Your Opinion About GOD

[MARV]

We have often seen the rationalization of God through science (for example, man has created this system to cope). And science is undeniable - it's taken us from the belief that the world was flat to current genome research. But let's hear the flipside: How do religious pundits rationalize science within the framework of the divine? Can science bring us closer to God?

<a href="http://marvymarv.multiply.com/">[i]You on the guestlist?[/i]</a>

[Bitter Almonds]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by abacab66[/i]
<br>Here are some stupid people who believed in God or some higher power.

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
[/quote]
This brings up an interesting personality - Francis Collins, head of the human genome project. I've met him a few times, and he's also a very close colleague of Eric Lander, another scientific bigwig that Wolver actually worked for at one time - small world! Anyway, I'd always thought his affinity for religion was somehow a disinenguous ploy to keep himself in the money with the right-leaning Congress. It turns out he's pretty sincere. I'll present this here more for a different and interesting angle than to support any particular belief...

"No one knows better than Dr. Francis Collins how easy it might be for scientists to play God. As the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993 — what some call the most prestigious job in science — Collins has led the effort to decode human DNA, along the way developing a revolutionary method of screening genes for disease. Yet according to this widely respected scientist, the newfound power to "read our own instruction book" is no obstacle to faith in the existence of God."

And the rest of the PBS interview...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/v ... llins.html
[/quote]

<p align="justify">Do geneticists believe in a god who is perfect? If so, how do they account for gene insertions, deletions, etc?[}:)]

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]
<br>Do geneticists believe in a god who is perfect? If so, how do they account for gene insertions, deletions, etc?[}:)]
[/quote]
I don't know or care what they believe, but the beautiful irony of evolution is that you can't have it without imperfection...without point mutations, insertions, deletions, transpositions, translocations, substitutions, recombinations, and even xeno-transfections. The shit's frighteningly complex and constantly variable. It's frankly pretty freaky how species even remain species for very long. But then 'long' is a matter of perspective.

[Bitter Almonds]

<p align="justify">Well, now that you put in evolution into the equation, then it makes sense[}:)]

[beatschool]

Now that you've mentioned evolution, you're legally obligated to mention creationism or you're just being unfair.

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by beatschool[/i]
<br>Now that you've mentioned evolution, you're legally obligated to mention creationism or you're just being unfair.
[/quote]
Beatschool! Hey, 79 posts into a thread...that's just about right for you. [}:)][;)]

But Creationism is for cretins. Intelligent Design is where's it's at! [:o)]

[empyrean]

Wow, this God really causes a lot of confusion. [:D]

[ben_at_work]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]
<br>Do geneticists believe in a god who is perfect? If so, how do they account for gene insertions, deletions, etc?[}:)]
[/quote]
I don't know or care what they believe, but the beautiful irony of evolution is that you can't have it without imperfection...without point mutations, insertions, deletions, transpositions, translocations, substitutions, recombinations, and even xeno-transfections. The shit's frighteningly complex and constantly variable. It's frankly pretty freaky how species even remain species for very long. But then 'long' is a matter of perspective.
[/quote]

Actually insertions, deletions and substitutions are all types of "point mutations" that involve one nucleotide.Bigger mutations (more than 1 nucleotide) could also include deletions and insetions as well and could also include reallignment of nucleotides, inversions and the duplication of whole genes. Translocation is a chromosomal mutation that fucks up entire chromosomes.

If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation. That's a pretty weak leg to stand on, "Apart from imperfections, there is no evidence." Very week and where is the "Beautiful Irony in that?"

The bottom line is that Creation cannot be disproved, but it can be scorned, which seems to be the case here.

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by ben_at_work[/i]
<br>Actually insertions, deletions and substitutions are all types of "point mutations" that involve one nucleotide.[/quote]
Not that it's really relevant, but point of correction here - "InDels" and "Subs" are implicitly understood by the scientific community to be something different than "SNPs", Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. But that's just some colleagues at Harvard, Columbia and Pfizer sayin' that, but what do they know - probably a lot less than what someone can attempt to google off the internet.
[quote][i]Originally posted by ben_at_work[/i]
<br>If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation. That's a pretty weak leg to stand on, "Apart from imperfections, there is no evidence." Very week and where is the "Beautiful Irony in that?"
[/quote]
I don't present it as an argument that might be "week" or strong. It's just a philosophical obversation that I find beauty in the fact that the complexities of biology have (or "might have", whatever) arisen and continue to evolve due to imperfection. Many flawed things are more interesting than perfect things - where do you go from the latter? It's like a Superman or Batman kinda thing. Anyway, the irony to me just "is", not simple-mindedly "is good" or "is bad" or "is week" or "is strong".
[quote][i]Originally posted by ben_at_work[/i]
<br>The bottom line is that Creation cannot be disproved, but it can be scorned, which seems to be the case here.
[/quote]
Certainly this can't be referring to my tongue-in-cheekiness. You'd have to ignore my earlier comments toward balance and instead again be simple-mindedly and didactically breaking down complex and unknowable issues into black-and-white dullardry.

I'd actually bet Ben that our beliefs are not so different. Maybe I just don't fear from examining them under a harsh light or simply seek solace in the unprovable. Oh, but now I'M being presumptuous. My apologies.

[ben_at_work]

Sorry Blir, I didn't Google it. I took 2 years of that shit in college and have read a few books on the subject. I was just making an observation. As far as the rest of it:

I never said you were presenting it as a weak or strong argument. That was just my opinion on the "pro evolution" side of this thread.

The part about "scorned" and "being the case here" wasn't aimed at anything you said just an observation on my part (and many others) based on the whole Evolution vs Creation debate.

I hope it didn't come off like an attack on what you said, although I do fail to see an irony but thats just my humble opinion.

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by ben_at_work[/i]
<br>I hope it didn't come off like an attack on what you said, although I do fail to see an irony but thats just my humble opinion.
[/quote]
Just verbal sparring Ben. Now I'll go back to the back of the class to laugh every time someone says "homo erectus".

[WolverineSyr]

[quote][i]Originally posted by abacab66[/i]

The animals, eat, sleep and reproduce and so do we humans. But we are different in that most of us are not content with just those things. We want to know why we are here. We seek meaning in our lives. We also desire a hope for the future. These deeper needs point to a quality that is unique to humankind—spirituality, or the need and capacity for spiritual things.

[/quote]

I'm not bashing on you abacab, just using your comment to further my own right-wing, pinko philosophy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not on an animal rights soapbox here, but rather something that thinkss that we as humans are a simple blip on a bigger radar. I'm not sure what makes us think we're at the center of the universe or the only things that can own these concepts. How are we to know these feelings aren't present in other things? Why are our feelings of hope, desire, spirituality the only ones that matter or exist?

A dog sees a bag of Beggin' Stripes & "hopes" that he can have one. Simple desire? Absolutely, but aren't hope & desire similar? What else does he hope for? Does he have a concept of the future?

Elephants stay by dying members of their family & seem to mourn their death. That tells me that they have a concept of mortality. Do they have a concept of something after death? How could we know?

Lots of things have a concept of the future, otherwise they wouldn't store up food, get fat, make big nests, etc. I think having an idea of "another day," or "later," means you have a conciousness of yourself and your world - what else comes with that, and again, how are we as people to know?

Maybe it's all instinct, bred in by years of experience - but I have to believe it's the same story for us. I'd rather not wonder "why" I'm here - I'd rather enjoy being here & be amazed at all the things that were put here & turned into all the cool stuff around us.

Oh yeah, what's my opinion of God? I believe in God, I like him just fine and I think he put a soul into everything, and not just us.

[edisonoside]

[quote][i]Originally posted by WolverineSyr[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by abacab66[/i]

The animals, eat, sleep and reproduce and so do we humans. But we are different in that most of us are not content with just those things. We want to know why we are here. We seek meaning in our lives. We also desire a hope for the future. These deeper needs point to a quality that is unique to humankind—spirituality, or the need and capacity for spiritual things.

[/quote]WoW! That was beautiful. To see outside of ones self like that. Most can not do that. Just "being" should be spiritual enough.

[ben_at_work]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ben_at_work[/i]
<br>I hope it didn't come off like an attack on what you said, although I do fail to see an irony but thats just my humble opinion.
[/quote]
Now I'll go back to the back of the class to laugh every time someone says "homo erectus".
[/quote]

That one gets me everytime [:D][;)]

[Bitter Almonds]

[quote][i]Originally posted by ben_at_work[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]
<br>Do geneticists believe in a god who is perfect? If so, how do they account for gene insertions, deletions, etc?[}:)]
[/quote]
I don't know or care what they believe, but the beautiful irony of evolution is that you can't have it without imperfection...without point mutations, insertions, deletions, transpositions, translocations, substitutions, recombinations, and even xeno-transfections. The shit's frighteningly complex and constantly variable. It's frankly pretty freaky how species even remain species for very long. But then 'long' is a matter of perspective.
[/quote]

Actually insertions, deletions and substitutions are all types of "point mutations" that involve one nucleotide.Bigger mutations (more than 1 nucleotide) could also include deletions and insetions as well and could also include reallignment of nucleotides, inversions and the duplication of whole genes. Translocation is a chromosomal mutation that fucks up entire chromosomes.

If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation. That's a pretty weak leg to stand on, "Apart from imperfections, there is no evidence." Very week and where is the "Beautiful Irony in that?"

The bottom line is that Creation cannot be disproved, but it can be scorned, which seems to be the case here.
[/quote]

<p align="justify">Creating any thing in itself cannot be proven, actually. Show an instance where energy was created and destroyed and you got a case of bona fide "creation." Did you also notice how you misworded what Blir stated?

Blir:

"... the beautiful irony of evolution is that you can't have it without imperfection...without point mutations, insertions, deletions, transpositions, translocations, substitutions, recombinations, and even xeno-transfections. The shit's frighteningly complex and constantly variable. It's frankly pretty freaky how species even remain species for very long. But then 'long' is a matter of perspective."


Ben:

"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation. That's a pretty weak leg to stand on, 'Apart from imperfections, there is no evidence.' Very week and where is the "Beautiful Irony in that?"


There's literally entire library floors at universities on the subject of evolution alone. Genetics is one of those factors used to show it happened. Now, to a creationist, the question as to whether they believe in a perfect god makes no sense since that god made quite a few errors in the scheme of man. This is the same god who created the powerful beings known as "angels" and who created the universe and who makes supernatural shit happen all the time. How can that god get it so freakin' wrong? Gives the word "godawful" a proper meaning[:D]