So you say I don't understand Evolution. Really?

[Kirran]

because again, there is no good without bad/ evil- the terms literally define each other. Heaven can only exist as a concept relative to an imperfect world, yes?

Well then why does the concept of good or bad need to exist? If good only exists as an opposite to bad, then why not get rid of bad anyway and not need good, and just leave people in less suffering?

 

[Kirran]

there could be shades of grey of course (if I can still use that term!) but it's all relative.

but take famine, how do you remove it? remove any possibility that any farming techniques could ever fail?

It is possible to live without famine, but that's up to us

where do you stop, make every day sunny and 70, it doesn't hurt when you stick your finger in a fire?

Well, why not?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well then why does the concept of good or bad need to exist? If good only exists as an opposite to bad, then why not get rid of bad anyway and not need good, and just leave people in less suffering?

we're back to Jellyfish, no suffering and no joy, no hate and no love, on paper I suppose that's a zero sum, adds up to the same- but would you trade? me neither.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, why not?

well instead of Jellyfish- consider the closest thing to people having everything- a young attreactive adored rich celebrity who has everything anybody could possibly wish for-
do they tend to be ecstatically happy? or do they tend to commit suicide before they hit 21?

It's not really a controversial observation, that we need challenges to thrive- to do anything, to exist as anything more than a blob

hey would we even bother typing here if we agreed with each other? that would be no fun!

 

[Altfish]

Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Meteors used to be arguments for bad design also, until we realized they were integral to life on Earth-

there will always be things we don't understand, who's purpose science has not illuminated that we can cite as 'bad design' - that's atheism of the gaps

When did Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Meteors used to be arguments for bad design by atheists? I think you've invented that statement.

 

[Ouroboros]

I honestly think it's possible to live without famine and cancer, while still not being equivalent to a jellyfish.

Sharks don't get cancer, if I remember right. Something particular about their genes, I guess.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

yes, they wouldn't be people by any definition we are familiar with, you'd take away the good with the bad- no more empathy, caring, cherishing life to the extent we appreciate it is fragile and fleeting.

Again, if God is truly all-powerful and omnipotent then there's no reason he couldn't create a world where people are empathic, caring and cherishing of life that doesn't include suffering. You seem to believe your God is very limited in their omnipotence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again, if God is truly all-powerful and omnipotent then there's no reason he couldn't create a world where people are empathic, caring and cherishing of life that doesn't include suffering. You seem to believe your God is very limited in their omnipotence.

That's like asking why God didn't just create 'right' and leave out 'left' to avoid confusion! the two terms literally define each other, it's not a matter of omnipotence but basic logic- one does not exist as a concept without the other to define it, you see?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's like asking why God didn't just create 'right' and leave out 'left' to avoid confusion! the two terms literally define each other, it's not a matter of omnipotence but basic logic- one does not exist as a concept without the other to define it, you see?

So God has absolutely no control over basic logic?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

4.Evolutionist give it credit as if it has the powers of a brain to Design, Engineer and Program etc. Yes you do.

This is garbage - I stopped reading here as this single-handedly proves you still do not understand evolution.

 

[McBell]

The more I hear in this thread about god, the more I am certain if he actually existed, he would be smiting creationists.

now since creationists are not being smited, there cannot be a god.

 

[LePazki]

It is very hard for an educated person to go into a religion such as Christianity because they will have seen both sides of the evolution vs god debate and have come to a rational and smart decision based on facts. But if you try to tell religious people that evidence stacks up against them and they are almost certainly wrong it will be denied without a convincing response because as I said earlier the evidence for them is thin and they've almost certainly been brought up from birth told that god is real, not to question it and if they don't believe then they will burn in hell. But it's not until high school that evolution is truly taught as the truth so that means it gives time for the child [now educated] to make an educated answer as to what they think is truth. What i'm trying to say is when evidence from both sides is put side to side science prevails and I just can't understand why people still defend their religion with all these facts staring them in their faces. Here's one now, according to the bible the world is approximately 6000 years old, but already science disproves this "fact" with fossils, carbon dating and skeletons.

 

[Shad]

It is very hard for an educated person to go into a religion such as Christianity because they will have seen both sides of the evolution vs god debate and have come to a rational and smart decision based on facts. But if you try to tell religious people that evidence stacks up against them and they are almost certainly wrong it will be denied without a convincing response because as I said earlier the evidence for them is thin and they've almost certainly been brought up from birth told that god is real, not to question it and if they don't believe then they will burn in hell. But it's not until high school that evolution is truly taught as the truth so that means it gives time for the child [now educated] to make an educated answer as to what they think is truth. What i'm trying to say is when evidence from both sides is put side to side science prevails and I just can't understand why people still defend their religion with all these facts staring them in their faces. Here's one now, according to the bible the world is approximately 6000 years old, but already science disproves this "fact" with fossils, carbon dating and skeletons.

Religion acts as a relief to anxiety for the big questions and an uncaring world. However much has loaded baggage such as ID/creationism. So rather than reform the religion or drop outdated ideas keeping the anxiety relief becomes paramount. It becomes a form of philosophical suicide. Some religions/believer do implement reforms but the relief factor is still present. Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (Not a direct quote)

 

[philbo]

Most will be stuff in junk DNA.

I hate the phrase "junk DNA", it leads to the (erroneous) conclusion that this DNA doesn't do anything. We just haven't worked out what it does yet..

There's got to be a lot, or DNA fingerprinting wouldn't work.

er, no - no mutations at all are required for DNA fingerprinting to work: mixing what's on 23 pairs of chromosomes is enough to generate (virtually) unique patterns. And the overwhelming majority of mutations will not materially affect the outcome of a DNA fingerprint.

Don't know if I'm mentioned this here, but I was studying biochem at Leicester Uni while Prof. Jeffries was developing the technique (not that, as an undergraduate, I had anything to do with it, but it was a big feather in the cap for the place, and they made a lot out of it at the time): it's cunning, in that it doesn't try analysing what the DNA says, just looks for specific markers down a DNA chain, chops the DNA at those markers and measures the relative quantity and size of the DNA fragments. So a mutation that doesn't affect the markers won't affect a DNA fingerprint at all.

 

[LePazki]

Religion acts as a relief to anxiety for the big questions and an uncaring world. However much has loaded baggage such as ID/creationism. So rather than reform the religion or drop outdated ideas keeping the anxiety relief becomes paramount. It becomes a form of philosophical suicide. Some religions/believer do implement reforms but the relief factor is still present. Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (Not a direct quote)

Religion can help with everything you stated but as an Atheist I cannot ignore fiction dressed up as fact.

 

[Shad]

Religion can help with everything you stated but as an Atheist I cannot ignore fiction dressed up as fact.

I understand. Just keep in mind why religion is appealing as it provides answers, correct or not. Humans hate unanswered questions or unresolved issues like justice. It does not matter if 99% of a religion is fiction as long as the answers provide placebo relief.

 

[Kirran]

I hate the phrase "junk DNA", it leads to the (erroneous) conclusion that this DNA doesn't do anything. We just haven't worked out what it does yet..

I believe there have been experiments where it's been removed at random to no effect. I could be wrong though.

It would make sense for pseudogenes etc. to have no function. And a lot of it is probably pseudogenous material, just so mutated you can't tell anymore.

er, no - no mutations at all are required for DNA fingerprinting to work: mixing what's on 23 pairs of chromosomes is enough to generate (virtually) unique patterns. And the overwhelming majority of mutations will not materially affect the outcome of a DNA fingerprint.

Yes, you're right. I withdraw my comment. I didn't think that one through.

Don't know if I'm mentioned this here, but I was studying biochem at Leicester Uni while Prof. Jeffries was developing the technique (not that, as an undergraduate, I had anything to do with it, but it was a big feather in the cap for the place, and they made a lot out of it at the time): it's cunning, in that it doesn't try analysing what the DNA says, just looks for specific markers down a DNA chain, chops the DNA at those markers and measures the relative quantity and size of the DNA fragments. So a mutation that doesn't affect the markers won't affect a DNA fingerprint at all.

That's very interesting. I very nearly went to study Genetics at Leicester University. Ended up doing Biotechnology at Manchester instead.

 

[David M]

er, no - no mutations at all are required for DNA fingerprinting to work: mixing what's on 23 pairs of chromosomes is enough to generate (virtually) unique patterns. And the overwhelming majority of mutations will not materially affect the outcome of a DNA fingerprint.

Er, no. Without mutations the 23 chromosome pairs would not show such massive variation between us and there would not be a virtually unique pattern. our DNA would be remarkably similar just as is seen in species that have undergone a recent genetic bottleneck. If you want to be truly accurate on a DNA fingerprint (e.g. to differentiate between "identical" twins) then you need the complete genome and that means that those mutations are vital.

 

[philbo]

Er, no. Without mutations the 23 chromosome pairs would not show such massive variation between us and there would not be a virtually unique pattern. our DNA would be remarkably similar just as is seen in species that have undergone a recent genetic bottleneck. If you want to be truly accurate on a DNA fingerprint (e.g. to differentiate between "identical" twins) then you need the complete genome and that means that those mutations are vital.

I understood what Kirran was saying as being he meant new mutations are required in order for genetic "fingerprints" to be unique, which is not the case.

This is not the same as saying "without mutations, we'd all have the same DNA"

 

[Kirran]

Yes, that was what was being said. Philbo was, correctly, disputing the assertion that it's necessary for great numbers of mutations to take place at each generation for genetic fingerprinting to work.

EDIT: Actually, as well, our DNA IS remarkably similar, as seen in species that have recently undergone a genetic bottleneck.

Humans have an effective population size of 10,000 people, in terms of genetic diversity.