Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNA, Science, & Religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DNA, Science, & Religion

    Religion has long been around to give us answers where we have none. However, as science examines our natural world and finds answers to many questions, some of which contradict what religion has taught, only the foolhardy would hold to a belief in contradiction to the evidence. (For instance, the Mormon belief that the American Indians were descended from the ‘Lost Tribe’ of Israel, now disproven by DNA evidence).

    You can say “I believe the world is flat” all you like, but your belief or that of millions with you will not make it so. Religion, ie., belief, is still synonymous with metaphysics, myth and superstition, not ‘truth’, no matter how many times a minister, priest, or rabbi uses the word ‘truth’ in his sermon.

    And now we have “Intelligent Design”, as if this is somehow different from “Creationism”. Lets examine how ‘intelligent’ it is. Just look at all the ‘junk DNA’ we carry around - would an Intelligence make a lot of junk? So maybe it was useful in past eons; again, would an Intelligence create Man, if that were the intent, through a long, long string of accidental mutations, selection of the fit,etc.? I surely think not! Intelligence would create man instantly, and do a much better job than we see here.

    So what do you think? Is our DNA compatible with “Intelligent Design”? Or do we have a few well-paid workers in Seattle trying to grasp at straws?

  • #2
    DNA, Science & Religion

    I have been reading about this lately. That man and other animals have changed over time due to the mutation of DNA (evolution) is indisputable. However it seems that science gets into a lot of speculation when it goes very far backs in time. There is a lot of talk about man and chimpanzees having similar DNA. However, all living things have similar DNA and science has not explained the differences that do exist.

    The controversy seems have started with Darwin when people interpreted what he said as meaning man is descendant from apes. The very thought has driven religious folks up the wall every since. But the proposition has not been proven contrary to what some people think.

    The larger question is did man appear on earth intact in some form similar to what exist today or did it start with a single cell in some slimy pool of water. Evolution or science has not and can not answer that question. The religious folks should chill out and the scientist should stick to what they do best.

    Maybe the common ancestor of man and chimpanzee is God. I would like to see that DNA.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by OldMD
      Religion has long been around to give us answers where we have none. However, as science examines our natural world and finds answers to many questions, some of which contradict what religion has taught, only the foolhardy would hold to a belief in contradiction to the evidence. (For instance, the Mormon belief that the American Indians were descended from the ‘Lost Tribe’ of Israel, now disproven by DNA evidence).

      You can say “I believe the world is flat” all you like, but your belief or that of millions with you will not make it so. Religion, ie., belief, is still synonymous with metaphysics, myth and superstition, not ‘truth’, no matter how many times a minister, priest, or rabbi uses the word ‘truth’ in his sermon.

      And now we have “Intelligent Design”, as if this is somehow different from “Creationism”. Lets examine how ‘intelligent’ it is. Just look at all the ‘junk DNA’ we carry around - would an Intelligence make a lot of junk? So maybe it was useful in past eons; again, would an Intelligence create Man, if that were the intent, through a long, long string of accidental mutations, selection of the fit,etc.? I surely think not! Intelligence would create man instantly, and do a much better job than we see here.

      So what do you think? Is our DNA compatible with “Intelligent Design”? Or do we have a few well-paid workers in Seattle trying to grasp at straws?
      ok i wrote a long reply yesterday but ftdna wouldnt allow me to post.ignoring the obvious attempt to stop me by common sence. I will continue to do something i know i shouldn't do but i have this affinity to Don Q. So windmills are too attractive. that said

      i think most scientists will say the the science they know isn't what most people think they believe in. the same can be said for religion. Neither side
      completely understands their own side let alone the others

      One thing i know is that if we did this testing in the 1920s and people found the same results they get today and germans had as many ties to askenazis. It would of been harder to sell the ayrian therory to the german population. That therory was a product of german relativism which invaded Universities world wide around 1900. Cleansing any teaching associated with christianity and Judaism.
      So,Why are so many surprized about ashkenazi matches ? Some will say its cause they tested alot of askenazis but they still match? others will say just ignore them. lol we know what ignoring stuff does

      So,Why are so many surprized about ashkenazi matches ?

      because of the one thing people want to ignore here and both science and religion.History is something that doesnt always jive with what people think they know. We are taught the history of rome. written by romans who leave so much out. thus we dont see conections. If you read the History of the Irish Race by McManus you'll read about several peoples.
      One is the Melicians who are a group of people led by a teacher [hebrew] in eygpt who crossed nothern africa to spain and conquested most of europe they eventually became the gauls. Their founder Geale was in the desert with moses and had a snake bite healed by the bronze serpent. Moses himself by their tradition gave a personal prophecy that god was preparing a land for his people free of snakes. they took this as their divine right to kick out the second group the thuatha da danaan [tribe of dan] from ireland.
      the third group the keltoi, archeology [ i know a "soft science"] has found on the Behiston Rock. A connection of the Kumri [hard K], to the group of people who eventually became the keltoi. The name Kumri is derived from the name of one of the last kings of the house of Israel Omri.
      The Greeks named these people Keltoi and subdivided them into smaller groups such as Gimmira and the Greek Kimmerioi to Cimmerian. They have been known by many names Gimri , Scythians, Saccasunni ,Sakka which comes from Isaac and becomes Saxon. These people settled western Europe and britiany

      And yet we are surprised at Askenazi matches ?


      The library of congress has George Washington's genealogy it has him decended from Odin who mirgated to scandanavia from the exact area the Kumri were in.

      SOME Pages of note
      http://members.aol.com/X288FILES/SPAIN.html
      http://members.aol.com/X288FILES/CELT.html

      Comment


      • #4
        What in the world does this keyboard diarrhea have to do with the Thread you are in?

        Oops! Sorry I asked - I suppose we'll get anothe inane response!

        Comment


        • #5
          Let me give this a shot:

          (1) Evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory too. "Theory" in scientific parlance is a model made to explain the facts, not a "guess" as in popular usage.

          (2) Darwin did NOT invent the concept of evolution, he simply was the first to provide a plausible mechanism for it that did not depend on divine intervention. Evolution was well recognized before his time, just as educated people in the 15th century knew (from the time of the Greeks) that the world was a sphere, not flat.

          (3) You make the claim that science does not explain the differences between organisms, only the similarities. This is exactly wrong. Intelligent design utterly fails to account for why a bird's wing, a man's arm, and a whale's fin are all adapted from the same set of bones. Why not start de novo each time? Why are there no organisms that move on wheels, which are much more efficient than legs? Historical legacy and contingency are constraints on evolutions by natural selection, but would not be constraints for an intelligent designer.

          (4) Just as attempts to use science to find "natural" justifications for morality and social structure (e.g., "social Darwinism") were disastrous failures, so is the use of religion to explain the mechanisms of nature a failure.

          (5) Religion and science have different roles. Science may explain the "how" of things but not the "why." If you choose to believe that divine intervention chose the timing of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, thereby paving the way for the ultimate arrival of humans, no scientist can object to that. This is an untestable assertion about a one-time event. Science, however, provides many testable hypotheses concerning evolution by natural selection and until evidence is found that refutes one of these hypotheses, the theory stands. Until an apple falls from the ground back into the tree, so will the theory of gravity.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by OldMD
            What in the world does this keyboard diarrhea have to do with the Thread you are in?

            Oops! Sorry I asked - I suppose we'll get anothe inane response!

            YOU SAID people who believe in other then science are mad. wrong!
            i simply stated that dna and the very therory in another form goes right along with genetics. you make a statement throw charges and expect no one would come to the defense of the oposition. thats naive and a touch of self importance not backed up by facts

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jim Denning
              i think most scientists will say the the science they know isn't what most people think they believe in. the same can be said for religion. Neither side
              completely understands their own side let alone the others
              [/url]
              i knew you wouldnt get this, most people in the world think that the big bang is still the explaination for the emergence of matter and the planets. not true today and at least not explained the same anyways
              some people believe now the univese is like a pull taffy being streched while others do belive in the small mass of matter but it wasnt just there it was in and out of reality thru quantum physics and in one of its appearences in this dimension it exploded or streched but it wasnt just sitting there . they had to answer who made the ball that exploded .
              the point is the constant study produces new thoughts on it
              the same is true of all science my sons a biologist and he constatly tells me no good scientist thinks he knows the answers. i agree

              what i objected to was the counting out of any one persons way of explaining this genetics.i mean its not that old to assume we know it all.
              to sit on a high horse and say MINE IS THE ONLY WAY

              like humpty dumpty the fall is long and hard

              Comment


              • #8
                Yawn......

                Can't you guys please find a forum more appropriate for your discourses on this subject. You know, a forum where folks come expecting these debates and not to be insulted for one's beliefs? I'm interested in learning more about my results and details and new information about haplogroups, etc. A rant on religion is a waste of bandwidth here. Take it somewhere else. If I was the moderator I'd delete the entire thread -- of course that would precipitate the whining about freedom of speech that typically happens when off subject threads are removed from niche forums.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You know, I really can't think of anything that ties us as individual people more closely to our origins and evolution than the DNA that is the basis of this entire forim. The mutations in that DNA are what create haplogroups and are a mark of the way that every living being is the root or branch of a tree that connects all others. It's no longer an abstraction; we can now scrape our cheeks, send off a little vial, and have someone in a laboratory determine a great deal about who we are and where we came from.

                  Topics wander off a bit from time to time but generally will fade away (as this one is doing) when they become irrelevant. Meanwhile, I find it ironic that you have taken the time to post here, Cycleman. No one, I presume, has glued your fingers to the keyboard.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Does a quote from James D. Watson belong on this Forum?

                    On page 61 of "DNA - The Secret of Life", he says:

                    "The discovery of the double helix sounded the death knell for vitalism. Serious scientists, even those religiously inclined, realized that a complete understanding of life would not require the revelation of new laws of nature. Life was just a matter of physics and chemistry, . . ."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I posted here because I'm a member of the forum and a customer of this site. I "glued my fingers to the keyboard" long enough to make a couple of sincerely felt comments regarding the tangential nature of the thread.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Let's try it again.

                        Originally posted by OldMD
                        Does a quote from James D. Watson belong on this Forum?

                        On page 61 of "DNA - The Secret of Life", he says:

                        "The discovery of the double helix sounded the death knell for vitalism. Serious scientists, even those religiously inclined, realized that a complete understanding of life would not require the revelation of new laws of nature. Life was just a matter of physics and chemistry, . . ."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by OldMD
                          Religion has long been around to give us answers where we have none. However, as science examines our natural world and finds answers to many questions, some of which contradict what religion has taught, only the foolhardy would hold to a belief in contradiction to the evidence. (For instance, the Mormon belief that the American Indians were descended from the ‘Lost Tribe’ of Israel, now disproven by DNA evidence).

                          You can say “I believe the world is flat” all you like, but your belief or that of millions with you will not make it so. Religion, ie., belief, is still synonymous with metaphysics, myth and superstition, not ‘truth’, no matter how many times a minister, priest, or rabbi uses the word ‘truth’ in his sermon.

                          And now we have “Intelligent Design”, as if this is somehow different from “Creationism”. Lets examine how ‘intelligent’ it is. Just look at all the ‘junk DNA’ we carry around - would an Intelligence make a lot of junk? So maybe it was useful in past eons; again, would an Intelligence create Man, if that were the intent, through a long, long string of accidental mutations, selection of the fit,etc.? I surely think not! Intelligence would create man instantly, and do a much better job than we see here.

                          So what do you think? Is our DNA compatible with “Intelligent Design”? Or do we have a few well-paid workers in Seattle trying to grasp at straws?

                          Hi OldMD,

                          How does the 'junk DNA' we carry around in our bodies affect us? Does it cause our bodies to work imperfectly? How so?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            DNA, Science & Religion

                            I post in this thread reluctantly. I personally get tired of all the deep ancestry stuff especially the never ending discussion about the Jewish background. I wish they would not spread it over all the threads. But I don’t complain. I don’t feel I a right to tell you what to talk about. On my own web pages I will decide but not here. Tell me again when you were appointed forum monitor?

                            I answered the original post because my study of the use of DNA in genealogy led to Haplogroups which led to deep ancestry which led to archeology. I have friends who see my discussion about DNA as an assault on religion. So, it all ties together and I think that it is appropriate to this forum to the extent that anyone wants to talk about it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Belief or non belief in a thing does not prove or disprove its existence. True science never conflicts with true religion and vice versa.
                              This is a forum for DNA discussion. Religious or atheistic rants are out of place.
                              Insulting another member is uncalled for. Jim helps alot of people here.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X