Sacrifice

[Spud]

I'm tempted to suggest that the fossil record does not support the idea that DNA similarities indicate common ancestry.

[Shaker]

I'm tempted to suggest that the fossils do not support the idea that DNA similarities indicate common ancestry.

You'd be howlingly wrong of course - and in any case we have abundant evidence from molecular biology - but go right ahead.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm tempted to suggest that the fossils do not support the idea that DNA similarities indicate common ancestry.

Can I suggest that before you go off on a whole new rabbit hole of spectacular wrongosity, you either accept the previous points made or reply?

[Spud]

Can I suggest that before you go off on a whole new rabbit hole of spectacular wrongosity, you either accept the previous points made or reply?

Which points please?

[Nearly Sane]

Which points please?

See Shaker's reply 68 re genetics . Also note that your reply 68 to his reply 64 seems to ignore the content of his post covering sources on non theist spirituality. Do you accept that theist based definitions of spirituality are not the default!?

[Spud]

...

Also note that your reply 68 to his reply 64 seems to ignore the content of his post covering sources on non theist spirituality. Do you accept that theist based definitions of spirituality are not the default!?

That's what I learned in the lecture!

[Nearly Sane]

That's what I learned in the lecture!

on, well that's only the second part of the post but the point is given Shaker's point, and having gone away and dine the research, I assume you accept the lecture was incorrect?

[Spud]

See Shaker's reply 68 re genetics .

If you mean his post #74, my reply is that similarities between banana genes and human genes don't prove common ancestry. The fossil record demonstrates minute amounts of change over millions of years, but not evolution of all life from microbes. Thus it does not support his "bananaman" (if I may) idea.

[Spud]

on, well that's only the second part of the post but the point is given Shaker's point, and having gone away and dine the research, I assume you accept the lecture was incorrect?

I learned in the lecture that theistic definitions of spirituality are not the default, in that not everyone thinks of spirituality as being to do with God, but some think of it as being about relating to other people. I'd however put that in the sociological section of the pie.
(The context of the lecture was holistic approach to health. Spiritual and social were two out of a number of parts of the whole person)

[Nearly Sane]

If you mean his post #74, my reply is that similarities between banana genes and human genes don't prove common ancestry. The fossil record demonstrates minute amounts of change over millions of years, but not evolution of all life from microbes. Thus it does not support his "bananaman" (if I may) idea.

Evidence for, not proof of (using the word proof here is indicative if a lack of understanding) . The point is you claimed there was no relationship genetically. The evidence is against you. You haven't dealt with that and are now moving onto a different subject, making a mistake in that too (the fossil record does support ToE) and making a point irrelevant to your original statement

[Nearly Sane]

I learned in the lecture that theistic definitions of spirituality are not the default, in that not everyone thinks of spirituality as being to do with God, but some think of it as being about relating to other people. I'd however put that in the sociological section of the pie.
(The context of the lecture was holistic approach to health. Spiritual and social were two out of a number of parts of the whole person)

To quote you

'The lecturer said that it's basically an awareness of other people and their needs, and of a Creator, as opposed to always having our own agenda in mind.'

The 'and of a Creator' seems to make that integral to the definition/ That's what Shaker's post addressed. So I take it you expressed yourself unclearly?

[Spud]

Evidence for, not proof of (using the word proof here is indicative if a lack of understanding) . The point is you claimed there was no relationship genetically.

A "genetic relationship" implies common ancestry; I didn't deny there are genetic similarities.

[Spud]

To quote you

'The lecturer said that it's basically an awareness of other people and their needs, and of a Creator, as opposed to always having our own agenda in mind.'

The 'and of a Creator' seems to make that integral to the definition/ That's what Shaker's post addressed. So I take it you expressed yourself unclearly?

I did, sorry. He meant: for some, a creator

[Nearly Sane]

A "genetic relationship" implies common ancestry; I didn't deny there are genetic similarities.

And the genetic evidence is for common ancestry
Amongst many other things, see

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

[Spud]

And the genetic evidence is for common ancestry

Assertion, please explain how that is the case

[Nearly Sane]

Assertion, please explain how that is the case

See edited post. BTW can I just check that the various Christians who are genetic scientists such as Francis Collins are mistaken when they argue that genetics is indicative of common ancestry, and why you think that is?

Note here's an interview with Collins by a source that is biased to your side. So tell me what is he getting wrong?



http://www.beliefnet.com/news/science-religion/2006/08/god-is-not-threatened-by-our-scientific-adventures.aspx


Oh, and if you get a chance, could you, my petit chou-chou, across to the Charlie Gard and God thread and explain your post to dear Wol? He finds it somewhat gnomic, and he is not alone.

[Spud]

See edited post. BTW can I just check that the various Christians who are genetic scientists such as Francis Collins are mistaken when they argue that genetics is indicative of common ancestry, and why you think that is?

Note here's an interview with Collins by a source that is biased to your side. So tell me what is he getting wrong?



http://www.beliefnet.com/news/science-religion/2006/08/god-is-not-threatened-by-our-scientific-adventures.aspx


Oh, and if you get a chance, could you, my petit chou-chou, across to the Charlie Gard and God thread and explain your post to dear Wol? He finds it somewhat gnomic, and he is not alone.

Maybe some other time

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe some other time

is that to all the points/questions? Covering both threads? Sad face.

[Spud]

And the genetic evidence is for common ancestry
Amongst many other things, see

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

The chromosome 2 fusion model was put forward before the human genome was sequenced. See articles below (I seem to recall reading the second one ages ago)

http://creation.mobi/chromosome-2-fusion-1
http://creation.mobi/chromosome-2-fusion-2

[Nearly Sane]

The chromosome 2 fusion model was put forward before the human genome was sequenced. See articles below (I seem to recall reading the second one ages ago)

http://creation.mobi/chromosome-2-fusion-1
http://creation.mobi/chromosome-2-fusion-2

And see

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/21/creationist-fud-refuted/

[Spud]

And see

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/21/creationist-fud-refuted/

"The primary evidence for this fusion is the comparative genetic content of these chromosomes. That is, most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q. The chromatin binding patterns line up, the sequence analysis confirms, and there have been some lovely FISH studies that show the correspondence."
most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q
Doesn't prove anything. Still, if Myers uses words like evisceration I suppose he deserves some respect 

[Nearly Sane]

"The primary evidence for this fusion is the comparative genetic content of these chromosomes. That is, most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q. The chromatin binding patterns line up, the sequence analysis confirms, and there have been some lovely FISH studies that show the correspondence."
most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q
Doesn't prove anything. Still, if Myers uses words like evisceration I suppose he deserves some respect 

Prove? Of course not. Evidence for. Yes.

[Sassy]

Do you think it was acceptable to sacrifice animals as an atonement for 'sin' as they did in the days of the OT? God then decided it would be better to sacrifice its son as a once and for all sacrifice, how kind of it!

Human or animal sacrifice is ghastly, and if god really ordered people to do this, it is a psycho, imo.

Be Quiet Floo.

Is it any different from firemen who rush into blazing buildings risking their lives to save others?

The police officers killed when defending others?

Your opinion doesn't count because it is not a rational and well thought out one. It is an expression of your own dislike.
It is like someone saying the fireman should not have done as their commander told them.

There is something more important about selfless act like giving your life for another. It is called LOVE.

One has to pay respect and acknowledge such courageous acts of love.

So do not compare sacrificing of animals with the sacrificing of ones life to save others.

[trippymonkey]

YER WOT ?!?!!?!?

Did a person get born into a blazing building in the first place ?!?!!?!?

[floo]

Be Quiet Floo.

Is it any different from firemen who rush into blazing buildings risking their lives to save others?

The police officers killed when defending others?

Your opinion doesn't count because it is not a rational and well thought out one. It is an expression of your own dislike.
It is like someone saying the fireman should not have done as their commander told them.

There is something more important about selfless act like giving your life for another. It is called LOVE.

One has to pay respect and acknowledge such courageous acts of love.

So do not compare sacrificing of animals with the sacrificing of ones life to save others.

I won't be quiet.

Jesus was killed because he was a pain is the butt where the religious authorities of the day were concerned, and no other reason, imo. His so called 'dad' was a psycho if it had to sacrifice its spawn because it had screwed up so badly when it created human nature.

However if Jesus died to 'save' humanity only to resurrect three days  late, his 'sacrifice' cannot be compared with those who have died trying to save others, but have stayed dead.