[Serious]Why are you not a believer of the existence of God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

Hey, until I had such first hand experiences... I too didn't necessarily believe in them either. It's one of those things... but over the last 30+ years... for me, the personal evidence is a little too much for me to ignore. And in the case of the demon... I wasn't alone at the time, there were about a half-dozen of us present at the sighting and we all saw it. Then again, I will admit that it may not have been a demon specifically as it didn't seem malevolent, and it may have just been a spirit... the reason I think it was a demon was the eyes... but still, that doesn't negate that I think they possibly exist.

-tg

---

I have absolutely no doubt that you indeed saw things. However, don't you think its a bit presumptuous to say its a demon ? You said because of the eyes. I'm now assuming it had fierce eyes like a nocturnal predator but that doesn't mean that what you saw is the same mythical creature that the bible talks about.

On the other hand, perhaps it was a demon. The guys who wrote the bible probably saw the same thing and given their limited bronze age understanding, they gave it all kinds of fantastic capabilities like the ability to possess people or pigs, perhaps even the ability to talk. But did they really see all these things. All they saw was something they couldn't explain and because it scared them, they allowed their imaginations to run wild. Its something I'd expect from ignorant bronze age shepherds.

You guys saw something. It could have been a never before seen animal. It could have really been some kind of apparition with exotic qualities. But I think you need to be careful of letting your passions run too wild. I think its better to stick with what you observed and avoid making assumptions based solely on emotions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

You're too modern. If you were a bit old school, you'd have had plenty of those experiences. I think peyote would get you there.

It's kind of odd that I would make a drug reference, considering that the hardest drug I've ever done was aspirin, but when I get old and decrepit, I might try some mushrooms or something. It's kind of like the point behind Demolition Derby: Once the machine has worn down to the point that it isn't really all that functional or reliable anymore, you might as well have some fun with wrecking it the rest of the way.

---

Funny you should mention that. I remember telling people who were trying to convince me that the bible actually speaks truth, that it reads like something written by a really stoned individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dclamp

Not necessarily true. You knew this thread existed when looking through the CC forum. Its more accurate to say that you didn't know if we were dead or alive before opening this thread.

---

Actually, he's still not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5ms?

... and I believe in rabbits

---

I don't... never seen one... Seen elephants, so yes I believe in those... rabbits... not so much

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dclamp

Not necessarily true. You knew this thread existed when looking through the CC forum. Its more accurate to say that you didn't know if we were dead or alive before opening this thread.

---

Ah, but the link being there doesn't necessitate the existence of the thread... There have been times when the link purported the existence of a thread, until the moment the thread is observed only to find out that the thread really didn't exist after all.

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spoo

The proto-chicken vs real-chicken issue aside for the moment,
my way of thinking leads me to believe that, in the case of sexual
reproduction, a male and female life-form must be present to create
a fertalized egg.

Hence, the chicken comes first.

---

How did a Mule come to be, then? A horse mated with a donkey. Neither of which is a mule, and then a mule is born. With the way of thinking you stated above, that isn't possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

Ah, but the link being there doesn't necessitate the existence of the thread... There have been times when the link purported the existence of a thread, until the moment the thread is observed only to find out that the thread really didn't exist after all.

-tg

---

Touché.

Quote:

---

According to Schrödinger, this thread did not exist until I opened it and interacted with it.

---

Actually it both existed and didn't exist. Sorry to correct you but I was feline a bit pedantic.

Come to think of it, if we apply the Schroedingers paradox to God then that means he both exists and doesn't exist (since none of us has directly observed him lately). So that means we're all correct and we can have a great big love in.

On the chick and egg thing, there were a bunch of scientists who recently made a compelling argument for it being the egg. My suggestion that it was laid by a dinosaur was flippant so let's remove silly semantiscs from the debate and ask the question "which came first, a chicken or a chicken egg?". Well, the species of an organism is defined by it's DNA. It's DNA is decided at the point that the DNA of it's parents combines and it doesn't change thereafter. We get mutations (evolutions) between the generations but those happen at the point of conception, which is before an egg get's laid. So it's possible for two proto-chickens to procreate and produce a chicken egg but a proto-chicken egg can only give birth to a proto-chicken, not an actual chicken. Therefore the egg came first.

I quite like that argument.

Good point ... thinking about it a little more, that might explain the occasional server issues we see here but only by some of the members...

-tg

You all can't decide if you want to debate God or chicken eggs. It's really amusing.

If you look at the posts here as if they were coming from a single entity it would almost be like the flailing-out-of-control-arms of a new born as they try to control fine-motor-skills in that first month.

Come to think of it - maybe life comes from chit chat posts...

Well - maybe only the [serious] ones :)

Funky

Re ,,,

Quote:

---

So it's possible for two proto-chickens to procreate and produce a chicken egg but a proto-chicken egg can only give birth to a proto-chicken, not an actual chicken. Therefore the egg came first.

---

I'm still having trouble with this logic, especially, with this lead-in ,,,

Quote:

---

It's DNA is decided at the point that the DNA of it's parents combines and it doesn't change thereafter. We get mutations ,,,

---

The two proto-chickens produce a proto-chicken egg ,,, agreed ,,
,,, but as initial embryo cell divides, it could in fact mutate, either
by some copying error or by the influence of a cosmic ray, with the
net result being a chicken. Hence, the sequence of events is

1. two funky chickens
2. funky egg
3. mutation
4. chicken.

The funky chickens came first.

Two proto-chickens don't have to produce a proto-chicken egg. Each parent supplies roughly half of the total genome (there could be more contribution from one than the other as it is somewhat random), but the genomes in the gametes from both parents are incomplete on their own, and have to combine with other gametes to have the full set of DNA for a cell. Therefore, the gametes of the proto-chicken are not proto-chicken themselves, as they are nothing much until they combine with the gametes from the other parent. That combination is one of the bigger places where change can come in. Subsequent mutation is much less likely. Consider that the fertilized egg would be one cell with one genome. That cell would divide to produce two cells with two copies of the same genome. If one of those two had a mutation then the egg would have two cells, one with the mutation and one without. So, the new organism would not have the mutation, but only parts of it would. I would say that such a thing is likely to result in a non-viable offspring. Meanwhile, any mutation at the point of the parents gametes joining up would mean that ALL cells resulting from that would share the mutation.

Shaggy

Interesting.

Quote:

---

I would say that such a thing is likely to result in a non-viable offspring

---

I totally agree that such a result is possible .. indeed, it must have happened quite often.

But, I'm a little fuzzy about this ,,,

Quote:

---

Consider that the fertilized egg would be one cell with one genome. That cell would divide to produce two cells with two copies of the same genome. If one of those two had a mutation then the egg would have two cells, one with the mutation and one without. So, the new organism would not have the mutation, but only parts of it would.

---

Drilling down, you posit the following

1. One cell
2. It divides
3. Two cells
   
   • One has a mutation
   • The other does not

But, couldn't this alternative also happen?

1. One cell
2. It divides
3. Two cells
   
   • One has a mutation
   • The other also has the same mutation

My knowledge of genetics is nill, so, mine is truly just a question.

Similarly, my knowledge of probabilities is limited, but it seems to me
that, given that there were a gazillion such events, it could have
happened at least once ,, and then ,, voila ,, the chicken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

You all can't decide if you want to debate God or chicken eggs.

---

Actually, the implication of the direction taken in this thread is that the God debate is quite settled. All this talks about proto-chickens and gametes mutating are founded in the theory of evolution which is a theory that is usually rejected by God's cheerleaders. It is therefor implicit in the direction of this conversation that the guys don't subscribe to the belief that some whiny bronze age deity created life. That belief doesn't really leave any room for arguments about proto-chickens since God supposedly created every thing in its present and "fixed" state.

The odds of two cells each getting the exact same mutation is virtually zero, since there are millions of base pairs in the DNA and a mutation is what happens when one base pair is replaced by another. The odds of the same replacement happening at the same point in two cells at roughly the same time by coincidence is pretty much zero, but if there was a mechanism that caused the change in both cells at the same time then the odds are better. I don't know of any such mechanism, but I don't know that it doesn't exist, either (ok, technically I do know of such a mechanism, it's called a virus, but it's still very unlikely). However, if one cell does get the mutation, then every cell that arises from the division of that cell will also have the mutation. Therefore, the most likely point for the mutation that affects the whole organism is when the organism is only one cell.

Still, one mutation does not a chicken make, so the whole discussion is on very tenuous grounds. As long as we are talking chickens, then this is pretty much correct. If we are talking life in general, then your point of view is the one I would go with, because I am much more confident that life predated eggs than I am about whether or not we could identify a mutation that created a chicken.

Shaggy

Deal.
Let's go with "life predated eggs"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spoo

Let's go with "life predated eggs"

---

Well he does have a solid point. Eggs are only a small part of the more complicated mechanism of reproduction. There must be something first with a need to reproduce(Chicken) before there can be mechanisms to facilitate this need(eggs). Eggs coming before chickens is like training mechanics before inventing cars. There must be a need first.

Quote:

---

You all can't decide if you want to debate God or chicken eggs. It's really amusing.

---

:bigyello:Never underestimate the abillity of a CC thread to evolve beyond the intentions of it's creator.

Quote:

---

Actually, the implication of the direction taken in this thread is that the God debate is quite settled.

---

I'm not sure it has. An acceptance of evolution does not preclude the existence of a God. It does preclude the possibility of the classical Abrahamic God who created the world in it's current biological configuration but the concept of a "God" in general can be much wider than that. And I think there are posters who still doubt evolution, or at least uncontrolled evolution, they just haven't posted for the last page or two.

On the chicken and egg thing, it entirely depends on the question you ask. If the question is "which came first life or sexual reproduction" (which seems to be the definition we're heading towards now) then it's clearly life because we know that asexual existed before sexual reproduction. If it's "which came first, evolution or sexual reproduction" then it's evolution because asexual reproducton can occasionally cause mutation (which is really just another word for evolution) though this would only produce viable offspring in incredibly simple organisms. If it's "which came first a chicken or an egg" then it's an egg because non specific eggs clearly predated chickens. If it's "which came first the chicken or the chicken egg" then it's the chicken egg because evolution in complex organism happens between the generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

If it's "which came first the chicken or the chicken egg" then it's the chicken egg because evolution in complex organism happens between the generations.

---

Or so we thought until epigenetics began to be recognized....

Life is always a bit more complex than we think it is.

Quote:

---

Or so we thought until epigenetics began to be recognized

---

I'd never heard of that but just had a very quick skim of wikipedia and that would still cause evolution between the generations rather than during the life time wouldn't it? It causes the individual cells to morph during the life time but I wasn't clear that that morphing would cause an evolutionary change in the organism as opposed to the cell, for example, "deciding" it was going to be part of a big toe-nail.

I will say, though, it was a very quick skim and I probably missed the point entirely. I'll have a proper read tonight because it looked really very interesting.

Funky

We expect a full report tomorrow.

It's laregly emerging knowledge, so anything is kind of new. What is odd about it is that something can bind to the genome in the adult and thereby change the way proteins are expressed. This binding is effectively the same as a mutation that is passed on to the children for one or more generations, but which can also go away.

One possible place where this is showing up, which would be really disturbing, is the odd fact that the offspring of people who starved at times while growing up, appear to live longer than the offspring of people who were well fed while growing up. Wouldn't that be disturbing.

Shaggy

If memory serves, another possible example deals with identical twins.

I recall seeing a show (I think it was NOVA) about two women, where one
contracted cancer, the other did not. I believe the gist of the show had
to do with behavioral/environmental effects, which differed between the
two women.

EDIT

FWIW, memory served. Here is the show.

True, but that's a bit different as it all happened in one generation. If some difference between them caused the offspring of one to all get cancer, that would be more what I am talking about.

Interesting distinction.
I guess we'll have to wait for the 2050 season of NOVA to find out.