Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

Does 16s rRNA gene prove all Abrahamic religions wrong?


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#31 Curtis

Curtis

    Metaller Scientist

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
59
Excellent

Posted 08 November 2012 - 05:14 PM

The sky has always been blue...shall I call it red because it's old?

#32 Ahrenhase

Ahrenhase

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 175 posts
11
Good

Posted 08 November 2012 - 05:56 PM

Forgive me for my ignorance, but what is so significant about the 16s rRNA gene?

#33 swanny

swanny

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
8
Neutral

Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:21 PM

16S rRNA is used to develop evolutionary tree distances, as an indicator of length of time that 2 species have diverged.

The initial premise of this thread is the apparent contradiction between what we understand from the 16S data and what (particularly) the Bible says about the start of life. As I pointed out in one of my posts, the whole question is moot, as the Bible was not written as an historical timeline by a 21st century minded person, so it's not reasonable to use those parameters to judge whether the document is "right" or "wrong".

If you read the Genesis account in its literary context (poetry, which is full of imagery to illustrate a truth), and in its chronological context ( the pre-scientific age, as has been the case for most of human history and prehistory), and in its cosmological context (a flat earth with the stars fixed in position to each other, but able to rotate en masse through the night), you don't have to be either an ancient scholar or Einstein to realise you can't really take the word "day" to literally mean one rotation of the Earth. Annoyingly, there are some Christian commentators who think otherwise, and shout their message so loudly that all other voices are drowned out. Personally, I think they are misrepresenting the Bible very badly, as are the atheist commentators who insist that it has to be read literally, and then mock (and how easy is it to mock?). Curious that we have both extremes of the argument using the same basic premise (a literal reading of the text as though it was written by a modern person), while disagreeing totally with the middle ground...

I really can't see any conflict. Perhaps there are some here who might need to soften their personal view and allow that they might not know everything, that they might in fact be wrong. As for myself, it's all really a side issue, a red herring. Perhaps I should resurrect my blog at Bioforum to go into more detail...
Heart disease kills more women than breast cancer, but heart attack symptoms differ from men's symptoms. Get to know your heart... it could save your life.

#34 Ameya P

Ameya P

    Rervm Cognoscere Cavsas

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 333 posts
26
Excellent

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:45 PM

Did you read it....

there are words behind because........... and they are important!



While a religious protocol does not need any adjusment according to extreme believers.. thats just it: its written there and it has to be followed exactely as being written down, there is no room for being open minded, because if you are , then you are not a true religious people according to those "religious leaders" that claim to know everything.


Why does a religious person have to be fanatic at all times???? Isn't that being too presumptuous?

True, but then we are talking about semantics, because you need to draw a line somewhere between "believer" and "non believer".
A "true" religious person is one that accepts the "holy book" as it is written.
If you are indeed less "extreme" , then yes there is room for more.. however, these people are often not the ones yelling from the tops of their houses that they are religious.



Like what? That you can follow and adapt a protocol. So goes with religion. Like Swanny said, that if you think religious leaders are reading their books, as they are, so are you? So, you are no different than them. Just that you prefer to be on this side, probably because you think its cool to be an atheist/ or your boss is an atheist and people around you are people of science, so they have to be atheists.

A true believer will be prepared to "kill" you or at least kick your ass because you call religion a social experiment...


No religion teaches you to kill every opposite person who does not agree with you.

(I do wonder: are you really religious or not, because a religious person will never call his/her religion an experiment.....
or are you using the wrong words?)


Does it matter, neither you nor I are representatives of either of the parties.

Secondly: it is rigid.. thats just religion, it is ment to be rigid!
If there is too much place for interpretation and adaptation, that specific religion will not stay as it was/is...


who gives you these ideas/ comments. If you are a true man of science, cite your sources. :P


You dont need to ask Kary Mullis for explanation..
When I do a PCR and it works.. I see it with my own eyes!


You can see the working of the PCR with your own eyes? :P

Can you imagine a retraction of a part of the bible because we know its impossible to become pregnant without sex?


What happened to IVF. Did we stop doing it?

NEW!!!!  Your hand wash can give you cancer  on CoffeeTableScience!!!! 

Image copyright: Adrian Koh SF.
Replication of this art is strictly prohibited without express permission of the artist


#35 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,337 posts
82
Excellent

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:00 AM

Did you read it....

there are words behind because........... and they are important!


While a religious protocol does not need any adjusment according to extreme believers.. thats just it: its written there and it has to be followed exactely as being written down, there is no room for being open minded, because if you are , then you are not a true religious people according to those "religious leaders" that claim to know everything.




Why does a religious person have to be fanatic at all times???? Isn't that being too presumptuous?

True, but then we are talking about semantics, because you need to draw a line somewhere between "believer" and "non believer".
A "true" religious person is one that accepts the "holy book" as it is written.
If you are indeed less "extreme" , then yes there is room for more.. however, these people are often not the ones yelling from the tops of their houses that they are religious.



Like what? That you can follow and adapt a protocol. So goes with religion. Like Swanny said, that if you think religious leaders are reading their books, as they are, so are you? So, you are no different than them. Just that you prefer to be on this side, probably because you think its cool to be an atheist/ or your boss is an atheist and people around you are people of science, so they have to be atheists.


No its not the same because the science protocol has been challenged and tested and adapted if needed.
A religious "protocol" has not been altered or changed or commented on.

And being an atheist is nothing "cool", it has nothing to do with being cool or whatsoever.

For me its pretty obvious: if you are a scientist then its impossible to believe in a certain religion like most religions are perceived.
(I am talking about a more extreme/literally view on the holy books/religion)

A true scientist can not accept a woman to be pregnant without sex, a man splitting a river, a man changing water into wine, going to heaven/hell, being gay is not natural etc...

A true believer will be prepared to "kill" you or at least kick your ass because you call religion a social experiment...


No religion teaches you to kill every opposite person who does not agree with you.


Extremists do indeed or at least look down on others that are not from the same religion.



Secondly: it is rigid.. thats just religion, it is ment to be rigid!
If there is too much place for interpretation and adaptation, that specific religion will not stay as it was/is...


who gives you these ideas/ comments. If you are a true man of science, cite your sources. Posted Image



Religious people do..
And again; I am talking about really religious people , people that take it pretty literally, people that are not able to compremise or people that are really 100% blinded by their religion.

Also: if there is place for different interpretations or adaptions, then how can it be a religion?

Is it not so that for something to be a religion it needs certain fixed rules?
A religion that is flexible is not a religion.. You need a certain rigidity or certainty to hold on.
For example: the fact that there is a hell and heaven is fixed, not debate possible for a believer, because if there is doubt.. then there is no need anymore to try and get into heaven...
(I am taking a pretty simple example here)


You dont need to ask Kary Mullis for explanation..
When I do a PCR and it works.. I see it with my own eyes!



You can see the working of the PCR with your own eyes? Posted Image


I dont see the proces with my own eyes, but I see the result with my own eyes..

Do I know that the theory behind it is 100% correct? No, thats partly an hypothesis, but I do see the result with my own eyes...


Can you imagine a retraction of a part of the bible because we know its impossible to become pregnant without sex?



What happened to IVF. Did we stop doing it?


I am not sure what you mean with this?

Are you saying that they used a form of IVF ?


Getting a babywith IVF is indeed possible without sex, maybe I should have narrowed it down and said: had a baby without any contact with male fluids..

Edited by pito, 09 November 2012 - 07:02 AM.

If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some than not ask and stay stupid.


#36 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,337 posts
82
Excellent

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:15 AM

. Annoyingly, there are some Christian commentators who think otherwise, and shout their message so loudly that all other voices are drowned out. Personally, I think they are misrepresenting the Bible very badly, as are the atheist commentators who insist that it has to be read literally, and then mock (and how easy is it to mock?). Curious that we have both extremes of the argument using the same basic premise (a literal reading of the text as though it was written by a modern person), while disagreeing totally with the middle ground...


But this is just the problem: the "true" relgious people do claim it has to be taken literally!

there is nothing wrong with using the bible as some sort of guideline, but thats just it: the so called real believers are not using it like that, they are using it as a book to be taken literally and they do insist on this and irritate others with it.

I think most atheist (and how many true atheist are out there?) have no problem with people that "believe/think" there is some sort of "higher power" (a god, a nature force.. whatever) and follow certain guidelines.
Atheists have problems with people taking it all literally and forcing others to follow their religion or claiming they have the only right religion.

If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some than not ask and stay stupid.


#37 Curtis

Curtis

    Metaller Scientist

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
59
Excellent

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:24 PM

there is nothing wrong with using the bible as some sort of guideline, but thats just it: the so called real believers are not using it like that, they are using it as a book to be taken literally and they do insist on this and irritate others with it.

I think most atheist (and how many true atheist are out there?) have no problem with people that "believe/think" there is some sort of "higher power" (a god, a nature force.. whatever) and follow certain guidelines.
Atheists have problems with people taking it all literally and forcing others to follow their religion or claiming they have the only right religion.


I'm with Pito on this. There are a lot of good things in the bible and quran. I have read both of them. In a way they have saved the history of the pre-judaism from being forgotten. But to use it as a tool to rule over a nation is unacceptable. That's what's happening in Afghanistan and Iran right now.

A lot of my friends are believers. I can't deny that I have never tried to convert them to agnosticism (I'm not even sure I can use the verb convert when talking about agnosticism), but if I didn't succeed I didn't push it. You know, they were living happily and were great people. I didn't risk changing them to something different. I didn't want them to face the conversion shock which lasts for a long time. As long as they follow a standard social life it's enough. Agnosticism says the same thing. Just follow standards. I have to admit I really wish I believed in something. I envy my wife and mother. they have someone to talk to but I don't. In a way they meditate and release the stress. So, not always the truth comes with a great prize.

#38 leelee

leelee

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
53
Excellent

Posted 09 November 2012 - 05:09 PM

I'm with Pito and with Curtis.

I'm an athiest, but I have no problem at all with people wanting to believe in a higher power. It is an alluring thought. I sometimes wish I could believe. But alas, it is just not possible.

I have to admit, if I'm being completely honest, that I have a hard time taking seriously people who believe everything written in the bible is fact- but I'm not going to argue about it or try and change their minds (and I hope they will show me the same respect).

As for being an atheist because its cool- no one I know has come to the conclusion that there must be no god or higher power lightly. And definitely not because their boss is. Must be some kinda boss to have the power to change a person's world view!!
Admitting to yourself, and allowing yourself to realise that there is no life after death, no higher power looking over you, etc etc is in my opinion a difficult realisation.

I see the comfort that religion gives people and the solace it can give them in difficult times. How could anyone have a problem with that?

What I, as a human (atheist or not) have a problem with are people who use religion as a way to consider themselves superior to others, more "good", more "moral" etc etc.
You have to accept that being good and moral person has nothing to do with religion. You don't have to believe in a higher power to be a good person. In fact, IMO being a good, moral person even in the face of the realisation of no god may even be harder. You have no almighty to feel accountable to, no heaven to forsake, its just being a good person because it is right and just.

Anyone who has read those tweets and comments recently from religious people in the US claiming Hurricane Sandy is punishment for homosexuality has got to admit there are some crazy serious extremists in this world, and sadly they are not as scarce as one would like. Its a shame they can't practice the tolerance that their religion preaches!

That's my 2 cents for a Saturday morning Posted Image

Edited by leelee, 09 November 2012 - 05:23 PM.


#39 Curtis

Curtis

    Metaller Scientist

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
59
Excellent

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:42 PM

Anyone who has read those tweets and comments recently from religious people in the US claiming Hurricane Sandy is punishment for homosexuality has got to admit there are some crazy serious extremists in this world, and sadly they are not as scarce as one would like. Its a shame they can't practice the tolerance that their religion preaches!

That's my 2 cents for a Saturday morning Posted Image


Posted Image
maybe they will apologize for those comments later like how Sharon Stone did for her China earthquake comments :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZi_DSK1tQg

#40 Ameya P

Ameya P

    Rervm Cognoscere Cavsas

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 333 posts
26
Excellent

Posted 09 November 2012 - 10:29 PM

What I, as a human (atheist or not) have a problem with are people who use religion as a way to consider themselves superior to others, more "good", more "moral" etc etc.



True. The way this discussion began, its seemed like some people were also using 'Science' as a way to consider themselves superior (intelligent, smarter, with a broad outlook, etc.) than the ones who believed in some kind of religion.

The good news is that nobody here is an 'Science extremist' and wants to bomb embassies or use highly resistant bacteria from the incubator to make a point.

Tolerance is something, we must learn, whether we believe in a holy book or not.

Anyone who has read those tweets and comments recently from religious people in the US claiming Hurricane Sandy is punishment for homosexuality has got to admit there are some crazy serious extremists in this world


Seriously, some one said that.

Why can't people ask for better punishments like shortage of scientific funding, high % of inflation, or loss of Olympic Gold medals :P

NEW!!!!  Your hand wash can give you cancer  on CoffeeTableScience!!!! 

Image copyright: Adrian Koh SF.
Replication of this art is strictly prohibited without express permission of the artist


#41 Tribea

Tribea

    member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 16 September 2013 - 06:53 PM

Hey curtis! Interesting question, but you need to look at the context of the original writings. A totally pre-scientific time, when everyone "knew" the earth was the centre of everything, and was flat to boot. Male semen actually contained tiny, tiny fully-formed people that just grew inside a woman. Blood was a complete mystery, but the blood of animals contained the essence of that animal (drinking it would give you the characteristsics of that animal: lion's blood, anyone?).

Remember that the creation account in Genesis was written down over 3500 years ago, and the scientific method has only been around for 500 years or so, and I think I am being generous there. Considering the fact that even in the early-middle 20th century science still thought that proteins, rather than nucleic acid, constituted the hereditary material, you might want to cut other people a bit of slack...

Speaking as an committed Christian, all I can say is that Christianity should not be thought of as a philosophy or a way of thinking, but as the response to historical events (I would also guess that Jews and Muslims would say the same thing). And as for your comments about religious people not really being scientists, I think that Michael Faraday, John Lennox (who has destroyed Dawkins' arguments on a number of occasions) and Francis Collins (who led the public Human Genmoe effort, and who now runs the NIH), just to name three, may dispute your statement...

Okay, i hate it when people say that they thought the world was flat.

Plato learned it was round.

 

Also, it reminds of a brain, not much else.

And could OP please say how they think it proves it wrong¿?






Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.