Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

Evolution is most definitely nonrandom.

Lots of random and semirandom changes are introduced via mutation and gene swapping.
The individuals with positive changes get copied because they survive to breed.
The individuals with detrimental changes get killed off.

If you take a random distribution of new individuals similar to your current population and then kill off the lowest 90%, the average goes up.

We are the top 0.0000...001% of our class, because we passed the survival exam and its brutal, bell curved marking scheme.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

Too many posts to reply to them all at once. I will try to deal with some of the material. First of all, the author of Darwin's Black Box is Michael Behe. He is a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. Before you "debunk" his book, try reading it. He is far from ignorant. Instar, your example of coding is a good one. No matter what you say about complexity, there is a mind behind it, writing, entering, debugging the code. It did not arise of its own will. Your second paragraph also contains speculation, not facts. It takes far more faith for you to adhere to this than for a man to believe that God exists. The chemical reproduction also shows that under controlled conditions, man can manipulate materials to make responses. This is hardly creation.
Phoenix D, could you please explain your statement, "Evolution is not random." It isn't clear, unless you provide an example. Spontaneous generation, that is, starting with nothing, or non-life, and coming up with order, and life, does not work. You still need to start with something. Those who have tried to "recreate" a proto-earth, are using controlled conditions to simulate random patterns. That is hardly scientific, and it never has produced life, even when all of the materials were present and properly manipulated. You still need to begin with something being there or you will never get anything. Instar admits as much when he says, "given certain certain environmental factors, the precursors of life can be generated." Someone is doing the generating, for without manipulating these precursors, the experiment fails. Unfortunately, precursors of life and life are not the same. Klvino, makes an interesting comment when he says that, "the single greatest miracle in all of this universe and the next is that of random chance and the process of evolution." It is impossible to wholly rid ourselves of theological terms like miracle, even when we are trying in vain to be atheists. That's the way that we were made. Man is made in the image and likeness of God. It's the only thing which lends meaning and purpose to this life. If you really believe in microevolution, that all that exists arose from non-life and fell by random chance into the intricate order which we find on planet earth, that you and I are nothing more than a glorified ape, what ultimately, is the purpose of life as we know it? Even your debating this issue is meaningless, for you are nothing more than a random arrangement of molecules destined to rot in the grave. The Bible tells us that, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." All that is is created by Him and owes its very being to Him. That's the real reason most men find the subject troubling to them. They don't like the fact that there is something greater than themselves and to which they are endebted for all that they have.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Psalm 14:1

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

SJ, your example of evolution being non random is an example of forced evolution where if artificially eliminating a large majority of the population, you improve the gene pool. However, there is a flaw in this. Bananas, believe it or not, will more than likely be extinct in all of our life times because humans have pretty much bred all genetic diveristy out of the modern banana. As a result, it can easily be wiped out if a banana-born disease manages to get free.

GBrutt, As for michael behe, his ideas about 'intelligent design' are with the rest, as the overwhelming majority in the scientific community reject it as baseless creationist pseudoscience trying to pass itself as hard science. His Book, Darwin's Black Box, reads like it's based on personal incredulity instead of an actual explanation for his examples. Indeed, a couple of them been used to actually disprove his ideas by his critics. lol

As for the designing of software, keep in mind that software evolution, while done by man, actually evolves not because of the efforts of the programmer, but that of the industry, the community, users, testers, need, and improvements. These are natural influences that influence the direction the programmer (IE force of program evolution) to improve and make new versions of a program, which may spin off into seperate programs that may or may not survive and then further evolve at the hands of yet more programmers and influences around it.

Take Any program, remove the users' and customers' needs. What do you have? A program without enough influenece for dramatic change that will, pretty much, not advance more than what it is. Why? Because the programmer, being the force of program evolution, does not have anyone buy and using his program, thus he is unable to continue to develop it.

Moving on, You are right, life didn't start from nothing. I more than likely started about 8 billion years ago when a red giant went supernova and left enough stellar material behind to create our star system 3.5 to 4 billion years later. Those materials, by random chance and good energy managed to come together and create the right conditions on earth for life and create the building blocks for life which took form in earth's primitive oceans billions of years ago. Computer driven recreations of protoearth enviroments will never yeild the correct responses, mainly because they are best-guess simulations.

Ask yourself what DNA is and then ask yourself what it is made of. Sugars, Amino Acids, etc. What are they made of? basic elements and all of these things exist, already in nature and can form on their own. Often, creationist argue that life had to start at one point. How can we be sure of that? For all we know, CNN might report evidence that many kinds of microbacterial life formed on earth, at different places, all around the same period. Simply, no one knows and no one will know until a proto-earth enviroment can be found.

Now you are assuming that someone is behind everything, someone pulling all the strings, not so. Does lightening have direction? No. It lands on chance and probilities. Then factors increase that chance or decrease it. And remember, Lightening can strike twice.

Now as for you twisting my words, don't. My statement was never about god or religion and the word 'miracle' is used for the purpose of stating the extreme possibility of life, not the fact someone did it. The way you twisted it around would be me saying you endorse free thinking because you uttered "Athiests" The fact is that creationism mythology
is not science and cannot ever compete with it.

Now if "god" did make us in his image, then I think his Xerox needed a serious toner replacement. He got a lot of stuff wrong. The human knees are not load bearing structures. Try standing at attention all day with your knees locked. Humans have some 3000 genetic diseases and faults bred into us alone!

The fact is the complexity of evolution is not complex at all. It only appears complex because it has aeons upon aeons of history behind it that we are yet to uncover.

The bible says the world was created one way, but every religion has different ways. Who's to say who is right and wrong. Hell, the egyptians claimed the unvierse sprung up from godly intercourse and endured because they kept up at it! Can you disprove the egyptian creationism? Greek? Hindu? Zulu? Native Americans? and so on.

You seem to think athiests and free thinkers have an issue with god, in reality most of us don't. As we don't believe in a god-figure or divine-lifeform, we cannot have an issue with it. We won't go to hell, because we don't believe in it thus we cannot go. We don't believe in satan or the devil, so clearly they can't influence us.

So really, how can a free thinker be endebted for all eternity to someone they don't believe even exists? At the risk of insulting all the religious folk and bring down their wrath on me with my next example, but "How many of us owe the toothfairy money for our babyteeth?"

Athiesm has been around since 300bce, if not earlier. I don't think we are going anywhere.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

I'm afraid you missed the point of the software example. The process of evolutionary software does NOT involve any human input, besides the design of the algortithm, that is, setting the code up to evolve. The software itself creates several versions of a program, each with some randomly chosen changes, and then runs simulations to see which version of the program works best, and then combines the best ones to be members of the next generation.
To reiterate, there is absolutely NO human intervention beyond actually setting it up to evolve. Evolutionary software mimics the natural process, and even can create many novel and interesting solutions to problems.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

Evolution is not random, Klvino [ORB]. It is mainly driven by natural selection; the organisms that aren't good at dealing with their current envioroment don't do as well as the organisms that are. Either they just breed more, they live longer, whatever.

Yes, you've got mutations and genetic drift in their too. And those are important, since they can seperate two otherwise identical populations into sub-species or species, given enough time. But natural selection does most of the 'work'.

GBrutt, see the above and also note that abiogenesis and evolution are two different topics. Evolution theory doesn't care how life got here- it just covers what happens when it did.

Abiogensis does rely on random processes to an extent, though, but you don't have to maniuplate anything. Give conditions much like the early earth and early components of life will form spontantiously. Given that its estimated it took several billion years to go from that to single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms, its not surprising we haven't gotten any farther yet.

That's why research is still continung in that area. It gets really murky because the early life left very few traces; bacteria simply don't fossilize well, and just to make things complicated bacteria "species" are very flexible, given that many bacteria can eat DNA and sometimes instead of eating it use it in their own chromosome.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

gbrutt, the Bible also says that God killed a guy for, well, spilling his seed on the ground. God also says in Malachi 2:3 that hes going to wipe poo on people's faces.
Skeptic's Annotated Bible has a ton of such inconsistencies (and yes, there is a Skeptic's Annotated Koran too).

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

You forgot the one for the Mormons too, Instar! lol

Pheonix-D, Natural Selection is one of several evolutionary processes Darwin proposed. Had the Indian Subcontinent not smashed into Asia, then our ancestors would have never had a practical reason to climb down from their trees. Off course, it did happen and the monsoon didn't go to africa any more thus changing the climate where our ancestors lived dramatically.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

Response to Klvino (and the many others)

Behe didn’t really plumb the depths of intelligent design as much as expand on the idea of irreducible complexity. He is not, by his own admission, a Christian. He is a scientist who is trying to make sense of the Creation/evolution debate for himself while at the same time is perplexed at the lack of response from the scientific community. The examples of I/C he lists the development of the eye, exploding beetles, blood clotting, all point to intricate systems which have no way of developing on their own. You say that there are some examples of scientists who disproved this, I would be interested in hearing more about them. Behe never says evolution is impossible, rather, he is a rare scientist who cannot answer the questions which face him in the evolutionary model and is honest about it. Read the book again.

On to your field of expertise, software. There I must bow to your knowledge and experience, it is quite beyond my reckoning, except for the gadgets and games that I immensely enjoy. Still, in your anecdote, each step involves a human mind adding to or manipulating data in order to achieve a desired result. No software yet has ever sprung up whole from nothing. There is always a programmer, and engineer, a tech, who put each piece in place. It all requires a mind, your mind, to make it move and work. The program may evolve, but that is only after a great many steps were taken to insure that the conditions were favorable to this result.

The reason that I say that life must come from life is that every scientist knows that it is so. The Laws of Biogenesis prove that life comes from life. All living organisms come from living organisms. We cannot create matter and energy in a lab, no matter who controls the experiment. So how is it then, according to your beliefs, that life came to be? The Steady State Theory was abandoned years ago as untenable, so it must have come about in some fashion.

Also, I never twisted your words. I quoted them and then commented on that quote. I said that no one can escape theological language as it is the way that we are. To use the word miracle is to give assent to the concept of something, whether you admit it or not. If you don't like it, choose another word. On another point, “The fact is that creationism mythology is not science and cannot ever compete with it.” Klvino, look at your own post. It is littered with phrases like, "more than likely," "by random chance," "no one knows," "the extreme possibility." This is fact that you flout, the mighty truth which is to topple Christianity? If you read the same halting words, but from another's post, would you call it science, or in the words of the Apostle Paul, “science falsely so-called.”?

I have a question for you. In the words of Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?” What evidence can you provide to prove your your hypothesis? In your evolutionist point of view, how did all that is get here? How do you explain irreducible complexity in relation to forms of life? Can you tell me how is it possible that they could have come about? What about the utter lack of intermediate forms, which should be superabundant, given the amount of time and fossils which have been uncovered? Or the fact that even given the greatest possible amount of time, the radical changes from one type to another are impossible?

As to the God made a booboo when he made man idea, you err because you assume that man is now as he always is. A man named Descartes also said something similar, but from the perspective of the philosophical. “If there is a god, he is a devil.” In trying to understand how God could make man, who is inherently beautiful and creative, yet also ugly, or evil; Descartes reasoned that if there is a God, he is a devil. This presumes that God made man as he now is. If this is the case, Descartes is right. There is another factor that changes all of the speculations. Something happened to sever the relationship that God had with man. Christians know this as the fall. As a result, man is both beautiful, capable of creating wondrous works to stir the imagination; and is able to commit unspeakable horrors. It also means that we must turn to God to be rescued from our present state. If you have further interest on the subject, Francis Scaeffer’s books are highly recommended to expand on this further. He is a far better spokesman than I could ever be. Try his trilogy, The God is There, He is There and He is Not Silent, and Escape from Reason.

Lastly, (for now), and this is to Instar. You mention two passages of Scripture. The first one details Onan, found in Genesis 38:4-10. The second is Malachi 2:3. Just what your post is supposed to mean, I'm not certain. Was there a context to this, or is the reader left to guess at the underlying motivation? Perhaps you should go back and try it again. Better yet, lay aside your Skeptic's Annotated Bible, pick up the Bible, and read it. I recommend the same to all of you. Job 38 is a nice place to start. Goodnight for now.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

The point of those two scriptures was to show how ridiculous portions of the Bible are.
And yes, I've read the Bible. I spent a lot of time in Bible study classes. I read the story of Job too. He went though a heck of a lot of torture for some celestial game. That is a very kind God... and don't say he gets it all back either, because his first set of kids are DEAD.
You're missing the point. I've tried to explain how life is thought to have first arose, in the primordial earth of billions of years ago. Experiments in conditions similar to what the earth was like then show that some parts could have been formed from natural processes.
Admittedly, the software analogy doesn't work because you don't know software or programming enough. Essentially what evolutionary software is is a simulation of evolution. And we're not debating evolution, so the example isn't needed.

meh

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

I'm sorry. Are you trying to point out that humans are destroying ecodiversity?
We already know that humans are breaking the so-called "natural" patterns with medicine and pollution and clearcutting.
Hell, we've halted the ice age cycle and put people on the moon.

ANYWAYS.
With your typical group of critter, the worst mutations die before birth. The pretty bad ones will die after birth when they can't do basic things nessesary for survival.
Lots of the rest get eaten by predators because they were a little bit slower, a little bit more stupid, or has "lower stats" that contribute to their failure.

In non-social critters, they still have to compete against each other for food. Only the best get to eat consistently, and the rest starve.
In social critters, they still have to compete against each other to attract mates.

---

There is a pretty high attrition rate, especially during developmental stages, I'm afraid to say.

Out of all the eggs and embryos, there is an average of just one per parent that survive to breed again in a stable population. That's pretty bad odds.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

1) Reams of results from archaeology, biology, physics and everywhere.
2) It starts with a large star. Star goes nova, generating heavy elements. Heavy elements are mixed into galactic gas, from which Sol & system forms. Add energy indirectly from Sol, in various forms, and relatively complex molecules form. You roll the dice in billions of places for ages, and you get the jackpot of a simple self replicating molecule. Then it really starts steamrolling.
3) Quite simply, its not.
4) Too vague.
5) See Zeno's paradox, and quit your silly recursion.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

Perhaps they seem ridiculous, as they are lifted out of context without any backround or explanation. A tenent of basic Bible study is that, “A text without a context is a pretext.” The Bible is never meant to be taken as some pretty, sanitized look at what we want life to be. It is life and death and war and love. There are songs and psalms, history, battle accounts, science and every other imaginable detail that God wants us to know. That is why it resonates with such force. Lewis Sperry Chafer said this about the Bible, “It is not such a book as man would write if he could, because it condemns him, or could write if he would, because it surpasses him.” There are details in it that are disturbing and difficult to explain, but they are hardly ridiculous. Read the Scriptures yet again, my friend.

As to your comments on the issue of prebiological evolution, there is still too much- perhaps, maybe, kinda- in the pro-evolutionist posts to even pretend that it is rooted in science. The sticking point of this is the fact that there has never been a way for Darwinists to explain how life got started in the first place. It is one thing to say that this is what could have happened, given the right conditions. It is quite another to show that it did happen, let alone how it happened. That is precisely what evolution cannot do; prove any of its claims. The Miller-Urey experiment of the 50’s showed all too well the fact that even under controlled conditions, all you end up with is a dirty glass beaker, not life.

The software analogy doesn’t work, not because I do not understand programming, but because the analogy is faulty. Even if it is a simulation of evolution it is not evolution. First, because it is only a simulation of what someone thinks might have occurred, given the properly staged conditions. Second, evolution is at best a philosophy. In desperation, some cling to this old and unproven theory and look in vain for anything to support their hope of random order derived from nothingness. Lacking this, as all evolutionists do, they go to any and every concievable extreme to cling to their beloved “faith”. Such are men like Eldredge and his admission that, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports the story of gradual adaptive change, all the while really knowing that it does not.” Better still is Francis Crick and his “directional Pan-spermia” theory. He believed that aliens seeded our planet. Isn’t this the humanist equivalent of a miracle? At its worst it all smacks of a bizarre form of pseudo-religion, with all the trappings and none of the content.

Consider this for a moment. If what you and others believe is true, that we are nothing more than accidental groupings of molecules, what is the purpose to life? What ultimate meaning and reason do you have for your existence? Does your faith in nothingness and chance give you comfort at the end of the day? Does it lead you to strive for excellence in all that you do? That’s not the answer given in the Bible. Man is made in the image and likeness of God. Each and every man has great worth in God’s eyes. We can choose to ignore the truth, or look into it for ourselves and see if these things are not so. I leave you with the words of the Apostle Paul.

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” Romans 1:19, 20

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

I tried my best to explain it, but I guess it wasn't good enough. You failed to understand, which is partly my fault, but I guess you didn't want to understand, either.
The evolutionary algorithm analogy IS relevant. Self-modifying programs can create concepts similar to what we see today: a diversity of life, natural selection, and so on. Of course, I'm just repeating myself.

"that we are nothing more than accidental groupings of molecules"
Accidental? Hardly, evolution can explain where we came from, and study into the first life forms can find that origin. Study of astrophysics tells us that everything seems to have come from the Big Bang.
"what is the purpose to life?"
Why must there be one?
"Better still is Francis Crick and his “directional Pan-spermia” theory"
His ideas are NOT representative of the whole. Just as I cannot judge you by the words of Anne Coulter ("Hang all liberals from lampposts" and "Forcibly convert muslims to christianity"). Anne Coulter is a horrible person (specifically, she is ethnocentric, racist, and suggesting mass homicide).
"Does your faith in nothingness"
Who said I have faith in nothingness? I have faith in myself, in science, and other things. I think you're just tossing an emotionally loaded and vague term around here.
"Does it lead you to strive for excellence in all that you do?"
In fact, yes. I strive to be the best person I can be, everyday.

You've had your turn.

The Christian faith is full of logical inconsistencies.
Christian dogma says that God is omniscient -- past, present, and future -- and omnipotent. This premise is core to the Christian faith.
Also, the Christian faith says that man has free will.
The premise that a supernatural being being omniscient, past, present, and future, automatically negates free will. You are not free to choose if someone has already charted your every thought and action. You cannot choose a different path. It has already been determined.

Christian dogma also states God is benevolent. It would seem that this supernatural deity isn't omnibenevolent, because it is well within this omnipotent deity's powers to prevent all suffering, and indeed, "save their souls." Given that you have no choice in the matter (no free will), human suffering and eventual trip to purgatory (for bad people) is all but determined. What kind being would arbitrarily condemn many individuals to eternal torment?
It would be like a child care facility sourrounded by stoves, with the children unable to stop themselves from getting burned.

The Christian faith has also divided the world many times. If God was so kind, he would not have let the various factions of Christian war against each other for so long. Christianity must not be his chosen church, because of its fractitious nature. Also, I hope you're willing to condemn at least 4/5 of the world's population to eternal suffering. How kind of God to let only the majority of Europeans and related groups only go to heaven.
"Each and every man has great worth in God’s eyes"
Unless you're a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist.

If the only way to get people to behave is through the promise of eternal paradise (heaven), that doesn't say much about humanity. In my opinion, people ought to be good, not for some reward, but because it is the wrong thing.

" I leave you with the words of the Apostle Paul."
If you keep quoting the Bible, I will start quoting the Qu'ran, or better yet, some crazy *** Wiccan stuff. Or maybe one of the many Christian cults. Or Satanists. Big whoop.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

One comment since I don't have time to do a thourgh reply tonight:

If the Bible is not meant to be taken out of context and used as examples, etc..

WHY do Christians insist on doing it? You begin your post telling him not to do that and end it doing exactly that!

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

Gbrutt, That's the problem, behe didn't discuss the topic he used, he simply offered opinions. Thay didn't expand on the topic, this is what his critics point out. Oddly, you say he's not a christian, however, any research into his work history shows the amount of work he did for creationist/intelligent design schools. By simplying saying someting is complicated and thus has to have someone design it on purpose, means nothing. It's grasping. Blood Clotting is a bio-chemical process and any doctor can tell you how it happens. Eye Development could more than likely be answered or even covered by any high school biology teacher. Exploding beatles? Come on now, that's something you can look up in a library. Science is never about answers, it is about finding the answers. Behe really needs to think before he rights. You should be able to find his critics by simply running a google search just like I did and pulling up the relevent articles and clippings.

On computers, while each step does involve a human mind, it's not the direction of a sole individual. It's the input and suggestion and needs of many being realized via the efforts of a single process. the programmer merely acts as evolution, not as god. that is a significant difference. As for the outcome requiring favorable conditions, not always. Infact, life has shown a remarkable ability to endure and continue even when faced with certain doom. to quote, "Life Finds a Way"

Excuse me, Biogenesis today is a corruption of the original concepts of Biogenesis. Creationists have latched onto it hoping to unseat evolution. Keep in ming the Miller-Urey experiment produced some of the organic components of life, but failed to produce a living, reproducing organism. not a borken breaker. This should be looked as not as a failure, but as a simple example that the technology doesn't exist yet to preform the tasks. And yes, we can create matter and energy in a lab. living creatures are just harder http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Yes, the Steady State Theory has been alrgesly disproven, but keep in mind that the rate of expansion in the universe shouldn't be accelerating either. Big Bang theory doesn't make allowances for that.

Using the word 'Miracle' doesn't validate theology. Miracale is a way of expressing extreme probability.

The problem with creationist mythology is the fact that it does not answer questions. It just provides commentary from a book that people write off as answers without giving it a citital thought. You attack my phrases, but examine your own. You'll say one thing, a retract it or say something counter to a previous post. Behe, for example. How can you not know his religious standings? did you even read his book or just the inside dusk jacket flap? You own attacks on evolution are merely questions poised to look like you mock it. Answer Colin Patterson if they were directed to a creationist. The bible doesn't provide testable answers, it just says, "this is the answer, don't question it or you're satan". Besides, SJ's beat me to it. lol

Actually, I do not assume humans are as they always are today. Humands today differ from humans 100 years ago and from humans another hundred years more. Creationism and Bible Apologists assume humans have always been the same. You're entire argument on the lines from your misassumption of what i was talking about actually has nothing relevent to what I was saying. lol

What I was saying, and you didn't grasp it, was that if you assume god designed humans as they are today, then you also assume he did a piss poor job of making us in his image. Not a booboo, a PissPoor Job. The kind of job I'd expect from someone not paying attention to what they are doing.


SJ, I was pointing out humans are promoting evolution in various insects and bacteria by allowing the strongest of them to survive and reproduce by eliminating the the lower 99.9% of all life. Survivial of the fittest via dues ex machina.


back to gbrutt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Read an learn beyond the bible thumping. You need to get your facts straight.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

I think, no better to say that I believe, I believe that we are doing more harm in the long run by tampering with the genetic code, biological make up, and the use of hormons in live stock and in the field of bioengeneering than we could possibly even begin to comprehend now. By splicing this bugs dna with that bugs dna in the hopes of creating a super bug that eats bad bugs, we are putting ourselves, and indeed our world at risk. This goes for insects, animals, planets, as well as virus - bugs and such.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

So you're against animal husbandry? We've been genetically manipulating animals and plants for thousands of years. Genetic mondification isn't some bogeyman we can just invoke to scare people.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

Take bananas, I mentioned them before as being open to extinction due to a lack of genetic diversity. Most livestock is the same way, it's part of the reason why Mad Cow and Hoof&Mouth diseases spread so quickly in the cattle population.

Let's say Cattle, Pigs, Goats, and a large vareity of popular fruits all go extinct. How much world starvation and suffering would that lead to? How many deaths? Genetic Engineering can prevent that. And don't forget the numerous genetic diseases that plague millions upon millions of humans.

As isntar said, Genetic Engineering isn't some boogymen that can be used to scare people one way or another.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

ISTM that Genetic engineering today is comparable to the technology of Fire back in the stone age somewheres.

We can see it happening naturally, and direct it a little with breeding. We've just recently discovered how to start our own in a very rough manner by rubbing sticks and scraping flint.
We've got a long way to go before we can make the steam engine of genetics, and like fire, it will have its dangers long past the time when we do have fine control.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

SJ, you raise a valid point. But, as I said, we shouldn't fear it or ban it. GM food is one example. The general public sees it as "frankenfood," which just is not true. Copious amounts of research has gone into this field, and I can say that the chance that someone will get hurt is nonexistant.
This does not mean that I am for any genetic modification. Responsible science is needed, and thorough investigation is always needed.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

Instar is right, care has to be taken in this process. Many conservative agendas portray Genetics as a negative and evil thing, but it's far from it and only used to energize the close minded.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

Actually I am against the genetic labratory gene splicing thing. I have to say that it alarms me.

A new thought:

What if God had nothing to do with our creation. What if God created the race, be it by evolution or by *ZAP* your created, that then after eons created us? What if they are here right now but we simply cannot see them. What if they can manipulate time in a way that we have not yet concieved of?

It was an amazing thought when I ponder the possibility that God may not have created us, but instead created, or had a part in, the creation of the races that in turn created us.

Think about it, here we are doing the samething now with genetics, creating new plant and animal hybrids. It is also quite possible that in the forseeable future that we might even create an Artifical Intelligence like androids, robots, and other. Mechonisims that can think and anticipate and interact with us. Granted they will not have a soul, the thing that makes us human, but they will have something entirely differant. Eventually the technology can develop to the point where our inventions will create / reproduce themselves, and quite possible, one day invent something on their own such as a new life form.

What if the cycle has gone on and one and on since the beginning of time itself?

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

To mea more likely thought would be that god/alien created humans to improve or replicate himself, however we humans wouldn't remain under his control and we drove him off the planet and he took revenge on humanity before we finally got rd of him - assuming he existed in any form at all.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

That would make for some good books. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif The God Wars of Earth

Written by: Klvino & Atrocities

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

lol, If we do it, we need to have a sequel where man faces off against AI in The Human Wars of Earth .. Or maybe Plearth?

Plearth, if anyone watches George Carlin, is the ultimate goal of Earth. Earth could not create plastic, so humans were made to make plastic and once we make enough of it, the earth will destroy us and absorb all the plastic into itself creating Plearth.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

I feel like I'm bringing a wet noodle to a gun fight somehow.

But.

For me, watching an hour or more of what the Hubble telescope sees, does wonders for my peace of mind.
I know where I came from, and I know where I will be some day.
It just isn't some place called heaven or hell.

I watched Carl Sagan's Cosmos episode "The Backbone of Night" and I know why man insists on pursuing religion.
I can understand why some need their religion.
But I see it for what it is.

And it doesn't matter if I don't know how old or big the universe is. Or exactly what moment life was created on earth, or specifically how.

It is enough, that I know why religion is here.
And it is enough to know, I will not be able to stop looking, just because of what is written in one of the many books claiming to know.

Some day the person I am, will die. That much I know.
What happens next, it isn't written in any religion's books of teachings.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

We are all star stuff.

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

In yesterday's news, a man suddenly spoke and rememebered his family after an accident 10 years ago.

Is 10 years in an institution man's free will or an act of god?

Re: Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him
 

I think they're called comas, but not being a MD I could be mistaken.

I think it pointless to see god in anything I can't currently understand.

I think it just as pointless to blame god for anything I think was harsh or unfair (war, death and famine), as giving god credit for anything nice and generous (seemingly miraculous events).

God is the ultimate placebo. But that is about all god is.