Discovery may lead to a review of the theory of evolution

[RiaX]

You are asking questions about something that is obviously made up , any semi sane christian will tell you the same. Any quarter decent priest or minister will also tell you not to take them literally.

The book of genesis, its what the christian faith uses to explain creationism. Now that we know its rubbish, they hold on to what little remains of it. Im very suprise for people to claim to be 'christian' how little you people really know about it. I myself though will never say I know more than a church going christian, thats not possible hence why I bother to debate the subject.

The difference between science and religion is that science can ADMIT it is wrong and revise itself, religion cannot. You are suppose to take the ideals as a perfect truth. As Jesus said "if you deny me then i shall deny you before my father" , sounds like a spoilt boy terrorising his father's employees. How is this ANY different from hitler or stalin ? don do as i say and I shoot you. God seems to actually be worse IMHO, because the concept of hell is far worse than an unjust death.

 

[Unhappy438]

The book of genesis, its what the christian faith uses to explain creationism. Now that we know its rubbish, they hold on to what little remains of it. Im very suprise for people to claim to be 'christian' how little you people really know about it. I myself though will never say I know more than a church going christian, thats not possible hence why I bother to debate the subject.

The difference between science and religion is that science can ADMIT it is wrong and revise itself, religion cannot. You are suppose to take the ideals as a perfect truth. As Jesus said "if you deny me then i shall deny you before my father" , sounds like a spoilt boy terrorising his father's employees. How is this ANY different from hitler or stalin ? don do as i say and I shoot you. God seems to actually be worse IMHO, because the concept of hell is far worse than an unjust death.

The Vatican dismisses Genesis and accepts Evolution, you don't have to be a creationist to be a christian.

 

[RiaX]

So why stop at just genesis? what makes the rest of the books any different from genesis which is to say... completely wrong

 

[Techne]

Every Christian I know is a creationist and the vast majority of them don't appear to have problems with evolution or evolution theory or an old age of the earth and universe etc. Anyway, back on topic:

New Role for RNAi Discovered: Epigenetic Memory May Pass RNA Silencing from One Generation to the Next

ScienceDaily (June 26, 2012) — Organisms employ a fascinating array of strategies to identify and restrain invasive pieces of foreign DNA, such as those introduced by viruses. For example, many viruses produce double-stranded (ds)RNA during their life cycle and the RNA interference (RNAi) mechanism is thought to recognize this structural feature to initiate a silencing response.

..."This is one of the truly unique findings of these studies," said Conte. "Before, we knew that the RNAi process could be used to regulate genes or to turn them off completely. In this case, what we see is an RNAi mechanism that appears to prevent a gene from being silenced by the piRNA pathway. It works almost as a form of protection that allows the gene to be expressed."

"Taken together, these studies posit a surprisingly complex role for small-RNA systems in epigenetic programming," said Mello. "It shows how piRNAs continuously scan all the genes expressed in the germline, constantly comparing each sequence to a memory of previous gene expression. When foreign genes are recognized and silenced, this new epigenetic knowledge can be passed down to successive generations. On the other hand, occasionally new genes are expressed, apparently stochastically, and this active state too can be passed on as a stable epigenetic memory, thus the organism effectively adopts the foreign gene as self."

 

[Swa]

Please take a look at a dictionary for the definition and don't make up your own.

Dictionary isn't very helpful. Doesn't appear to be one definition.

Your species has taken 3.5 billion years to develop into something that seems divine, I know.

So you claim.

Are you suggesting the coccyx and appendix are useless? :erm:

 

[Unhappy438]

So why stop at just genesis? what makes the rest of the books any different from genesis which is to say... completely wrong

Im not a Christian myself so that i don't know.

Every Christian I know is a creationist and the vast majority of them don't appear to have problems with evolution or evolution theory or an old age of the earth and universe etc.

Maybe i should rephrase , most Christians dont take Genesis literally but they believe God "created" the universe and guided evolution etc. Is this fair?

 

[Techne]

Maybe i should rephrase , most Christians dont take Genesis literally but they believe God "created" the universe and guided evolution etc. Is this fair?

No, I think most Christians believe nothing can come into being or continue to happen without God creating it and sustaining it in existence. What you are describing appears to be some sort of deism, perhaps even "ecclesial deism" (hey, I learned a new word a few days ago) and not theism.

 

[Swa]

Im not a Christian myself so that i don't know.



Maybe i should rephrase , most Christians dont take Genesis literally but they believe God "created" the universe and guided evolution etc. Is this fair?

The Vatican says nothing about Genesis not being true. Only that evolution is not incompatible with the biblical account of creation. It's not known what definition of evolution they used though.

 

[Techne]

The Vatican says nothing about Genesis not being true. Only that evolution is not incompatible with the biblical account of creation. It's not known what definition of evolution they used though.

Swa, try to get hold of two books:
1
2

At least give them a go, make up your own mind.

 

[Unhappy438]

No, I think most Christians believe nothing can come into being or continue to happen without God creating it and sustaining it in existence. What you are describing appears to be some sort of deism, perhaps even "ecclesial deism" (hey, I learned a new word a few days ago) and not theism.

Oh ok i see , thanks

The Vatican says nothing about Genesis not being true. Only that evolution is not incompatible with the biblical account of creation. It's not known what definition of evolution they used though.

Well lets just say that they take a very flexible approach in interpreting Genesis.

 

[Swa]

Swa, try to get hold of two books:
1
2

At least give them a go, make up your own mind.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say but will try to give them a go.

 

[CoolBug]

The Vatican says nothing about Genesis not being true. Only that evolution is not incompatible with the biblical account of creation. It's not known what definition of evolution they used though.

The definition is very clear.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18524

http://biblelight.net/darwin.htm

 

[rwenzori]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say but will try to give them a go.

Don't bother. No 1:

The central contention of the "New Atheism" of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens is that there has for several centuries been a war between science and religion, that religion has been steadily losing that war, and that at this point in human history a completely secular scientific account of the world has been worked out in such thorough and convincing detail that there is no longer any reason why a rational and educated person should find the claims of any religion the least bit worthy of attention.

But as Edward Feser argues in The Last Superstition, in fact there is not, and never has been, any war between science and religion at all. There has instead been a conflict between two entirely philosophical conceptions of the natural order: on the one hand, the classical "teleological" vision of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, on which purpose or goal-directedness is as inherent a feature of the physical world as mass or electric charge; and the modern "mechanical" vision of Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, according to which the physical world is comprised of nothing more than purposeless, meaningless particles in motion. The modern "mechanical" picture has never been established by science, and cannot be, for it is not a scientific theory in the first place but merely a philosophical interpretation of science.

Not only is this modern philosophical picture rationally unfounded, it is demonstrably false. For the "mechanical" conception of the natural world, when worked out consistently, absurdly entails that rationality, and indeed the human mind itself, are illusory. The so-called "scientific worldview" championed by the New Atheists thus inevitably undermines its own rational foundations; and into the bargain it undermines the foundations of any possible morality as well.

Lollers at the bolded bits. Eddie Fizzpop is Techne's big hero, but don't believe his claptrap.

 

[RiaX]

The vatican has no take on Genesis because they know its WRONG. The Earth isnt 6000 years old and everything else it preaches is nonsense.

Science isnt afraid to say I do not know the answer, but I will try and find out. whereas religion claims it has ALL the answers, which to say, is madness, for example you telling me a GOD that existed in nothing, out of the blue created the universe, SO vast that and only make MANKIND the centre of attention? what arrogance firstly of the religious to think that. It basically says earth is the only place in the universe with life. Now the observable universe is incomprehensively MASSIVE. There are more stars than there are grains of sand on earth, each containing a system of planets. Mathematically its impossible that earth is the only place with life advanced or primitive doesnt matter. To put it in perspective once more, take a page and make a small pencil dot on it. That dot is the milkyway galaxy and the observsable universe will extend from your dot to the orbit of planet mars.

Secondly a god who has this awesome power, created energy, the laws of physics, generals mechanics quantum mechanics and so on, decided the best way to forgive mankind's sin was to kill his own son? (correct me if im wrong here, its my understanding that jesus, a jewish man, is said to be god's son yes?). Since god created the universe he should know how old it is, yet its said in the holy scripts (which are considered the word of god, and most religious people take it has if god himself wrote it i.e a book of undebatable truths) how is it possible that the age noted is incorrect?

Creationists always ask, "where did this primordial soup come from?" , "where the big bang came from?" and "what was before the big bang?" and as a person of science I can proudly say, I do not know the answers for these questions.... yet.

HOWEVER, when asked the same questions you can see the blind ignorance.

"where is god ?"
"why did god decide to create the universe?"
"and who created god?"

If you look closely these 3 questions are identical with just the subject of the question being different. Yet the religious expect the answer of "god is always there" as an acceptable answer YET they dismissed solid science with the exact notion. Is is possible to be anymore hypocritical than that? this is the arrogance of faith.

If you claim god always existed then why is it so difficult to say "the universe always existed", its the fundamental flaw at which religion attempts to debunk modern science. They ask the questions towards science, questions they would NOT DARE ask their own faith, it would be criminal and seen as apostasy. Certain religions like Islam the punishment for apostasy is death? the mosque using fear to keep people in line. Christianity is no different, the penalty for apostasy is eternal punishment in hell.

Now that we are liberated from these barbaric events, no more stoning of people like god ordered in the old testiment, what is the fear of asking these questions?

There idealogy of hell should be enough to dismiss it as a "monster in the closet", I mean if I were to go to hell and get my skin eternally burnt by lava, what happens then? do I have a 'regeneration' pick up from quake 3? that I grow more skin for it to burn away for the rest of time? Secondly why would your soul behave in the exact same manner as your body? pain is a neurological indicator to preserve the physical body from damage, something a soul does not have. When you die , according to the abrahamic based faiths your body says in the ground and the soul leaves. Next if god created everything that means he must of created everything in Heaven and Hell, and it would take a very evil twisted mind to create the concept of hell, eternal torture is no mere jail sentence. Again you need to ask the next question, what was there before heaven and hell existed? is that the end of knowledge. Finally what kind of sick creature is god to have created mankind in his image only to then send them of to hell for the "evil" doings they performed with the FREEWILL he had instilled, strange.

"good is a point of view" nothing more.

 

[RiaX]

[video=youtube;dK3O6KYPmEw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&feature=related[/video]

 

[Techne]

The vatican has no take on Genesis because they know its WRONG. The Earth isnt 6000 years old and everything else it preaches is nonsense.

Science isnt afraid to say I do not know the answer, but I will try and find out. whereas religion claims it has ALL the answers, which to say, is madness, for example you telling me a GOD that existed in nothing, out of the blue created the universe, SO vast that and only make MANKIND the centre of attention? what arrogance firstly of the religious to think that. It basically says earth is the only place in the universe with life. Now the observable universe is incomprehensively MASSIVE. There are more stars than there are grains of sand on earth, each containing a system of planets. Mathematically its impossible that earth is the only place with life advanced or primitive doesnt matter. To put it in perspective once more, take a page and make a small pencil dot on it. That dot is the milkyway galaxy and the observsable universe will extend from your dot to the orbit of planet mars.

I don't know why people think that a massive universe is an argument against the existence of God or against the notion that humans are special.
Claiming its mathematically impossible that earth has the only life is no better an argument than claiming it is mathematically impossible for complexity to evolve. Sure, there may be life elsewhere, we just don't know. Even if there is, this too does not appear to be any problem for the existence of God or humans being special. Don't know why people think these kinds of points appear to be arguments against religion....

Secondly a god who has this awesome power, created energy, the laws of physics, generals mechanics quantum mechanics and so on, decided the best way to forgive mankind's sin was to kill his own son? (correct me if im wrong here, its my understanding that jesus, a jewish man, is said to be god's son yes?). Since god created the universe he should know how old it is, yet its said in the holy scripts (which are considered the word of god, and most religious people take it has if god himself wrote it i.e a book of undebatable truths) how is it possible that the age noted is incorrect?

Genesis is not a problem for Christians that accept evolution. Why do people try to make such a big fuss about it?

Creationists always ask, "where did this primordial soup come from?" , "where the big bang came from?" and "what was before the big bang?" and as a person of science I can proudly say, I do not know the answers for these questions.... yet.

HOWEVER, when asked the same questions you can see the blind ignorance.

"where is god ?"
"why did god decide to create the universe?"
"and who created god?"

If you look closely these 3 questions are identical with just the subject of the question being different. Yet the religious expect the answer of "god is always there" as an acceptable answer YET they dismissed solid science with the exact notion. Is is possible to be anymore hypocritical than that? this is the arrogance of faith.

If you claim god always existed then why is it so difficult to say "the universe always existed", its the fundamental flaw at which religion attempts to debunk modern science. They ask the questions towards science, questions they would NOT DARE ask their own faith, it would be criminal and seen as apostasy. Certain religions like Islam the punishment for apostasy is death? the mosque using fear to keep people in line. Christianity is no different, the penalty for apostasy is eternal punishment in hell.

Fascinating three questions.... given some strange definition of God. This of course begs the question.... what is your definition of God?

I hope I don't have to point out that the following does not make any logical sense:
1) I think there is no evidence for the existence of God.
2) I have no clear definition of God.
3) Therefore I think God doesn't exist.

It would be interesting to hear from you what your definition is and if it even corresponds to the definition of people who believe God exists.

Now that we are liberated from these barbaric events, no more stoning of people like god ordered in the old testiment, what is the fear of asking these questions?

There idealogy of hell should be enough to dismiss it as a "monster in the closet", I mean if I were to go to hell and get my skin eternally burnt by lava, what happens then? do I have a 'regeneration' pick up from quake 3? that I grow more skin for it to burn away for the rest of time? Secondly why would your soul behave in the exact same manner as your body? pain is a neurological indicator to preserve the physical body from damage, something a soul does not have. When you die , according to the abrahamic based faiths your body says in the ground and the soul leaves. Next if god created everything that means he must of created everything in Heaven and Hell, and it would take a very evil twisted mind to create the concept of hell, eternal torture is no mere jail sentence. Again you need to ask the next question, what was there before heaven and hell existed? is that the end of knowledge. Finally what kind of sick creature is god to have created mankind in his image only to then send them of to hell for the "evil" doings they performed with the FREEWILL he had instilled, strange.

"good is a point of view" nothing more.

What exactly "good" and "evil" are, and what exactly free will is are all fascinating questions. The way you appear to define the concept of good appears to collapse to meta-ethical moral relativism. Or do have some sort of definition of it that does not?

Anyway, do you mind moving this discussion elsewhere? Perhaps a PM? I see you are from the PCFormat forums and the moniker is vaguely familiar. Must be from the Starcraft I gosu.web.za days where you mostly kicked my zergling's arse with your zots . Perhaps continue the discussion there or at www.sciforums.com?

 

[RiaX]

ROFL cuzzin why you want me to come to another forum i came here because I needed help with 8ta, god im noob with cellphones these days. They progressing a bit too fast for my liking.

In other words that a polite no i will not go there

 

[Swa]

The definition is very clear.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18524

http://biblelight.net/darwin.htm

I don't see a definition there.

Lollers at the bolded bits. Eddie Fizzpop is Techne's big hero, but don't believe his claptrap.

And believe yours instead?
EDIT: It describes more or less what I've always said.

 

[CoolBug]

I don't see a definition there.

And believe yours instead?
EDIT: It describes more or less what I've always said.

Don't be a clown, they are denouncing Intelligent Design and creationism.

Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.”

Scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.

They are obviously and blatantly approving the scientific theory of evolution. You don't like this and you are evidently confused about the definition.

There is no controversy about the definition, not outside your mind:

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.

 

[RiaX]

I don't know why people think that a massive universe is an argument against the existence of God or against the notion that humans are special.
Claiming its mathematically impossible that earth has the only life is no better an argument than claiming it is mathematically impossible for complexity to evolve. Sure, there may be life elsewhere, we just don't know. Even if there is, this too does not appear to be any problem for the existence of God or humans being special. Don't know why people think these kinds of points appear to be arguments against religion....

It does. If you look at all religions of the Abrahamic wing, it depicts the fact that humanity is centre of focus. the scale of the universe shows how incorrect the understanding of the natural worlds these texts had. In terms of hinduism this would not hold as hinduism, which is the oldest known religion, already confirmed the age and size of the universe.

Genesis is not a problem for Christians that accept evolution. Why do people try to make such a big fuss about it?

Genesis basically states evolution is incorrect. There is no common ancestor and god created humanity. Those christians that do not believe in Genesis are closer to losing their faith and are seen as poor christians. Though personally I believe this to be a better state than the fanatical, religion is not a bad concept at all but as an evolving species its time to put down the cardinal laws of god because we are now more intelligent and therefore do not need christ, allah ect ect to provide a moral grounding. Its because of this events like 9/11 occured, religion provides the reason to love HOWEVER it provides a reason to go to war as well. None of those people deserved to die in 9/11, but they were murdered in the name of Allah, muslims argue that they are not muslim but at the end of the day those terrorists considered themselves muslim and thought they were doing great according to their interpretation of the Quran and this is the dangers that religion poses in our modern society and this is the reason its time is must be abolished. If christianity decided to go up in arms with islam there would be no world left. This type of danger arises from an ignorant believe in their faith, something Swa has shown clearly though not to such an extreme manner. The point is the questions towards their own faith is never asked, and its accepted because generally its what they have grown up with, like all mammals that evolve on earth, they must be taught how to survive.

what is your definition of God?

Hmmmm difficult. I dont believe in god because there is no evidence. Though when I say that what I mean is the god that all religions preach. Personally, I believe god exists within me, as part of my subconscious. God isnt some all powerful deity in the sky with a power to create things, neither as an entitiy but rather my moral compass. The god i believe in, I created nothing more nothing less.

Also stops me from swearing in inappropriate places "OMG" instead of "Fk this sht"

What exactly "good" and "evil" are, and what exactly free will is are all fascinating questions

Let me give you an example thats purely hypothetical. Say those guys that bombed the twin towers, at face value they are evil. Though widen the picture, what if they were bullied into doing this? they had their families facing an execution squad? and they sacrificed their lives to save those they care about. Now its not an act of terrorism but an act of selfless sacrifice. On the other hand one can argue that the act is still unjust and its plain down murder. See how the view of these terrorist/heroes changed depending on which side of the fence you looking from.

Its a very interesting concept, and it boils down to what we hold as dear to our hearts. At the end of the day humanity is a social mammal with heirachy, some allow the dominant alpha status to go to god while others respect knowledge or themselves. Its these that form the principles of their being and they will fight to protect these principles. This is why religion in the modern age, only serves to bring segregation.

You speak of ethics, but there is no law in ethics. Take prisoners for example, they put strain on the economy, they put strain on the environment yet we still keep them alive and treat them like human beings (to an extent), yet some of them have no chance to ever breathe fresh air. The ethical issue and modern law protects these people, yet they have had no respect for it, Aristole once said "the law is free from passion" yet modern law has allowed passion to exist in it under a clever guise called ethics. Personally I would have their debt to society repaid by making them medical research bodies. Though you cant its unethical, even though sacrificing 30 000 scumbags can benefit millions of people worldwide and provide a healthier future but in the end ethics has chosen to side with the lives of the minority over the benefit of the majority