Why do we doubt science?

Adaptation as far as I understand is caused by genetic mutation. Genes disappear. They duplicate. And so forth. Mutations by their nature are mistakes or accidents. There is nothing directing the mutations. Some mutations improve the survivability of the organisms. This is adaptation. Those adaptations are preserved by natural selection. Natural selection is the thought that organisms with that are more adapted will be more successful in reproduction statistically generation over generation. In some cases organisms will make reproductive decisions which is is an example of guided natural selection. However, the basis of evolution is genetic mutation of various kinds which is not guided by any force or intelligence.
 
Adaptation as far as I understand is caused by genetic mutation. Genes disappear. They duplicate. And so forth.

You are completely ignoring the "epigenetic" effect.
 
I'm by no means an expert but epigenetics (epi is a suffix which means "above" or "over") has to do with "switches" that reside "over" the gene and can be flipped on or off. (Now, this is a non-scientific description, so any science experts please correct me). Or something like that.

All this is still being studied and is pretty much in the beginning stages. But before (again I generalize) the notion of genetics and evolution dealt with genes being changed/mutated/modifed or genes going away altogether.

Now, with epigenetics, it may be the case that the genes always stay there in their usual form. What changes, and what causes different animals and stuff, is the activation (turning on or off) of genes - done by the epigenetic stuff.

In other words, a lot of organisms have very similar DNA, and there seem to be whole stretches of DNA in organisms that are not being used. So, the theory is that those genes are turned "off" (via the epigenetic stuff). What makes a starfish different from a human is not different genes so much but which genes are activated/turned on/off.

There is also some thought that traumatic events may cause an effect here, too. That is, being starved as a child may have an epigenetic consequence. Which may bring back the Lamarckian view of things, to a certain extent.

So, to put it very broadly, all living organisms have about the same DNA (let's assume the very same DNA for this discussion). Epigenetics is the study of how, why, and which genes are activated, and it is this activation that causes a starfish to be a starfish and a naked mole rat to be a naked mole rat. That is, it's no so much the difference in the genes, but which genes are "turned on".
 
Actually I had heard of that concept but not the term. It is all about gene expression. Interesting stuff.

Still, gene expression could very well be caused/influenced by accident. Doesn't sound like a there is a guided process to express genes which improve survivability/reproducibility.
 
I never said any of that Dion. I was talking about genetic mutation and epigenetics. What guides them produce more survivable/reproducible organisms?
 
Does evolution ever return to a 'design?'

Has something ever gone extinct and then, via mutations or recessive genetic activity, etc., made a comeback.

Sometimes when I hear that a species long thought to be extinct has again been observed that perhaps nature just re-upped.
 
c'mon dude at least try to represent Christian faith better. I understand you probably don't understand exactly what it is. Your description of faith I would not have either. It is worthless. However, that is not what faith in the God of the Bible is.
 
control, alt, delete... that is about the most useless straw man description of faith I have ever heard.
Easy as all get out to blow down.... Thanks for the weak comments though.
 
It really isn't a weak analogy at all. If your faith, whatever it is, helps allay your fears then the world is probably a better place, but faith is pretty much the absence of proof or it wouldn't be faith. All of the various major faiths have common geographic origins which pretty much belie the idea of a single deity unless that deity is playing games with the messages that single deity communicates to humans. Or, in other words, God is ******* with humans by giving them different religions at different times, letting some of them die out, letting new ones spring up, etc.
 
NickDanger,
Having belief in something with no evidence, or reasonable evidences seems fool hardy at best to me. As a Christian, I don't find the claims of Christianity irrational at all. I have studied several major religions, and not just academically. There are major differences between them all, and to essentially say they are all the same, is like saying all scientific theories are the same and of equal merit.
 
God is Not One. I never said they were all the same. At least I didn't mean to. They generally require faith and I tried to clumsily craft a general description of faith, but I reject the notion that they are all essentially different paths to the same god. They just aren't Some of them aren't even theistic, but they still require at least some measure of faith even if it is just a faith in a universal force or "truth".

I also in no way impllied that Christianity was irrational (even though I actually do believe that many of its adherents ARE irrational). I don't know if this is even a word, but I would call it arational. Which would be the absence or both rationality and irrationality.
 
Yes. I believe their are a few things that are not supported biblically.

- We are not guilty of Adam's sin. We inherit a sinful nature from Adam because his nature fell when he sinned. Then we he had children they naturally had the same nature. We are only guilty of the sin we commit. We commit sin because it is our nature.

- What you call God murdering people, God would call righteous judgment of extremely wicked people.

Here is what God saw.
Gensis 6:5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Later in Genesis God says he would save all of Sodom if he could find 10 righteous people there. He couldn't. That same principle would apply here.

- Your characterization of canonization isn't in the bible. It is described in church history. I sense you are implying that the "special" group was arbitrary in their selections. From what I have read the "special" group was quite large including all the churches around the Mediterranean and then formal agreement was made through representatives of those churches. So if your meaning is that there is irrationality here I would like to know why you believe that.

- After describing death you write, remember: he loves you. That isn't biblical. God is love. He is also holy. Hell is an expression of His holiness. God punishing people in hell is not irrational if you understand the totality of His character. It is in line with it, not in contradiction to it.

- Other religions don't damn people because of no fault of their own. That statement is not supported biblically. Sin damns us and there is no excuse according to Romans 1:20-21.

Romans 1:20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

- Last you say, "god loves you and has a plan for you". I guess you are trying to communicate that God is irrational because He punished those He is supposed to love. However, that statement though popularly used by Christians is taken way out of context. That statement is God's message to the Jewish exiles in Babylon. He was promising them that He was preserving them in Babylon and within 70 years would return the people to Judah. It just so happened that Cyrus of Persia did allow the Jewish people to return when he took power. The exile ended up being 70 years. Just as promised. So again not sure how that paints biblical faith as irrational.
 
The atheist crowd is better at the beginning of the argument than at the end.

As soon as they start painting themselves in a corner with logical inconsistencies they can't account for (and as soon as someone starts to point this out), they find someplace to hide for a few weeks. Then they return, hoping that everyone has forgotten how hollow and abortive their efforts were last time, and the time before. Why even pretend this time is going to be different? People of faith flat out have the better argument, because it is from first to last grounded in truth.

How about you spare us the three pages or so it's going to take to paint yourself into that corner and simply abandon the effort here and now?

Wouldn't that be best for all involved?
 
How do you inherit other things from your father? Huh? Is that a foreign concept to you?

Fair court? An omnipresent, all knowing judge who created the people and everything else involved. Think He understands things?
 
bummer.jpg
 
Dion,
I don't believe any of the things that you wrote. In fact, if that is what Christianity taught or thought, then I wouldn't believe them, because I don't believe those things.

The only point you made that I would say I believe, but maybe not in the way you meant or stated it, is that God loves you and has a plan for you. All of those other things, if you reject them, guess what, I do as well.
 
THEU, what is it you believe about Christianity, because those things I wrote are pretty much standard Christian preachments, at least as I used to hear it bellowed from the pulpit in the baptist church.

I'm interested to know how you would describe the Christian belief since you said it doesn't seem irrational to you, and in my experience there's very little that's rational about religious doctrine. That doesn't speak to the truth or falsity of it, just that it's not something that aligns with ordinary human reason or logic - that's what I mean by rational. Maybe you mean something different.
 
buckhorn,

I would say you understand the situation of how Adam's situation and ours is different. Adam was created sinless without a sin nature but apparently with the capability of sinning. God said that everything He created including Adam and Eve was very good. Something that is truly good in its essence can't be described as sinful. Adam by his sinful choice fell. The world also fell. The creation though "good" originally is no longer. When we are born. We are born into the fall since Adam's nature was not changed essentially afterwards.

At the same time, the Bible doesn't describe any people outside of Eden. Adam and Eve didn't have children until after the fall. Otherwise, there could potentially be people not descended from Adam who don't have a sinful nature. It didn't happen that way though (biblically).

Coel, I am pretty literal in my interpretation of Genesis and Revelation. I still think Biblical literal Christianity is rational and absolutely defensible. And true.
 
buck, also can't answer your question about how exactly we inherit a sinful nature from Adam. Could be either way you describe. Either way the general process of inheritance would be the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top