure proteins with vastly different function actually are. Things such as phosphorylation domains are conserved in signaling proteins as well as enzymes for just about every purpose, not just within species, but across species as well.
To continue my earlier example of the sucrose-receptor-becomes-antibody (remember, this is simply a thought experiment, this is not meant to be a replay of the actual evolutionary steps). Let's say the original receptor is duplicated again (either through a mistake in crossing over, segregation, or simply due to looping out during replication). Once again, no survival disadvantage. Potentially a minor survival advantage. This time, on the second copy, the membrane anchor is extended rather than eliminated (this could happen by a stop codon mutating into a sense codon) so that it extends significantly into the cytosol. Now, if the receptor binds sucrose, it will also change the conformation of the part of the protein within the cytosol - instant signalling molecule.
Let's copy the original receptor again. This time, once again, by a single nucleotide polymorphism the protein is now misdirected to the cytosol rather than the membrane (things like this have actually been observed. I think it's cystic fibrosis in which the mutated protein is still functional, but it's directed to the wrong place in the cell). No problems there, the protein simply sequesters sucrose in the cytosol as well as on the surface. Now, if there is a mutation in the binding domain similar to the ones in the "becomes an antibody" path, such that the protein still binds to sucrose, but it binds BETTER to adjacent molecules of glucose and fructose (the monosaccharides that make up sucrose), the former receptor will now function as an enzyme that helps to break down sucrose into energy for the cell. If, on the other hand the protein binds better to sucrose than to glucose and fructose, it would perform the opposite purpose and store energy. Go one step further and duplicate the sucrose formation enzyme, and you can make starch or cellulose (depending on the orientation)
Everything I've said so far involves only minor mutations -- duplications (no new information, just copying old stuff) and single nucleotide mutations (which happen relatively frequently regardless of whether or not you believe in evolutions). If you also accept theories such as exon shuffling, you can begin to envision things like combining the "signaling protein" described above with a phosphorylation domain from another protein. Now the signalling protein doesn't just transmit a conformational change, but also begins a phosphorylation cascade which amplifies the signal.
So what's my point? My point is that you would be absolutely correct in saying that it is absurdly unlikely for 1. a rudimentary immune system, 2. an enzyme that breaks down sucrose, 3. an energy storage enzyme, 4. a sensory protein that detects sucrose for the cell and 5. an enzyme that makes a structural polysaccharide to come into being de novo. However, "new" genetic information does not need to be created from nothing in order for evolution to occur. If you were to look at an organism with all of these new proteins and systems, and compare it to the original, you'd be hard pressed to say that evolution had not occured (especially since if the cellulose was present, the appearance would probably be dramatically different), you'd probably even marvel at the newfound complexity and wonder how it could have all come into being, but when you look down at the molecular level, you'd find that not all that much has changed. Welcome to the wonderful world of emergent properties.
Quote:
That's when we find different species that have no close evolutionary relationship, and yet have remarkably similar physical features.
Please... I know what convergent evolution is. :-)
Quote:
The evolutionist has to say that random (and I'll stress again, random) mutations, have just happened to hit upon the same design multiple times, as there is no reason to suppose any fundamental 'necessity' of that particular design.
The apparently similar design is rarely exactly the same.
Compare whales to fish. Both have fins, both spend all their live in the water, and they look remarkably similar. It's the little things that give them away - the rear fin of fish goes side to side, the whale's goes up and down. This suggests that, let's face it, a wide, flat structure like a fin is pretty useful to a swimmer. Therefore, evolutionary pressure on both will create the "necessity" of a fin. The fact that the whale's fin's skeletal structure looks remarkably like fused legs suggests that convergent evolution is in fact what happened and is quite plausible. It goes up and down because that's the direction the old legs bent. Funny, I've nevery actually heard somebody use convergent evolution as an argument AGAINST evolution
Quote:
For example, take placental and marsupial dogs. The Thylacine (or Tasmanian Tiger) would be close to indistinguishable from a placental dog based on skeletal structure alone, yet there can be no close biological relationship between the two.
ditto on this one, things like this are normally used as evidence for rather than against evolution. I'd argue that this suggests a common ancestor somewhere back in time, as well as similar ecological niches. If by close biological relationship, you mean "siblings," then no, they ain't that. On an evolutionary scale, though, "mammals" is a close biological relationship.
Quote:
Or maybe it's because they're not designed for sitting at computers all day .
agreed, although back problems existed before computers.
Quote:
In general though, I think the genetic makeup of our bodies, as a race, has deteriorated over time. As one would expect from the occurrence of random mutations.
and you say I make rash statements! Although I'm not sure if this is an argument for the "design" argument...
Quote:
I think that's a pretty rash statement to make. When you look inside even the simplest, crudest of organisms you'll find complexity on a vast scale. I don't think there'd be much evidence of MacGyvering anywhere.
Oh, they're very complex. That's because they've had to make do with modifying old proteins and jury rigging systems to deal with changing environments and challenges. Remember, the first rule of rational design is KISS (keep it simple, stupid.) :-)
As to MacGyvering, I refer you to the whale's fused legs.
Quote:
I always enjoy discussing evolution (hey, I wouldn't have started otherwise), and I'm happy to debate it further if you'd like to continue... but within limits. A few more good sized posts is fine, maybe more if it's getting interesting, but it's all too easy for these discussions to go on forever, which I don't have time for right now.
No worries, I think we're both talking past each other right now, anyway. Don't think I could handle very many more posts like this, takes too long. Reply if you feel like it, otherwise don't bother. I will do the same.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 24, 2001 01:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sure, the example is valid if you're arguing for the possibility of beneficial mutations. But, it doesn't really address the sort of increase in genetic information that evolution requires.
Well, that wasn't exactly my point. My point was that the "increase" in genetic information probably doesn't occur in the linear manner that you seem to think evolution theory consists of.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your point is along the lines of the following:
"A partially built protein is more or less useless. If a new protein, with a new function is needed, it cannot be built up slowly, say one codon at a time since the partially built protein would provide no survival advantage and would in fact probably be detrimental. If the protein were more than 10 or so amino acids long, it would take several trillion years to arrive at the correct protein by sheer chance. And that's just for 1 protein, to say nothing about the entire batch of gene products! Similarly, the protein cannot come into existence all at once, in a single mutation , since that would require hundreds of nucleotides spontaneously organizing themselves into the correct order and then inserting themselves into the genome!"
I hope that I've represented at least part of your argument accurately. If so, you are absolutely right. My point is that that's not how evolution works. My example was meant to illustrate that the "new" genetic information is more than likely not "new" after all. The various genomic and proteomic projects are, if nothing else, showing how similar in structure proteins with vastly different function actually are. Things such as phosphorylation domains are conserved in signaling proteins as well as enzymes for just about every purpose, not just within species, but across species as well.
To continue my earlier example of the sucrose-receptor-becomes-antibody (remember, this is simply a thought experiment, this is not meant to be a replay of the actual evolutionary steps). Let's say the original receptor is duplicated again (either through a mistake in crossing over, segregation, or simply due to looping out during replication). Once again, no survival disadvantage. Potentially a minor survival advantage. This time, on the second copy, the membrane anchor is extended rather than eliminated (this could happen by a stop codon mutating into a sense codon) so that it extends significantly into the cytosol. Now, if the receptor binds sucrose, it will also change the conformation of the part of the protein within the cytosol - instant signalling molecule.
Let's copy the original receptor again. This time, once again, by a single nucleotide polymorphism the protein is now misdirected to the cytosol rather than the membrane (things like this have actually been observed. I think it's cystic fibrosis in which the mutated protein is still functional, but it's directed to the wrong place in the cell). No problems there, the protein simply sequesters sucrose in the cytosol as well as on the surface. Now, if there is a mutation in the binding domain similar to the ones in the "becomes an antibody" path, such that the protein still binds to sucrose, but it binds BETTER to adjacent molecules of glucose and fructose (the monosaccharides that make up sucrose), the former receptor will now function as an enzyme that helps to break down sucrose into energy for the cell. If, on the other hand the protein binds better to sucrose than to glucose and fructose, it would perform the opposite purpose and store energy. Go one step further and duplicate the sucrose formation enzyme, and you can make starch or cellulose (depending on the orientation)
Everything I've said so far involves only minor mutations -- duplications (no new information, just copying old stuff) and single nucleotide mutations (which happen relatively frequently regardless of whether or not you believe in evolutions). If you also accept theories such as exon shuffling, you can begin to envision things like combining the "signaling protein" described above with a phosphorylation domain from another protein. Now the signalling protein doesn't just transmit a conformational change, but also begins a phosphorylation cascade which amplifies the signal.
So what's my point? My point is that you would be absolutely correct in saying that it is absurdly unlikely for 1. a rudimentary immune system, 2. an enzyme that breaks down sucrose, 3. an energy storage enzyme, 4. a sensory protein that detects sucrose for the cell and 5. an enzyme that makes a structural polysaccharide to come into being de novo. However, "new" genetic information does not need to be created from nothing in order for evolution to occur. If you were to look at an organism with all of these new proteins and systems, and compare it to the original, you'd be hard pressed to say that evolution had not occured (especially since if the cellulose was present, the appearance would probably be dramatically different), you'd probably even marvel at the newfound complexity and wonder how it could have all come into being, but when you look down at the molecular level, you'd find that not all that much has changed. Welcome to the wonderful world of emergent properties.
Quote:
That's when we find different species that have no close evolutionary relationship, and yet have remarkably similar physical features.
Please... I know what convergent evolution is. :-)
Quote:
The evolutionist has to say that random (and I'll stress again, random) mutations, have just happened to hit upon the same design multiple times, as there is no reason to suppose any fundamental 'necessity' of that particular design.
The apparently similar design is rarely exactly the same.
Compare whales to fish. Both have fins, both spend all their live in the water, and they look remarkably similar. It's the little things that give them away - the rear fin of fish goes side to side, the whale's goes up and down. This suggests that, let's face it, a wide, flat structure like a fin is pretty useful to a swimmer. Therefore, evolutionary pressure on both will create the "necessity" of a fin. The fact that the whale's fin's skeletal structure looks remarkably like fused legs suggests that convergent evolution is in fact what happened and is quite plausible. It goes up and down because that's the direction the old legs bent. Funny, I've nevery actually heard somebody use convergent evolution as an argument AGAINST evolution
Quote:
For example, take placental and marsupial dogs. The Thylacine (or Tasmanian Tiger) would be close to indistinguishable from a placental dog based on skeletal structure alone, yet there can be no close biological relationship between the two.
ditto on this one, things like this are normally used as evidence for rather than against evolution. I'd argue that this suggests a common ancestor somewhere back in time, as well as similar ecological niches. If by close biological relationship, you mean "siblings," then no, they ain't that. On an evolutionary scale, though, "mammals" is a close biological relationship.
Quote:
Or maybe it's because they're not designed for sitting at computers all day .
agreed, although back problems existed before computers.
Quote:
In general though, I think the genetic makeup of our bodies, as a race, has deteriorated over time. As one would expect from the occurrence of random mutations.
and you say I make rash statements! Although I'm not sure if this is an argument for the "design" argument...
Quote:
I think that's a pretty rash statement to make. When you look inside even the simplest, crudest of organisms you'll find complexity on a vast scale. I don't think there'd be much evidence of MacGyvering anywhere.
Oh, they're very complex. That's because they've had to make do with modifying old proteins and jury rigging systems to deal with changing environments and challenges. Remember, the first rule of rational design is KISS (keep it simple, stupid.) :-)
As to MacGyvering, I refer you to the whale's fused legs.
Quote:
I always enjoy discussing evolution (hey, I wouldn't have started otherwise), and I'm happy to debate it further if you'd like to continue... but within limits. A few more good sized posts is fine, maybe more if it's getting interesting, but it's all too easy for these discussions to go on forever, which I don't have time for right now.
No worries, I think we're both talking past each other right now, anyway. Don't think I could handle very many more posts like this, takes too long. Reply if you feel like it, otherwise don't bother. I will do the same.
|
|
ozzyosbourne
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
Riddler of the Sky
|
|
posted August 24, 2001 07:26 AM |
|
|
God Is God,
God Is Great,
Shut The Hell Up,
Before i turn your corpse into bait!
____________
Life is like a carousel. Spinning fast you got to ride them well. The only time you speak is in your dreams.
|
|
ironmlh
Known Hero
|
posted August 24, 2001 06:48 PM |
|
|
This is Hilarious
This Thread gets my vote for the most comical thread in this community. All these people posting about there belief in false, mythical beings just cracks me up.
I said it once before and i will say it again. All you people that have this `need' to believe in God are weak.
If you can't live life for yourself and must live to please this `GOD' or to follow the path and virtues outlined by 'GOD' than you are truly living a pipe dream and wasting your time.
later
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted August 24, 2001 07:17 PM |
|
|
And I find you post...
The most comical post of history of this community.
Not saying that I believe into God but the way you say that people live in pipe dream.
Do you have any proof for your theory?
Are you sure you aren't the one living in it?
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
ironmlh
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 24, 2001 08:30 PM |
|
|
You confirm my point
Quote:
The most comical post of history of this community.
Not saying that I believe into God but the way you say that people live in pipe dream.
Do you have any proof for your theory?
Are you sure you aren't the one living in it?
Am i sure i am not living a pipe dream? Hmmm. I am not the one believing in something that has never been proven to exist. Isn't the one doing the `believing', the burden of proof is on the people saying GOD exists, not the people how say he doesn't exist. He doesn't exist. I really cannot fathom some of these beliefs, it is quite ridiculous.
I do not choose not to believe in GOD. It is a really simply concept. I believe in nothing that has never been proven to exist.
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted August 24, 2001 09:55 PM |
|
|
Don't take this as offence...
How do you prove something so you can think it exist? Do you think yourself exist? Do you have proof of that?
I think EVERYBODY believes into something. You believe into yourself, this world, this life, am I right?
But really "proof" something is really difficult task. We can always rely into "logic" but sometimes it fails so why it wouldn't fail now?
So you have to believe into something...
To believe into God is just step into different direction and into different level of believe.
As said I don't believe God but I don't also believe that people will do anything but get probably little angry to you if you say they live in dream so what you said doesn't prove anything does it?
Who knows, maybe live is just dream?
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
ironmlh
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 24, 2001 10:49 PM |
|
|
No offense taken
Quote:
How do you prove something so you can think it exist? Do you think yourself exist? Do you have proof of that?
I think EVERYBODY believes into something. You believe into yourself, this world, this life, am I right?
But really "proof" something is really difficult task. We can always rely into "logic" but sometimes it fails so why it wouldn't fail now?
So you have to believe into something...
To believe into God is just step into different direction and into different level of believe.
As said I don't believe God but I don't also believe that people will do anything but get probably little angry to you if you say they live in dream so what you said doesn't prove anything does it?
Who knows, maybe live is just dream?
I take no offense to your post, it is just that how do people really believe in something that never has been proven to exist? Its all a myth.
Are you proven to be real? No, to me you are only proven to be SHA MEN here at this community? DO you exist? sure, how else could you be corresponding here.
It is quite disturbing, the number of people in the world have the belief in something that is not real!
Anyhow, enough ranting, later.
|
| |
|
|
