[Closed] Anyone for another religion thread?

Well except that his opinion is driven be considered and ordered observations of the world around him. Whereas yours is based on superstition, smart people abandoned that 100's of years ago.

An opinion is not evidence.

Amazing how this needs to be repetitively pointed out...

"Dragons because, you know, faith."

So... Some genetic changes, are not mutation

yes, you get epigenetic changes.

theocb - Member

Where did they come from? We could skip to the end but I'm sure you will keep dragging this out..

from the big bang. what caused the big bang or what happened before is beyond me and other people at the moment but it would be an argument of ignorance to say a deity.

For those who have a genuine interest in learning what others think or believe when it comes to theology, this radio show often has very good, considered and rounded discussions or debates.
[url= https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes ]Unbelievable?[/url]

Mostly it will have experts from either side of a position discussing or sharing their opinion or beliefs, not necessarily to point score, though that does happen on hot subjects, but to try and learn why others think the way they do.
It's been going for over 10 years so there should be something for most people.

Ok, not really sure where that type of defensive comment came from but such is the nature of forums.

You consider me ignorant compared to you? ok, I'm fine with that. I'll take ignorance over arrogance.

The idea that you can't accept an opinion that is contrary to your own is "interesting" nothing more. It arguably erodes your assertions and opinions but I'll let others be the judge of that. To me it's just more an indication of persona than of opinion.

Your opinion, for that's all it is Poah, is no more considered or valid than mine or anyone else's in this thread for that matter.

All of the above said, if you are just out to attempt to try and antagonise, well ok... Just a shame you are so disinterested in a topic which is actually fascinating because people's views and opinions do vary so much on it.

didn't really think I'd have to explain my comment but anyway

you are ignorant of probably a lot of things just like me and everyone else. 500 years ago we were ignorant of DNA, viruses, bacteria, electricity, nuclear power, etc etc etc So when early man who knew very little about anything, using a deity to explain things was an easy concept to understand.

This is not my opinion, this is fact. opinions are great, they ensure discussion but opinions based on ignorance, stupidity and insanity are not as justified or valid as those based on facts. It is not arrogance to say that.

There is not even one fact to suggest the universe was created by a deity.

"But it's all just so, you know, wonderful. It's all just so, you know, beautiful."

Hello birds, hello sky, hello clouds, hello necrotic fasciitis.

yes, you get epigenetic changes.

And these are heritable, reversible adaptations?

5plusn8 - Member
Well except that his opinion is driven be considered and ordered observations of the world around him. Whereas yours is based on superstition, smart people abandoned that 100's of years ago.

It would be good if you actually went back and read my posts. There's only been a few of them in this thread. Only over the last few hours too.

Could you then come back to where I am alluding to superstition?

Every comment I have made has only one single foundation. That I have an open mind.

However your blind leap to defend another poster simply as he shares your opinions is again more a testament about you than the subject you profess to be so well versed in.

Again, arrogance is no substitute for discussion.

In every post I made earlier I went out of my way to make sure others knew I neither wished to, or had a need to, convince others of my view point.

That's what's so strange in a way. Two people that profess to be so enlightened are also so determined to try to suppress any opinion or view point they disagree with.

Is the irony lost on you?

5plusn8,I take it you think I am religious from the wording of your post. Again, you might find it interesting to actually read what I posted before you comment.

And these are heritable, reversible adaptations?

you mean you didn't google it ha ha ha ha

Funny that this come just after Tom commented on the sense of Poopscoop

you mean you didn't google it ha ha ha ha

I did but I thought I would ask a microbiologist to check my understanding was correct

Every comment I have made has only one single foundation. That I have an open mind.

However your blind leap to defend another poster simply as he shares your opinions is again more a testament about you than the subject you profess to be so well versed in.

Again, arrogance is no substitute for discussion.

I have an open mind, just show me facts.

point out how my posts are arrogant?

I did but I thought I would ask a microbiologist to check my understanding was correct

anyone on here a microbiologist that can answer it for you lol

Facts are really hard to come by, data is more abundant

Be careful you don't open your mind so much that your brains fall out.

The universe as we know it and as future scientific developments will further allow us to see it, is the very paradigm of awesome, AFAIK.

There's absolutely no need to shoe-horn in some petty little human-generated god concept.

"Not only is the universe queerer than we think, it's queerer than we [i]can[/i] think..."

Bless, the people on here that are so sure, so utterly unshakable in their opinions and "facts" are the ones that seem the most defensive. Just why is that?

Amusingly also the most likely to resort to school yard humour in defence of their viewpoints.

Amongst all the ranting and self suredness it's just a shame that the last few posters seem unable to read further than the first paragraph of a post. Hardly a great example of the scientific method.

Mr Woppit - Member
Be careful you don't open your mind so much that your brains fall out.

You must be so proud bless your little cottons.

Again and regrettably having to respond in a tone you might grasp in reply toyour comment above:

No chance of your brain doing that...For two very evident reasons.

On that note, School times over. For me anyway.

It's been... such a joy.

roper - Member
For those who have a genuine interest in learning what others think or believe when it comes to theology, this radio show often has very good, considered and rounded discussions or debates.
Unbelievable?
Mostly it will have experts from either side of a position discussing or sharing their opinion or beliefs, not necessarily to point score, though that does happen on hot subjects, but to try and learn why others think the way they do.
It's been going for over 10 years so there should be something for most people.

Sorry for not replying earlier roper. Got momentarily distracted.

Will check that out, sounds interesting. Thank you for the heads up!

An example such as bone cancer in children is easy enough to explain.

A god created everything but does not have full control of what happened to it after that. If you kept control of something you would have quite the task. Controlling all genes, controlling the worlds weather systems etc,. to ensure nothing bad could ever happen anywhere. And then if you didn't let people die you would somehow have to stop new ones being created.

Looking at it that way you can start to see how even God would not be able to manage that.

kerley - Member
An example such as bone cancer in children is easy enough to explain.
A god created everything but does not have full control of what happened to it after that. If you kept control of something you would have quite the task. Controlling all genes, controlling the worlds weather systems etc,. to ensure nothing bad could ever happen anywhere. And then if you didn't let people die you would somehow have to stop new ones being created.
Looking at it that way you can start to see how even God would not be able to manage that.

I have trouble reconciling myself to that to be honest though I do see the uncomfortable logic in what you say.

However, as I said last night, it's being in a position to see some of the world's suffering that makes me ill at ease to reconcile myself with an omnipotent being/God that can allow it.

If such an entity exists I think it more likely that it simply has no comprehension of a morality as we see it. That's why I find it hard to subscribe to any classical convention of religion.

Again, don't mean to ride roughshod over anyone's beliefs as I say that. It's just his I attempt to rationalise things like this.

OK I cycled through the night. Well, 45 mins of it. Whilst clattering down a silent old cart-track under starlight I heard the distinctive 'to-WHOOoo?' of an unseen tawny owl close by.

'Who?' Said I?

'To ... who, who, who, Who'? Said the owl.

And then it struck me. Which came first - the bird, or the word? A word (to be uttered) requires a 'who'. So if the word came first, then so it follows that a 'who' was before the word.

'Which/what who?' asked I.

'Whoooooooooo?' said the owl.

At which point I guessed that the truth might well lie within this wood, but that the mystery surely lay in words? And words lie in books. Yet which books? . Maybe Paulo Coehlo or St John? Maybe Milton or Shelley? Maybe Oprah or Chopra? Hawking or Dawkin? Maybe chicken soup has already been ordered and served for my soul, so that all I need do is to take the simple decision to sit and eat? Ideally before it goes cold? And the 'proof' shall be in the tasting?

Or maybe our minds plays tricks? Maybe these words, these endless questions are mere clutter. Maybe the bird is before the word?

And then I think about my marriage, my relationships, friends etc. How verbal communication is so often a problematic feature in my/our lives. I try and imagine howt a week of marriage without words would be like? To my mind it seems as if it would be honest and true. Excoriatingly so. Why do we never do this? It would feel 'silly' to be so open? To be laid so bare without words behind which to hide.

And the internet. An overflowing of words. Like rain in tissue cups. An endless argument falling through a hole in our minds. An ego-chamber. Words without vibration. Far from Om.

'Auuuuuhmmmmmmmmmmm(?)' - Said I.

The owl was now silent. I moved on. Upwards. Nothing but the slow sound of sand and gravel crunching and pinging off the tyres. The sense of a heavy, hanging dew in the meadow below. The 'scent' of silence. Still no voice. Still: No voice.

Thanks for that Malvern. I like that on many levels.

Really ..wow!
Got me thinking if it really was an owl ..or perhaps you were mistaken and it was a cuckoo.. 😀

[b]poah, woppit, 5plusn8[/b]

I believe I owe you guys an apology. I don't think your posts deserved the tone of my replies. I made some unfair assumptions based as much on my own temperament as yours.

Above said genuinely.

Got me thinking if it really was an owl ..or perhaps you were mistaken and it was a cuckoo..

I think it's best we'll call it a typo. I made a lengthy typo 😆

So there's this god and it created stuff over which it has no control. Hardly a god of any sort, I'd say, and still no explanation of where it came from.

Wow. You're reduced to that as an argument.

And so religion, thankfully, continues it's long drawn out death rattle as the gaps get narrower and fewer...

Malvern Rider - Member
Got me thinking if it really was an owl ..or perhaps you were mistaken and it was a cuckoo..
I think it's best we'll call it a typo. I made a lengthy typo

I googled your bit of prose assuming it was a copy and paste initially? 😀

It really isn't is it? Got some talent there mate!

Poop. Fret not. I wasn't tryimg to upset or insult you either so if I did then that was wrong, so please accept my apology in return. I am hard to annoy.
My point was that even if you are open minded there is zero evidence for a deity. You may as well believe in the flying spag monster or Russells teapot, as there is equal evidence for them. Theonly reason for opening yourmind to god over the FSM or Teapots is a concern that some of the superstition is true. So saying you are open minded about god seems suspiciously like superstition to me... Not trying to be mean or insulting. Just attempting to be objective about it.

Also, as others have said, even if one could see evidence of a God, you need to be open minded enough to ask where did that god come from? The problem is that the deity concept is just a logical fallacy, the idea that creation just stops in the trail at God.

Am surprised that no-one has already said:

[img] [/img]

oh God...

And so religion, thankfully, continues it's long drawn out death rattle as the gaps get narrower and fewer...

Again, I don't think you understand what religion is all about in 2017.

Again, I don't think you understand what religion is all about in 2017.

I don't think you understand what religion is all about in 2017.

PS the word of god is immutable but many practitioners seem happy to ignore the bits they dont like and "modernise it"
gods are not wrong they dont need updating

anyone on here a microbiologist that can answer it for you lol

If not, a chip shop owner or molecular biologist will do.

I can't be arsed. Epigenetics was the corner stone of my PhD thesis so had enough of it to last a life time.

Well, I just take what you say on faith then

I can't be arsed.

But really, all I'm asking for is confirmation or denial

I think that's about right kimbers. A mystical power created the universe

But really, all I'm asking for is confirmation or denial

Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene function that occur without a change in the sequence of nuclear DNA. This form of inheritance allows the transmission of information from mother to daughter cell without the information being encoded in the nucleotide sequence of the gene, for example when a liver cell divides, the daughter cells do not start to express proteins specific to muscle cells. Methylation of a CpG dinucleotide at cytosine C5 (mCpG) is a major epigenetic gene silencing modification in vertebrate genomes. This modification recruits proteins which specifically recognise this motif. These methylated DNA binding proteins then recruit enzymes which chemically and physically alter chromatin, which induces transcriptional repression. Although most CpG motifs are methylated it should be noted that short (500-2000bp) CG-rich regions, known as CpG islands, found within 60% of human gene promoters remain non-methylated (Bird, A. 2002). While this is true for normal cells, de novo methylation of CpG islands occurs in various cancers, inducing silencing of tumour suppressor genes e.g. CDH1 in breast, bladder and prostate cancer (Graff et al. 1995), CDKN2A in many epithelial cancers (Merlo et al. 1995), and the Rb gene in retinoblastomas (Sakai et al. 1991).

Control of gene expression/repression is important in cell development and differentiation to ensure that only cell-specific genes are transcribed. Some genes are constitutively transcribed in almost all cells, e.g. Glyceraldehyde 3 phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH); some genes are only transcribed in certain cell types, e.g. carnitine palmitoyltransferase I C in rat brain and testes (Price et al, 2002); others are only transcribed after a signaling cascade has been initiated, e.g. induction of insulin gene transcription by glucose in beta cells of the Islets of Langerhans (Leibiger et al. 1998). Eukaryotic DNA is packaged into a nucleoprotein complex called chromatin that is organized into two structurally distinct domains, euchromatin and heterochromatin (Heitz, 1928). Euchromatin is condensed during cell division but more open and transcriptionally active during interphase while heterochromatin is tightly packed and transcriptionally inactive throughout the cell cycle. While there is only one class of euchromatin, heterochromatin has two variants, constitutive or facultative. Constitutive heterochromatin is fixed, irreversible and located at very specific spots in the genome that consist of DNA that contains many tandem (not inverted) repeats of a short repeating unit known as satellite DNA. Facultative heterochromatin can revert to a euchromatin state for example, when a woman transmits the X-chromosome to a son; it reverts to euchromatin from heterochromatin. Replication of these two types of chromatin occurs at different time points, with heterochromatic DNA late and euchromatic DNA early within the cell cycle (Gilbert, 2002). DNA methylation is functionally connected to these two states through histone modification. In a simplified view, euchromatic DNA contains non-methylated CpGs and the histones are often acetylated whereas the CpGs in heterochromatin DNA are methylated and the histones are deacetylated with methylation occurring at histone 3 lysine 9 (H3K9 ) (Cameron et al. 1999). De-methylation of CpG motifs allows H3K9 to be re-acetylated (Bachman et al. 2003) which ultimately leads to a switch from hetero- to euchromatic DNA. Thus DNA methylation is a pivotal signal for the epigenetic control of gene expression in a reversible heritable manner.

Wow! You really couldn't be arsed could you!

For all that, I'm not sure you answered my question

And these are heritable, reversible adaptations?

DNA methylation is a pivotal signal for the epigenetic control of gene expression in a reversible heritable manner.

Thanks for breaking that down into simplistic terms ..but could you please go into a little more detail...
Cheers 😉

Copy and pasted from my thesis. The info is there btw

But are you talking about somatic cells or embryonic stem cells?

Both are under epigentic control. The research area is huge and not something I'm going to type out on my phone while in bed. Pretty sure there is a wiki site dealing with epigenetics so you should find your answer there or wait till I'm on a computer

This reminds me of one of those Twitter arguments that go:

"You're wrong. Have you read this book?"

"Yes - I'm the author."