My friend said she was asked the question about faith and science in her

[MattD]

You would have thought that by age 20 I would have given up the baby bottle...

But we go from teat to teat to teat for our entire lives :-D

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[suwaifo]

It's so easy to join the anti-religion bandwagon. Unbelievable.

This in no way is proof for God's existence, but we can begin with this: why does the feeling of guilt exist? Does it exist? For me it does, and I think it's safe to assume that it does for everyone else. Maybe I'm wrong and we might need science to perform the scientific method and create statistics to "prove" me right.

 

[Thewrongstuff]

It's so easy to join the anti-religion bandwagon. Unbelievable.

This in no way is proof for God's existence, but we can begin with this: why does the feeling of guilt exist? Does it exist? For me it does, and I think it's safe to assume that it does for everyone else. Maybe I'm wrong and we might need science to perform the scientific method and create statistics to "prove" me right.

Guilt is a prolonged extension of temporary worries. Tell me, what are the most common types of guilt that you feel?

 

[brianmartin]

The "intelligent design, irreducible complexity" argument seems entirely insufficient to me. I'm enamored much more by some form of the anthropic principle--that a universe which gave rise to beings capable of postulating a creator, probably had a creator. Still don't buy that one, although at least it's compelling.

 

[Thewrongstuff]

The "intelligent design, irreducible complexity" argument seems entirely insufficient to me. I'm enamored much more by some form of the anthropic principle--that a universe which gave rise to beings capable of postulating a creator, probably had a creator. Still don't buy that one, although at least it's compelling.

What if there is an endless cycle of beginning and end. I feel like our universe will go out the same way it came in...inversed Something along the lines of a big shrink

 

[axlaxl1]

It's so easy to join the anti-religion bandwagon. Unbelievable.

This in no way is proof for God's existence, but we can begin with this: why does the feeling of guilt exist? Does it exist? For me it does, and I think it's safe to assume that it does for everyone else. Maybe I'm wrong and we might need science to perform the scientific method and create statistics to "prove" me right.

First, I want to thank you suwaifo for defending me. However, I have taking many courses on this exact subject and the feeling of guilt is actually contrived by non other than duh duh duh duh... Religion. Think about all the things societies do both past and present that is of a cultural phenomenon. Sex before marriage is NO NO NO NO. But the first time we do it we feel guilty. Then, we break with the church, say forget this nonsense we gonna do it when we want, and the guilty feeling subsides to the point of nonexsistance. Now, the argument here is the guilt was instilled, well what made the desire to turn the guilt off and relearn our feelings to the way we need them to be? Ah hahhhh. That is the question

 

[axlaxl1]

Guilt is a prolonged extension of temporary worries. Tell me, what are the most common types of guilt that you feel?

I have one that comes out every single time. Funny thing is no one really ever said not to do it per se and or indirectly.

 

[suwaifo]

Guilt is a prolonged extension of temporary worries. Tell me, what are the most common types of guilt that you feel?

Alright alright, it was my fault for not defining what I meant by guilt. MY BAD DAWG! Anyways, my definition of guilt would be just as pretentious but I'll put it in layman's terms. Feeling bad for doing something you shouldn't have done.

Lying typically creates guilt. Not that I do so myself, I once did, but I also was once a fool. I'm not going to lie, I probably still do, but I'm only human . The point is, I know it's wrong. I would feel guilty for lying.

Let's see. "Guilt is a prolonged extension of temporary worries." What's a temporary worry? Prolonged extension sounds pretty redundant. An extension can be prolonged? That's one heck of a worry. Explain to me what guilt would be from your definition with a lying scenario. But let me guess first: it's worrying that you might get caught. That's what I'm assuming you might say but by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Thewrongstuff]

First, I want to thank you suwaifo for defending me. However, I have taking many courses on this exact subject and the feeling of guilt is actually contrived by non other than duh duh duh duh... Religion. Think about all the things societies do both past and present that is of a cultural phenomenon. Sex before marriage is NO NO NO NO. But the first time we do it we feel guilty. Then, we break with the church, say forget this nonsense we gonna do it when we want, and the guilty feeling subsides to the point of nonexsistance. Now, the argument here is the guilt was instilled, well what made the desire to turn the guilt off and relearn our feelings to the way we need them to be? Ah hahhhh. That is the question

You have just generalized the entire feeling of guilt as a consequence of religion by providing 1 example of guilt.

You don't hold the door for a granny exiting the building and you watch as she struggles with it. You are worried about her temporary suffering, what does the church have to do with this? Or does the act of sex come first and eliminate guilt thereafter in all situations

Alright alright, it was my fault for not defining what I meant by guilt. MY BAD DAWG! Anyways, my definition of guilt would be just as pretentious but I'll put it in layman's terms. Feeling bad for doing something you shouldn't have done.

Lying typically creates guilt. Not that I do so myself, I once did, but I also was once a fool. I'm not going to lie, I probably still do, but I'm only human . The point is, I know it's wrong. I would feel guilty for lying.

Let's see. "Guilt is a prolonged extension of temporary worries." What's a temporary worry? Prolonged extension sounds pretty redundant. An extension can be prolonged? That's one heck of a worry. Explain to me what guilt would be from your definition with a lying scenario. But let me guess first: it's worrying that you might get caught. That's what I'm assuming you might say but by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

Good point, I was having trouble with that statement, what I meant for it to mean is that guilt was an "in the moment" type of expansion of an often negligible issue.

 

[suwaifo]

First, I want to thank you suwaifo for defending me. However, I have taking many courses on this exact subject and the feeling of guilt is actually contrived by non other than duh duh duh duh... Religion. Think about all the things societies do both past and present that is of a cultural phenomenon. Sex before marriage is NO NO NO NO. But the first time we do it we feel guilty. Then, we break with the church, say forget this nonsense we gonna do it when we want, and the guilty feeling subsides to the point of nonexsistance. Now, the argument here is the guilt was instilled, well what made the desire to turn the guilt off and relearn our feelings to the way we need them to be? Ah hahhhh. That is the question

Yeah, I'm no expert on this, but I might be on to something. I'm just taking a broad approach.

 

[MattD]

Don't tase me bro

 

[axlaxl1]

You have just generalized the entire feeling of guilt as a consequence of religion by providing 1 example of guilt.

You don't hold the door for a granny exiting the building and you watch as she struggles with it. You are worried about her temporary suffering, what does the church have to do with this? Or does the act of sex come first and eliminate guilt thereafter in all situations

Yea, I don't feel guilty though, I just feel like a lazy *****.


Even suicide is more likely to be done by a non catholic because of the phenomenon of guilt. The most attributed reasoning is because it is forbiden by the vatican.

 

[suwaifo]

You have just generalized the entire feeling of guilt as a consequence of religion by providing 1 example of guilt.

You don't hold the door for a granny exiting the building and you watch as she struggles with it. You are worried about her temporary suffering, what does the church have to do with this? Or does the act of sex come first and eliminate guilt thereafter in all situations



Good point, I was having trouble with that statement. I guess I could have said unecessary extention of a worry

You're missing the entire point of his entry. It's not about religion. It's about the origin of guilt and whether it's instilled or not.

 

[taponthecloud]

So can you at least give us a clue to the secret of life then? After all, you were enlightened by the "theoretical physicists," right?

Well I have no clue what the secret of life is...

If you have faith in the theory of natural selection (and the evidence in support of it) then you will understand that complex things can only arise through slow and gradual modifications from simpler things. If god exists then this entity must not only be highly complex but also irreducibly so, that is god is an all or nothing phenomenon which cannot be achieved through intermediate forms. Finally this god must exist before (precede) all things that evolved through natural selection... not only is this highly improbable, but also superfluous.

 

[axlaxl1]

Don't tase me bro

LOL, on that note, I am out. Peace

 

[MattD]

Well I have no clue what the secret of life is...

If you have faith in the theory of natural selection (and the evidence in support of it) then you will understand that complex things can only arise through slow and gradual modifications from simpler things. If god exists then this entity must not only be highly complex but also irreducibly so, that is god is an all or nothing phenomenon which cannot be achieved through intermediate forms. Finally this god must exist before (precede) all things that evolved through natural selection... not only is this highly improbable, but also superfluous.

Natural selection does not claim that any complex thing has to arise through mods to simpler things. It states that life on this planet arose that way. It only applies to biological constructs that must compete for sustenance. Therefore god did not have to evolve from an ape-god, or however you want to anthropomorphologize it.


On a side note, how does everyone feel about the role of medicine in undermining natural selection in humans? Does anyone feel that medicine causes the proliferation of undesirable traits, and could eventually lead to the downfall of our species?

 

[suwaifo]

Well I have no clue what the secret of life is...

If you have faith in the theory of natural selection (and the evidence in support of it) then you will understand that complex things can only arise through slow and gradual modifications from simpler things. If god exists then this entity must not only be highly complex but also irreducibly so, that is god is an all or nothing phenomenon which cannot be achieved through intermediate forms. Finally this god must exist before (precede) all things that evolved through natural selection... not only is this highly improbable, but also superfluous.

If you have faith in God, then you will understand.

Micro-evolution exists, I mean that's just genetics. But they always tell us in class about the theories of how mitochondria and chloroplasts first became parts of cells. Am I the only one who thinks many of the theories are kind of big assumptions for science? Correlation doesn't imply causation.

 

[taponthecloud]

Ah yea, and the fact he headed the HUMAN GENOME PROJECT. What more credentials do you need? For me I am telling you the more I learn about complex systems and sciences I think to myself, wow that was someone had to of designed it this way.

I know who Francis Collins is... but do you? Are you aware that since writing his book, Collins has conceded that there is no evidence for god and that he merely believes in the possibility of god's existence? By the way, I agree with this point. Scientists should believe in the possibility of everything.

 

[Thewrongstuff]

Yea, I don't feel guilty though, I just feel like a lazy *****.


Even suicide is more likely to be done by a non catholic because of the phenomenon of guilt. The most attributed reasoning is because it is forbiden by the vatican.

Yes that statement has some merit indeed

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p001078.html

 

[suwaifo]

Natural selection does not claim that any complex thing has to arise through mods to simpler things. It states that life on this planet arose that way. It only applies to biological constructs that must compete for sustenance. Therefore god did not have to evolve from an ape-god, or however you want to anthropomorphologize it.


On a side note, how does everyone feel about the role of medicine in undermining natural selection in humans? Does anyone feel that medicine causes the proliferation of undesirable traits, and could eventually lead to the downfall of our species?

I also thought about that. Many things we do technically undermine human progress. Humans obviously have a power to be able to reason and I think it's ironic that many things we do are countering what natural selection implies. It makes sense to me though.

 

[taponthecloud]

If you have faith in God, then you will understand.

Micro-evolution exists, I mean that's just genetics. But they always tell us in class about the theories of how mitochondria and chloroplasts first became parts of cells. Am I the only one who thinks many of the theories are kind of big assumptions for science? Correlation doesn't imply causation.

You're kidding right?...I suggest you go re-learn the meaning of "theory."

 

[taponthecloud]

Natural selection does not claim that any complex thing has to arise through mods to simpler things. It states that life on this planet arose that way. It only applies to biological constructs that must compete for sustenance. Therefore god did not have to evolve from an ape-god, or however you want to anthropomorphologize it.

Thanks for re-iterating my point.

EDIT: ps. it's "anthropomorphize"

 

[suwaifo]

You're kidding right?...I suggest you go re-learn the meaning of "theory."

I know what it means. I guess it's my fault for not stating that I already know what it means, but I'd assume that anyone browsing a premed forum knows what a theory is. My mistake. I also figured that you would see beyond what I said. That's science for ya.

I only said that because most people who aren't science majors or aren't getting a quality education assume that a theory is pretty much fact. What I'm saying is, scientists should stop being pricks and should stop assuming people know what a theory is because for those who could care less about what it means, it can be very misleading, especially with all the power that is associated with a scientist and with the power associated with the words theory and doctor and what not.

 

[Thewrongstuff]

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?
- Epicurus

 

[suwaifo]

And yeah, I could care less about how mitochondrias exist. What I do care about is why this research is being funded, but I don't know much about scientific finance. Anyone wanna tell me?

 

[taponthecloud]

I only said that because most people who aren't science majors or aren't getting a quality education assume that a theory is pretty much fact. What I'm saying is, scientists should stop being pricks and should stop assuming people know what a theory is because for those who could care less about what it means, it can be very misleading, especially with all the power that is associated with a scientist and with the power associated with the words theory and doctor and what not.

Well this is a pre-medical forum... and I was talking directly to you; I was not assuming that someone else (a non-scientist) was reading it. Therefore I assume that you (a pre-med, going by your status)should at least understand what "theory" means. Also, there is nothing "misleading" about the definition of theory; in fact, it's quite simple to understand, even for a layman.

 

[suwaifo]

Well this is a pre-medical forum... and I was talking directly to you; I was not assuming that someone else (a non-scientist) was reading it. Therefore I assume that you (a pre-med, going by your status)should at least understand what "theory" means. Also, there is nothing "misleading" about the definition of theory; in fact, it's quite simple to understand, even for a layman.

Yeah, there's nothing misleading about the denotation. Too bad words have connotations too.

 

[ghostfoot]

Well I have no clue what the secret of life is...

If you have faith in the theory of natural selection (and the evidence in support of it) then you will understand that complex things can only arise through slow and gradual modifications from simpler things. If god exists then this entity must not only be highly complex but also irreducibly so, that is god is an all or nothing phenomenon which cannot be achieved through intermediate forms. Finally this god must exist before (precede) all things that evolved through natural selection... not only is this highly improbable, but also superfluous.

When have simpler things become more complex through natural selection? Never!

Intelligent design people (and everyone else) can easily observe natural selection. Natural selection can only "select" from the available genotypes -- it can never create new genotypes.

Thus, natural selection (a readily observable phenomena) could never be responsible for increased complexity.

What processes lead to NEW functions?

 

[taponthecloud]

When have simpler things become more complex through natural selection? Never!

Intelligent design people (and everyone else) can easily observe natural selection. Natural selection can only "select" from the available genotypes -- it can never create new genotypes.

Thus, natural selection (a readily observable phenomena) could never be responsible for increased complexity.

What processes lead to NEW functions?

You should read my post more carefully. I clearly implied that complex forms arise from simpler forms through intermediates by the process of natural selection.

 

[suwaifo]

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?
- Epicurus

Who ever said it was God's duty to do such acts? - me.

 

[ghostfoot]

You should read my post more carefully. I clearly implied that complex forms arise from simpler forms through intermediates by the process of natural selection.

What does "natural selection" mean to you? How could natural selection possibly increase complexity?

Did the "simpler forms" contain all of the genetic information that we see today? If so, where did all of the genetic information come from? If not, where did all of the genetic information come from (how can natural selection create all of the genes necessary for even the most simple organism)?

I think that you misunderstand the concept of natural selection. It selects from genes that already exist; it can't create new genes.

 

[MattD]

When have simpler things become more complex through natural selection? Never!

Intelligent design people (and everyone else) can easily observe natural selection. Natural selection can only "select" from the available genotypes -- it can never create new genotypes.

Thus, natural selection (a readily observable phenomena) could never be responsible for increased complexity.

What processes lead to NEW functions?

Random mutation leads to new genotypes. natural selection leads to the preferential spread of these genotypes. Do i really need to request that you take a bio course before continuing to participate in this conversation?

 

[suwaifo]

What does "natural selection" mean to you? How could natural selection possibly increase complexity?

Did the "simpler forms" contain all of the genetic information that we see today? If so, where did all of the genetic information come from? If not, where did all of the genetic information come from (how can natural selection create all of the genes necessary for even the most simple organism)?

I think that you misunderstand the concept of natural selection. It selects from genes that already exist; it can't create new genes.

Another example of the power of connotation.

 

[taponthecloud]

What does "natural selection" mean to you? How could natural selection possibly increase complexity?

Did the "simpler forms" contain all of the genetic information that we see today? If so, where did all of the genetic information come from? If not, where did all of the genetic information come from (how can natural selection create all of the genes necessary for even the most simple organism)?

I think that you misunderstand the concept of natural selection. It selects from genes that already exist; it can't create new genes.

I can't believe I'm even answering this question on a pre-med forum...

First off, it doesn't matter what natural selection means to me. There is only one meaning of natural selection. If you don't know it, please go look it up.

Secondly, have you ever heard of "mutation?"

EDIT: This is a sad day in SDN history...

 

[suwaifo]

Random mutation leads to new genotypes. natural selection leads to the preferential spread of these genotypes. Do i really need to request that you take a bio course before continuing to participate in this conversation?

Do I really need to request that you take a course in grammar? My grammar may not be perfect, but at least I know where capitalizations go.

 

[taponthecloud]

Do I really need to request that you take a course in grammar? My grammar may not be perfect, but at least I know where capitalizations go.

Please don't try to change the subject....In defense of MattD, this is not a discussion about grammar. Thank you.

 

[ghostfoot]

Random mutation leads to new genotypes. natural selection leads to the preferential spread of these genotypes. Do i really need to request that you take a bio course before continuing to participate in this conversation?

Example?

Mutations lead to disease.

Should we irradiate your testes so that your children can be more advanced life forms.

 

[suwaifo]

I can't believe I'm even answering this question on a pre-med forum...

First off, it doesn't matter what natural selection means to me. There is only one meaning of natural selection. If you don't know it, please go look it up.

Secondly, have you ever heard of "mutation?"

Don't mean to get philosophical here, but who's to determine what is actually normal? What if everyone is a mutation and there is only 1 normal person?
Anyways, why does the term natural selection exist then? Why not emphasize mutation? Instead of making all this pretentious scientific diction, why not just say, "shiza happens" and sometimes it helps? A large part of evolution is also about geographic and reproductive isolation and what not. To credit evolution with mutation alone is just to make a farce out of your beloved science and a waste of my time spent in class when I could be asleep.

 

[ghostfoot]

I can't believe I'm even answering this question on a pre-med forum...

First off, it doesn't matter what natural selection means to me. There is only one meaning of natural selection. If you don't know it, please go look it up.

Secondly, have you ever heard of "mutation?"

EDIT: This is a sad day in SDN history...

Mutations denegrate the genetic code. Do you really think that mutations lead to the creation of DNA and subsequent creation of the genes necessary for vision, hearing,...

MUTATIONS created life.

 

[taponthecloud]

Don't mean to get philosophical here, but who's to determine what is actually normal? What if everyone is a mutation and there is only 1 normal person?
Anyways, why does the term natural selection exist then? Why not emphasize mutation? Instead of making all this pretentious scientific diction, why not just say, "shiza happens" and sometimes it helps? A large part of evolution is also about geographic and reproductive isolation and what not. To credit evolution with mutation alone is just to make a farce out of your beloved science and a waste of my time spent in class when I could be asleep.

I don't know what's so pretentiously scientific about the term "natural selection."

 

[suwaifo]

I don't know what's so pretentiously scientific about the term "natural selection."

Hitler's speeches used words like species to be pretentious and look what happened with them.

 

[taponthecloud]

Mutations denegrate the genetic code. Do you really think that mutations lead to the creation of DNA and subsequent creation of the genes necessary for vision, hearing,...

MUTATIONS created life.

It's really difficult to have an intelligent discussion with someone who has obviously never taken a genetics course.. (or someone who definitely should retake a genetics course)

 

[taponthecloud]

Hitler's speeches used words like species to be pretentious and look what happened with them.

How does your mind come up with such an outrageous non-sequitur so quickly? It's amazing!

 

[suwaifo]

How does your mind come up with such an outrageous non-sequitur so quickly? It's amazing!

It's late and I'm eating coo-coo puffs

 

[ghostfoot]

It's really difficult to have an intelligent discussion with someone who has obviously never taken a genetics course.. (or someone who definitely should retake a genetics course)

Example of a mutation creating new functions? Exactly.

If mutations + natural selection leads to increased function, let's irradiate everyone's testes and ovaries.

Give a concrete example instead of telling me what classes I need to take.

 

[Thewrongstuff]

Hitler's speeches used words like species to be pretentious and look what happened with them.

Reductio ad Hitlerum

You fail.

---

And Mr Ghostfoot, keep in mind genetic mutations are not the only things which scientists view as being responsible for evolution. Genetic drift comes into play, along with natural selection.

 

[taponthecloud]

Example of a mutation creating new functions? Exactly.

If mutations + natural selection leads to increased function, let's irradiate everyone's testes and ovaries.

Give a concrete example instead of telling me what classes I need to take.

Well I can do both. However, I'd rather just do the latter at this point.

 

[suwaifo]

Reductio ad Hitlerum

You fail.

Actually, I was referring to him making the postwar Germans rowdy, but ok. Yeah, I'll admit I was wrong if I implied that Hitler made natural selection pretentious. I guess what I meant to say was pretentious diction can be devastating if used correctly.

Now on to the main point.

Coo-coo puffs make your milk very chocolatey and it is very desirable.

 

[Thewrongstuff]

Example of a mutation creating new functions? Exactly.

If mutations + natural selection leads to increased function, let's irradiate everyone's testes and ovaries.

Give a concrete example instead of telling me what classes I need to take.

There are various types of mutations. Gene/DNA inversion, deletion, insertion, translocation etc... Most of these events create useless results, even detrimental.

However, these anomoalies can in fact lead to positive changes. See
http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

Actually, I was referring to him making the postwar Germans rowdy, but ok. Yeah, I'll admit I was wrong if I implied that Hitler made natural selection pretentious. I guess what I meant to say was pretentious diction can be devastating if used correctly.

Now on to the main point.

Coo-coo puffs make your milk very chocolatey and it is very desirable.

LOLMAO.

 

[ghostfoot]

And Mr Ghostfoot, keep in mind genetic mutations are not the only things which scientists view as being responsible for evolution. Genetic drift comes into play, along with natural selection.

Oh, I absolutely appreciate "genetic drift"! Genetic drift is readily observable, BUT it never produces more genes. Right?

Natural selection and genetic drift are observed. Mutations are also observed. What's never been seen is the development of any new function.