Serious bible question

[Metric-man]

SuShi and the Buddhist Monk

 

The famous Chinese poet SuShi* (1037-1101 A.D.) was visiting his friend, who was a Buddhist monk.

 

SuShi asks the monk what SuShi is like in the monk's eyes.

 

The monk replies, "In my eyes, you are a Buddha."

 

SuShi is very happy with this response.

 

The monk then asks SuShi the same question, and SuShi answers,

"In my eyes, you are dung!"

 

The monk smiles, and SuShi is delighted, because he thinks he is better than the monk.

 

Then some days later, SuShi tells the story to a friend, and the friend tells him the truth,

"The monk sees you as a Buddha, because he sees everything as Buddha,

because he has a Buddha's heart and eyes. You see the monk as dung, because you see everything as dung, because you have a dung's heart and eyes!"

[Metric-man]

The evil of destruction is like a shadow cast by the good of creation. Nature gives and takes life. Even on the cellular level of the human body, the evil of decay and death exists side by side with the good of growth and health.

For example, while the precise mechanism of cancer remains unknown, research has demonstrated that the malignant transformation of a cell is linked to cancer-causing genes called oncogenes. In normal cells, oncogenes are called proto-oncogenes, which promote cellular growth and are regulated by cellular genes called tumor-suppressor genes. Tumor-suppressor-genes, in other words, control growth-promoting genes, which could potentially turn malignant. (Cancer: Causation;The Cause of Disease: Abnormal Growth of Cells. Encyclopedia Britannica, CD 1999). "Thus, the potential for cancer not only exists in every cell of the body, but also supports cell's growth and health."

 

Paul Tillich, a noted philosopher and theologian of the last century, said,"The courage to affirm oneself must include the courage to affirm one's own demonic depth" (The Courage to Be, p.122).

 

 

In the same regard, Carl Jung said,"Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is" (Psychology and Religion, p.93).

Jung also made the following observation of a person who develops the courage to face the potential of evil within: "Such a man knows that whatever is wrong in the world is in himself, and if he only learns to deal with his own shadow the he has done something real for the world"

(ibid pp. 101–02).

 

 

http://www.sgi-usa.o...f_good_evil.php

Edited March 26, 2012 by Metric-man

[chiplee]

Chip, I guess your just missing the whole point in which several people have pointed out. It's no suprise that non believers have referenced the old testament from the new testament. The old laws to the new. There is also no argument that Christianity has an enormous amount of 'faith' that factors into it.

 

John,

 

I read every single word of your post and gave it sincere thought before composing my reply. I hope you will do me the courtesy of returning the favor before you post again.

 

There are points being missed in this conversation. That's for sure, but I don't think it's useful for any of us to point it out. If your point has been missed it's probably best to simply restate it in a clearer manner. Also, when I say that there is an enormous amount of faith required to believe the Abrahamic God is the almighty creator of the Universe, you're not offering a rebuttal by simply saying, "no there isn't". In our day to day lives, we have to rank our various conjectures relative to one another. We can't "prove" any of them to be unquestionably true. To do this "ranking" we collect evidence, and then we apply reason to come up with sort of a "functional truth". Presented with the following two conjectures, you would be able to make a pretty good choice and go on with your life immediately.

 

1. An elevator is a safe way to get off of the 15th floor of a building.

 

2. It is safe to jump from the 15th floor of a building.

 

We have good evidence that conjecture number 2 is false, but we can't "prove" that it's false without a single exception. People have fallen further than that and lived, but we're happy to take it on "faith" that it's false, and select conjecture number 1. We did NOT require definitive proof to make this selection, only "good" evidence. The "amount" of faith we have to have in conjecture 1 is vanishingly small, but it definitely is a leap of faith; a decision based on "imperfect" evidence. Much more subtle examples exist, but I used this extreme example for the purpose of illustration. We have to do this every day of our lives, else we would be paralyzed with indecision.

 

Outside of math and logic, everything is conjecture, including statements like "the sun will rise tomorrow", and no matter how many times you wake me up and point me to the east and say, "look, it's happening again" you still won't have "proven" anything. You will only have collected another piece of evidence in favor of a conjecture that will one day turn out to be false. The sun will not always rise in the east, and it certainly hasn't always risen there. In fact, it doesn't rise there at all now. The Earth rotates toward the east and creates the illusion of a rising sun, so the conjecture that the sun rises in the east, thought "proved" for centuries by the greatest minds on Earth, actually was false all along.

 

What's the point of all of this? I'm glad you asked. While it's true that "everything" (outside of math and logic) requires some degree of faith, that doesn't mean that all conjectures are equals. All conjectures have various degrees of evidence in their favor. Some are "effectively" true because of mountains of evidence in their favor, and others have literally zero evidence in their favor. In fact, certain of our conjectures, like "god created the universe" for example, not only don't have any evidence in their favor, but are completely untestable, and will therefore NEVER have any evidence in their favor. To believe them is a pure leap of faith with zero evidence to aid in the decision. After all, if old books are meant to be taken as evidence, there are tons of other things we should be compelled to believe, like "God lives on planet Kolob" or "insert crazy old god story here".

 

If you picture all conjectures ranked on a simple graph from "least to best" supported by evidence and reason, ALL religions would be at the very bottom of the graph, and established scientific theories would be near the top. At the pinnacle of our "best supported" ideas/conjectures you would have things like "modern medicine". So you see, the common creationist claim that "it requires faith to believe in anything" is a gross oversimplification and a bald faced lie. We can gain GREAT confidence in certain of our various conjectures, and we all know this from experience. To try to equate our functional reality with an utterly baseless belief in some omnipotent logical gap filler is vacuous intellectual dishonesty of the purest form.

 

 

Religion is a terrible word and your beliefs/practices shouldn't be what the world has conformed it to be - it should be about your relationship and yours alone with God. I believe God has many many names. I also believe the different religions have been misconstrued down the years and some are simply not true and this is my conclusion based on my faith in the Holy Bible. It's also amazing that people always use the two people on two remote islands theory with one believing in God and the other never heard of him or his son Jesus Christ. Would the person not exposed to him be 'saved'? Humans were made in the likeness of him and apart of this included worshiping him and this is evident when you look at every single civilization.

 

It's nice that you have cherry picked a version of Christianity that works for you personally, but you should know that the Bible itself forbids you from doing so. It's also forbidden to disregard the Old Testament law. I'll defer to the "assemblers" of your "Holy Bible", for if you take it to be pure and perfect, you must hold those who assembled it from many religious books to also be pure and perfect.

 

"It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: “The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.”

 

The reason "the faith" has changed over the years isn't because it's supposed to, it's because it's bogus and it has to change with the times or risk becoming incompatible with civil society.

 

Find one, just ONE civilization that did not believe in a higher being. We are wired to know that there is something far greater than us.

 

That is close enough to true, but what it should suggest to you is that man invents god ideas to solve problems he doesn't understand. Throughout history, humans simply have filled in the gaps in our knowledge with various concepts of the divine. Don't understand the wind, invent a wind god, etc. Today we see various religious notions of "how the world works" constantly giving way to scientific discovery, and yet the religious hold on to every remaining thread of religious "explanation". Unfortunately for believers, humans designed their god ideas poorly, because the nature of their definitions dictates that these various god ideas will continue to get smaller and smaller, until there are no gaps in our knowledge left for them to fill.

 

Job 11:7 says 'Can you solve the mysteries of God? Can you discover everything about the Almighty?' The answer is no. We can not and that is why faith plays such a big part.

 

So faith does play a big part? I thought you started out saying it didn't require much faith. I can't solve the mysteries of "God", but I can compare what stories we have about Him to other stories from history and look for similarities that might suggest the stories in the bible were "borrowed" from other civilizations. For example, the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice is similar to the story of Lot from the Bible. The analogy of ‘not looking back’ is of great importance to both stories. Coincedence? Perhaps, but are the other several hundred similarities between the bible and other ancient religious literature also coincidence? Central Christian tenets like the three day death and resurrection, being born of a virgin, etc. Should Christianity share these traits with no less than a dozen other faiths? You tell me.

 

There's always the arguments of carbon dating and ancient artifacts or unknown locations that havn't been found that are referenced in the bible - so how can it be true. Our knowledge is constantly evolving and scientist alike are constantly making discoveries. There was even a science publication recently that showed life surviving in what was thought to be uninhabitable and broke all the rules in which was originally thought to be needed to sustain life. My point is our knowledge is so small and minute to what God has been able to do and for this very reason, one must have faith. I nor anyone else can give you some formula or documentation that is black & white. Arguments can and always will be argued up until the rapture which of course, the rapture, again, is my belief based off the bible. Just know that the proof will never be evident because our minds will never be able to sort out what God has done. Never. There will be more theories im sure, but even the greatest scientist have questions about the mysteries of the world that simply can not be solved by what we know today.

 

Yes, the greatest scientists do have questions about the mysteries of the world, but you assume too much when you say those mysteries "cannot" be solved. You should consider that scientists are honest with you and ask yourself why religion can't admit its ignorance if, after all, "humans couldn't possibly understand."

Edited March 26, 2012 by chiplee

[DieHARDmitsu.]

 

You don't have to "believe" humans are the most enlightened beings on earth. You can know it. The most "surprisingly intelligent" animal species on earth is intensely stupid relative to humans.

 

 

 

The rest of this is honestly too mixed up for me to tackle right now. You've proposed a variation of the argument from design, or the teleological argument, and I'm well prepared to rebut that argument, but it's been rebutted for centuries by powerhouse philosophers. Your post suggests that you haven't taken the time to avail yourself of those rebuttals, so I sincerely hope you will read every word at this link. http://www.princeton...203/design.html

Yes I did mention things that would require more insight, perhaps even books can be written to cover those grounds. But back to us being the most enlightened species on Earth, I don't think so. We seem to destroy more than we aid nature to create on this planet. How intelligent is that? We have discovered the know it how of building and advancing in science and technology; still, our level of consciousness is overshadowed by ignorance, ego and denial. With the best of our technology we've created things that can destroy our species and perhaps much more on the face of the Earth. All for what...greed, power, false pride, control, ect.

[chiplee]

Yes I did mention things that would require more insight, perhaps even books can be written to cover those grounds. But back to us being the most enlightened species on Earth, I don't think so. We seem to destroy more than we aid nature to create on this planet. How intelligent is that? We have discovered the know it how of building and advancing in science and technology; still, our level of consciousness is overshadowed by ignorance, ego and denial. With the best of our technology we've created things that can destroy our species and perhaps much more on the face of the Earth. All for what...greed, power, false pride, control, ect.

 

The books have been written, and I've read them. I just don't have time to reproduce them for you in full. I don't mean to be rude, but the honest truth is that every line if your post would have taken me a paragraph to respond to. You didn't "mention things that would require more insight". You mentioned things that would require a long lesson on logically fallacious reasoning. I just can't fit that in, but I suggest you pursue it on your own time.

 

And again, humans aren't just the "most intelligent" species on earth. Humans are the only intelligent life on earth, period. What that intelligence drives humans to do is utterly beside the point. You could avoid being distracted by things that are beside the point if you got some of that "knowledge" about logical fallacies I was recommending a minute ago.

Edited March 26, 2012 by chiplee

[john82wa]

Chip,

Great piece of work and not being sarcastic. I respect your responses and the logical thinking behind them! But back to my response and I will keep it very brief. Your initial question at the beginning of this thread was discussing why God has killed so many people and then the comparison of Satan and ultimately trying to identify if God is truly a loving God. I may be off a few points, but that is what I gathered and I read it a few days ago so I might be off a tad. But that is why I brought up the old testament to the new. They do work hand in hand and by no means will I discredit the first half of the bible. Im merely pointing it out because its like taking a quote from someone without having the dialogue before and after - the context changes greatly. Even when your taking out actions from the bible, like completely destroying a city or reading the 2nd half of Moses when they make there way to the promised land destroying several cities and settlements in the process. There is MORE to those stories and it is written on why it happened.

 

I also never said that Faith was a small component. How can I? Also, I don't mean that we wont continue to make discoveries because thats just being naive. But what I am saying, is that our knowledge of the world and its workings are constantly changing. But I do believe that there will not be an answer for 'everything' and it is beyond what we can comprehend.

Also, with the sun rising it is not said 'God has raised the sun again' in terms of the sun raising physically, but metaphorically speaking in that we have another day here on earth (just throwing that one in there). We know the Earth rotates and I suppose I could throw in there that God made the Earth rotate on its axis but thats niether here nor there, its just a saying.

 

This whole conversation will certainly take us in circles over and over again. There are so many miracles that still exist today and maybe thats because our science has yet to discover its workings, maybe they will never get there. It's equally the same in assuming too much that our scientist will discover these things. Scientist are honest with the conclusion they have presently, sure - but thats just being just as ignorant as believers - after all, how many times has science changed it's theories or discoveries that have proven false.

 

Here is the current protien in our bodies that holds all living tissue together (our bodies would litteraly fall apart with out it):

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h41/john82wa/laminin.jpg

 

Or under a microscope

 

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h41/john82wa/laminin21.jpg

 

Coincedince, maybe.... How about when we are in the womb and at around 17 weeks we have a layer of skin that covers our eyes and at this time, somehow, our eyelids are split open perfectly in the middle when the tissue is exactly the same thickness over the eye. Yet it splits perfectly and we can then see. Just science yet to be discovered? Maybe.

 

Anyways, its been fun and even educating, but I certainly wont waiver from my beliefs. My daughter suffered a collapsed lung when she was four. She needed to be on a ventilator because she could not breathe on her own. Her body was also unable to breathe out the C02 from her body which further complicated matters worse. My daughter had a 99% recovery within a time of 4 hours after spending 3 nights in the hospital hooked up to machines breathing for her. The entire staff and several doctors came to visit her because nobody could believe what had happened and how she recovered. It was said by every professional in that room (4 doctors and several nurses) that what happened was not medically possible. Yet my daughter is here today and I believe (yes believe) that God had a part in that.

 

I wish you the best Chip and keep digging because like you, im intrigued by science, history and the like and im always open for more information. Just don't call me ignorant because our belief is different

Peace

[Shelby]

I'm not sure i'd go along with man is the only inteligent life on earth, a great many animals have been found to have the

ability to think and make decisions about their environment and other things ,and are able to convey their information to others of their group with some sort of language , we may be the most advance life form ,but to say the only one is a bit of a streach

[Metric-man]

Caduceus

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduceus

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....bol_of_medicine

 

here is the snack version

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_4uP0-4s6EM/T1jyZkolUlI/AAAAAAAAEBc/yEq6mc1H624/s1600/cheesus.jpg

Edited March 26, 2012 by Metric-man

[john82wa]

Looks tasty!

[chiplee]

I'm not sure i'd go along with man is the only inteligent life on earth, a great many animals have been found to have the

ability to think and make decisions about their environment and other things ,and are able to convey their information to others of their group with some sort of language , we may be the most advance life form ,but to say the only one is a bit of a streach

 

Lol. I just can't believe how much push back there's been on this. When the second most intelligent species on earth builds and successfully launches a manned mission to the moon and back, we'll talk. Until then, stop with the "I'm not so sure humans are the only intelligent species on earth" BS.

[lmwii]

Lol. I just can't believe how much push back there's been on this

ditto

[john82wa]

Lol. I just can't believe how much push back there's been on this. When the second most intelligent species on earth builds and successfully launches a manned mission to the moon and back, we'll talk. Until then, stop with the "I'm not so sure humans are the only intelligent species on earth" BS.

 

lol, precisely, you asked a question and you are recieving various answers/ opinions/ theories and it has been you (along with a few others) to rebute each and everyone. Sounds to me like it was a loaded question to begin with to simply state and argue your own side. After all, you are clearly inteligent and well educated in various portions of the bible to know our stance in the subject - BUT, I love these discussions and it seems you do too, so perhaps it was just one of those things to get a pot stirring and have a little fun. Who knows!

 

Your the type of person I would love to sit and have a beer with - makes for an excellent conversation and you seem light hearted enough to keep a slightly open mind!

Edited March 26, 2012 by john82wa

[lmwii]

if i might be so forward as to speak for him - chip's mind is totally open as long as what you try to put in it is based on evidence and fact. this is in contrast to folks who ask you to consider positions that defy reason, logic, and objective confirmation, and instead depend on faith as support.

[chiplee]

 

lol, precisely, you asked a question and you are recieving various answers/ opinions/ theories and it has been you (along with a few others) to rebute each and everyone. Sounds to me like it was a loaded question to begin with to simply state and argue your own side. After all, you are clearly inteligent and well educated in various portions of the bible to know our stance in the subject - BUT, I love these discussions and it seems you do too, so perhaps it was just one of those things to get a pot stirring and have a little fun. Who knows!

 

Your the type of person I would love to sit and have a beer with - makes for an excellent conversation and you seem light hearted enough to keep a slightly open mind!

 

You do know I didn't start this thread right? You keep posting things that suggest I'm the OP. I'm not the OP. I actually agree that the original question seems a bit loaded, especially now that the OP has professed his atheism in the thread. And as imwii so astutely pointed out, minds don't get more open than mine. I come to this conversation with an admission of complete and utter ignorance of the origin of the Universe, complete ignorance of where we came from, how we got here, whether or not we're alone, etc... What I am NOT open minded about, is the notion that there are other humans who are NOT just as ignorant of those things as I am. This gets me regarded as an arrogant, closed minded, prick. But only by the people who are truly arrogant and closed minded, so it's no sweat off my back. And I'm down for a beer anytime. Drinking a Bass as we speak.

Edited March 26, 2012 by chiplee

[john82wa]

 

You do know I didn't start this thread right? You keep posting things that suggest I'm the OP. I'm not the OP.

 

Yup, totally thought you were. Been following this post I completely forgot who originated it and even if they got the information they needed. I sadly assumed and was mistaken. Oh well, good post and hopefully im closer to actually becoming a member here...50 post requirement thing is driving me crazy.

[patra_is_here]

i know it's late in the game, but i would like to offer my weak hypothesis that the natural tendency to believe in a higher power is a biological process we developed when we were not the dominant animal, and thus hard to always have the innate sense that there was 'some greater animal' that could eat us. now we have no threats, so now that instinct is transferred to a belief in a god that will punish us if we aren't careful.

[chiplee]

Chip,

Great piece of work and not being sarcastic.

 

Thanks

 

Also, with the sun rising it is not said 'God has raised the sun again' in terms of the sun raising physically, but metaphorically speaking in that we have another day here on earth (just throwing that one in there). We know the Earth rotates and I suppose I could throw in there that God made the Earth rotate on its axis but thats niether here nor there, its just a saying.

 

I really wasn't talking about God's supposed involvement in planetary motion. Beyond that, I think I'll limit my response to this section to a book suggestion. "Cosmos" Carl Sagan, and I would actually mail you a copy free of charge if you would agree to read it. PM me your address if you think I'm not serious.

 

This whole conversation will certainly take us in circles over and over again. There are so many miracles that still exist today and maybe thats because our science has yet to discover its workings, maybe they will never get there. It's equally the same in assuming too much that our scientist will discover these things. Scientist are honest with the conclusion they have presently, sure - but thats just being just as ignorant as believers - after all, how many times has science changed it's theories or discoveries that have proven false.

 

Never. That's how many times, because it never published a "final" end all be all theory of anything. I think you, like most people, have a fundamental misunderstanding of the tentative and provisional nature of ALL knowledge. Science tells us right up front that its findings are tentative. It tells us its opinions are subject to updating when and if better information becomes available. It tells us that its current understanding is limited to certain observations. That's not because scientists refuse to take a hard stance on anything. It's because the very nature of knowledge dictates that it be this way. None of us can prove anything is true without a single exception, so the best we can EVER do is rank our various conjectures based on the quantity and quality of the evidence and reason that supports them. That's it. That's all we can do. The fact that science is always "changing its stance" is something to be applauded, celebrated in fact, because that's how we get closer to the truth. Science isn't in the business of establishing facts, because that's not possible, but we can get VERY close. We will always update our theories as we gain new evidence and better information.

 

Here is the current protien in our bodies that holds all living tissue together (our bodies would litteraly fall apart with out it):

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h41/john82wa/laminin.jpg

 

Or under a microscope

 

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h41/john82wa/laminin21.jpg

 

Coincedince, maybe.... How about when we are in the womb and at around 17 weeks we have a layer of skin that covers our eyes and at this time, somehow, our eyelids are split open perfectly in the middle when the tissue is exactly the same thickness over the eye. Yet it splits perfectly and we can then see. Just science yet to be discovered? Maybe.

 

I've seen the cross shaped protein thing. I'm always surprised it doesn't elicit belief in any of the other religions that had cross shaped icons. It's always assumed it was the Christian God that put it there. Anyway, I'm glad you're willing to look at clues hidden in our DNA. There's another kind of "clue" in our DNA. It's called an endogenous retrovirus, and its presence is basically a slam dunk for common ancestry with other primate species. As with any of this kind of work, the explanation is fairly long, but I hope you'll read it in its entirety. Essentially, if God is real, He would have had to plant ERV's in certain primates to make it look like we share a common ancestor.

 

"An Endogenous Retrovirus (ERV) is a regulatory agent in some animal genes. It is a viral sequence that has become part of the "infected" animal's genome. Upon entering a cell, a retrovirus copies its RNA genome into DNA, and inserts the DNA copy into one of the host cell's chromosomes. Different retroviruses target different species and types of host cells; the retrovirus only becomes Endogenous if it inserts into a cell whose chromosomes will be inherited by the next generation, i.e. an ovum or sperm cell. The offspring of the infected individual will have a copy of the ERV in the same place in the same chromosome in every single one of their cells.

 

This happens more often than you might think; 8% of the modern human genome is derived from ERVs. Repeated sequences of this kind were formerly considered to be non-functional, or "junk" DNA. However, we're gradually finding more and more examples of viral sequences that appear to have some kind of function in human cells. For example, many ERV sequences play a role in human gene regulation. ERVs contain viral genes, and also sequences - known as promoters - that dictate when those genes should be switched on. When an ERV inserts into the host's chromosome, its promoter can start to interfere with the regulation of any nearby human genes. In the example that I researched, the ERV promoter has become responsible for most of the expression of a particular human gene in the large intestine.

 

Creationists and intelligent design advocates like to think that because some ERVs have useful functions in the human genome, they must have been deliberately put there by a creator / designer with that particular purpose in mind. Of course, no-one can explicitly prove that that is incorrect - it's not a testable or falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore it's not science. What we can show is that ERVs provide evidence in support of the theory of evolution.

 

Let's imagine how ERVs would behave within a model of evolution by common descent. An ancient creature, let's call it the common ancestor of all modern mammals, is infected by a retrovirus that becomes endogenous. All of the animal's descendants (i.e. all mammals) would be expected to carry the same ERV insertion (ERV1) in the same chromosomal location.

 

Fast forward in evolutionary time. Different lineages have evolved and diverged from the original common ancestor and there are now many different types of mammal in existence, all carrying ERV1. A small rodent, let's call it the common ancestor of mice and rats, is again infected by a species-specific retrovirus that becomes endogenous. This is ERV2. In a parallel event in a different lineage, the common ancestor of all great apes acquires a third insertion, ERV3.

 

Moving forward again, a fourth ERV appears in some of these new-fangled human thingies that are running around in Africa, but not in their hairier relatives who will eventually evolve into modern chimpanzees. The early humans spread out, and a fifth and (don't worry) final ERV arises in a population that is isolated in a discrete geographical location. The infection does not spread to other human populations.

 

So what would we expect? What can we predict and then attempt to falsify through application of the scientific method? Humans, chimps, mice and rats should all possess ERV1, the oldest ERV. The mouse and rat genomes will also contain ERV2, the virus that infected their common ancestor, but not the primate-specific ERV3, 4 or 5 insertions. All great apes will share an identical ERV3 insertion; all humans will also possess an ERV4 insertion that is not found in chimps or other apes. In addition, some, but not all, humans will carry an insertion of ERV5. The rodent-specific ERV2 insertion will not be found in any primate species.

 

Now that several genomes have been sequenced, we have begun to test these predictions. The patterns of ERV insertions observed in modern species exactly match the predictions made by the model described above. Some insertions are shared between humans and mice and represent truly ancient viral infections. Others are found only in primates, and not in other species, obviously derived from an infection of the ancestral primate species after its divergence from other lineages. More modern insertions are found only in humans, while the youngest ERVs of all are found in some humans, but not in all. We do not find any examples of ERV insertions shared by, say, humans and mice, but not by chimps. Insertions are always shared only by those species, that have a common ancestor. ERV insertions therefore provide excellent support for the theory of evolution by common descent.

 

My particular favourite ERV is found in various primate species, and therefore must be at least 25 - 30 million years old. I compared the sequences and activities of the same ERV promoter in the human, chimp, gorilla, and baboon genomes. Despite some minor "single-letter" point mutations caused by DNA copying errors, the promoter had essentially the same function in all four species. I struggle to understand why any kind of designer would decide to use different codes to perform the same function in different species, but there it is. I hypothesised that the ERV was only allowed to persist (that is, its meddling in gene regulation didn't kill the first organism in which it inserted, which was therefore able to pass the insertion on to its offspring) because the incoming ERV promoter behaved in a very similar way to the original host cell's gene promoter. I wasn't able to do the experiments I wanted in order to investigate this point, but another group subsequently did, and their findings supported my hypothesis. That's what happens when you make and test falsifiable predictions, actually "do science"."

 

Anyways, its been fun and even educating, but I certainly wont waiver from my beliefs. My daughter suffered a collapsed lung when she was four. She needed to be on a ventilator because she could not breathe on her own. Her body was also unable to breathe out the C02 from her body which further complicated matters worse. My daughter had a 99% recovery within a time of 4 hours after spending 3 nights in the hospital hooked up to machines breathing for her. The entire staff and several doctors came to visit her because nobody could believe what had happened and how she recovered. It was said by every professional in that room (4 doctors and several nurses) that what happened was not medically possible. Yet my daughter is here today and I believe (yes believe) that God had a part in that.

 

That's a touching story. I would suggest that you try it on some families who lost their four year old daughters and see how impressed they are. Why do you suppose your daughter deserved the divine hand of God reaching into her recovery room like that? Why do so many other children die cold and alone and hungry? If I were the subject of such a miracle I'd be compelled to ask these things because I can sympathize with my fellow humans. How so many people accept the rationed generosity of such a powerful, yet cold and stingy being is honestly completely beyond me. The only thing better is the professional athletes who thank God for making their charmed lives EVEN better when they score a touchdown or something. It's literally as if they think God's logic is, "20,000+ child starvation deaths a day? that's just fine." "pro-athlete X not scoring a touchdown today, that will not do, miracle granted." I mean come on. You can't dream up a purer form of narcissism.

Edited March 27, 2012 by chiplee

[DieHARDmitsu.]

Thats a nice couple of paragraphs you just quoted Chip. Science tells us all that it observes or believe is true. The reason as to "why" they happen, for what purpose, or the driving force behind it is still unanswered. "Observations rely on the 5 limited senses" of human kind and cannot completely fill all the blanks that we come across. There have been many instance where science got caught with its foot in the mouth; saying one thing and uttering something completely differently down the line.

 

"The 20,000+ plus child starvation deaths a day" is as a result of mankind's actions as I mentioned before. Take note of how much industrialization fuel by "advancements in science" has left the world. Global warming, pollution, over population, lesser amount of consumable water, all of which happened in a period of less than 300 years... As of now, we seem to be a clever species, not an intelligent one.

 

As for the athletes who rejoices, there is noting wrong with that. He/she is only taking note of the gifts that has bestowed upon them; to have been born in a certain condition, talent and/or physique that many of their counterparts will strive for but never attain. "Faith" is often the word many, many gifted people including athletes use in describing their achievements. Are they all dumb to think that way and you are right?

 

With all respects, the Atheists seems to rely heavily scientific proofs and evidence but again it brings us back to what I noted earlier, science can't tell us "why"

 

Please answer me these questions relating to Atheism. I'll understand if you find them too personal.

Do Atheist get married, if so under who's oath?

Do Atheists weep when their children or loved one suffers or die. Why?

What do Atheist think of life and its purpose?

How does the Atheist feel about love, affection and sincerity? Why?

Edited March 27, 2012 by DieHARDmitsu.

[patra_is_here]

Please answer me these questions relating to Atheism. I'll understand if you find them too personal.

Do Atheist get married, if so under who's oath?yes they get married. under what ever oath makes it legal

Do Atheists weep when their children or loved one suffers or die. Why? yes. because it's a sad when people suffer, because we don't want to suffer, so we are sympathetic when others suffer

What do Atheist think of life and its purpose? there isn't an answer to this. just as some religious people feel their purpose is to procreate, and some feel it's there purpose to spread the word, and some feel it's their purpose to bomb abortion clinics or wage holy wars. atheists too have different views among them.

How does the Atheist feel about love, affection and sincerity? why? most atheist enjoy those attributes, because they make life enjoyable, chemically they remove elements of suffering. i can't speak for all atheist btw, just myself and some minor observations of the atheists i know of

Edited March 27, 2012 by patra_is_here

[patra_is_here]

With all respects, the Atheists seems to rely heavily scientific proofs and evidence but again it brings us back to what I noted earlier, science can't tell us "why"

 

so, science can't tell us why, but a religious guesstimate is good enough? there's no reason one even needs to know 'why'. concocting a religious based 'why' as your premise for existence is really just the same as fabricating a reason 'why'. do you really think all atheists go through life everyday wondering and suffering because we don't know 'why' we are here. we are here all the same, it doesn't matter why. we're here, on this blue ball we call earth, living a life with 8,000,000,000 other people. 'why' is ultimately irrelevant. 'why' doesn't change the outcome. if it did, then all would be perfect, because in your argument, the 'why' has been 'god' for the past 14billion years. if god was your only constant, you would logically conclude that things would be a little more 'god-like' around here and not a horrible mess of humanity that it's been since the dawn of time.

 

our bodies are flawed, our bones are weak, our brains susceptible to mental disorders, we are allergic to many foods, water kills us if it's too hot or too cold, we can't drink salt water, the sun gives us cancer, urine and reproductive liquids come from the same hole, babies are birthed early and defenseless because our heads are too big to allow for full development in the womb .

 

everything in the observable world points away from the divine hand of god, and points towards the chaotic hammer of chance.

Edited March 27, 2012 by patra_is_here

[john82wa]

There's another kind of "clue" in our DNA. It's called an endogenous retrovirus, and its presence is basically a slam dunk for common ancestry with other primate species. As with any of this kind of work, the explanation is fairly long, but I hope you'll read it in its entirety. Essentially, if God is real, He would have had to plant ERV's in certain primates to make it look like we share a common ancestor.

 

Okay, so I have read it and im honestly not all that impressed. It is certainly worth noting and I don't doubt the findings, but does that mean that God wouldn't do that because it would make us too much alike? If that author stood so soundly behind it, he mine as well bring up that we are similarily related to a salamander because it has a reproductive system just like our species. I hardly doubt that the retrovirus is the ONLY thing that would link us directly to other primate species, in fact, im willing to bet that if they studied and researched, there would be other clues within our DNA that links us to other species as a whole. I just doubt that anyone would take the time to study that, but of course when it comes to a theory of evolution, people are hard at work in trying to prove that one theory without looking at all plausible possibilities. This in no way offers proof to me or edges me closer to thinking that evolution has occurred.

 

 

That's a touching story. I would suggest that you try it on some families who lost their four year old daughters and see how impressed they are. Why do you suppose your daughter deserved the divine hand of God reaching into her recovery room like that? Why do so many other children die cold and alone and hungry? If I were the subject of such a miracle I'd be compelled to ask these things because I can sympathize with my fellow humans.

 

If you believe that I havn't suffered through pain, suffering and loss, then you are sadly mistaken. Further more, why on earth would anyone bring up such a story when someone has gone through such an ordeal. I certainly wouldn't and with anything, there is a time and place for everything. I was on the subject of miracles and thus brought that story as an example of a miracle in my own life.

 

My best friend just lost his wife to small cell cancer in the liver. She was terrified and it was extremely difficult for her kids, husband and my family as we were all very close. But one thing that she did have as well as her family, was knowing that she would be in Heaven with no more pain or sorrows and this for the most part brought her and all of us around a sense of peace. This by no means takes away the healing process and the grieving, but it does give us something to celebrate as well. I can give another example if you wish to hear it that is extremely personal, but I don't feel like parading around about the topic just so you know im not living the peachy life with no direct disaster.

 

I really wasn't talking about God's supposed involvement in planetary motion. Beyond that, I think I'll limit my response to this section to a book suggestion. "Cosmos" Carl Sagan, and I would actually mail you a copy free of charge if you would agree to read it. PM me your address if you think I'm not serious.

 

I will make you a deal. I can pick up Cosmos at my local library or bookstore im sure and I will let you know when I have it. The book that I think you would find quite interesting and its even a novel, is called, 'The Shack' by William P Young. It takes several beliefs and truths and shakes the living day lights out of it all while reading a pretty good story. Its even a good response the, 'why an innocent child'.

Edited March 27, 2012 by john82wa

[patra_is_here]

i know the answer to 'why an innocent child?"

 

it's because there's no such thing as innocence, and people are horrible.

[BOHO]

Well put Patra. In essence...Life hurts...get a helmet. Bad things happen and we don't need a reason or a justification for them...Either accept them or allow them to consume you. We have ALL had some form of grief or loss that seems to make no sense. It my case it did make no sense and I changed my outloook on life. Innocent children are the same frail humans we all are. Illness and death are part of life no matter how old you are.

 

This is where I feel religion has some "good" If it makes you feel better knowing that someone is in Heaven or it was all part of the plan...Then that is fine and dandy. Some people can't handle the reality that bad things are going to happen and this justification helps people sleep at night and move on with there lives....Some of us simply don't need this "reason"

[chiplee]

Well put Patra. In essence...Life hurts...get a helmet. Bad things happen and we don't need a reason or a justification for them...Either accept them or allow them to consume you. We have ALL had some form of grief or loss that seems to make no sense. It my case it did make no sense and I changed my outloook on life. Innocent children are the same frail humans we all are. Illness and death are part of life no matter how old you are.

 

This is where I feel religion has some "good" If it makes you feel better knowing that someone is in Heaven or it was all part of the plan...Then that is fine and dandy. Some people can't handle the reality that bad things are going to happen and this justification helps people sleep at night and move on with there lives....Some of us simply don't need this "reason"

i know the answer to 'why an innocent child?"

 

it's because there's no such thing as innocence, and people are horrible.

[/font][/color]

 

so, science can't tell us why, but a religious guesstimate is good enough? there's no reason one even needs to know 'why'. concocting a religious based 'why' as your premise for existence is really just the same as fabricating a reason 'why'. do you really think all atheists go through life everyday wondering and suffering because we don't know 'why' we are here. we are here all the same, it doesn't matter why. we're here, on this blue ball we call earth, living a life with 8,000,000,000 other people. 'why' is ultimately irrelevant. 'why' doesn't change the outcome. if it did, then all would be perfect, because in your argument, the 'why' has been 'god' for the past 14billion years. if god was your only constant, you would logically conclude that things would be a little more 'god-like' around here and not a horrible mess of humanity that it's been since the dawn of time.

 

our bodies are flawed, our bones are weak, our brains susceptible to mental disorders, we are allergic to many foods, water kills us if it's too hot or too cold, we can't drink salt water, the sun gives us cancer, urine and reproductive liquids come from the same hole, babies are birthed early and defenseless because our heads are too big to allow for full development in the womb .

 

everything in the observable world points away from the divine hand of god, and points towards the chaotic hammer of chance.

Please answer me these questions relating to Atheism. I'll understand if you find them too personal.

Do Atheist get married, if so under who's oath?yes they get married. under what ever oath makes it legal

Do Atheists weep when their children or loved one suffers or die. Why? yes. because it's a sad when people suffer, because we don't want to suffer, so we are sympathetic when others suffer

What do Atheist think of life and its purpose? there isn't an answer to this. just as some religious people feel their purpose is to procreate, and some feel it's there purpose to spread the word, and some feel it's their purpose to bomb abortion clinics or wage holy wars. atheists too have different views among them.

How does the Atheist feel about love, affection and sincerity? why? most atheist enjoy those attributes, because they make life enjoyable, chemically they remove elements of suffering. i can't speak for all atheist btw, just myself and some minor observations of the atheists i know of

 

Almost brought a tear of joy to my eye there fellas.

[chiplee]

Thats a nice couple of paragraphs you just quoted Chip. Science tells us all that it observes or believe is true.

 

I'm sorry man, but no it doesn't. Please refer to post 103 for the explanation I already posted about the nature of "truth". Here's a direct link to that post. http://www.starquest...dpost&p=1260552 It's not a two line explanation, but again, topics like this can't be summarized in little one liners. You have to really concentrate and hunker down and try to make sense of it. It will take a concerted effort.

 

The reason as to "why" they happen, for what purpose, or the driving force behind it is still unanswered.

 

It very well may be that there is no "why", but the fact that science can't explain something doesn't give us the right to invent answers. I prefer to think we all make our own purpose by making a family or joining the military or building a car or whatever makes you happy. Do you really need more than you have? I mean, have you had sex for god's sake? Looked in awe at a mountain or the universe or your baby? How much better do you really need it to get? Do you need to live forever to be satisfied? And if so then how does the notion of an eternal life enhance your life's meaning? How does it not threaten to rob your life of any and all purpose? With an eternity to do things, everything could be put off until tomorrow, or tomorrow after that, forever. No moment would be precious, because you would have forever to have that moment an infinite number of times over again. The purpose and meaning is in the finiteness of life. It's staring you in the face and you won't look at it because you're so afraid to die. We spend so much time trying to convince ourselves we can live forever if we just believe a certain thing or act a certain way, that we end up never living at all in the one chance we actually had.

 

"Observations rely on the 5 limited senses" of human kind

 

The "5 limited senses" are the ONLY things ANY human has EVER used to experience the world. So there's no use making appeals to any imaginary 6th sense or ESP or supernatural powers or any of that. It is well understood, by science, why people experience what they perceive as "extra" sensory things.

 

There have been many instance where science got caught with its foot in the mouth; saying one thing and uttering something completely differently down the line.

 

So, in your opinion, it's better to simply stick to your guns when someone proves you wrong? Or are you saying that if you're ever wrong, no one should ever listen to anything else you have to say? I mean geez, it's a good thing we don't hold one another to that standard. My question is why aren't you critical of religion for the times it's been "caught with its foot in its mouth"? Like the time it said the earth was 6,000 years old and flat, or the time when it said the sky was held up by 4 pillars, or that dinosours and humans lived together? How about the time when it said that the sun orbited the earth, or the time when it said that children who die before being baptized go to limbo, only to later "utter something completely different" and say they go to heaven?

 

Why is it that science has to get everything right on the first try, but religion can keep getting things wrong and it doesn't cause you to doubt a word of it? How is it better in your view for religion to flatly insist it was never wrong than it is for science to openly admit its error and update its stance to comply with the newly gained data?

 

"The 20,000+ plus child starvation deaths a day" is as a result of mankind's actions as I mentioned before. Take note of how much industrialization fuel by "advancements in science" has left the world. Global warming, pollution, over population, lesser amount of consumable water, all of which happened in a period of less than 300 years... As of now, we seem to be a clever species, not an intelligent one.

 

I'll just borrow the standard old refutation. God is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. For thinking people, that creates the following logical problem. It's commonly referred to as the problem of evil. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able, then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing, then he is malevolent. Is He both able and willing, then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing, then why call Him God? Really try to think that through for a while.

 

As for the athletes who rejoices, there is noting wrong with that. He/she is only taking note of the gifts that has bestowed upon them; to have been born in a certain condition, talent and/or physique that many of their counterparts will strive for but never attain. "Faith" is often the word many, many gifted people including athletes use in describing their achievements. Are they all dumb to think that way and you are right?

 

Half the world's population lives on less than $2/day in destitute poverty. If your God is divvying up miraculous physical ability, "certain condition, talent, and/or physique" to privileged American-born rich people, doesn't that call into question His priorities? I mean, not even a little bit? Could he use that power to have say, oh I don't know, 1/10th the world's population be born into poverty instead of half? Should I be able to come up with better ideas that God?

 

With all respects, the Atheists seems to rely heavily scientific proofs and evidence but again it brings us back to what I noted earlier, science can't tell us "why"

 

Please answer me these questions relating to Atheism. I'll understand if you find them too personal.

Do Atheist get married, if so under who's oath?

Do Atheists weep when their children or loved one suffers or die. Why?

What do Atheist think of life and its purpose?

How does the Atheist feel about love, affection and sincerity? Why?

 

And with all respect to you, I recommended that you look into logically fallacioius reasoning. Please consider doing so.

Edited March 27, 2012 by chiplee