Why there almost certainly is No God!!

[flenser]

Why not both? The same DNA was there before the flood and after.

Only the DNA of the pairs that got on the arc would exist after the flood. Before that, there would be larger DNA pools among a greater number of each animal species.

 

[flenser]

"It is more likely that -- at all times in evolution -- the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

That does make sense, though there always seems to be an annoying gap between species with no clear evolutionary path between them.

 

[T-Bagger]

Only the DNA of the pairs that got on the arc would exist after the flood. Before that, there would be larger DNA pools among a greater number of each animal species.

Not necessarily, if you hold to the Genesis creation account. The 8 on the ark would have all come from the same DNA.

 

[flenser]

Not necessarily, if you hold to the Genesis creation account. The 8 on the ark would have all come from the same DNA.

It's the DNA that didn't make it to the arc that is lost, thus narrowing the branching to a single period.

 

[T-Bagger]

It's the DNA that didn't make it to the arc that is lost, thus narrowing the branching to a single period.

Following the Genesis account, at the very least Noah is from the original DNA

 

[flenser]

Following the Genesis account, at the very least Noah is from the original DNA

We must not be understanding each other. DNA becomes more diverse over time as a population grows. Based on Genesis 5, more than 1000 years passed between the original pair, Adam and Eve, and Noah - nine Biblical generations. In my original comment I was only pointing out the DNA the scientists were looking at could not be the DNA from the Christian creation event, since that DNA would have already had nine generations to mutate, err, I mean evolve.

And of course we're talking humans with Biblical life spans. I'm fairly certain goats and chickens had much shorter times between birth/hatch and the dinner plate. So there would be much more mutation to obscure the original Biblical creation event.

 

[T-Bagger]

We must not be understanding each other. DNA becomes more diverse over time as a population grows. Based on Genesis 5, more than 1000 years passed between the original pair, Adam and Eve, and Noah - nine Biblical generations. In my original comment I was only pointing out the DNA the scientists were looking at could not be the DNA from the Christian creation event, since that DNA would have already had nine generations to mutate, err, I mean evolve.

And of course we're talking humans with Biblical life spans. I'm fairly certain goats and chickens had much shorter times between birth/hatch and the dinner plate. So there would be much more mutation to obscure the original Biblical creation event.

Good point

 

[hurricane]

Its interesting to see how different scientists interpret the same report.

Using some parts, and not others.

"Viruses, ice ages, successful new competitors, loss of prey -- all these may cause periods when the population of an animal drops sharply," he told AFP, commenting on the study.


"In these periods, it is easier for a genetic innovation to sweep the population and contribute to the emergence of a new species."

But the last true mass extinction event was 65.5 million years ago when a likely asteroid strike wiped out land-bound dinosaurs and half of all species on Earth. This means a population "bottleneck" is only a partial explanation at best.

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

"It is more likely that -- at all times in evolution -- the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.

And yet -- another unexpected finding from the study -- species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.


the whole report http://www.pontecorboli.com/digital1/humanevolution/blog/2018/05/22/why-should-mitochondria-define-species/

You're completely right. Different conclusions and it really just adds another piece to the puzzle.

 

[T-Bagger]

We must not be understanding each other. DNA becomes more diverse over time as a population grows. Based on Genesis 5, more than 1000 years passed between the original pair, Adam and Eve, and Noah - nine Biblical generations. In my original comment I was only pointing out the DNA the scientists were looking at could not be the DNA from the Christian creation event, since that DNA would have already had nine generations to mutate, err, I mean evolve.

And of course we're talking humans with Biblical life spans. I'm fairly certain goats and chickens had much shorter times between birth/hatch and the dinner plate. So there would be much more mutation to obscure the original Biblical creation event.

Found this interesting that a buddy of mine posted, following our dialogue (completely unrelated to this):

 

[chileandawg]

To me God is fun then coke is fun then coke is God

 

[flenser]

So what are everyone's opinions on free will? Do we have it? Does it mater if we have it? I have strong opinions on this, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks, both believers and non-believers.

 

[chileandawg]

Liberty isnt the trending topic with God bud.

Money is the big deal,just read jhon locke

 

[T-Bagger]

So what are everyone's opinions on free will? Do we have it? Does it mater if we have it? I have strong opinions on this, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks, both believers and non-believers.

I believe we all have free will to an extent. Believing the Bible narrative, God gave Adam & Eve the freewill to choose obedience or disobedience. However, there is a lot of debate theologically (in Christianity) just how much freewill there really is. Not avoiding the question - just not trying to get into a huge theological discussion here.

 

[hurricane]

So what are everyone's opinions on free will? Do we have it? Does it mater if we have it? I have strong opinions on this, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks, both believers and non-believers.

Free will believer here. God has given us the ability to choose good or evil. What we do with free will is completely up to each individual.
Just my opinion. I'm open to hear others views as well.

 

[Burrr]

Believer in Evolution here.
Free will for sure, but our choices are guided by behaviour patterns we picked up over the last 100,000 plus years. We evolved to look out for our tribe so that they might also look out for us. We also lie, steal and cheat but have evolved to do this only to the extent we can get way with. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but over those 100,000s of years anyone who fucked over the tribe probably didnt get to spread their DNA.

 

[staynattybruh]

It’s the same theme throughout both old and new testaments - he is God, he created all. People chose to rebel against their creator and that’s the price they pay. If you cursed your parents every day of their lives, told them their existence is a joke and figuratively spit in their faces, would you expect an inheritance of any sort, or would you expect to have been disowned?

So you would have an easier time believing a guy who claims an angel told him almost the same thing as Jesus said, rather than what Jesus himself said? Interesting, because if someone who came along and said they were God and then 600 years later an angel comes along and tells some guy “hey, believe what Jesus said, minus the whole ‘God’ part” I’d have a real hard time believing the dude 600 years later, for the simple reason that if you’re an angel, you’re either going to reject 100% the claims of Jesus or you’re going to back it up 100%. There is no “Jesus was only partially right or partially wrong” because if he was not God as he claimed, then he’s a liar and a false prophet. The angel would have rejected him and his message completely. If he really was God, then the angel would have backed him up. An angel isn’t going to contradict God - that would be a fallen angel.

There is a huge difference between being disowned and being damned for torture for all eternity. Huge. Just because I creat something doesnt mean I have the right to determine how it should feel, think or act. Only in a dictatorial relationship is this okay, I absolutely would rather my children to make decisions based on what they learned not what I told them to believe. If this god is so forgiving and omnipotent, I'd find it much more probable that, let's say I was wrong and went to heaven I can justifiably say to him that I wasnt convinced in his existence and only he knows what would convince me, and yet he did not put it forth.

You're being disingenuous here. The information you receive from jesus are from the gospels. The gospels were not written by the authors they claim to be and were written down 50-100 years after the supposed resurrection of Jesus. Who knows how accurate the story was passed through by word. We do not have these originals and not even the copies of them. What we have is copies of copies of copies and an assortment of other Christian writings that were then compiled by self appointed authorities on what are the approved books for christianity. The most near and recent evidence of your god comes from the next prophet Mohammed and claims an angel comes down to tell him that the events of the Christian bible did not happen that way.

Much like parents wanting their kids to marry within the same race, it holds true with religion, politics and everything else. If you truly believe your religion, why would you want someone to come along and dissuade them away from it? Why would an atheist want to marry someone who is die hard in their religion anyway? Sounds like the makings for a lousy marriage. As for being unable to hold positions in politics, I have yet to see any commercials blasting someone for their atheism as a reason to not vote for them. In fact, I see a lack altogether mentioning the faith of people running for political positions.

The problem isnt that we do not believe in your god, the problem is that perception of atheists. As its stated people with different religions are fine, which frankly seems worse considering religions try to convert people daily and is part of the whole idea of being saved in the first place. As an atheist and many friends of mine alike, have yet to find to much of a problem with people of moderate faith. It doesnt bother me if we are married in a church, the baby baptized etc... it does for conflicting religions though. Again, theres this common identity that is attached with atheists because of the sensitivity of questioning and challenging religious beliefs.

Do you really believe that if a politician came forward claiming he was an atheist, there would be no distinct popular opinion on him because of this?

Would you rather someone be Muslim or Atheist ? Honest question.

Honestly, I’m sorry you’ve experienced these things. It’s complete and utter garbage and unbecoming of anyone who would call themselves a follower of Christ.

Oh don't think I'm saying most followers of christ will do this or that I believe that they are bad people in entirety. I've stated before, religious people tend to donate to charitys more and host lots of giving back events, which I take part of myself. The stand I take, is the opposition in which they seem to think, they have a upstanding and high reputable source to morality. I have no problem with the kids playing with there toys over there as long as they dont force me to play with them over here. ( I'm a child too in the scenairo)

Hope you and everyone here had a great Thanksgiving.

 

[T-Bagger]

There is a huge difference between being disowned and being damned for torture for all eternity. Huge. Just because I creat something doesnt mean I have the right to determine how it should feel, think or act. Only in a dictatorial relationship is this okay, I absolutely would rather my children to make decisions based on what they learned not what I told them to believe. If this god is so forgiving and omnipotent, I'd find it much more probable that, let's say I was wrong and went to heaven I can justifiably say to him that I wasnt convinced in his existence and only he knows what would convince me, and yet he did not put it forth.

We can go back and forth forever. I’ll say this - if you created something and it was no longer deemed worthy of your ownership or your inheritance, say a shelf - you put it out at the street and it gets carts off to the dump where it is destroyed. Bad analogy because people are far different than cheap Sauder products, but I go back to my original thought - if God is who he says he is and is as great as each religion teaches and created all things, then surely the punishment for not only denying his existence but the great price he paid (Jesus) is the ultimate insult to him and his grace. Torture for all eternity does sound horrible. Do you think wicked people like Hitler and all the pedophiles deserve to just cease to exist along with the everyday person who is a “good” person who rejected God? Just wondering.

You're being hypocritical here. The information you receive from jesus are from the gospels. The gospels where not written by the authors they claim to be and were written down 50-100 years after the supposed resurrection of Jesus. Who knows how accurate the story was passed through by word. We do not have these originals and not even the copies of them. What we have is copies of copies of copies and an assortment of other Christian writings that were then compiled by self appointed authorities on what are the approved books for christianity. The most near and recent evidence of your god comes from the next prophet Mohammed and claims an angel comes down to tell him that the events of the Christian bible did not happen that way.

I don’t see that I’m being hypocritical (at this point I can only presume you’re referring to my comments about Mohammad and how the Quran came about?). If a divine being is substantiating Jesus but claims certain things were “off” I don’t see this angelic being giving any credibility to Jesus. I choose to believe mainly the manuscript evidence of the Old Testament which points to the Jewish messiah and by faith believe what was written about Jesus.

The problem isnt that we do not believe in your god, the problem is that perception of atheists. As its stated people with different religions are fine, which frankly seems worse considering religions try to convert people daily and is part of the whole idea of being saved in the first place. As an atheist and many friends of mine alike, have yet to find to much of a problem with people of moderate faith. It doesnt bother me if we are married in a church, the baby baptized etc... it does for conflicting religions though. Again, theres this common identity that is attached with atheists because of the sensitivity of questioning and challenging religious beliefs.

Do you really believe that if a politician came forward claiming he was an atheist, there would be no distinct popular opinion on him because of this?

Would you rather someone be Muslim or Atheist ? Honest question.

No, I personally don’t believe there would be a distinct popular opinion of an atheist, since the atheist and non Christian community (pagans, wiccans, witches, etc.) is a large community. Would it sway people of faith? Yes, but to say that they would lose the election based solely on their religion or lack there of is a stretch.

Honestly? I’d choose the atheist over the Muslim any day for the same reason we have discussed prior. I don’t want Sharia law here and would rather have someone who doesn’t believe in a god than a Muslim.

Oh don't think I'm saying most followers of christ will do this or that I believe that they are bad people in entirety. I've stated before, religious people tend to donate to charitys more and host lots of giving back events, which I take part of myself. The stand I take, is the opposition in which they seem to think, they have a upstanding and high reputable source to morality. I have no problem with the kids playing with there toys over there as long as they dont force me to play with them over here. ( I'm a child too in the scenairo)

Hope you and everyone here had a great Thanksgiving.

Thanks and I hope your thanksgiving was great as well!

 

[T-Bagger]

I'd find it much more probable that, let's say I was wrong and went to heaven I can justifiably say to him that I wasnt convinced in his existence and only he knows what would convince me, and yet he did not put it forth.

Honest question - What have you done personally to actually seek out this God? To say there is no God is a huge step from agnosticism which at least says “I believe there is SOMETHING.” vs saying “there is no God.” Even an atheist like Josh McDowell traveled the world to set out to disprove God’s existence and when he compiled all the evidence he put together along the way, he arrived at the conclusion that there must be a God.

 

[Mike Hunt]

I aint religous but always found it strange that folks who say there are no gods put so much time and energy in to disproving what they say dont exist

 

[staynattybruh]

Published in the journal of Human Evolution.
U.S. and Switzerland scientists have made an astonishing discovery. All humans alive today are the offspring of a common father and mother- who walked the planet 100,000-200,000 years ago, which by evolutionary standards is like yesterday.
Moreover the same is true for 9 out of every 10 animal species. Meaning nearly all of Earths creatures living today sprang into being recently from some seminal, Big Bang like event.
Mark Stoeckle at Rockefeller University and David Thaler at the University of Basel reached this conclusion after analyzing DNA bar codes of 5 million animals from 100,000 different species.
They concluded that 90% of all animal species alive today come from parents that began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than a quarter million years ago. This conclusion is very surprising Thaler said, and I fought against it as hard as I could.
Their study does line up with the Bible in 2 ways. It affirms that we and our fellow creatures arose from a recent and profound creation event, orchestrated by some unknown mechanism.
Secondly the DNA bar codes reveal that species are quantized. Creatures fall into very distinct, widely separated populations- what the Bible describes as "kinds).
This study doesn't disprove or prove God's existence.
It proves we are at the mercy of forces we do not see or understand. Michael Guillen, PH.D.

Found this interesting that a buddy of mine posted, following our dialogue (completely unrelated to this):

This a very clear misrepresentation and a half truth look of how evolution through the process of natural selection occurs throughout long periods of time. Putting aside the fact of ice age like iistances, even from Darwins initial theory, it accounts for these instances. It's taught like this.




Now, the starting point is A but this is not referring to a creation point, this is just an estimated point to start from based on the most recent evidence that we have of our biological beginnings. What ends up happening is we find something even older and it begins a new start point. So our original A ends up looking like a^5 on the diagram.

More specifically to what we have found is like this...

Say we are K8 the closest we match in DNA wise is, lets say, A6. We have the same common ancestor 8 generations back but a bunch of other in-between. What this discovery is actually saying is the we found something more closer to use like M4.

It important to understand this principles basics to know what we are discovering here. It's also worth pointing out that Michael Guillen, PH.D is a re-known author known to try to link his faith with science. I'm not trying to take away his credentials, achievements and hard work away from him but this is a clear example of letting your faith interrupt the evidence that is put before you, which he's been known to do before. Which, if you research, he uses his credentials for more publicity reasons then using it to publish reviewed papers.