|
| 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» |
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted August 18, 2001 03:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So my "genetics" was just to give some word to nameless feature which you covered better now.
But I was just thinking that does anybody really know what happens when you change DNA? I mean the consequences after one hundred years? Just simple question. I don't have answer. I'm not sure does have anyone else.
Well, one of three things happens:
1. evolution (how do you think evolution happens? Gradual changes in DNA sequences)
2. the equivalent of selective breeding. All of the different species of dogs have come about relatively recently, as have most of the crops we grow nowadays -- do you really think tomatoes were originally as big and juicy as they are now? What people tend to forget is that man has been performing genetic engineering for thousands of years now, just slower than before.
3. something drastic and unforseen. You're right, it can happen. I think it's somewhat unlikely, and I think the potential rewards are worth it. You're right that there need to be rules and regulations, but there are. We're not just a bunch of shoot-from-the-hip, push the buttons just because we can psychos, in addition to the myriad of government regulations, (that are good things) there is a lot of self restraint going on. The danger is actually when the government doesn't support the research (ie - stem cells) because then it leaves the realm of peer review, the most vicious, vindictive scum around are scientists deciding whether or not another's article is fit for publication...
|
|
malkia
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted August 18, 2001 04:02 AM |
|
|
simple facts -
1. If there was no evolution - why GOD created woman with hair on unsuitable places, and later she have to shave them? Wasn't man/woman created by god's image?
2. Why jewish/christian/muslim male babes and younger males shoould be circumcized - it was GOD's word to make it so? Why some muslim tribes still circumsize females (soo disgusting ...)
You will say - because it's cleaner, prevents you from masturbation (ha... ha...)? Well then why in old testament is written that people should circumsize even if the child was born dead? or died few days after it was born. (On 7th or 8th day - jewish babes must be circumsized)
3. Why some christian should not eat meat or products on some days (especially orthodox ones) - even if they are ill and need meat to eat?
Something more - why Adam&Eve have navels? Wasn't they the first people - who borned them to have navels? Or GOD is then a real human-like alien mother? hehehe
-------------------------------------------------------
About cloning/genetics - I'm happy that I don't understand anything in that science. I'm happy & same time fear. I can see real minotaur some day ? aujckk...
____________
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 04:14 AM |
|
|
Thank you both...
Avallach...
Read Lichkings messages from here. She/He is deeply offended by this whole thread so I was only saving those ones that are offended. Maybe you were offended because I said religious people are offended, not that I say you are religious or not to say you are not but...well you know what I mean...LOL
Bort...
Thanks making those points. Those are very important for this discussion. However I skip almost first two because there are pretty clear to me. I meant that if DNA is changed directly. Evolution happens and you cannot do thing about it. Unless you change DNA yourself.
Breeding...well yes it's the same thing I suppose however we aren't picking in those cases really those genes but just put those that have best qualitys together and let nature do the job. I mean we don't do it in "lower" level.
The last point is of course where I was getting to. Yes there are rules, you said what I meant. If researches have resources (read government supports them) they can do it without any rip off madman experiments. Problem is business. Scientist as all people want money and it can make those rules changeable if enough money is involved. I'm not saying you shouldn't change the DNA in fact I kinda find it the thing that must be done in future. Cloning and all those come along. But I said let's take little steps like children do not try to big jumps at first try...
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
malkia
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted August 18, 2001 04:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
2. The equivalent of selective breeding. All of the different species of dogs have come about relatively recently, as have most of the crops we grow nowadays -- do you really think tomatoes were originally as big and juicy as they are now? What people tend to forget is that man has been performing genetic engineering for thousands of years now, just slower than before.
Without being offensive first, I want to warn:
If there is anyone who is black and feels it can be offended - please don't read following lines - i don't feel them offending - just telling a part of American history.
When the first black people were taken from Africa by spaniards they were used as slaves. And their masters wanted the best slaves, so kind of Darwin's natural selection appeared in very inhuman (but natural form). Only the best one from slaves survived. The strongest, the muscle ones. Thin and weak died and were not allowed to coppulate. And now if you see black peoples from America - most of them are strong with muscles (without needs to go to gym), woman are also not the thin type (but sexy one). Compare them to the people now living in Africa (their ancestors) - well the difference is great. So what we got here is just little bit evolution.
In biology we study (but long time ago) - I remmember that when human was still HOMO ERECTUS, then he started to eat eat meat to become HOMO SAPIENS - somethin' happened with his brain and he got brighter! - I'm not so well in biology (was 10 years ago i've learned that stuff).... But I was learning for some time NEURAL NETS (method which uses the idea how human brain works) used for programming... After i read couple of books, and read some articles - I've realized that having artificial brain is going to happen very soon! The only problem is that this brain has to be teached as one teaches a little child. Of course they are saying there are more things behind brain - like the 6-th sense? but who knows...
As we see how our civilization evolute - the same way humans as biological units evolute from being monkeys or toads.
If there was/is GOD - he did not create us - he just put some random things connected them put some random rules between them and watched the falling.... Maybe he was just adjusting things from time to time... Or maybe not - even more if there was nothing at begining, then there was nothing to compare - so just a simple but long random process at the end we'll see it as something artificialy made - but it was random... We are made from random, but the way the sequances gone - we like them, and we think they are not random - but they are... If few things got changed long long time ago - today we'll be with three heads, one leg, two hearts - but we've been thinking the same way that it was made by someone. Roll dices - you got 2&2 first time you roll the dices - let these dices show how many legs&hands you'll have.. Roll them again - 1&1 - this is how many hearts&heads you'll have... and so... Imagine if different numbers happened..
____________
|
|
Coldfyrius
Promising
Famous Hero
Vice-God for Marketing
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 05:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Ockham's Razor:
As said, the theory that fits the facts with the fewest ungrounded assumptions wins.
SCIENCE:
1. It is possible for us to understand everything in the universe.
If you think about what you are saying for a moment you might realize how foolish that statement is. Scince has many ungrounded assumptions, the first is that everything works everywhere the way it works here. That is like a sea slug in a vent on the ocean flower theorizing that oxygen always floats upward everywhere. We live on a small rock hurtling through a vast expanse of empty space which swirls around more vast expanses speckled with a few lumps of matter and which spins in the outer portions of an insignifigant galaxy, and yet because we think we can measure accurately the results of different forces here, that they work the same everywhere? That is as large a leap of faith as anything in religion.
Okay, so far that's 2. And that's assuming that universal physics can be classed as faith. I say no, as space telescopes aloow us to see distant parts of the Universe,a nd there is no observation of anything that doesn't seem to flush with physical laws as we know them.
Quote:
Secondly, it is impossible to understand everything in the universe unless some old theory that the universe will eventually collapse into one black hole- but, even then we won't know what happened before that so not even .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000011* will ever be known.
Look, I know this was worded imprecisely, but what I meant is that there's nothing in the Universe which we are specifically unable to know, as I think most people realized.
Quote:
You also mentioned earlier that you toss out your old theories when a new one comes out that is better or more true. Well, how do you know? Just look at physics and you will see how many times theories were thrown out, then reinstated with some changes, then thrown out again and still we only know how some things behave, not really anything about why they behave as they do. I could tell you as much as they know simply be observing myself, and that is what they have done. Science is only a way of collecting observations over time and hoping the reasons those things happened aren't changeable, but really we have such a small window of time that we have no idea what might change and if anything is permanent. Even know there is a theory that lgith isn't constant as was always thought since Einstein, and in a few years another theory and so on, the deeper everyong observes the more we realize how little we know about the causes and can really only list and tabulate the results we have seen so far...
This is actually an argument in favor of Science. When Science gets something wrong, it comes up with a new theory. When Religion gets something wrong, it usually kills the heretics and goes on as if nothing happened.
Quote:
The idea that scientific methods will answer any question closes your mind to different possabilities as much as any religious fanatic. The postive aspects of science are ones that lead to keeping an inquiring mind, the positive aspects of religion are the encouragement of acting for unselfish motivations and providing a stable structure for society. Neither system is perfect, and any system that could concievably replace them is also imperfect. That is life, but maybe not- we assume it is because that is all we have seen and it apears obvious, but before the big bang it wasn't so obvious, or wait, do you believe in the big bang?
You're grossly misrepresenting my argument.
What I Said:
We don't know everything, but what we do know we use to put together theories. Sometimes we get new information that porves a theory wrong. Then we toss it out and get a new theory. This will predict information better than the old theory. Then we get more knowledge, etc.
What You Said I Said:
We know everthing. All our theories about what we know for sure are right.
One of the most cliched straw man arguments I've ever heard.
____________
"All the punks are gonna scream, 'yippee!'/ 'Cuz it's the thing that only eats hippies."
-The Dead Milkmen
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 05:07 AM |
|
|
Wow
Malkia- so where did you get those ideas? I'm very curous, did you come up with them yourself or hear it somewhere else?
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 05:42 AM |
|
|
Not really
Quote:
Okay, so far that's 2. And that's assuming that universal physics can be classed as faith. I say no, as space telescopes aloow us to see distant parts of the Universe,a nd there is no observation of anything that doesn't seem to flush with physical laws as we know them.-
LOL How distant are they looking, and also you are wrong anyway, there are many things that those telescopes see, and if they don't fit with current theories they are filed under 'unexplained' the files of unexplained are much larger than the explained.
-Look, I know this was worded imprecisely, but what I meant is that there's nothing in the Universe which we are specifically unable to know, as I think most people realized.-
You don't mean that seriously do you? If we aren't able to know it, we wouldn't know that we didn't know it. Also- I think there will be many events that we can't find the causes for simply because the event we think we saw didn't actually happen, in other words our perception is lacking, not our understanding.
-This is actually an argument in favor of Science. When Science gets something wrong, it comes up with a new theory. When Religion gets something wrong, it usually kills the heretics and goes on as if nothing happened.-
Hmm... and you think science doesn't kill? It does, both accidentally and purposely, and allows religion to kill much more. Also I think religion does evolve, far more slowly than science perhaps, but it can over generations. Well, scince is great from coming up with theories, but answers? it just generates more questions, which I think is not a bad thing, but you should keep it in mind instead of thinking science offers answers for everything.
-You're grossly misrepresenting my argument.
What I Said:
We don't know everything, but what we do know we use to put together theories. Sometimes we get new information that porves a theory wrong. Then we toss it out and get a new theory. This will predict information better than the old theory. Then we get more knowledge, etc.
What You Said I Said:
We know everthing. All our theories about what we know for sure are right.
One of the most cliched straw man arguments I've ever heard.-
You avoided answering my question about how you know the theory replacing the other theory is better? It just hasn't been disproven yet. Because one theory was found to be inaccurate, how is the next one better except it's different?
|
|
malkia
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 06:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Malkia- so where did you get those ideas? I'm very curous, did you come up with them yourself or hear it somewhere else?
No... actually - i've started reading bout bible&religion months ago. Wasn't so interrested before that. Many of these facts are from those books - bad&good written. Before that I've used to read more Kurt Vonnegut (which is my fav.author) - but I wanted some fresh ideas for a rpg/strategy game I'm planning in my free time - and i need some fresh ideas Probably soon, after finishing with server part of my engine - I'll open a site - where I'll need people posting ideas....
____________
|
|
Avallach
Hired Hero
Disputo ergo sum.
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 06:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Maybe you were offended because I said religious people are offended, not that I say you are religious or not to say you are not but...well you know what I mean...LOL
*Laughs* This is starting to get confusing! But I just think it's sad that some people do get too easily offended in these sort of discussions. Sometimes people will be intentionally offensive, of course, but there's something wrong if anyone is offended just by someone else expressing a different opinion to their own.
Quote:
1. If there was no evolution - why GOD created woman with hair on unsuitable places, and later she have to shave them? Wasn't man/woman created by god's image?
That's just cultural. And 'created in God's image' does not mean physically, because God is not physical.
Quote:
2. Why jewish/christian/muslim male babes and younger males shoould be circumcized
Don't know and don't really care. But that was just for the Jews as a part of their covenant with God, not a universal command.
Quote:
3. Why some christian should not eat meat or products on some days (especially orthodox ones) - even if they are ill and need meat to eat?
If there are any restrictions on eating meat they're man made traditions, not biblical. It's true that the Jews were restricted from eating pig meat and some other things as part of the old covenant, but again, that wasn't a universal command. Whether it was arbitrary or not I don't know... but as with circumcision, there are benefits.
Quote:
Something more - why Adam&Eve have navels? Wasn't they the first people - who borned them to have navels? Or GOD is then a real human-like alien mother? hehehe
Who says they did? Not the Bible.
About selection (natural or artificial), yes, it can be used to breed better animals (or humans, as you suggested). You're never going to get anything new from natural selection though - all it's doing is removing negative traits from the gene pool so that the existing traits that are more congenial to survival... well, survive. As per your example you can breed out people with smaller muscles, but no amount of breeding will get people with, say, muscles that work in a completely different way. Natural selection removes genetic information, but evolution requires vast increases. Here mutation comes in, which is where random changes occur in the genes, resulting from copying-errors and the like. Random mutation has never been known to result in any increase in genetic information though. It would take an enormous number of changes to produce a single functioning system that would provide a selective advantage, but the nature of randomness is that before that system could be built, other changes would have already destroyed what did exist of it. It's the principle of entropy, that all systems degrade over time. Micro evolution (natural selection) is observable science. Macro evolution is closer to faith.
Quote:
But I was learning for some time NEURAL NETS (method which uses the idea how human brain works) used for programming... After i read couple of books, and read some articles - I've realized that having artificial brain is going to happen very soon!
Neural networks can be good at generalising from data, or finding patterns in it (self organising maps), but that's about all they do. There's certainly no equivalent to our ability to reason, for example.
____________
"Death slew him not, but he made death his ladder to the skies"
- Edmund Spenser, on the death of Philip Sidney
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 06:30 AM |
|
|
Answer to original Question
Yes.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 06:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
About selection (natural or artificial), yes, it can be used to breed better animals (or humans, as you suggested).
yikes! Who suggested we breed better humans?
Quote:
You're never going to get anything new from natural selection though - all it's doing is removing negative traits from the gene pool so that the existing traits that are more congenial to survival... well, survive. As per your example you can breed out people with smaller muscles, but no amount of breeding will get people with, say, muscles that work in a completely different way. Natural selection removes genetic information, but evolution requires vast increases. Here mutation comes in, which is where random changes occur in the genes, resulting from copying-errors and the like. Random mutation has never been known to result in any increase in genetic information though. It would take an enormous number of changes to produce a single functioning system that would provide a selective advantage, but the nature of randomness is that before that system could be built, other changes would have already destroyed what did exist of it. It's the principle of entropy, that all systems degrade over time. Micro evolution (natural selection) is observable science. Macro evolution is closer to faith.
Well, first of all, small changes in DNA sequence can have very dramatic changes down the line. For instance, mutant fruit flies with legs where there antennae should be have been found in laboratories without direct genetic engineering (I believe it was a mutagenesis experiment, but I'd have to check).
It's actually not that difficult to create new function. For instance, through mistakes in crossing over (a meiotic event) there are frequently duplications of genes. When this occurs, there is are now two copies of a gene, one of which is superfluous. This means that the second gene can now be mutated without loss of function, which can lead to new functions. For instance, let's say that there is a cell-surface receptor which binds to sucrose at two locations on the molecule (ie - each receptor molecule sticks to two molecules of sucrose) -- the purpose probably being to bring sucrose into the cell. If this gene is duplicated, it won't affect the cell's survival for good or for bad, so it will continue in the population at a low level. Now, let's say that through a single nucleotide mutation (common event), one of the amino acids that keep the receptor anchored in the cell membrane is changed such that the receptor is no longer connected to the cell. Instead, it is secreted into the blood. Now the receptor molecules will be free floating, they will scavenge sucrose in the blood, resulting in a selective advantage (by clustering the sucrose -- I'll admit I was careful by saying the receptor bound to two molecules of sucrose rather than one) since the cells now have better access to nutrients. As a result, this mutation is passed on in increasing numbers through generations. Now, through another mutation, the receptor is modified so that it recognizes maltose rather than sucrose (or any other sugar). Well, maltose is often displayed on cell walls, including those of bacteria. Now, the molecule will bind, and cluster bacterial cells in the blood, preventing them from running amok in the body. Voila -- new function. You've created a creature with an immune system from one that had no immune response - an entirely new function. As this gene is copied and mutated, the organism will gain resistance to a wide variety of pathogens, to the point where, 10,000,000 after the first immune molecule appeared, someone will say, "how could something as complicated as the immune system ever have possibly evolved? There must be a God."
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 06:41 AM |
|
|
there was supposed to be a word after 10,000,000. That word was "years."
I apologize for the inconvenience
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 07:21 AM |
|
|
Ichon...a bone to pick with ya;)
Ichon…you are incorrect in what you know of the founders of AA. They both believed in God and were caring men who gave their life and message to heal others. I hope you are just misinformed instead of just cynical.
Ichon stated “ I still get disappointed when I flip through the TV channels and see the religious networks full of tanned, Rolex and diamond festooned "ministers" asking for donations for God's greater glory”
As a Christian I couldn’t agree with you more…those people make me sick. That is not what Christianity is about at all!
Ichon stated “there were so many different versions of the Bible even while Christ lived!”
You are actually very incorrect in this statement...their was no Bible in Christ's day...maybe the Torah, but the Bible was not even assimilated till after Christ’s death.
Ichon stated “Of course it's very similar, but a new church which needed the political goodwill of princes and kings couldn't be against all killing as some of it is state sanctioned afterall, so a small compromise is made”
Again I would encourage you to actually read the Bible or the contemporary history of the day…the Jews were people without a land and constantly killed and threatened in the Old Testament times. As for the New Testament times…there again the church continually persecuted...they had to hide and run constantly…they were routinely killed for their beliefs. One of the reasons for all this killing and persecution was precisely because the teachings of the church and oral tradition were in opposition to the philosophies of the “princes and kings” of the day.
Ichon stated “How can the same book that was used to sanction slavery”
Again please actually read the bible…no where in the New Testament does it sanction slavery! It did allow it for it but it never encouraged it….in fact it’s teachings directly opposed the concept of slavery. That is why most of the slavery abolitionists were actually Christians as they saw the teachings of the Bible to be in contradiction to the concept of slavery. In fact the Bible Galatians 3:28 states “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”.
Ichon stated “Just examine what happened when the printing press spread... the church never recovered”
Here I do agree with you…the corrupt church at the time never recovered...but the true church and believers on the whole continue to flourish today.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 07:30 AM |
|
|
various thoughts and replies
Bort….well back to the Problem of Evil…I will admit you got me on the Richard Simmons thing...I can’t explain that at all Yes there are basically two kinds of evil: natural and man made/initiated .
My first post on the subject only discussed evil that men perpetrate. Natural evil is harder to understand...but in my understanding of the Bible...when sin entered the world it not only corrupted man, but it also corrupted nature. Sin in this sense is not something cute that you can play around with but is a powerful metaphysical dynamic that even corrupts nature. To me sin might be equated with deadly chemical toxins...they can both kill/harm man and destroy nature. Once nature is destroyed/altered by these chemicals then nature can in turn kill/harm man
Bort while you are of course accurate that physical laws can be replicated I still think it begs the question of 1. Whether what your senses tell you and everyone else is actually correct (i.e. philosophy and idealism) 2. Whether what you are “replicating” actually becomes tainted by the mere existence of a subjective imperfect person observing the experiment.
Incubus sad to see you are such an angry person whose mind is closed to other’s views. But I guess I am just a stupid fool. Oh yes I am weak also
Shamen I totally agree with your points “I believe science is as harmful as religion in wrong hands” and “The thing about I hate with totally sceptics is they say they don't have any theories or believes. I have noticed that "sceptics" just want to be above all judgements about their own theories which they however in fact have.” Very true words indeed.
|
|
Avallach
Hired Hero
Disputo ergo sum.
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 07:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
yikes! Who suggested we breed better humans?
Read Malkia's post... he suggested that it had been done to some extent with negro slaves.
I'm not saying that a small genetic change cannot result in a significant change. Many such changes as you mention have been induced in fruit flies (ususally through irradiation to speed up the process). However, this does not result in the creation of any new genetic information. All it does is cause existing information to be expressed in a different way, which is something quite different. The information to create a leg already exists, so it's no big deal to find an extra one being grown where it normally wouldn't be. The information to grow wings is already there, so having them grow to grossly excessive size (as has also been done) is similarly unremarkable.
Nor am I saying that mutations cannot be beneficial. They can be, though rarely. What they're not observed to do though is increase the complexity/specificity of systems. As in your example the 'anchor' is broken, and that function being impaired happens to be beneficial. As for the immune system, that's not quite how it works... it's fascinating how it does work though, and quite ingenious. Makes an interesting read.
Quote:
It did allow it for it but it never encouraged it….in fact it’s teachings directly opposed the concept of slavery.
Indeed, slavery as discussed in the Old Testament was very different from slavery as was practised in later times. People could sell themselves into service, but it was their choice to do so, and they were released after seven years. The condoning of the one in no way implies the condoning of the other just because we happen to use the same word to apply to both.
____________
"Death slew him not, but he made death his ladder to the skies"
- Edmund Spenser, on the death of Philip Sidney
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 10:10 AM |
|
|
Well and good!
Quote:
Ichon…you are incorrect in what you know of the founders of AA. They both believed in God and were caring men who gave their life and message to heal others. I hope you are just misinformed instead of just cynical.-
If you notice I never mentioned AA, I said the 12 step program, I did also say many famous and well known organizations which use the 12 step program are Christian.
-As a Christian I couldn’t agree with you more…those people make me sick. That is not what Christianity is about at all!-
Why do you think those people are so sucessful then? Afterall their target audience is Christian, are there different types of Christians? Or just gulliable ones, and less gulliable ones?
-You are actually very incorrect in this statement...their was no Bible in Christ's day...maybe the Torah, but the Bible was not even assimilated till after Christ’s death.-
Many of the books of the bible existed prior to Christ, and the books with his words were already being assembled as he lived, however even in his own time there were diagreements not only to what exactly he said at a certain time and place, but even more so what he meant and how it should be told.
-Again I would encourage you to actually read the Bible or the contemporary history of the day…the Jews were people without a land and constantly killed and threatened in the Old Testament times. As for the New Testament times…there again the church continually persecuted...they had to hide and run constantly…they were routinely killed for their beliefs. One of the reasons for all this killing and persecution was precisely because the teachings of the church and oral tradition were in opposition to the philosophies of the “princes and kings” of the day.-
Precisely why they wanted to goodwill of these kings and princes, when they compromised they became the state religions suddenly...
As for why early Christians were persecuted, there are many reasons and only a few are because of the teachings, many other religions of the time had similiar teachings, the differce was mostly that Christians were more intolerant than anyone else of those times as far as God was concerned, their belief that there was only one went sharply against the pagan pantheons all around.
-Again please actually read the bible…no where in the New Testament does it sanction slavery! It did allow it for it but it never encouraged it….in fact it’s teachings directly opposed the concept of slavery. That is why most of the slavery abolitionists were actually Christians as they saw the teachings of the Bible to be in contradiction to the concept of slavery. In fact the Bible Galatians 3:28 states “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”.-
I agree that many abolitionist were Christian, but the kind of Christians they were differed from those that existed prior to them, and that is because how they intrepreted the Bible had changed. Don't forget that most slave holders were also Christian however- it worked both ways, there are copies of actual sermons by ordained ministers wherein the ministers extend the dominion given to man justifies holding negros as slaves since negros were closer to animals than men. And then there were those most insidious of all- the people who went around telling slaves that it didn't matter they were slaves, the afterlife was the only important thing, so just submit to your masters and be good slaves, you might make it to heaven then.
One thing about the Bible is that almost its whole length is loosely stated- have you ever seen two ministers who disagree argue? They both quote directly from the Bible contradicting each other. How can this be?
-Here I do agree with you…the corrupt church at the time never recovered...but the true church and believers on the whole continue to flourish today.-
Ohmy, here you really admit it- if the Church was ever corrupt, then how can you claim what that corrupt Church taught isn't as corrupted? If I believed in God, then his anithesis would surely have sent his own minions into the Church as the first order of business, just sowing confusion is enough, no need even for outright corruption, man accomplished that by lonesome.
I have to wonder what you mean by the "true church" maybe you mean the church whose beliefs you have accepted, what about all the other 'churches'? I think that is the main thing I find annoying about religious people. The self-righteousness you display with that statement. Many things christian churches accomplish nowdays are admirable, strengthing the family, charity work in places where people desperately need help, being there when no one else will- yet along with all that goodness comes many negatives that exist in the present day, not even counting the baggage of the past. Hmm... I also wonder if you think the Catholic church today is still corrupt? As that is the church that existed when you said it was corrupt.
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 10:31 AM |
|
|
I really am amazed no one questioned malkia!
I asked him nicely where he got those ideas because I really wanted to see what he said. Some of things are so very close to what I have heard white supremicists say.
How many of you actually believe the blacks in America are now genetically superior to those in Africa because of only the strongest being able to breed? That is not only a bad rationalization, but it's a little racist. Sort of like saying blacks in America are also less intelligent because that was bred out of them...
I am just surpised no one called him on this- instead you all started talking about breeding and other genetic manipulation! Do you seriously think American blacks are physically better genetic specimens?
There are a very few races(pacific islanders/arctic native americans) who display a type of genetic adaption, many of the people can gain high amounts of fat without the bad cholestrol and high blood pressure because of certain changes in their inherited DNA.
Then there are the peoples who inhabit very high altitude locales, their adaptions are somewhat spreading to DNA adaptions, yet mostly its an enviromental adaption. In other words, any human born and grown at that altitude will experience the same higher red blood cell count and other adaptions.
There are some physical benefits that usually come along with being of black heritage- however they are slight differences only in how fast lactic acid residue is removed from the muscles(a couple other things also) and not all blacks have these genes. Also- every other race has members who have the same DNA adaptions, just not as widely spread as among blacks. This is true of all races, each has someone who has teh DNA of every other race, the only way to tell races apart are the recurrent combinations of DNA common amongst them, but not isoltated to them. The only things which are isolated to DNA and can be used to identify heritage have no affect on physical or mental adaptions as far as science has discovered. Native Americans for example can be identified with reasonable accuracy by a simple blood sample, but the genetic markers that are identified have more to do with inbreeding than evolution.
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
posted August 18, 2001 01:14 PM |
|
|
I'm listening...
But I ask some questions to get clearer picture what everybody is saying...
How do you rate different species and how one specie can be "supreme" to others?
Do you think that evolution/god/whatever meant it to be species to be really complicated or simple?
Let's look at sharks. They haven't change so much because they are doing well. Of course humans could maybe destroy all of them but is this the goal? To seek who gets best genes? I would say that shark is such a hunter that it doesn't need any further things like hands to write to internet message board?
If we look "evolution" in really big scale I think genetic engineering and technological progress are part of it. Let's see if there w .However doesn't every specie have their own duty? Along with humans. I mean are humans so "special" and so "advanced" that they are superior to example rats and roaches? If there would be some kind of nuclear war I would say that rats and roaches along with some other animals have better chances to survive than humans or humans only.
Isn't there theory that humans are acting right now in just different "level" of evolution when changing DNA and not totally being out of evolution?
I think Malkia's thoughts are...what they say not-so-original when compared to someone living and having some success in 1930-40. So could you please explain how some species are "supreme" to others if you mean that...
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 02:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not saying that a small genetic change cannot result in a significant change. Many such changes as you mention have been induced in fruit flies (ususally through irradiation to speed up the process). However, this does not result in the creation of any new genetic information. All it does is cause existing information to be expressed in a different way, which is something quite different. The information to create a leg already exists, so it's no big deal to find an extra one being grown where it normally wouldn't be. The information to grow wings is already there, so having them grow to grossly excessive size (as has also been done) is similarly unremarkable.
Nor am I saying that mutations cannot be beneficial. They can be, though rarely. What they're not observed to do though is increase the complexity/specificity of systems. As in your example the 'anchor' is broken, and that function being impaired happens to be beneficial. As for the immune system, that's not quite how it works... it's fascinating how it does work though, and quite ingenious. Makes an interesting read.
I didn't mean to suggest that that is how the immune system actually works. I realized after posting that it would be interpreted as such, but I didn't want to post 3 times in a row...
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. When it comes right down to it, antibodies are merely free-floating (or in different cell's cases, anchored) receptors that happen to recognize pathogens (or, in the case of allergic responses, just about anything). I suppose I should have gone the other path and said that "somehow, this gene develops a high level of recombination in the recognition domain of the protein, leading to a nearly infinite variety of recognized molecules," but I wanted to give more concrete things that I could come up with off the top of my head. I'd still imagine that antibodies started as mutated receptor molecules.
As far 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. Why do humans develop back problems? They couldn't redesign their skeleton for fully effecient bipedal walking rather than walking on all fours. What about insects, you may ask. Well, there's not actually very much variation on the 6-legs and a couple of wings category. Even ants actually have the information for wings, but most of them don't express it. As for things like millipedes, all they are is the same unit repeated over and over again. Not much of a genetic leap there. Life as we know it seems to involve more scotch tape and chicken wire than well thought out design.
I am surprised nobody has attacked Malkia for that post of his. It is actually treading on thin ice, but hey, we all are!
On the other hand, Malkia, congratulations, you will soon be the author of one of the "most popular threads."
|
|
Zune
Adventuring Hero
of Tatalia
|
|
posted August 18, 2001 05:00 PM |
|
|
Reply to Sha_Men
Quote:
That thing is how you understand the "simple" texts of bible. It isn't in so selfexplanatory said in there, or is it? However I have read so little bible that I have know qualification to judge it that way...
I agree that part of the bible can be understood in various ways. However, about how you get to heaven, I think it's explained quite clearly. For example, John 3,16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM shall not perish but have eternal life."
And yes, I do read the bible. It's really interesting.
|
| |
|
|
