What do Religious people say to this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemondiesel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moonstruck888 said:
Hardly. What I simply beg for is that the one creature that can analyze it’s actions to see if they are good or evil might refrain from talking, acting and believing without thinking. ** I’m rather afraid that you are helping to knock what little faith in humanity I have left.**
Click to expand...
Just so you know, humanity is doomed if we continue down the path of religions AND atheism.
 
lemondiesel said:
I would like to share this article with you guys, and please, do not bash me. I am in no way trying to disprove/prove, argue/agree with any of you. I am just wondering what religious people thoughts are about this.

guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form
Please, take the time to read it, because it is actually very, very interesting, and well, historic.
“defining moment in the history of biology and biotechnology”, Mark Bedau, a philosopher at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, told Science.

Could this suggest the Almighty is even less impressive than previously thought.

Maybe the wrong forum to ask, but could this also bring the issue of maybe this is what happened to us?
Click to expand...
Let’s remember the topic of the thread please.

Thanks!
 
Mystic_Banana said:
If you think Darwinism has nothing to do with sociology. I think you’re missing something… that evil, damning accusation - “you are less evolved than I…” has got *very * popular recently.
Click to expand...
I think there are certain formalities, demarcation lines between different subjects, that should be observed if we are to proceed in any kind of organized fashion.

Just so you know, no one in acquaintence with the facts established by Darwin could believe that anyone else is less evolved than he or she. Every lifeform on this planet has been evolving for the same length of time, around four billion years.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
I think there are certain formalities, demarcation lines between different subjects, that should be observed if we are to proceed in any kind of organized fashion.

Just so you know, no one in acquaintence with the facts established by Darwin could believe that anyone else is less evolved than he or she. Every lifeform on this planet has been evolving for the same length of time, around four billion years.
Click to expand...
As evolved in it’s basest sense means changed - and in it’s loose sense means adapted - one could easily say X is better evolved for Y function - or even state that in general X is better evolved than Y if the characteristics of X are better in general than those of Y, for functions in general.

And stating all life has been around for four billion years is both stupid and contrary to science - unless you are a new earth creationist- There is no reason to make a declarative statement contrary to the potential for emergent life in different times; particularily if you hold to general principals regarding the transience from inanimate to animate matter; that is - if it is so possible once, it is again… 🤷
 
JohnDamian said:
As evolved in it’s basest sense means changed - and in it’s loose sense means adapted - one could easily say X is better evolved for Y function - or even state that in general X is better evolved than Y if the characteristics of X are better in general than those of Y, for functions in general.

And stating all life has been around for four billion years is both stupid and contrary to science - unless you are a new earth creationist- There is no reason to make a declarative statement contrary to the potential for emergent life in different times; particularily if you hold to general principals regarding the transience from inanimate to animate matter; that is - if it is so possible once, it is again… 🤷
Click to expand...
Okay… If life didn’t evolve from the same primal source, how come, apart from those modified by man, there are no organisms that deviate from the nested set proposed by Evolution?

In the context of life emerging in different times, that is very difficult for you to explain.

I would suggest you PM me your response to this, since this time we’re not on my thread and have no right to hijack this one.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Okay… If life didn’t evolve from the same primal source, how come, apart from those modified by man, there are no organisms that deviate from the nested set proposed by Evolution?

In the context of life emerging in different times, that is very difficult for you to explain.

I would suggest you PM me your response to this, since this time we’re not on my thread and have no right to hijack this one.
Click to expand...
I have no interest in discussing the particulars on that. I hold no position on it; other than the one that contends that your one is arbritary and neither based upon scientific testing, or logical thought.

In this case, I don’t know the right answer, but I can spot a wrong answer miles off.

👍
 
JohnDamian said:
I have no interest in discussing the particulars on that. I hold no position on it; other than the one that contends that your one is arbritary and neither based upon scientific testing, or logical thought.

In this case, I don’t know the right answer, but I can spot a wrong answer miles off.

👍
Click to expand...
Convenient, and not at all convincing.

I may know nothing about philosophy, but I know plenty about nested set hierarchies and the theory of Evolution. I can assure you that what I say is quite true. You will never find an animal that photosynthesizes. You will never find a mammal that isn’t bilatera. You’ll never find a human that isn’t an ape nor an ape that isn’t a mammal, nor a mammal that isn’t an animal nor an animal that isn’t a eukaryote. The nested set holds true, always.
 
lemondiesel said:
I would like to share this article with you guys, and please, do not bash me. I am in no way trying to disprove/prove, argue/agree with any of you. I am just wondering what religious people thoughts are about this.

guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form
Please, take the time to read it, because it is actually very, very interesting, and well, historic.
“defining moment in the history of biology and biotechnology”, Mark Bedau, a philosopher at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, told Science.

Could this suggest the Almighty is even less impressive than previously thought.

Maybe the wrong forum to ask, but could this also bring the issue of maybe this is what happened to us?
Click to expand...
Perhaps there might be some ethical concerns, but i see absolutely no reason to put human beings on the same level as God just because they have got better at manipulating Gods creation. I mean, so what? With out the objective teleological meaning found in dna, they wouldn’t be able to do anything with it. We can only do things with dna because we can rely on the language to be meaningful enough and consistent enough that they can work towards constructive purpose driven ends. The scientists did not create the language or the objective meaning it displays. They are merely manipulating that language to serve their own ends.

Perhaps its an issue for the creationists who think of the bible as a science history book; but it is of no concern for those who understand that God gave humanity the ability to manipulate and subdue our physical environment to our benefit.

As a scientific discovery, i think its absolutely amazing. But i am worried about the possible damage that such techniques could do if used for evil. I simply don’t trust human beings.
 
Mystic_Banana said:
:confused:

What makes you say that?
Click to expand...
Moonstruck888 said:
Don’t you think that’s a tad hysterical?
Click to expand...
in no way is it hysterical. people need to realize religion goes far deeper than what they teach today. god chose these people, god chose those people, yada yada yada.

it is hysterical that many do not question themselves on why there are many monotheistic religions…

maybe because they are all leading to the same god deep down passed all the ********
 
lemondiesel said:
in no way is it hysterical. people need to realize religion goes far deeper than what they teach today. god chose these people, god chose those people, yada yada yada.

it is hysterical that many do not question themselves on why there are many monotheistic religions…

maybe because they are all leading to the same god deep down passed all the ********
Click to expand...
There have always been believers and skeptics. There always will be. I wouldn’t worry too much about it. It’s far more likely that greed, a ubiquitous human quality that transcends belief systems, will cause the extinction of mankind than religion.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
There have always been believers and skeptics. There always will be. I wouldn’t worry too much about it. It’s far more likely that greed, a ubiquitous human quality that transcends belief systems, will cause the extinction of mankind than religion.
Click to expand...
yes but getting pass greed, or dominance which i believe is a better world, is the ultimate unification.

as matisyahu would say, one day we will all join hands and sing songs of true freedom.
 
lemondiesel said:
yes but getting pass greed, or dominance which i believe is a better world, is the ultimate unification.

as matisyahu would say, one day we will all join hands and sing songs of true freedom.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. There will always be people like me and there will always be people like you, and never the twain shall meet.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Convenient, and not at all convincing.

I may know nothing about philosophy, but I know plenty about nested set hierarchies and the theory of Evolution. I can assure you that what I say is quite true. You will never find an animal that photosynthesizes. You will never find a mammal that isn’t bilatera. You’ll never find a human that isn’t an ape nor an ape that isn’t a mammal, nor a mammal that isn’t an animal nor an animal that isn’t a eukaryote. The nested set holds true, always.
Click to expand...
Which works in common design too.
 
Just_Lurking said:
Intelligent design makes no testable predictions, so everything works in design too!
Click to expand...
Evolution does make testable predictions. For example, one of them is that monkeys and humans would have more orthologus genes than rodents and humans do. And now that we’ve entered the genomic age where genomes are being sequenced, it turns out that this is correct.

Intelligent Design… I’ve heard that idea applied to other theories too. There is no such thing as gravity, it’s actually intelligent falling that keeps our feet planted on the ground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top