REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It is genetic diversity, since more than one gene is involved in many characteristics, and there's recessive genes and things like that. If you can get that many different people, than surely you would admit there's genetic diversity present.

no i wouldn't because the offspring still have basically the same genetic characteristics as the parents, whether they wer identical or not

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Did you even read the next paragraph? Why do you misrepresent me?

I did read the other paragraph already. It doesn't change really hwat you said in the first one.

I repeat- why do you misrepresent me?

How did I misrepresent you? I still think - even with you saying what you said in the sencond paragraph that the argument you used in the first paragaph was ridiculous. So the second paragraph doesn't change anything with what I said.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It is genetic diversity, since more than one gene is involved in many characteristics, and there's recessive genes and things like that. If you can get that many different people, than surely you would admit there's genetic diversity present.

Well then there shoudl be even MOR diversity today - because my mother and father were both farther removed from each other than adam and eve's children - so it should not be a problem to have offspring with my sister.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That might be your opinion - but that doesn't reflect how genetics actually works.

That was the scientific opinion of a genetics scientist who believes in evolution.

So tell me - when was the last time you saw a 100% asian couple give birth to a white baby. Now that would be one for the science books - because it doesn't happen. It happens only when you seem to try to fit science to account for things in the bible that make no sense.

I never claimed Adam and Eve were 100% asian. Why is that even relevant? It's not.

See your argument fits very well into evolution - because SCIENCE shows that skin color is an evolutionary change. Tha the people living close the equator, developed dark skin to protect themselves from the sun. As people moved away - into Europe and so forth, skin color changed because the dark skin was no longer needed.

Science doesn't SHOW that people "developed dark skin" or that "skin color is an evolutionary change". Science ASSUMES it, as an educated guess. At least if you're talking about beneficial mutations. If you're talking about how already existing skin colors were selected for because of the environment, I have no issue with that.

What science does show is that at least two genes are responsible for skin color, and that skin color is a function of how much melanin is present. And that two medium-skinned people can produce kids with anything from white to black skin and every shade in between. THAT is what science shows. THAT is directly observable in the present.

Then don't act like I did anything wrong by stating what I said in the manner I said it.

I do think you did something wrong but I will PM you with what it is this time.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well then there shoudl be even MOR diversity today - because my mother and father were both farther removed from each other than adam and eve's children - so it should not be a problem to have offspring with my sister.

The problem is, as you have stated, the harmful mutations. And you and your sister have inherited lots of those over time.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The problem is, as you have stated, the harmful mutations. And you and your sister have inherited lots of those over time.

So then - basically you are saying that adam and eve had no mutations. I just don't buy it. See - as I have said - a person can do anything to fit their belief to make sure the bible doesn't get contradicted.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

IMO, the species of atheism that goes "I don't believe that God/god/gods exist" is VERY comforting in some very important ways - it removes any idea of a judgement by a holy and righteous and powerful God who cares about how we treat our fellow human beings. Whatever you can get away with here, you've gotten away with! congratulations! - NO ONE will hold you to account for your bad acts that aren't caught, least of all a God that doesn't exist. You can steal with impunity, if you're skilled enough, and there will be no consequences. You can even kill someone with impunity if you're skilled and lucky enough - no consequences! You can lie, cheat, whatever you want, as long as you can cover it up, and you've gotten away with it. IMO, that is a very comforting thought.

I don't think it's true Rian - as far as I know, if someone murders another, whether he's religious or not, he wouldn't like it, and will not be comforted IMO from the lack of God, that may punish him.
I don't think liars would have regrets after lying, of what God will do to them.. or thieves. But even if they do - they aren't so many thieves or murderers as many as religious, and I do agree with Chrys when he says religion comforts - simply because you know there's someone that protects you. Somewhere.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

thanks rad

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

How did I misrepresent you?

I'll just repeat again what I said:

Originally Posted by Rian

(preemptive note - I am NOT saying atheists are immoral creeps! Far from it! IMO, many atheists are kinder people than many Christians!! My only point here is that IMO, it can be COMFORTING to believe that God/god/gods who are righteous and holy and powerful and who care how we treat others don't exist when one considers the wrong things one has done. And I certainly hope we all acknowledge that we have done wrong things!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I don't think it's true Rian - as far as I know, if someone murders another, whether he's religious or not, he wouldn't like it ...

I totally agree!!! I never said he would like it! In fact, I've said on other threads that people do NOT like when they do wrong.

My only point was that IMO, it's a comforting thought to think that there is no final judgement for our wrong deeds. That's my opinion.

... and I do agree with Chrys when he says religion comforts - simply because you know there's someone that protects you. Somewhere.

Yes, that part is comforting. The judgement part, IMO, is NOT comforting. Do you think it is?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That was the scientific opinion of a genetics scientist who believes in evolution.

So I guess you infer that since I believe in evolution - I would believe what he says?

I never claimed Adam and Eve were 100% asian. Why is that even relevant? It's not.

I never claimed you did say that. I am saying that you can't get a white person from a couple who is 100% asian. If adam and even had the genetic code for EVERY race on earth - then that would be a possibility.

Science doesn't SHOW that people "developed dark skin" or that "skin color is an evolutionary change". Science ASSUMES it, as an educated guess. At least if you're talking about beneficial mutations. If you're talking about how already existing skin colors were selected for because of the environment, I have no issue with that.

An EDUCATED guess -you got that right, but it is based on SCIENTIFIC evidence. Whereas all you seem to be throwing out is unsupported hypothesis which have no scientific backing. That is a big difference.

What science does show is that at least two genes are responsible for skin color, and that skin color is a function of how much melanin is present. And that two medium-skinned people can produce kids with anything from white to black skin and every shade in between. THAT is what science shows. THAT is directly observable in the present.

Hmmm - wow - you would think that if this was actually the case - that people wouldn't know what color babies they would have. However, I have not known any medium skinned people to have black babies or pure white babies (and I don't mean albino). But hey - if you have proof of this - I would love to see it.

I do think you did something wrong but I will PM you with what it is this time.

well that's fine - I'll have to see if I agree with you. There is nothing wrong with stating my opinion - even if you don't like it. Sorry.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by JD

Hmmm - wow - you would think that if this was actually the case - that people wouldn't know what color babies they would have. However, I have not known any medium skinned people to have black babies or pure white babies (and I don't mean albino). But hey - if you have proof of this - I would love to see it

as would the National Enquirer

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I totally agree!!! I never said he would like it! In fact, I've said on other threads that people do NOT like when they do wrong.

My only point was that IMO, it's a comforting thought to think that there is no final judgement for our wrong deeds. That's my opinion.

And erroneous opinion as far as I'm concerned as it pertains to me. I'm more concerned with life as it is - not what will happen when I'm dead. The after life is a non-issue. I can turn around your opinion about atheists and say that christians - by doing good - are just trying to buy themselves into heaven.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So then - basically you are saying that adam and eve had no mutations. I just don't buy it. See - as I have said - a person can do anything to fit their belief to make sure the bible doesn't get contradicted.

ANY person can do ANYTHING to believe what they WANT to believe.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

ANY person can do ANYTHING to believe what they WANT to believe.

yes - but some people look for more things than just belief to base their ideas on.

[Rían]

I know that I CERTAINLY do!

Belief without thought or supporting evidence is an unworthy action for anyone to take.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I know that I CERTAINLY do!

Belief without thought or supporting evidence is an unworthy action for anyone to take.

Well I would leave out the process of thought there. A person can think all they want about something - doesn't make their belief valid without supporting evidence.

[Rían]

By "thought", I mean thinking about and considering the evidence. Evidence doesn't speak for itself, IMO - we need to think about it, and what conclusions we can draw from it, and what conclusions we CAN'T draw from it, etc.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

By "thought", I mean thinking about and considering the evidence. Evidence doesn't speak for itself, IMO - we need to think about it, and what conclusions we can draw from it, and what conclusions we CAN'T draw from it, etc.

Okay - so now you say we need evidence and we need to think about it. So what evidence is there for for genesis? What evidence is there for god? What evidence is there for the miracles in the bible? Now remember - I'm not talking about belief here - I'm talking about evidence. Archeological evidence or scientific evidence.

The bible is not evidence of anything. The bible gives some historical background on some events - but that is actually because it's backed up by OTHER evidence. Not that it stands on it's own. And actually - some archeology disputes things in the bible.

[Rían]

Here is a link to the evidence I see and my analysis of it:

link

We can't measure a rock and determine if God exists or not, but IMO, the question is a very important one, and we have to make judgements based on the type of evidence we DO have. Please note that I say "evidence" and not "proof". Obviously the question of God's existence can't be "proved" either way! And if we think that a god exists, we can't "prove" which description, if any, fits.

But IMO, the question is important enough to make a decision about, based on whatever evidence we DO have, and personally, I think the existing evidence strongly points to the God as described in the Bible being the one that actually exists. And personally, I think the case for atheism and agnosticism (as I have heard them presented) is comparatively weak.