Why Christianity? discussion
Minor topics
>
Can we with reason alone conclude Gods existence?
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Robert
(new)
Nov 19, 2018 01:51PM
Chad - if there wasn't some consensus in civilized societies as to what constituted an evil act, there would be no laws to differentiate law-abiding from law-breaking.
reply
|
flag
Mod
Mod
No. It's a basic fact that is self evident. Denial requires conscious repression. In fact, reason alone is more likely to lead one astray, since our natural tendency is toward supremecy and elevation of the self.
Not so, Ned. Humans are capable of great outpourings of altruism, with or without the urging of a declared God. For a gentile to hone it properly takes a relationship with Jesus, otherwise most of their 'caring" is just wasted overwrought heart-string tugging.
OK, Rod - I think we're expressing the same sentiments except in different colloquial snippets.
Jonathan S. - God exists because I can ask questions? Seems to me that evolution could have easily covered that one.
Jonathan - as I'm a plant geneticist who has actually initialized genomic change to improve agricultural growth, I'm in a unique position to conclude that PARTS of Darwin's ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES (evolution for short) are true. However, because scientists don't know precisely where nature ends and the supernatural starts (if it does), the field of Evolutionary Biology remains largely theoretical. IMHO, God instigated and allows species to evolve in order to occupy new niches and maximize their utilization of familiar ones.
Jonathan - I won't argue that speciation isn't tricky, but over evolutionary time (billions of years) not impossible. Most mutations either lend an organism less fit for their environment or outright kill it. Some, however are beneficial. The difficulty lies in getting that mutation into the sex chromosomes and then transferring it to the next generation (heredity). Then it's a matter of whether it will "take" or revert back to it's original DNA composition. Not only do I believe this happened interspecies, but across kingdom lines as when photosynthetic bacteria became photosynthetic protists leading to primitive plants. I cede that God made what he claimed in Genesis, but then allowed both evolution and devolution to fill out the earth.
Jonathan - don't look at the phenotype - large differences in structure are often caused by small changes in genotype. It's all in the chromosomes, my friend. The DNA nucleotides are the same across all Kingdoms.
Jonathan - well, two things that Rod would vigorously dispute need to be true. First, is that the earth is approximately 4.25 Billion years old with life first appearing at 3.5 Billion years ago. Second, is that the first humans, and we'll call them Adam and Eve, were considerably less advanced then the current version of Homo. If a Christian, and I am one, can accept that God made man, but he had to evolve considerably to reach Homo sapiens then he can put evolution in its proper perspective - a methodology developed by God to best attune HIS creations to an ever-changing environment (also according to HIS plan). Goldfish mating with ferns is, of course, silly, but similar bacteria getting to know each other intimately over millions of years doesn't stretch one's credulity so much. As I know the workings of a cell and know it's far more complex than can be achieved by random interaction of chemicals in the primordial ooze, then I know a higher entity created life. With God creating both life and man, evolution shouldn't be such a threat, but religious factions and secular proponents have both drawn firm lines in the sand. which makes critical thinking a lost art.
Jonathan - not the way I look at it. God's 6 day creation extravaganza began with the universe 15.5 billion years ago. He didn't create man until about 5 million years ago. In between, the rest of the "day's" work transpired.
Mod
Jonathan - I think you're melding recombinant DNA research with a Michael Crichton novel! Inserting cDNA strands can, of course, be done, but it's a long way from human application! (Unless you know of a nearby Dr. Frankenstein lab). Talk to me when we humans can regrow a limb we've lost through genetic manipulation and then I'll consider evolving myself.
Jonathan - well, technically, my book is still in print, but my publisher is in a vicious lawsuit which threatens it's existence so their not printing books right now. Another book THE REVOLUTIONARY CONSERVATIVE's SOLUTION is available from Amazon Kindle as an e-book. I have 3 journal articles - 2 in Crop Science and 1 (the best) in the Journal of Agricultural Food and Chemistry. They're about 20 years old from when I was at university. I left to teach at El Paso Community College until I retired a few years ago. Currently, I'm working on another book, but it's slow going as I've gotten old and lazy! As for being an authority, I suppose that's true for Alfalfa genetics. For anything else, like the rest of us, I think of myself as having an informed opinion.
Jonathan - yes, I'd agree a brave new world in molecular genetics is in the future. However, it is one thing to tinker with agricultural plants and quite another to mess with the human genome. Laws may impede some of the bigger breakthroughs; you and I ought to get together and form some sort of James Bond's villains-type lab to take over the world with our "mutants"! Anyway, cell biological advances will be near the forefront of technological achievement for the foreseeable future.
