God botherers, I want your opinions.

[Alessandro17]

If god was real why is the war, people killing and raping children. How do you explain evolution if we are created in gods image?

 

As I have already said, what if evil (and sin) existed only in the human mind?

 

As to "raping" children, don't even get me started. In ancient Greece, it was OK. In some countries it is OK for girls to marry at the age of 9. In this country until a few years ago having sex with somebody aged 14 was OK (Now even I can't understand what is the age of consent). In the Netherlands the age of consent was 12, until 2002.

My counselling teacher, a woman I highly respected, used to say that pedophiles are the new scapegoats.

Don't get me wrong, children before puberty should be protected. But after that, I don't see why they can't have sex.

And before some smart ass says I am a pedophile, no, I am not. But sometimes I find it perfectly normal to find a 16 old sexually attractive, don't you?

[Maxintosh]

You might be misinterpreting their educational level.

Education as in knowledge level.

well this is only one theory

No it's not a theory. NASA confirmed it several years ago.

In this country until a few years ago having sex with somebody aged 14 was OK

That was the normal age of marriage in this country less than 100 years ago. Culture always moves the goal posts. It reminds me of the catholics; one day it's a 'sin' to work on Sunday, then it's OK to work on Sunday; one day it's a 'sin' to eat meat on Fridays, then it's OK to eat meat on Fridays, etc. etc...

but humans came as humans, we did not evolve from a single cell

Actually that is not true. There is now direct evidence that we evolved from a form of virus. I will search my papers and post more about it for you.

[Maxintosh]

The article in Discovery magazine from last year is quite long but here is a few excerpts from it;

 

Unintelligent Design - A monstrous discovery suggests that viruses, long regarded as lowly evolutionary latecomers, may have been the precursors of all life on Earth!

 

Few things on Earth are spookier than viruses. Their anatomy is equally dubious: loose, tiny envelopes of molecules—protein-coated DNA or RNA—that inhabit some netherworld between life and nonlife. The existence of viruses was first surmised just over a century ago by Dutch botanist Martinus Beijerinck. The sheer prevalence of viruses, however, is forcing a reconsideration about how these entities fit into the biological world. Researchers have characterized some 4,000 viruses, from several dozen distinct families. Yet that is a tiny fraction of the number of viruses on Earth. In the last two years, J. Craig Venter, the geneticist who decoded the human genome, has circled the globe and sampled ocean water every couple of hundred miles. Each time he dipped a container overboard, he discovered millions of new viruses—so many that he increased the number of known genes 10-fold. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface. The numbers are mind-boggling. If you put every virus particle on Earth together in a row, they would form a line 10 million light-years long. We aren't sure exactly what they all do, but they are part of our genetic identity. And yet they are where all life's creativity lies—its very origins.

 

Although we tend to think of viruses only in terms of the damage they do, a broader and more benign picture is emerging. Scientists estimate that they have discovered and documented less than 1 percent of all the living things on the planet. But for every organism in that unidentified 99 percent, at least 10 times as many unknown viruses are thought to exist—the vast majority of which are harmless to life and yet integral to it. The general public thinks genetic diversity is us and birds and plants and animals and that viruses are just HIV and the flu. But most of the genetic material on this planet is viruses. No question about it. They and their ability to interact with organisms and move genetic material around are the major players in driving speciation, in determining how organisms even become what they are.

 

Now, with the recent discovery of a truly monstrous virus, scientists are again casting about for how best to characterize these spectral life-forms. With DNA evidence as solid as that used to convict criminals, researchers can trace the shared genetic lineage of life's different branches back to the very base of the tree, some 4 billion years ago, when the interaction between primordial bacteria and viruses culminated in the "mother cell," the common ancestor of all life on Earth. Although the remoteness and complexity of those events makes them difficult to piece together, viruses like Mimi are emerging as the key players in the picture. We have been looking for our designer in all the wrong places. It seems we owe our existence to viruses, the least of semiliving forms, and about the only thing they have in common with any sort of theological prime mover is their omnipresence and invisibility. Once again, viruses have altered the way that we view them and, by extension, ourselves. As it turns out, they are not the little breakaway shards of our biology—we are, of theirs.

 

Mankind, in its arrogance, seems to think that it always has all the answers. History has a long record of these events going back to before when people thought that the world was flat. Luckily for us we are also creatures that continue to search for answers, and in that search, often times reveal just how little we know. We discover new things everyday that teach us what we never could have imagined about this giant jigsaw puzzle called life.

[danerd100]

Actually that is not true. There is now direct evidence that we evolved from a form of virus. I will search my papers and post more about it for you.

 

Actually, we do not yet know if a virus is living or non-living, how could we evolve from something that is not living

 

If you do not believe me on this, read here

[QuietOC]

It seems we owe our existence to viruses, the least of semiliving forms, and about the only thing they have in common with any sort of theological prime mover is their omnipresence and invisibility.

I owe my existence to alegebra and calculus and probably some specific level of hormones in one or both of my parents on a certain day. We cannot credit life to viruses. These so-called science journals sometimes seem to be more about worshipping their supposed lack of God. It is like they are haunted by some childish ideas about God that they can't let go of.

[Maxintosh]

we do not yet know if a virus is living or non-living

First of all wikipedia is not known for its accuracy. Pretty much anyone can enter and write something in it. Second of all that article is so old that it doesn't even mention anything about the new strain discovered, which is so important in the scope of things that they literally qualify it for a new domain in the tree of life. Thirdly viruses are not "living or non-living", they are both types. It needs to be mentioned that 'life' and 'living' are two different things. They are words used by the common man, not by geneticist, biologists or virologist. The British virologist Norman Pirie wrote "Now, however, systems are being discovered and studied which are neither obviously living nor obviously dead, and it is necessary to define these words or else give up using them and coin others." A 'virus' is not one thing. There are several dozen distinct families. The newest strain discovered is a creature "so bizarre," as The London Telegraph described it, "and unlike anything else ever seen by scientists".

 

These so-called science journals sometimes seem to be more about worshipping their supposed lack of God.

LOL Hold tight onto your closed mindedness QuietOC Scientists estimate that they have discovered and documented less than 1 percent of all the living things on the planet, yet you, in your infinite wisdom, seem to know what they will find down the road. This so-called "science journal" as you put it was only writing about this new discovery. They in no way put any slant on it. This discovery has also been reviewed by the Department of Parasite and Virus Genomics, The Institute for Genomic Research, The Department of Microbiology and Tropical Medicine, The Structural and Genomics Information laboratory, The Sloan-Kettering Institute, The Human Frontier Science Program, and The National Academy of Sciences of the United States, just to name a few, but I guess you know more than all of them huh? So you hold tight onto your bias and closed-mindedness QuietOC, and let the rest of the world learn from these remarkable new discoveries while your "the world is flat" mentality keeps you in the rear view mirror. LOL

 

Here are some other historic quotes from other closed-minded people:

 

"The earth is of a rectangular shaped object." (Ezekial 7:2, Revelation 7.1)

 

"The earth experienced day and night before the sun existed." (Genesis 1:4-5)

 

"Stars can fall to the earth without destoying it." (Revelation 7.1)

 

"There is a mountaintop from which one can view the entire surface of the earth." (Luke: 4:5)

 

"The day can be lengthened by making the sun stand still." (Joshua 10:12-13)

 

 

Isn't science wonderful?

[socal swimmer]

...

 

^{[citation needed]}

 

 

that sounds very interesting, but it is unlike anything i have ever heard before. Having taken AP Biology, i was of the understanding that viruses were fundementally different from cells, and therefore probably not living. Do you have any more links on the discovery article you posted, and the other stuff?

 

credible sources only, of course.

 

 

I'm not doubting you, but i want to be able to argue this effectively if i tell anyone. Also, i want to understand it better.

[Maxintosh]

it is unlike anything i have ever heard before.

What a coincidence, that's what all of the top geneticist, biologists and virologist said about this new discovery too

 

Here's a thought, maybe that's why they are so excited about this new type of virus discovered. It changes everything

 

i was of the understanding that viruses were fundementally different from cells

Viruses do not have cell membranes, as bacteria do, however this new strain is unlike any other ever found before and can actually mimic a bacterium. It is so much more genetically complex than all previously known viruses, not to mention a number of bacteria, that it has called for a dramatic redrawing of the tree of life. Didier Raoult, one of the leaders of the research team at the Mediterranean University in Marseille, France said "This thing shows that some viruses are organisms that have an ancestor that was much more complex than they are now". This is the first virus that actually has genes for such things as the translation of proteins, DNA repair enzymes, and other types of protein. It makes the boundary between viruses and complex bacteria very blurred. It does make sense that RNA would have evolved before DNA and interacted with amino acids. The evidence for this is based on the fact that the same 20 amino acids are found throughout the universe.

 

Do you have any more links on the discovery article you posted

There might be something on their website but the best way to learn about it would be to go directly to the library and pick up the issue from last year. I would think that since the term 'virus' is one of the most used search terms, that it would be hard to sift through all of the information about this. Jean-Michel Claverie, a bioinformatics specialist at the Institute of Structural Biology and Microbiology in Marseille did a lot of research on it so maybe you could use that as a search term. You might also find something about it here or here. I think I saw something about this on PBS (maybe Nova) and I'll look around there for you too. I am always searching for the latest information about this, so of course I'll post more about what they find as I come across it

[QuietOC]

I guess you know more than all of them huh?

Well, I am still just a student, but I might know something they don't know--that is not saying I know even a little of what they know. I do know none of your selected historic quotes are accurate interpretations. They do not mean what you want them to mean. So, you are only dismissing your misunderstanding of them. You are attacking a straw man, which is no way to convince anyone of anything. 

[JonTheSavage]

I still haven't got the answer to my question from the evolutionist religous people here.

Where did the first cell come from?

[QuietOC]

Where did the first cell come from?

Maybe you should start a new topic....

[Numberzz]

I still haven't got the answer to my question from the evolutionist religous people here.

Where did the first cell come from?

What makes more sense to you?

1. The first cell appeared when there were the right amount of molecules in the right place at the right time.

2. Humans were created out of nothing.

[killbot1000]

I still haven't got the answer to my question from the evolutionist religous people here.

Where did the first cell come from?

 

I think you have a misconception about what science is about. We obviously don't know where the first micro-organism came from, to find that out we would have to go back in time, and that is something we simply cannot do yet.

 

And just because we don't know where the first micro-organism came from does not mean in any way shape or form that your explanation is right, it only means that it is unanswered for now.

 

This is how science works:

 

It is a process of elimination, science can never be right, it can only be less wrong.

 

What I am saying is that a scientist will look at an explanation for something and try to shoot holes in it, we will say "oh that cant work because of _______" and this goes on and on and on until we actually start to get closer to what the real answer is, but its like half-life, we can get closer and closer and closer but never know for sure what the real answer is.

 

Religion on the other hand is just guessing, with astrology to back it up, there's an extremely improbable chance that it could be right, and if it is right, it is an extremely lucky guess.

 

Science finds its answers by ruling other things out by process of elimination.

 

Religion has no such process.

 

My money is on science any day.

[Maxintosh]

I still haven't got the answer to my question from the evolutionist religous people here.Where did the first cell come from?

What's the point of this? Isn't that kind of crewl, to ask a religious person to post facts? It goes against everything they are trained and taught so of course they won't (can't) respond logically.

 

They do not mean what you want them to mean.

They are what they are, and you can stick your head in the sand and ignore the obvious truth all you want, but it isn't going to change the facts.

 

Funny how that works

 

What makes more sense to you?

1. The first cell appeared when there were the right amount of molecules in the right place at the right time.

2. Humans were created out of nothing.

Religion has nothing to do with common sense or logic, that's why they invented the 'faith loophole'.

[QuietOC]

What's the point of this? Isn't that kind of crewl, to ask a religious person to post facts? It goes against everything they are trained and taught so of course they won't (can't) respond logically.

 

Religion has nothing to do with common sense or logic, that's why they invented the 'faith loophole'.

Theology is a science. It used to be at the center of Western higher education. Perhaps an athestic version of it still is. Humans are religious as any anthropologist will tell you. You should look at your own religion, and try to see if it is correct. Certainly Christianity has historically shown ability to assess itself critically: Augustine, Luther, and Calvin being a few examples.

 

FWIW: faith is trust based upon knowledge. If you know nothing you cannot have faith.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Evolution is still a theory. It cannot be proven because it takes place over millions of years, and the theory has been around since 1858

 

Maybe other animals have evolved, but humans came as humans, we did not evolve from a single cell

 

That's a bit selfish and self centered of you, don't you think?

 

Humans are no different from any animal on this world, hence why we share many features with other mammals and even more things with apes.

 

Evolution is here, evolution is everywhere.

Evolution can be big, evolution can be small.

 

Bacteria and viruses building up a resistance is evolution.

Changes caused by natural selection is evolution.

Selective breeding is evolution.

Having a mix of your parent's appearance is evolution.

 

The theory may still be a theory, but the proof is nearly universal.

[danerd100]

First of all wikipedia is not known for its accuracy.

 

Other people have used wikipedia in this topic. If something is wrong in wikipedia, it is changed withing a day or two. Here is another site that says that and if you google "Are viruses living" you can find many more pages like this

 

If you could provide me with a link giving this

direct evidence

that we evolved from viruses, I would be happy to read it.

 

The reason people say Viruses are non-living is because they cannot reproduce on their own. If they cannot reproduce, how then can they evolve?

 

Here are the six characteristics of a living thing taken from http://www.essortment.com/all/characteristics_rbrc.htm

 

Theme #1 - Cells

 

All living things are composed of one or more cells. Different types of cells have different "jobs" within the organism. Each life form begins from one cell, which then will split. These cells split, and so on. After this has happened several times, differentiation is undergone, when the cells change so that they are not the same thing anymore. Then they are used to begin to put together the final organism, some cells, for example, as the eyes, some as the heart, etc. The only arguable exception to this is viruses. They are not composed of cells, but are said to be "living."

 

Theme#2 - Organization

 

Complex organization patterns are found in all living organisms. They arrange themselves on very small levels, grouping like things together. On larger levels, they become visible. This also has to do with differentiation, as the cells are organized in a manner that makes sense for the organism after they change to what they’ll be in the final organism.

 

Theme#3 - Energy Use

 

All organisms use energy. The sum of the chemical energy they use is called metabolism. This energy is used to carry out everything they do. Autotrophs (plants) use energy from the sun for photosynthesis, to make their own ‘food’ (glucose). Heterotrophs (animals and humans) must ingest food for this purpose.

 

Theme#4 - Homeostasis

 

All organisms have stable internal conditions which must be maintained in order to remain alive. These include temperature, water content, heartbeat, and other such things. In a way, this has to do with energy use, because a certain level of energy must be kept within the body at all times. For this, obviously, humans must then ingest food on a regular basis. Not all conditions are for the body to maintain itself; though most are.

 

Theme#5 - Growth

 

All organisms grow and change. Cells divide to form new, identical cells. Differentiation happens, as well, when cells mutate into other types of cells, making a more complex organism. Organisms growing, changing, and becoming more complex is called development. Single-celled organisms do grow as well, but they will only become slightly larger – this is nearly unmeasurable.

 

Theme#6 - Reproduction

 

All organisms reproduce in order to continue the species' life. This is combining genetic information (in sexual reproduction) or splitting into two organisms (in asexual reproduction) in order to create another of the same species. In sexual reproduction, the new organism will have some characteristics from the mother, and some from father. It may look like either of them, or it may not. In asexual reproduction, the new organism is an exact copy of the first. Sometimes, not every member of a species is able to reproduce. As long as others are (which we know they can, if they still exist today) then it does not threaten the species. (Except for mules, but don't worry about them, they are a bizarre anomoly.)

 

Having a mix of your parent's appearance is evolution.

 

That is called genetics

[Maxintosh]

Theology is a science.

That's using the term 'science' rather loosely :censored2: Theology is the systematic study of religion. Just because something "man made" is studied by man, doesn't make it a science

 

It used to be at the center of Western higher education.

That means nothing.

 

Humans are religious as any anthropologist will tell you.

Yes but unfortunately for you an anthropologist would first tell you that humans believed in myths, which were then turned into religions.

 

faith is trust based upon knowledge.

LOL Knowledge has NOTHING to do with it.

 

If you already know something is true, then you don't need any faith in the first place.

 

True faith is a belief in, devotion to, or trust in something without logical proof.

 

Humans are no different from any animal on this world

Not only that but 98.5 percent of the genes in people and chimpanzees are identical.

 

I guess according to religion, only 98.5% of a chimpanzee can make it to heaven

 

Wonder what that last 1.5% is that stays behind

[Maxintosh]

If something is wrong in wikipedia, it is changed withing a day or two.

Someone should tell that to wikipedia. That link that you provided from them was a year and a half old and still no mention of this new strain of virus discovered back in 1992. Weird

 

if you google "Are viruses living" you can find many more pages like this

I am not inteseted in what a non professional webpage claims :censored2: I think scientific research trumps that This notion that the web contains all knowledge is ridiculous. There are many things on the web that are outright false, and just because you found it on the web doesn't make something true. I am interested only in scientifically proven research, and the newest research says that your webpage(s) are incorrect. This new strain of virus discovered has many characteristics which put it at the boundary between living organisms and non-living entities at the same time. It contains genes coding for nucleotide and amino acid synthesis, which even some small obligate intracellular bacteria lack. The genetic code of this new virus is three times longer than that of any other virus. The typical virus has either DNA or RNA, but not both. This new virus however has both DNA and RNA. Explain that one. Biologists have also discovered that this new virus has seven genes common to all three of the generally accepted domains of life: bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. That's 7 times more than any other virus known. This new virus defies everything else that you've posted about viruses.

 

If they cannot reproduce, how then can they evolve?

Easy, because it mimics the hosts abilities. That's the whole point about this new strain of virus. It has found a way to replicate by the self-assembly of preformed components.

 

As mentioned before, systems are being discovered and studied which are neither obviously living nor obviously dead.

[socal swimmer]

Maxintosh, that claim, while it may be true, is not mainstream. At least not yet. If you think it is, then please post a link to a reputable source. Preferably more than one.

 

Your descriptions are meaningless because they have nothing to back them up.

 

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]

 

 

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. [Carl Sagan]

[danerd100]

As mentioned before, systems are being discovered and studied which are neither obviously living nor obviously dead.

 

That's what i am telling u, but u are arguing with me about that.

 

First, let me tell u that if it is available in a book, it is on the web (for the most part) if it is on the news, it is on the web. So tell me, where did u hear this information that we evolved from viruses

[QuietOC]

...and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

Evidently Carl hasn't witnessed a religious conversion, and whenever something like that happens with a politician they call her/him a flip flopper.

 

There needs to be doubt about even the reliability of peer-reviewed journals. Academics see an increasing need to publish, and there has been increasing evidence of false data and plagiarism in journals. The whole area of ethics seems to be disappearing in our culture.

 

It is not surprising to find scientist able to switch paradigms faster than those with religious commitments. Someone who has even made minor adjustments to their theology finds himself mostly outside his community (=pain). While in an area like quantum mechanics there really isn't one paradigm, right now, but physicists would perfer to have the one grand theory of everything.

 

I think this whole painful process (=evolution) of discovery is designed to be our glory.

[Paranoid Marvin]

That is called genetics

 

And a change in genetics over time is called evolution.

[Maxintosh]

that claim, while it may be true, is not mainstream.

Mainstream? LOL What does being mainstream have to do with the truth? If you want to wait another 10 years while this information dribbles down, that your prerogative. And all Carl Sagan was trying to say was that a good scientist needs to be open minded, and I happen to agree with him, but being open minded and seeing facts but ignoring them are two different things. I understand your frustration regarding finding information about this new strain, but the fact that it may or may not be mainstream doesn't mean squat. I'm disappointed that someone as educated as yourself would even suggest such a thing. It also needs to be noted that since this has been reported about in the discovery magazine, that it's arguable whether it's mainstream or not. Others here seem to feel that the magazine is too mainstream

 

Your descriptions are meaningless

Meaningless to you, yes. Meaningless to the entire scope of things, no. Facts are still facts, whether you know them or not

 

That's what i am telling u, but u are arguing with me about that.

You have been attempting to shoehorn terms which apply to other viruses for this new virus, and as I've been trying to show you, that simply doesn't work anymore with the discovery of this new strain. They are literally creating new terms for this new strain.

 

if it is available in a book, it is on the web

Well aside from the fact that's simply not true, you have the problem of trying to research a virus. Go ahead, try to search for a new virus and see what it finds for you You'll end up needing to do a search on your search You also have the problem that most research sites that might have this data are NOT assessable by the public. They are password protected. For example, I did come across two hits for this new virus a few days ago, but when I clicked on the link(s) the page(s) asked for an academic password, so the links were useless to post. Here is one such link. If you have the time you could try using this site. I'm sure it would have something about this new strain. Another link that I found, which I'll try to find again for you later today as time permits, was someone interviewing one of the scientist who was researching this new strain. He wrote a paper about it and was being asked about that paper. If I can find that it might at least point you in the right direction.

 

where did u hear this information that we evolved from viruses

The first time was on a science documentary from either one of the science channels or one of the PBS channels. It was around a year ago so it is still fairly new. I also read about it in a discovery magazine article from around a year ago. I then went to the library to get further intensive information.

[Maxintosh]

I might have found some information from the original scientists who discovered this new strain, but it is old (2004) and I need to see how relevant it currently is. I prefer to post only the most up to date information if we can. I also found some other research that I need to sort through which looks like a good find