Should people be religious?

[MartUK]

Hey I'm enjoying reading this discussion. It makes a change to see people debating religion in an adult manner (look at http://groups.msn.com/ChristianDebate for some amusingly heated and childish threads).

I've always been bothered by the whole DNA aspect of life. But not as bothered as I am by the concept of some kind of supernatural being that created it. I'm always interested in reading about people's theories on this stuff, but I doubt that written word or argument is ever going to change ones underlying beliefs.

And to be honest, I really hope God doesn't exist, because if he does I'm going straight to hell.  :twisted:

[Grakthis]

Catholic : Thou shalt keep thy Sabbath Day holy.

Protestant: Thou shalt keep thy Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Hebrew : Thou shalt kep thy Sabbath Day holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

All I'm saying is three of the most catholic religions in the world believe (or should believe) to worship weekly.

So where in any of those lines does it say anything about WORSHIPING or going to MASS?  it just says keep the day Holy and don't work.  It says take a frickin holiday.
---Andrew

[Grakthis]

what I was saying is that people get all tied up with religious stuff made up by certain people than what the bible says. Yes DUH, I know what everyone is going to to say, "the bible was written by men". That's not the stuff I'm talking about. I'm talking about people freaking out if girls wear pants or cut their hair at all. No Jewelry or you're going to hell. Trust me on this, that was the 1st church my parents were brought up in and my dad realized really quick that whether girls wore pants or not had nothing to do with God. Heck, men wore robes back then anyway. That's what my dad meant by, being a christian or being saved or believing in God was more important than all these silly rules people make up for their "Religion". My dad welcomes anyone and wants people to be able to worship God freely without worrying about the rules of whatever... when People start basically punishing themselves they start being judgemental toward others and that's a sin in itself. Walking around being pridefull because they are following the rules is a sin too.

Your dad sounds like a smart man.

Word to your father.  
---Andrew

[LimeTwister]

I get confused easily...and now I don't know what to believe... But the whole God thing never made sense to me .

[Grakthis]

I apologize in advance for the fact that I have a serious problem. I'm completely unable to be brief, despite my best efforts. I'm well aware this is way too long. But it's the minimal response I could construct in light of the density of your challenges. In a vain attempt to remedy this I have changed the font to size 9.

Ugh. Tiny font.  hurts eyes.  I hope you're proud of yourself... you've just killed the remainder of my work day  :wink:

Now on to the topic at hand.....

In short, that position is: Adam & Eve were created with the best possible combination of genes (best meaning the highest information content and so the highest potential for genetic variation in their offspring)...Adam and Eve would likely have had mid-brown skin possessing the different genes for producing different amount of melanin. Thus their offspring could possess the entire range of skin colourings, red, yellow, brown, black and white which are all caused by melanin in differing amounts.

Valid.  I can't argue with that.  Except to say that while this is possible, is it FEASIBLE?  Because as well as having the genetic makeup for the complete diversity of mankind they would also have to have the genetic makeup for all of the FLAWS of mankind.  Which means all of the genetic defects, diseases etc would become dominant in their children.  Even if you assume ONLY Adam had the genetic flaw that can cause diabetes (to use a simple example) then it would still have a high potential to become dominant in many of their children.  Given the STAGERING number of genetic flaws we know of in the human population the odds are that each and every one of their children would have had atleast one if not many major genetic flaws.  Enough to kill them all likely.

Granted, this can be countered by saying that these genetic flaws resulted from damage done to the genetic material passed down in future generations, but this would be similar to suggesting that nature is "creating" information from chaos which you later argue is impossible.

In fact, most evolutionists now believe that all of "modern man" are descended from one woman (A so-called mitochondrial Eve), and did not evolve seperately as previously thought. This is based on the genetic study of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which is only passed down from the mother. They are thus forced to accept a scenario which closely matches the biblical account of Adam and Eve and the dispersion of a small population at Babel. A far cry from genetic impossibility. [/size]

Personally, this is not the concept i've read.  I've always read that mankind was a SLOW evolution that occured seperatly among primates in a localized area.  It takes a long time for evolution to kick of a new SPECIES.  You get new varieties readily but the new varieties are still capable of breeding with their less brethren.  Which means that we didn't have to have a sudden change, it could be gradual.  For example, look at lions and house cats.  Clearly the same origin, but they are compeltely different species now, not just a different variety.  But this change was likely gradual and not sudden.

No idea what mtDNA is.

Granted, arguing this has the MAJOR flaw that we are missing MOST of the steps between ancient apes and modern man.  The popular argument here is that there were "catastrophic events" that killed large populations and spawned rapid evolution.  We have evidence of this in prehistoric life where we see entire oceans essentially vanish in a short time and the previously aquatic life is forced to adapt to low water conditions quickly.  We've seen this level of change so we know its possible.

Entire generations are believed to have been lost this way, which could explain the missing steps in the chain.

This is simply incorrect (Presumably the two sons you are referring to are Cain and Abel). Seth was another son of Adam & Eve (Genesis 4:25) and there were other sons and daughters of Adam & Eve (Gen 5:4).  

Eh.  This was just my bad memory.   I'll take your word for it on this one.  The only children I remembered were cain and able and i could have sworn that the next time another person is mentioned in any transaltion is lilith, who just kind of APPEARS out of no where to stir up trouble.  But I'm too lazy too look it up  :wink:

in terms of pure population growth rate required from then to now, there is no problem.

The problem with some of those sources you give is that they are arguing based on the pretext that all mankind was whiped out in a flooed 4 thousand years ago.  There is almost zero evidence to support this.  I've even see catholic documentaries trying to dig up evidence for the flood and their evidence was bad.  

I agree that mankind could have grown that fast.  here are the time based problems as I see them.  Geologically, we know that the Earth is older than the bible says.  Either that, or we have the Adam and Even Bellybutton argument (which states that God could have created the Earth with the universe with the APPEARANCE of being older than it is).... which i enjoy, but it would indicate that God WANTS to trick us.  Which I find hard to believe.

Another problem would seem to be that we have evidence of life forms that existed BEFORE mankind.  Unless you take the 7 days to be metaphorical?

I can't argue with the genetic diversity account you are giving cause technically it sounds possible given what I know of genetics.  I'd still make the above argument about genetic flaws though.

No debate is possible without defining the debated subject. So let me define Evolution as used by myself from here on in.

Not really how I would define evolution, but it works for the point of our discussion here.  Actually, Darwin never used evolution to explain where mankind came from.  Only to study where SPECIES came from.  Personally, I don't recmond reading Origin of the Species because it is MOSTLY case studies of animals.  Which is booooooring.

back to the main topic, if you go all the way back, MODERN evolution can show how life can be created from NON living matter.

In fact, we can do this NOW.  We can take non living material and place it in the appropriate conditions for relatively short periods of time and we get amino acid chains.

I'll come back to this in a minute.

The biggest problem for evolution comes from the science of information. Evolution starts from a "simple" single celled organism, for which that genome does not contain the genetic information for hair, legs, lungs, brain, retina, nervous system, bones, etc, etc. and to end up via evolution at mankind who's genome does contain the information for all of those things. Therefore, evolution must account for that increase in information. Put bluntly, it can't.

There we go! Now something i can sink my teeth into.  Heres where I get to be long winded.

We DO in fact have evidence that the universe can "create" information out of nothing or out of chaoes.  This is actually very simple and I'm surprised you don't already know this.

As mentioned above, science can create amino acid chains out of nonliving matter (I can dig up the case study later; I studied it 3 years ago so I dont remember it off the top of my head).  Amino acid chains are what MAKEUP our genetic material.  Basically what happens is a bunch of atoms bump into eachother and stick together.  These form amino acids and protiens among other things.  Now let's say one of these protein chains forms in such a way that it causes OTHER atoms to form around it because they natrually balance the chemical equations.  These other atoms HAPPEN to be immune to UV rays.  So that when the sun comes up, its not broken apart.

oops! thats the start of the genetic material for skin!

Lets say another one is shaped so that it splits apart easily.  So it bumps something, splits in half, and other stuff bumps into it and the two half become whole again. Thats reproduction!

This is how genetic information is formed.  Freak accident.  Lets say one of these amino acid chains has a light sensative spot on its back and this helps it NOT be destoryed when the sun comes up.  Thats the start of an eye.

Eventually these chains get more and more complicated as they constantly split and connect with other chains.  Each time they split and recombine they take their genetic material with them.  Each time they combine with something new they learn pick up new chains.

Till suddenly you have simple organisms.

This is why the human DNA has so much JUNK in it.  It's all the random genetic CRAP we picked up a simple organisms.  Litterly, 80% of our DNA consists of organisms that are actually PARASITES.  They do nothing but sit there and reproduce with us.  They dont HURT us.  They are just the remains of amino acid "creatures" that attached to our DNA at some point.

Science CAN show it is POSSIBLE for all life on Earth to have come from nonliving matter spontaneously.  I went to a catholic college, and this was NEVER disputed in ANY of my classes by even the most religious teachers.

Now here's the rub.

For everything to have happened this way just PERFECTLY would be the most ridiculously longshot odds EVER.  It's possible, but just barely.

It's so implausible that all of the right genetic material came together in just the right way to create life on the one planet in the solarsystem that just happens to be the right distance from the sun and in the right orbit and wasn't hit by a geological disaster, and for us to escape all the right predators, and for the other planets to have just the right velocity to settle into a stable orbit... blah blah blah blah.

The only explanation scientists can give there is that the universe is huge and it had to happen SOMEWHERE.

*shrug* not a GOOD answer, but technically, it works.

What do you mean by small scale evolution? Natural selection does occur and is part of many creationist theories, as does/is mutation. Evolution in this sense (i.e individuals change because of mutation and populations change because of natural selection acting upon mutations) is fact.

This is closer to what evolution REALLY is.  It originally refered to changes to a given animal not changing from one type of animal to another.   So creationists accept changes within a species?  I seem to remember the Pope acknowledging Darwin within the last 20 years or so.  No arguments here.

The creationist account fits nicely with science in that genetic information was created by an intelligence (God) and has since decreased as a result of mutation (and crossover, etc.) and natural selection over thousands of years.

Yes, creationism CAN coincide with Evolution.  I agree.  BUT NOT with Adam and Eve.

One theory that works is that God created the universe with a road map, KNOWING how it would form and how life would evolve.  Being God and all, he can get away with this.

To suggest that God just spontaneously created man out of thin air, causes all kinds of problems.

However, like I said... i cannot dispute the idea that God is capable of creating the universe under whatever conditions he wants.

For example, God could have created me 30 seconds ago with the memories and feelings of all the things I believe I have done.  And I cannot dispute this other than to say that I don't think God is out to trick me.  But then we are getting into Descarte and I dont EVEN want to go THERE.
 
Ugh.  :wink:
---Andrew

[Si]

I apologize in advance for the fact that I have a serious problem. I'm completely unable to be brief, despite my best efforts. I'm well aware this is way too long. But it's the minimal response I could construct in light of the density of your challenges. In a vain attempt to remedy this I have changed the font to size 9.

Ugh. Tiny font.  hurts eyes.  I hope you're proud of yourself... you've just killed the remainder of my work day  :wink:

Now on to the topic at hand.....

In short, that position is: Adam & Eve were created with the best possible combination of genes (best meaning the highest information content and so the highest potential for genetic variation in their offspring)...Adam and Eve would likely have had mid-brown skin possessing the different genes for producing different amount of melanin. Thus their offspring could possess the entire range of skin colourings, red, yellow, brown, black and white which are all caused by melanin in differing amounts.

Valid.  I can't argue with that.  Except to say that while this is possible, is it FEASIBLE?  Because as well as having the genetic makeup for the complete diversity of mankind they would also have to have the genetic makeup for all of the FLAWS of mankind.  Which means all of the genetic defects, diseases etc would become dominant in their children.  Even if you assume ONLY Adam had the genetic flaw that can cause diabetes (to use a simple example) then it would still have a high potential to become dominant in many of their children.  Given the STAGERING number of genetic flaws we know of in the human population the odds are that each and every one of their children would have had atleast one if not many major genetic flaws.  Enough to kill them all likely.

Granted, this can be countered by saying that these genetic flaws resulted from damage done to the genetic material passed down in future generations, but this would be similar to suggesting that nature is "creating" information from chaos which you later argue is impossible.

In fact, most evolutionists now believe that all of "modern man" are descended from one woman (A so-called mitochondrial Eve), and did not evolve seperately as previously thought. This is based on the genetic study of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which is only passed down from the mother. They are thus forced to accept a scenario which closely matches the biblical account of Adam and Eve and the dispersion of a small population at Babel. A far cry from genetic impossibility. [/size]

Personally, this is not the concept i've read.  I've always read that mankind was a SLOW evolution that occured seperatly among primates in a localized area.  It takes a long time for evolution to kick of a new SPECIES.  You get new varieties readily but the new varieties are still capable of breeding with their less brethren.  Which means that we didn't have to have a sudden change, it could be gradual.  For example, look at lions and house cats.  Clearly the same origin, but they are compeltely different species now, not just a different variety.  But this change was likely gradual and not sudden.

No idea what mtDNA is.

Granted, arguing this has the MAJOR flaw that we are missing MOST of the steps between ancient apes and modern man.  The popular argument here is that there were "catastrophic events" that killed large populations and spawned rapid evolution.  We have evidence of this in prehistoric life where we see entire oceans essentially vanish in a short time and the previously aquatic life is forced to adapt to low water conditions quickly.  We've seen this level of change so we know its possible.

Entire generations are believed to have been lost this way, which could explain the missing steps in the chain.

This is simply incorrect (Presumably the two sons you are referring to are Cain and Abel). Seth was another son of Adam & Eve (Genesis 4:25) and there were other sons and daughters of Adam & Eve (Gen 5:4).  

Eh.  This was just my bad memory.   I'll take your word for it on this one.  The only children I remembered were cain and able and i could have sworn that the next time another person is mentioned in any transaltion is lilith, who just kind of APPEARS out of no where to stir up trouble.  But I'm too lazy too look it up  :wink:

in terms of pure population growth rate required from then to now, there is no problem.

The problem with some of those sources you give is that they are arguing based on the pretext that all mankind was whiped out in a flooed 4 thousand years ago.  There is almost zero evidence to support this.  I've even see catholic documentaries trying to dig up evidence for the flood and their evidence was bad.  

I agree that mankind could have grown that fast.  here are the time based problems as I see them.  Geologically, we know that the Earth is older than the bible says.  Either that, or we have the Adam and Even Bellybutton argument (which states that God could have created the Earth with the universe with the APPEARANCE of being older than it is).... which i enjoy, but it would indicate that God WANTS to trick us.  Which I find hard to believe.

Another problem would seem to be that we have evidence of life forms that existed BEFORE mankind.  Unless you take the 7 days to be metaphorical?

I can't argue with the genetic diversity account you are giving cause technically it sounds possible given what I know of genetics.  I'd still make the above argument about genetic flaws though.

No debate is possible without defining the debated subject. So let me define Evolution as used by myself from here on in.

Not really how I would define evolution, but it works for the point of our discussion here.  Actually, Darwin never used evolution to explain where mankind came from.  Only to study where SPECIES came from.  Personally, I don't recmond reading Origin of the Species because it is MOSTLY case studies of animals.  Which is booooooring.

back to the main topic, if you go all the way back, MODERN evolution can show how life can be created from NON living matter.

In fact, we can do this NOW.  We can take non living material and place it in the appropriate conditions for relatively short periods of time and we get amino acid chains.

I'll come back to this in a minute.

The biggest problem for evolution comes from the science of information. Evolution starts from a "simple" single celled organism, for which that genome does not contain the genetic information for hair, legs, lungs, brain, retina, nervous system, bones, etc, etc. and to end up via evolution at mankind who's genome does contain the information for all of those things. Therefore, evolution must account for that increase in information. Put bluntly, it can't.

There we go! Now something i can sink my teeth into.  Heres where I get to be long winded.

We DO in fact have evidence that the universe can "create" information out of nothing or out of chaoes.  This is actually very simple and I'm surprised you don't already know this.

As mentioned above, science can create amino acid chains out of nonliving matter (I can dig up the case study later; I studied it 3 years ago so I dont remember it off the top of my head).  Amino acid chains are what MAKEUP our genetic material.  Basically what happens is a bunch of atoms bump into eachother and stick together.  These form amino acids and protiens among other things.  Now let's say one of these protein chains forms in such a way that it causes OTHER atoms to form around it because they natrually balance the chemical equations.  These other atoms HAPPEN to be immune to UV rays.  So that when the sun comes up, its not broken apart.

oops! thats the start of the genetic material for skin!

Lets say another one is shaped so that it splits apart easily.  So it bumps something, splits in half, and other stuff bumps into it and the two half become whole again. Thats reproduction!

This is how genetic information is formed.  Freak accident.  Lets say one of these amino acid chains has a light sensative spot on its back and this helps it NOT be destoryed when the sun comes up.  Thats the start of an eye.

Eventually these chains get more and more complicated as they constantly split and connect with other chains.  Each time they split and recombine they take their genetic material with them.  Each time they combine with something new they learn pick up new chains.

Till suddenly you have simple organisms.

This is why the human DNA has so much JUNK in it.  It's all the random genetic CRAP we picked up a simple organisms.  Litterly, 80% of our DNA consists of organisms that are actually PARASITES.  They do nothing but sit there and reproduce with us.  They dont HURT us.  They are just the remains of amino acid "creatures" that attached to our DNA at some point.

Science CAN show it is POSSIBLE for all life on Earth to have come from nonliving matter spontaneously.  I went to a catholic college, and this was NEVER disputed in ANY of my classes by even the most religious teachers.

Now here's the rub.

For everything to have happened this way just PERFECTLY would be the most ridiculously longshot odds EVER.  It's possible, but just barely.

It's so implausible that all of the right genetic material came together in just the right way to create life on the one planet in the solarsystem that just happens to be the right distance from the sun and in the right orbit and wasn't hit by a geological disaster, and for us to escape all the right predators, and for the other planets to have just the right velocity to settle into a stable orbit... blah blah blah blah.

The only explanation scientists can give there is that the universe is huge and it had to happen SOMEWHERE.

*shrug* not a GOOD answer, but technically, it works.

What do you mean by small scale evolution? Natural selection does occur and is part of many creationist theories, as does/is mutation. Evolution in this sense (i.e individuals change because of mutation and populations change because of natural selection acting upon mutations) is fact.

This is closer to what evolution REALLY is.  It originally refered to changes to a given animal not changing from one type of animal to another.   So creationists accept changes within a species?  I seem to remember the Pope acknowledging Darwin within the last 20 years or so.  No arguments here.

The creationist account fits nicely with science in that genetic information was created by an intelligence (God) and has since decreased as a result of mutation (and crossover, etc.) and natural selection over thousands of years.

Yes, creationism CAN coincide with Evolution.  I agree.  BUT NOT with Adam and Eve.

One theory that works is that God created the universe with a road map, KNOWING how it would form and how life would evolve.  Being God and all, he can get away with this.

To suggest that God just spontaneously created man out of thin air, causes all kinds of problems.

However, like I said... i cannot dispute the idea that God is capable of creating the universe under whatever conditions he wants.

For example, God could have created me 30 seconds ago with the memories and feelings of all the things I believe I have done.  And I cannot dispute this other than to say that I don't think God is out to trick me.  But then we are getting into Descarte and I dont EVEN want to go THERE.
 
Ugh.  :wink:
---Andrew

wow, good thing you used tiny font
*Si's not reading all that, bc she won't get past the first three lines
(simply bc she can't concentrate for that long )
LMAO

[Grakthis]

LOL.

Oh come on Si! Read it all! I dare you  :wink:

BTW, im really diggin some of these sites Kev linked too...... you guys should check some of them out.
---Andrew

[Si]

uhm
how about..................if I read it in bits?
Like, I'll read the first 50 lines now, and the next 50 ten min. after that and so on...good idea?

LOL

I'll let you know what I think in about four days then

[Logikal X]

Hence the reason i never discuss religion!!! :mrgreen:


damn i feel so much smarter than you essay typing fools now, hehe

[Grakthis]

Hence the reason i never discuss religion!!! :mrgreen:


damn i feel so much smarter than you essay typing fools now, hehe

Trust me Pete, we are both doing an AMAZING job of keeping it short  :wink:

I've written 20 page papers on evolution and they were just explaining the Darwinist theories.  Not even TOUCHING on religious applications or creationist theories.
---Andrew

[Logikal X]

lol, i still think you're crazy for doing it, hows that for a theory

[PIBby]

Andrew, the thing you told me about "you've got to believe everything, if th Pope says 'Don't use condoms,' and you do, you're not a Catholic." Yeah, you're supposed to receive the Host, (Body of Christ), atleast once a week - The Sabbath Day. SO, if you don't, then . . . well, you're supposed to go to Confession before you can receive It. Although that's only in the Catholic Church, keeping the Sabbath ay Holy desn't mean take off work and have a party and rest or do whatever. It means kep It holy.

[Grakthis]

Andrew, the thing you told me about "you've got to believe everything, if th Pope says 'Don't use condoms,' and you do, you're not a Catholic." Yeah, you're supposed to receive the Host, (Body of Christ), atleast once a week - The Sabbath Day. SO, if you don't, then . . . well, you're supposed to go to Confession before you can receive It. Although that's only in the Catholic Church, keeping the Sabbath ay Holy desn't mean take off work and have a party and rest or do whatever. It means kep It holy.

Sweetie.  No translation of the bible EVER says you have to take communion once a week.  Only catholic TRADITION says this.

And SEVERAL translations of the Bible DO say that you are supposed to take the Sabath (whatever day you interpret this as) off of work.  Not just off of work though, you aren't supposed to do ANY real work.  No heavy lifting, no walking long distances, no big decision making.  NOthing.

And yes, if you dont go to church every week then you aren't a Catholic.  This is true.  But this is part of my argument about why the Catholic church is f'd up.  Too many of their practices are based on tradition and not scripture.
---Andrew

[LimeTwister]

My 5th great-grandfather, started his own religion....

"The Code of Handsome Lake" or something like that.

[PIBby]

Oh, okay. I understand now, Andrew.