Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond

[waitasec]

well lets take this one step further.
if creationists believe evolution was the way god created life on earth, it would only make sense, to me, if they thought god was indifferent.

there is a wasp that injects it's venom making it's prey unable to move while being eaten alive, would a loving god create such a creature?

 

[TJ73]

well lets take this one step further.
if creationists believe evolution was the way god created life on earth, it would only make sense, to me, if they thought god was indifferent.

there is a wasp that injects it's venom making it's prey unable to move while being eaten alive, would a loving god create such a creature?

I would say yes that it is possible to love someone or something and create a situation where they would experience pain if that pain could facilitate an outcome, although not know to the individual, great enough to justify the pain .

 

[waitasec]

I would say yes that it is possible to love someone or something and create a situation where they would experience pain if that pain could facilitate an outcome, although not know to the individual, great enough to justify the pain .

ok...
what i want to ask you is, what good can come out of needles suffering, like the wasps victim? why create a creature that needs to eat fresh meat? so to speak. same can be said about certain snakes. this isn't a unique phenomenon in the animal kingdom, and we, as the human species, were created with the capacity to make or fellow humans suffer. why is suffering a necessity?

 

[TJ73]

ok...
what i want to ask you is, what good can come out of needles suffering, like the wasps victim? why create a creature that needs to eat fresh meat? so to speak. same can be said about certain snakes. this isn't a unique phenomenon in the animal kingdom, and we, as the human species, were created with the capacity to make or fellow humans suffer. why is suffering a necessity?

I probably can not give you a very satisfying answer as we are diametrically opposed.
So from my view on this circle; lf the observable universe is everything and all and our existence finite and subject to definitive laws then suffering, death and even joy and pleasure are the extent of what is worthy of acknowledgment.
But, if there is more than we can observe or reasonably speculate and it involves an infinate existance, at the very least,and greater so; where there is preservation of individuality then the context affects significance, IMHO.
Because I have concluded, for myself, that there is limitless contrivance it is reasonable to speculate that unappealing natural phenomena could have beneficial purpose. As a believer I am faithful to the idea that although I am given the faculties as well as the desire to explore the meaningfulness, I am limited. I take comfort in the belief that there is a singular Creator, Sustainer and Preserver of all potential.
So it is completely dependent on your characterization of God. If He is finite, has limited potential and limits our potential then it would certainly be a cruel situation. If He is all knowing, limitless in endowment and most important benevolent, then you could reasonably deduce that bad things happen for a reason.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

Well it's obvious that God made genes seem that way. We don't really have a common ancestor, it just looks like it

 

[fantome profane]

I see btw there is a lot new to learn on this subject. Anyone recommend an easy read? I am also interested in the ... I can't remember what they are called.. bu they are little "trigger" along the chain that "turn on" certain genes and shut others off. It's what makes animals of the same species grow at different rates. Like how you have chihuahuas and great danes.

I strongly recommend “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth R. Miller, so much so that I have made it my signature. Yes, this is the same guy you saw in the video. You should also know that in addition to being a well respected cell biologists he is also a Roman Catholic and he makes a very compelling argument that the science of evolution is compatible with “God”, and a personal monotheistic “God” like that of Jews, Christians, Muslims.

But if you are looking for something that deals more specifically with genetics I would recommend “Endless Forms, Most Beautiful” by Sean B. Carroll (or anything by Sean B. Carroll).

 

[Riverwolf]

I think that theistic evolution, while better than the YEC position, still has problems, if humanity was the ultimate goal of God's guidance. From what I've heard, it's more likely that if we were to start the process all over again, life would evolve completely differently than what we ended up with, because of natural selection.

Not to mention, why did God take so long to get to us? From what I understand, mammals existed fairly unchanged during the latter time of the dinosaurs, and only after that did they evolve into the diversity we see today. Even then, it took some time for the tree-dwellers to evolve into primates, and then it took a very long time for them to walk upright, and then a very long time to develop tool-use, and then creativity (our defining trait.)

I think if God were guiding evolution with the eventual goal of reaching us, it wouldn't have taken so long.

 

[TJ73]

I think that theistic evolution, while better than the YEC position, still has problems, if humanity was the ultimate goal of God's guidance. From what I've heard, it's more likely that if we were to start the process all over again, life would evolve completely differently than what we ended up with, because of natural selection.

Not to mention, why did God take so long to get to us? From what I understand, mammals existed fairly unchanged during the latter time of the dinosaurs, and only after that did they evolve into the diversity we see today. Even then, it took some time for the tree-dwellers to evolve into primates, and then it took a very long time for them to walk upright, and then a very long time to develop tool-use, and then creativity (our defining trait.)

I think if God were guiding evolution with the eventual goal of reaching us, it wouldn't have taken so long.

I certainly see your point because I had to reconcile these questions for myself while reckoning the plausibility of God. And similar to what I stated before how you characterize God and reality, as a manifestation of such, makes a difference in the value things like time and significance. If it all comes from a source unlimited in potential it changes the relevance of how long or what ultimately led up to the current. With an unlimited source "current" and "ultimate" and "goal" may not be applicable. They are terms best suited to limited concepts.So I think...

 

[Onlooker]

come on now, any creationists out there?
:snoopy:

I believe there are a few out here.
This is an old video after the "dover trial". Ken Miller was the PBS Darwanian Biologist in "Evolution Series". (I had to look that up tonight).
What exactly is the question? Is it concerning a common DNA library?
Is it directed versus accidental progression of species from a common DNA library?
Is it just a statement that the video has all the information one needs to enjoy a good conversation.
My question to you is: What part of a metaphysical question do you think anybody can prove?
When evolution and ID have metaphysical presuppositions, the end result is not going to be under the "scientific method" scrutiny.
Inherent in the Big Bang theory are two presuppositions that are similar to the Evolution theory: 1) There are no outside forces affecting the process 2) very long periods of time are required for the process.
These are reasonable presuppositions, but unprovable.
Inherent in the “Creation Myth” that is described in Genesis are three presupposition: 1) There was a outside force affecting the process 2) Time is relative 3) The English translation of the “Bible” is full of the same information as the Hebrew text .
The first is reasonable and unprovable. The second is true and has been proven. The last one is false and provable.
Good stuff.
How do you explain the creation of the entire universe ? (you can substitute evolution for universe with less books written).
Can you write millions of books that document every measurement that is possible concerning astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, mathematics, physics and other studies and still not know how the universe started? The answer is yes.
Can you write just 32 sentences in an ancient book and have enough information to document an outline of the entire creation event? The answer is yes.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not really sure what you are looking for.

What are you asking for us to say?

I don't know enough about genetics for me to launch any type of argument, so I usually don't. I would say that the video was impressive. I'm not sure that I have enough background to agree, disagree, or say anything that would usefully continue a conversation about the topic.

It is cool that human chromosome #2 seems to be fused from other primates' chromosome #2 and #13. So it would seem.

Is it so? I don't know. But then again, my forte is English literature and character analysis. I'm quite knowledgeable in Jewish law. I understand many of the biological systems: the circulatory system, the digestive system, and like that.

Genetics... I learned about it, I remember all the steps in mitosis and meiosis. I can fill in Punnet Squares. I remember other things that aren't necessarily as interesting or useful.

I've had an update in biology to deal with my assorted medical issues. More than that... I'm not competent to argue one way or another.

Would you like me to say things just so I can look like an idiot? I'm not going to make an argument when I have nothing meaningful to contribute.

I'm guessing you are not a Young Earth Creationist, as your post is both reasonable and humble.

 

[Autodidact]

I see btw there is a lot new to learn on this subject. Anyone recommend an easy read? I am also interested in the ... I can't remember what they are called.. bu they are little "trigger" along the chain that "turn on" certain genes and shut others off. It's what makes animals of the same species grow at different rates. Like how you have chihuahuas and great danes.

Hox genes?

 

[Autodidact]

I find thinking like that just another case of creationist moving the bar to meet their beliefs to rationalize imagination. only in my opinion

in modern society with evolution pretty much being fact, your going to see a shift in creation thought's with the bar being moved backwards to meet religious needs so they dont seem crazy like belief in YEC

Which is a good thing.

 

[Autodidact]

well lets take this one step further.
if creationists believe evolution was the way god created life on earth, it would only make sense, to me, if they thought god was indifferent.

there is a wasp that injects it's venom making it's prey unable to move while being eaten alive, would a loving god create such a creature?

I wouldn't use the word "creationist" for this belief. It if a very ambiguous, confusing term, and I reserve it for the full-blown, whacko, Young Earth Creationist who chooses myth over science. In other words, it's a "scientific" (or anti-scientific) position, not a theological one. If you accept ToE, then you're on the pro-science side. How you deal with that is your theology, not your (fake) science.

 

[Breathe]

I agree with Autodidact here.

I consider a creationist to be a creationist: Young, Old, Gap or "ID" proponents. Whilst there are definitely problems with thinking a God guided us to this form [and some of the other forms out there], I don't think it's the same as us being magicked into existence.

[I'm not a theistic evolutionist, btw.]

 

[micrurus]

[I'm not a theistic evolutionist, btw.]

I dispise the use of the word evolutionist, it is effectivly a term made up by creationists, its sole purpose is to make the ToE sound like it is a belief system and not science.
there are no scientists without a religios agenda that accept the term evolutionist.

you can start calling me a gravitationalist from now on.

im sorry, i had to get that of my chest.

 

[Thief]

Did I miss it?

Evolution took place during Day Six.
Day Seven...God rests.

THEN....Chapter Two.

Did anyone offer the story of Adam and Eve....as a genetic experiment?
See Genesis.

 

[micrurus]

Did I miss it?

Evolution took place during Day Six.
Day Seven...God rests.

THEN....Chapter Two.

Did anyone offer the story of Adam and Eve....as a genetic experiment?
See Genesis.

the ToE has passed the scrutany of the scientific method
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
religions have not.
that is why the ToE is a science
and religion is not.

the idea that you accept ToE as a science may be up for debate. but the ToE is not up for debate as a beliefsystem. therefore i find that calling some one an evolutionist is dirty suggestive propaganda.

 

[Thief]

the ToE has passed the scrutany of the scientific method
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
religions have not.
that is why the ToE is a science
and religion is not.

the idea that you accept ToE as a science may be up for debate. but the ToE is not up for debate as a beliefsystem. therefore i find that calling some one an evolutionist is dirty suggestive propaganda.

Neither and both.....I think you missed the idea.

Day Six....Man is a species....all to his own.
Go forth, be fruitful and multiply, dominate all things....
no names, no law, no restrictions, freewill......

Day Seven....God rests. No more will be created.

THEN Chapter Two....which has all the earmarks of a science experiment.
Isolated living conditions.
A chosen specimen.
Anesthesia and surgery.
Cloning.
Genetic engineering.

Adam was given his twin sister for a bride.
Eve had no navel.

Chapter Two in not a story of creation.
It is a report of manipulation.
There's a difference.

That God is behind it all....doesn't bother me.

 

[micrurus]

I was making the statement, i think that you missed the idea, your explanation points to that favor. it is not about your religios views!

but we are getting of the OP

 

[Thief]

I was making the statement, i think that you missed the idea, your explanation points to that favor. it is not about your religios views!

but we are getting of the OP

This is posted under...science versus religion....

Have you assumed religion cannot accept science?

God first.