Thread: about God and Genetics

It's really all on the sin issue. When you sin, your imperfect, meaning that your open for diseases and defects.

And the common belief with Christians is that your born into a sinful nature meaning that your imperfect from the get go.

When you think about it, sin is the scapegoat that keeps God blameless.

Basically... because God doesn't exist. That's a very good argument against a benevolent God and for a naturalistic origin of man, actually...

I don't know why we haven't evolved to overcome diseases like cancer yet, though. All it would require is some kind of enzyme which checks and repairs the DNA strand regularly.

well our cells already have ways of checking and repairing DNA in numerous ways, i guess for some reason mutations which cause cancer aren't spotted, i suppose because a cancerous mutation isn't necessarily "damage" if that makes sense, it's hard to detect bad mutations...

this question is going on a contrived boxed up definition of God, a God sitting on a cloud judging humanity

in this version of God, God is SEPARATE from creation. So that God can be 'perfect' but cruelly and evilly create twisted diseases, as some seem to think

but that's not the only understanding of God. actually, the most universal understanding of God across cultures is a God that is in all creation. That is, God is NOT SEPARATE from creation

in these religions, because God is also present in you, this makes you a co-creator. now if you don't realize you have the power to create, because you have willfully blinded yourself, you create bad things. in these religions, thoughts and sounds create. bad thoughts, bad words - CREATE. this is karma. its not just the return of what you have done to others, but the return of what your own thoughts have created. for example, if you hate yourself this will eventually out-picture in your body.

by not realizing we are creating all the time, we create bad situations for ourselves. like, diseases. then we seek to blame someone else for the disease. demons, satan or even a God outside of our being.

perfection is a state that is continuously advancing and growing, like a seed that becomes a tree. it is not a state that stays the same forever. if mistakes help us learn and grow, then we are perfect. the second problem to this puzzle is the human idea that perfect has to mean something without any blemishes. a painter can mess up on his painting a thousand times, but those mistakes create a masterpiece. and the painter learns from those mistakes and creates an even better painting the next time around.

free will allows us to explore creation, we can create bad things. play and dwell in bad things. so that we can experience and really know, why something is bad or why its good. then we can decide to stop experiencing something if we deem it 'bad'.

really, imagine that God right now is real, in you and in everyone. then you will realize this God is controlling no one. As obviously, this God has not intervened or forced anyone to do anything. We have not seen any 'God seated on a throne' demanding worship. God has given us the reigns of creation and free will, so much, you may even choose to believe God is not real.

there are many ancient religions that talk about how to create a good reality for yourself, and how to help un-create something bad in your life. including diseases. In this respect, neither does God have to come down from heaven and fix our screwed up DNA. Because these religions teach that God has already given us the power to fix all, ALL of our problems. In that respect, we are already perfect. We are already able to advance and progress in every way.

thats why the bible says all things are possible through God

but honestly, christianity is the weakest religion to look at if you want to see how to create a better reality for yourself. only a few snippets in the bible here and there talk about it. but there are other religions that go far in depth

Fact is there (very probably) is no god. Our cells have evolved to keep DNA damage to a minimum, and even repair it, or have simple kill-switches if cells are going to be cancerous, but sometimes the mutations find a way, and you have cancer.

Little, innocent children get cancer, it doesn't matter whether you are good or bad, a murder or work to give orphans a better life, everyone gets sick, hit by cars, rained wet when you really don't want to as much as the next person.

Seeing our evolution, the whole 'god made man in his image' and such.. meh. Kind of unlikely, to say the least.

But really, why Would god give us corruptible DNA? If he created us, though evolution or from scratch (in a way indistinguishable from evolution, lol), why allow for that? To punish sinners? Nah, that doesn't make sense.

Really, look at people. There is so much that makes Hilariously little sense if you think god made man (in his image). Why does masturbation lower your chances of getting prostate cancer? Why are animals and humans homosexual (at very steady percentages, since it is probably genetic.. geneticly predestined to sin, that makes sense.)

Why does wearing red give you an advantage in sports? http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=e7btwV0U9ZU
Seriously, REALLY, why the HECK would god make man so? There are so many things that make no sense what so ever, if you believe a god purposely designed us. Evolution made us, not as much blind, but perfectly suited for life. We have great defence against cancer, seeing how much of a pounding of background radiation and UV-radiation we get, evolution is just pretty maxed out, the Eath wasn't created For human life, (human) life adapted to it.

Twin studies show that there's little chance of a genetic factor in homosexuality. Just two cents there.

Originally Posted by Xei

Twin studies show that there's little chance of a genetic factor in homosexuality. Just two cents there.

Got some links? That's pretty interesting.

I did see some stuff about how there are physical 'tells' of homosexuality. You can't really 'want' your sexual brain lobe number 49 (or whatever) to become larger or smaller, right?

Might be non-genetic, but caused under certain or random selections during pregnancy. The whole "watching will and grace makes our children gay" stuff is utter nonsense, that's for sure.

So basically the argument still stands. Actually the gay animals god lovingly made say just about as much. Well, actually just 1500 or something confirmed mammals that practice homosexuality, but estimates are 95% of mammals are gay.

i myself am not religious, i kinda threw it out there for debate.

Originally Posted by Xei

Twin studies show that there's little chance of a genetic factor in homosexuality. Just two cents there.

Actually twins are thought to be a possible indirect cause of homosexuality...fighting for resources creates a deficiency in one and not the other during pregnancy, and some say a single homosexual may sometimes be the result of one twin dieing prematurely.

People seem to think either homosexuality is a "choice" or it is "brainwashing"(Will and Grace) or it is "genetic."
I would cast a my bet on saying that homosexuality is physical, though the cause of the physical abnormality may be different for each person.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

If God made man in his image

That's probably where they got it wrong. You know, along with the other 500+ contradicting statements made in the bible. Or it could just depend on what you believe in. Maybe you really do believe that some God made you in Their image. Maybe you don't really believe in God at all. To claim that any God made humans in their image sounds a little egotistical though, doesn't it? Humans aren't the only intelligent life forms on the planet.

Originally Posted by Xei

Twin studies show that there's little chance of a genetic factor in homosexuality. Just two cents there.

That is something I have also heard whilst taking a course in psychology a little over a year ago. Twin studies provide some critical data in the nature vs nurture argument. Homosexuality is now believed to be triggered by environmental factors (how the child interacts with the rest of the world, not pollution issues).

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't know why we haven't evolved to overcome diseases like cancer yet, though. All it would require is some kind of enzyme which checks and repairs the DNA strand regularly.

Because natural selection is blind past the point of copulation. Cancers (generally) present in middle-age and onwards. Human beings are capable of having children from as young as 9 years old, although for obvious moral, social and anatomical reasons this is not the norm.

If I remember my high school biology correctly, it actually takes 3 simultaneous mutation events in three specific genes in the same cell to cause a cancerous growth. If only one or two of these genes are mutated, the cell kills itself via programmed cell death, or PCD. It takes all three of these mutations to occur simultaneously to prevent PCD from occurring. Statistically, you'd think that would make cancer fairly rare. But you have billions of cells in your body all running the 'mutation lottery' at the same time.

After you've passed on your genes to your offspring, natural selection really couldn't give a damn about your ability to stave off cancer. It's completely blind to it because you've already procreated.

edit: And something else I just thought of. If you evolved a resistance to cancer (random mutation), effectively you've just evolved a resistance against evolution itself. A being whose genetic code could NEVER be mutated or mis-translated would never be able to produce anymore variation that isn't already present in the population. So it is quite possible that this trait has been evolved in the past by any number of organisms, but then they were promptly wiped out by the next bout of disease or environmental factor that they couldn't evolve an immunity to.

There is one evolutionary trait that specifically deals with post-copulation, and that's aging. Aging was specifically selected for by evolution because tribes of closely related humans survived longer as a group when the old members died to free up resources for the young, still reproducing members.

That's all I wanted to add.

Originally Posted by juroara

in these religions, because God is also present in you, this makes you a co-creator.

² nice post

Originally Posted by juroara

but that's not the only understanding of God. actually, the most universal understanding of God across cultures is a God that is in all creation. That is, God is NOT SEPARATE from creation

You have some reading up on statistics to do. People aren't fucking Zen Buddhists. They're Christian, Muslim and Hindi, sand religions with (a) personal god(s) who created the world.

Originally Posted by Serkat

You have some reading up on statistics to do. People aren't fucking Zen Buddhists. They're Christian, Muslim and Hindi, sand religions with (a) personal god(s) who created the world.

monotheism does not believe in a magical God in the sky, this is LIE that is normally carried out by NON BELIEVERS

there are thousands if not millions of christians/jews/muslims/hindis and everything else in between that believe God is not separate from creation

Originally Posted by juroara

monotheism does not believe in a magical God in the sky, this is LIE that is normally carried out by NON BELIEVERS

there are thousands if not millions of christians/jews/muslims/hindis and everything else in between that believe God is not separate from creation

Then they don't understand their religion and haven't ever read their holy scribblings properly. Also, a million is a very tiny fraction of believers.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

There is one evolutionary trait that specifically deals with post-copulation, and that's aging. Aging was specifically selected for by evolution because tribes of closely related humans survived longer as a group when the old members died to free up resources for the young, still reproducing members.

That's all I wanted to add.

The flipside to that is that older members of a tribe would generally have more experience, skills and wisdom. The longer an elder is alive, the more likely they are to aid, assist or pass on their knowledge to their kin.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

What i was wondering is why do we have genetic problems in the first place? If God made man in his image, why did he not perfect our genes and prevent negative mutations?

God created man in his image, therefore man is Divine; Perfect. These imperfections you speak of are nothing but egoistic positionalities. "If God made all things Perfect, why is it not..." shows a sway to an idealistic, relative opinion.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

Also non genetic problems with humans(well i think some cancers can be involved with genes?) like cancers, weak hearts etc. Basically faults that humans can be born with.

This is no imperfection. The ego does not know the workings behind reality, and compares it between hypothetical ideals that do not exist.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

If we can correct these faults in humans then aren't we better then God, or did he create us imperfectly intentionally?

No, we are what we are. If we can solve a problem now, we can solve a problem now.

This Universe, in Reality, does not compete against itself, it cooperates with itself; a Cosmos.

In other words, really thinks that cancer is awesome and we shouldn't find cures for diseases.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

The flipside to that is that older members of a tribe would generally have more experience, skills and wisdom. The longer an elder is alive, the more likely they are to aid, assist or pass on their knowledge to their kin.

Yeah, and that's probably the reason aging occurs several years after reproduction instead of instantly.

Originally Posted by juroara

monotheism does not believe in a magical God in the sky, this is LIE that is normally carried out by NON BELIEVERS

there are thousands if not millions of christians/jews/muslims/hindis and everything else in between that believe God is not separate from creation

lol. People like Spinoza got a bunch of shit and (risk of) prosecution for even supposing God was 'just nature' only 300 years back. As you can still get in some Muslim countries probably A lot of Christians and especially Muslims still do, and almost all did, believe in a big beared man in the sky.


--------

edit: I hope this perfect 'really' guy gets some 'perfect' AIDS. Or go to a 'perfect' little place in 'perfect' Africa with 'perfect' little children that also have 'perfect' aids, instead of having the -completely equal in all relevant ways, it's just as perfect as having aids!-, luxuries of a care-free existence in a western country. Maybe that will make you stop both hugely overusing the word and attaching a positive emotional biased subjective unfounded connotation to some stoic/deterministic hybrid of a skewed worldview.

To nature there is no imperfection, something either works or it doesn't and to figure out if it works, you gotta experiment.

Originally Posted by Serkat

Then they don't understand their religion and haven't ever read their holy scribblings properly. Also, a million is a very tiny fraction of believers.

you're correct, many haven't

actually what happens is this

they read their holy scriptures, don't understand it because they are probably just kids when they were reading it. then they ask the adults what on earth is that supposed to mean, and the adults spoon feed them a definition. then they grow up with this dogmatic view, that they either have to whole fully accept, or question. And some, as me, question the original interpretation spoon fed as a child.

old bearded man in the sky is the product of artwork. and if you know your history you would know that once there was a time where no images of God could have been made, without the church crying false idol! since no image could capture the greatness of God.

things changed, and someone decided that an old bearded man in the sky would be a good depiction of God. and you can say, christianity has been jaded since.

but you can't deny history, that earlier christians were absolutely against any such visual image of God, other than Jesus. And even then, they were against illustrating Jesus realistically. This is partly why gothic art looks silly. They were against literal interpretations in artwork, and created a visual symbolic language. Where every part of the artwork meant something.

http://content.answers.com/main/cont...dorovskaya.jpg

the church would actually tell the painter the proper way to paint such figures without it becoming some sort of false idol. in those early days, even the baby Jesus wasn't allowed to be portrayed as a baby, but more like a little man

PS. as far as I know, the first image of God being an old bearded man comes from the famous mural the creation of Adam. God was based on the Pope. Adam was based on the painter. . . .

years before that would have been BLASPHEMY

Originally Posted by Neruo

lol. People like Spinoza got a bunch of shit and (risk of) prosecution for even supposing God was 'just nature' only 300 years back. As you can still get in some Muslim countries probably A lot of Christians and especially Muslims still do, and almost all did, believe in a big beared man in the sky.

I said that monotheistic religions do not necessarily believe that God is separate from nature. Thats not the same as to say God is 'just' nature. The God that is not separate from nature, can still also be divine Creator also existing existing outside of nature. This is a view point even held by Catholic saints, who taught that by loving nature, you were loving God.

Persecution came in the past if you try to take away the Creator aspect. So of course if someone says, just nature, the church would be down your throat.

your last statement is so politically incorrect. I have not met a single Christian or Muslim in my entire lifetime that has ever believed in a big bearded man in the sky. I repeat, this imagery is constantly forced by non-believers. And those who ever did believe in a big bearded man in the sky, usually just end up as atheists in the end anyways.

Muslims are absolutely against any image of God. Because they believe God is transcendent of this existence. Therefore nothing in this existence can equate to a visual interpretation of God. Therefore any visual image of God, IS A FALSE IDOL. How ignorant is your statement of Islam!!

"Islam does not allow making images of God. This makes calligraphic representations of the word for God, "Allah", and various praisings of God, even more important."

where is the bearded man in Islam??? All they ever do is write Allah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Allah-eser.jpg