No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LeiYunFat
    I'm a russbo god, not a team member. Big difference. As a god, I have no responsibilities but to laze around, eat grapes, and throw lightning bolts at whatever I feel like.

    I've acended.

    Leave a comment:

  • doc
    LYF, as russboteam member, it is your duty to read, understand, and translate posts such as these, for the rest of us mere mortals.

    I'm ashamed!

    Leave a comment:

  • LeiYunFat
    I'm not going back to read up on this one. I have more important things to breathe.

    Leave a comment:

  • doc
    Anybody understand that? I'm lost.

    Leave a comment:

  • Librarian
    Forum User ShaolinNinja,

    We are faced with a totally ill-balanced world.
    We are faced with evolution that is why there is no stability to how "things" may change

    Why, it may be questioned, should one be an inferior and another a superior? Why should one be wrested from the hands of a fond mother when he has scarcely seen a few summers, and another should perish in the flower of manhood, or at the ripe age of eighty or hundred? Why should one be sick and infirm, and another strong and healthy? Why should one be handsome, and another ugly and hideous, repulsive to all? Why should one be brought up in the lap of luxury, and another in absolute poverty, steeped in misery? Why should one be born a millionaire and another a pauper? Why should one be born with saintly characteristics, and another with criminal tendencies? Why should some be linguists, artists, mathematicians or musicians from the very cradle? Why should some be congenitally blind, deaf and deformed? Why should some be blessed and others cursed from their birth?
    There is nothing in this world that happens by blind chance or accident. To say that anything happens by chance, is no more true than that this book has come here of itself. Strictly speaking, nothing happens to man that he does not deserve for some reason or another.

    Could this be the fiat of an irresponsible Creator?
    Please refer to Yin Yang balance

    These are some problems that perplex the minds of all thinking men. How are we to account for all this unevenness of the world, this inequality of mankind? Is it due to the work of blind chance or accident?
    We have to look reality with "Empty" eyes,accepting through denying attaining Void.
    Huxley writes: "If we are to assume that anybody has designedly set this wonderful universe going, it is perfectly clear to me that he is no more entirely benevolent and just in any intelligible sense of the words, than that he is malevolent and unjust."

    According to Einstein: "If this being (God) is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also his work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an Almighty Being.

    "In giving out punishments and rewards, he would to a certain extent be passing judgement on himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to him."

    "According to the theological principles man is created arbitrarily and without his desire and at the moment of his creation is either blessed or damned eternally. Hence man is either good or evil, fortunate or unfortunate, noble or depraved, from the first step in the process of his physical creation to the moment of his last breath, regardless of his individual desires, hopes, ambitions, struggles or devoted prayers. Such is theological fatalism." - Spencer Lewis

    Please refer to Ying - Yang duality through Void(You can ask me to explain further but first try thinking about it a bit).
    As Charles Bradlaugh says: "The existence of evil is a terrible stumbling block to the theist. Pain, misery, crime, poverty confront the advocate of eternal goodness and challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of Deity as all-good, all-wise, and all-powerful."
    Evil is a choise and also a part of Existance(all that exist) interconnective chain.A part that if "faced" with just ways infinite benefits shall occur.

    In the words of Schopenhauer: "Whoever regards himself as having become out of nothing must also think that he will again become nothing; for an eternity has passed before he was, and then a second eternity had begun, through which he will never cease to be, is a monstrous thought.

    "If birth is the absolute beginning, then death must be his absolute end; and the assumption that man is made out of nothing leads necessarily to the assumption that death is his absolute end."
    Void is all and one at the same time.Observe Universall flow in accordance to justfull proofs
    Commenting on human sufferings and God, Prof. J.B.S. Haldane writes: "Either suffering is needed to perfect human character, or God is not Almighty. The former theory is disproved by the fact that some people who have suffered very little but have been fortunate in their ancestry and education have very fine characters. The objection to the second is that it is only in connection with the universe as a whole that there is any intellectual gap to be filled by the postulation of a deity. And a creator could presumably create whatever he or it wanted."

    Lord Russell states: "The world, we are told, was created by a God who is both good and omnipotent. Before he created the world he foresaw all the pain and misery that it would contain. He is therefore responsible for all of it. it is useless to argue that the pain in the world is due to sin. If God knew in advance the sins of which man would be guilty, he was clearly responsible for all the consequences of those sins when he decided to create man."

    In "Despair," a poem of his old age, Lord Tennyson thus boldly attacks God, who, as recorded in Isaiah, says, "I make peace and create evil." (Isaiah, xiv. 7.)

    "What! I should call on that infinite love that has served us so well?/ Infinite cruelty, rather, that made everlasting hell./ Made us, foreknew us, foredoomed us, and does what he will with his own./ Better our dead brute mother who never has heard us groan."

    Surely "the doctrine that all men are sinners and have the essential sin of Adam is a challenge to justice, mercy, love and omnipotent fairness."

    Some writers of old authoritatively declared that God created man in his own image. Some modern thinkers state, on the contrary, that man created God in his own image. With the growth of civilization man's concept of God also became more and more refined.
    Please define God

    Feelings such as despair can confuse,can't they ?

    It is, however, impossible to conceive of such a being either in or outside the universe.

    Could this variation in human beings then be due to heredity and environment? One must admit that all such chemico-physical phenomena revealed by scientists, are partly instrumental, but they cannot be solely responsible for the subtle distinctions and vast differences that exist amongst individuals. Yet why should identical twins who are physically alike, inheriting like genes, enjoying the same privilege of upbringing, be very often temperamentally, morally and intellectually totally different?

    Heredity alone cannot account for these vast differences. Strictly speaking, it accounts more plausibly for their similarities than for most of the differences. The infinitesimally minute chemico-physical germ, which is about 30 millionth part of an inch across, inherited from parents, explains only a portion of man, his physical foundation. With regard to the more complex and subtle mental, intellectual and moral differences we need more enlightenment. The theory of heredity cannot give a satisfactory explanation for the birth of a criminal in a long line of honourable ancestors, the birth of a saint or a noble man in a family of evil repute, for the arising of infant prodigies, men of genius and great religious teachers.

    According to Buddhism this variation is due not only to heredity, environment, "nature and nurture," but also to our own kamma, or in other words, to the result of our own inherited past actions and our present deeds. We ourselves are responsible for our own deeds, happiness and misery. We build our own hells. We create our own heavens. We are the architects of our own fate. In short we ourselves are our own kamma.
    I suppose the term impossible is something formed by humans

    On one occasion[9] a certain young man named Subha approached the Buddha, and questioned why and wherefore it was that among human beings there are the low and high states.

    "For," said he, "we find amongst mankind those of brief life and those of long life, the hale and the ailing, the good looking and the ill-looking, the powerful and the powerless, the poor and the rich, the low-born and the high-born, the ignorant and the intelligent."

    The Buddha briefly replied: "Every living being has kamma as its own, its inheritance, its cause, its kinsman, its refuge. Kamma is that which differentiates all living beings into low and high states."

    He then explained the cause of such differences in accordance with the law of moral causation.

    Thus from a Buddhist standpoint, our present mental, intellectual, moral and temperamental differences are mainly due to our own actions and tendencies, both past the present.

    Kamma, literally, means action; but, in its ultimate sense, it means the meritorious and demeritorious volition (kusala akusala cetana). Kamma constitutes both good and evil. Good gets good. Evil gets evil. Like attracts like. This is the law of Kamma.
    Buddhism attributes this variation to kamma, but it does not assert that everything is due to kamma.

    If everything were due to kamma, a man must ever be bad, for it is his kamma to be bad. One need not consult a physician to be cured of a disease, for if one's kamma is such one will be cured.

    According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (niyamas) which operate in the physical and mental realms:

    i. Kamma niyama, order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results.
    ii. Utu niyama, physical (inorganic) order, e.g., seasonal phenomena of winds and rains.
    iii. Bija niyama, order of germs or seeds (physical organic order); e.g., rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar cane or honey, etc. The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order.
    iv. Citta niyama, order of mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of consciousness (citta vithi), power of mind, etc.
    v. Dhamma niyama, order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at the advent of a Bodhisatta in his last birth, gravitation, etc.

    Every mental or physical phenomenon could be explained by these all-embracing five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. Kamma is, therefore, only one of the five orders that prevail in the universe. It is a law in itself, but it does not thereby follow that there should be a law-giver. Ordinary laws of nature, like gravitation, need no law-giver. It operates in its own field without the intervention of an external independent ruling agency.

    Nobody, for instance, has decreed that fire should burn. Nobody has commanded that water should seek its own level. No scientist has ordered that water should consist of H2O, and that coldness should be one of its properties. These are their intrinsic characteristics. Kamma is neither fate nor predestination imposed upon us by some mysterious unknown power to which we must helplessly submit ourselves. It is one's own doing reacting on oneself, and so one has the possibility to divert the course of kamma to some extent. How far one diverts it depends on oneself.

    It must also be said that such phraseology as rewards and punishments should not be allowed to enter into discussions concerning the problem of kamma. For Buddhism does not recognize an Almighty Being who rules his subjects and rewards and punishes them accordingly. Buddhists, on the contrary, believe that sorrow and happiness one experiences are the natural outcome of one's own good and bad actions. It should be stated that kamma has both the continuative and the retributive principle.

    Inherent in kamma is the potentiality of producing its due effect. The cause produces the effect; the effect explains the cause. Seed produces the fruit; the fruit explains the seed as both are inter-related. Even so kamma and its effect are inter-related; "the effect already blooms in the cause."

    A Buddhist who is fully convinced of the doctrine of kamma does not pray to another to be saved but confidently relies on himself for his purification because it teaches individual responsibility.

    It is this doctrine of kamma that gives him consolation, hope, self reliance and moral courage. It is this belief in kamma "that validates his effort, kindles his enthusiasm," makes him ever kind, tolerant and considerate. It is also this firm belief in kamma that prompts him to refrain from evil, do good and be good without being frightened of any punishment or tempted by any reward.

    It is this doctrine of kamma that can explain the problem of suffering, the mystery of so-called fate or predestination of other religions, and above all the inequality of mankind.
    I assume that you are aware of the fact that a great part of the Sutras is using dialogical parallelism.In other words comparison with reality for further research and deciphering is required.

    Kamma and rebirth are accepted as axiomatic.
    By whom ?

    P.s.:Interesting name imagine what you can do combining both teachings

    P.s.2:I would advice to sum your opinions in a whole and afterwards form the related question.I had the same syntax "problem" you know.I am not trying to offend you

    P.s.3:Ask anything

    Leave a comment:

  • Maestro
    duality of the cows brain

    weve discussed duality like a bagillion times

    theres isnt a single russbo member who can claim ignorance of the subject!

    and if they say any different then they arent hardcore!!

    Leave a comment:

  • Lipster
    Okay, cheers.

    Never aggravated though, enthusiastic perhaps, but never aggravated...


    Leave a comment:

  • daodejing
    To be quite honest, i still beleive those points were, in essence irrevelant. The reason I didn't say anything was because it is my opinion that almost any set philosophical point of view tends to go awry from the truth ESPECIALLY those points of view which assume the existance of dualities. This is not to say that i beleive there are such things as true and false, don't misunderstand me. Hopefully you get the point. If you beleive every religious experience can be made to fit the realist/pragmatist model then every religious experience which you undergo or perceive will fit that model. Since I thought it was obvious that you beleive differently, and that you were capable of being aggravated by this whole discussion, I simply let the matter rest. Either you will learn what I'm talking about or not, it doesn't matter because if you do learn it, it won't be from me. You'll have to teach yourself, not to say that you havent been doing a fine job of that so far

    Leave a comment:

  • Lipster
    Hey Dao, [didn't know if you were away or something, but now I know you're here] could you let me know whether you agree with my statement about three or four posts back on why certain topics may not necessarily be irrellevant looking at it from the realist point of view.

    Please don't confuse my pushiness with a demand for you to conform to my views, I just like to elucidate certain points when I discuss things like this; it helps clarify certain points for future debate and formation of opinion. It just gets to me when people drop halfway through a debate or don't answer crucial points to the argument. I mean I understand if people don't want to prattle on forever, I don't either, so if you could just say yes or no...

    thanks alot


    Leave a comment:

  • Lipster
    Doc, that story bring back any memories of NY back in the day...?

    Leave a comment:

  • Lipster

    Another analogy of a similar vein is one of a simpleton who enters a big building. He makes his way down the corridors and eventually comes to a door with a small window through which he peers. Before him he sees his brother tied down to a table surrounded by a bunch of swarthy looking men obviously up to no good. There's an assortment of wickedly sharp looking instruments hanging up on a rack on the nearby wall. Calmly, with no qualms, the head honcho goes about selecting the meanest looking tools. Amidst the screams coming from this poor fella on the table the callous workers do their deed. There's an awful mess, the poor fellas entrails are visible, there's screaming from both sides of the door, the lights are glittering off the evil looking steel instruments that are bring used to puncture and mar the poor victims body. The spectator goes absolutely ballistic; there's his brother defenceless at the hands of his merciless mutilators, screaming his lungs out begging, begging the sweet Lord to put him out of his misery. And there's absolutely nothing the spectator can do to help his brother. Imagine the despair.

    Eventually, along come the men in white coats. They take him aside and slowly explain to him the concepts of surgery. How all this is necessary to uphold his brother's health. On the contrary, if they would not be carrying out these actions, his brother would surely die.

    Things are not necessarily what they seem. Simply put, you can't view a four dimensional picture with 3-D glasses. We just don't know everything.

    Leave a comment:

  • bhodi

    I was just reading over the post that started this thread.... some alarms went off in my head right off the bat.

    The idea that this world is ill-balanced is the first assumption made in that post. It is apparently ill-balanced from our subjective viewpoints. But I have found evidence of thought processes in most religions that i have investigated that show an understanding that frees our minds from that kind of perception.

    Even before The Once And Future King was referenced in X-2 (and Knightriders by George Remero starring Ed Harris) I had fallen in love with that book and read it many times cover to cover. I now own copies of the book that are well marked up and written in at the parts I found important upon that read through. Anyway there is one particular story that the author included in the book that I think applies to this discussion. It generally goes like this:

    The Rabbi Jachanon and Elijah had to make a journey to a city that was quite a ways away. They would be spending two nights on the road. The first day they walked all day and part of the night till they came to a very impoverished farm housel. The farmer and his wife ran out to greet them and invited them in for food and asked them to stay the night. They were fed on the best food the farmers had to offer (which included some dairy as thier greatest wealth was a cow). They were then given the only bed to sleep in while the hosts slept on the floor. In the morning they woke up and saw that the cow had died in the night. The prophet elijah thanked the farmer and his wife very much and gave them his condolences about the cow. They then walked on.

    They walked the whole day and eventually (tired and hungry) came to a very wealthy estate. They knocked on the door and asked for food and a place to stay the night. The owner told them they could stay in the barn with the anuimals and eat what was prepared for them as well. They accepted and went to the barn where they scraped some hay together and picked through the slop for some food. In the morning the Prophet Elijah went back to the rich man and thanked him profusely. He told him he wanted to do him a favor because he was so gracious in letting them stay the night. He sent to the nearest town and had some carpentry supplies sent to the barn. He then repaired a section of barn wall that was in disrepair.

    Soon they were on thier way again. The rabbi could no longer take it. He had been going over the past two days and just could not make the holy mans actions make sense in his mind. Finally he blurted his feelings out. He said," the farmer and his wife were so kind and generous to us and even though thier cow died you did nothing for them! This wealthy man treats us with no respect and you fixed his barn wall?" Elijah tells him that it is not his right to judge the happenings in this world but he would satisfy his curiosity this one time. He goes on to explain that the farmers wife was slated to die that night but because of thier hospitality the cow was taken instead. The wealthy man would have repaired the barn wall himself eventually and found the treasure that had been hidden inside the wall that he did not know about.

    Buddhists counter act the feeling that the world is ill balanced as soon as they penetrate the heart sutra. How can it be ill balanced when everything needs everything else in order to exist? Name one thing that you would send back to its source and the whole world is changed completely. A person is made up completely of non-person elements. A paper clip is made up of non paper clip elements. Everything is empty of a separate self.

    Now as far as there being a source to send things back to.... I will have to leave my thoughts on that for another time. My break is over....


    Leave a comment:

  • Lipster
    Firstly, everyone, just because I don’t specifically keep on saying that you have valid points doesn’t mean that I think you don't. I’m taking all this in, not dismissing it.

    I don't think the "issue of a creator" needs to be addressed…Furthermore, I have no reasoning or evidence which would lead me to believe that the universe was even created in the first place…Frankly I have no reason to believe there is a creator, or that the universe was even created at all
    Ah, but there is a reason. This brings me back to pragmatism and realist attitudes of existence. Which one you think is more appropriate is up to you.

    This should explain what I mean. I’m quoting here:

    There are two fundamental attitudes towards religion. I believe that they are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, that is to say, that everyone adopts exactly one of these two attitudes. They are called the pragmatic and the realist. Now, what I will try to do in this chapter is to describe to you these two attitudes, and to evaluate whether they are on a par or whether one is more fundamental, more appropriate, or more justified. Then, we will describe how the more fundamental of the two attitudes should be implemented and practiced.

    The pragmatic attitude starts with the self. I am a person with goals, desires, hopes, fears, projects, scruples and so on. There are various things that I want to accomplish, and I look at the world as a set of resources to accomplish my projects. All of human history and human culture can be seen as a means, or tools which I select to further my goals.

    This attitude, the pragmatic attitude, can be applied, among other things, to religion. Religion can also be used to serve goals. It can unite society by coordinating activities and creating mutual understanding and support. It can serve personal goals by increasing sensitivity, providing a feeling of oneness with the universe, strengthening courage, and so on. (Sometimes these goals are combined. If someone convinces the rest of his citizens that he is a demi-god, then he will have both a political and a personal benefit!)

    The pragmatic attitude towards religion leads to the expectation that different cultures, different times, and different periods will have different forms of religious expression because their goals, needs, and values will be quite different - we expect the religions of ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, and modern Los Angeles to differ from one another. Similarly, we expect the religious expression of an individual to vary through his lifetime. The goals and aspirations of a seventeen year old, a thirty-five year old and a sixty year old are usually different.

    Pragmatic religious expression would likely be eclectic. There is no reason to be bound by any one particular tradition. If a Hindu prayer is inspirational on Tuesdays, and a Moslem ritual on Thursdays, and the Jewish Sabbath on Saturdays, there is no reason not to combine them. Indeed, there is no reason to be bound to tradition at all - religious creativity will be encouraged to develop new forms of expression. And of course the pragmatic attitude includes the ' null' option where no religious expression whatsoever is found relevant to any of one's goals, and therefore religion is abandoned altogether.

    The second is the realist attitude. The realist wants truth. Every religion has some story to tell. Where did the universe come from? What is its fundamental nature? What forces guide its development? What is the nature of the human being? What will the future be? The realist wants the religion whose story is true.

    [I am skirting a difficult problem here: are pragmatism and realism really distinct? One might say that among my goals is to know the truth. Then pragmatism defined as seeking means to achieve my goals will include realism. But it is not obvious that we want truth as a goal. We all appreciate that truth is an indispensable means to my other goals; perhaps this is all we want from truth. In any case, if you think that truth can be a goal, then think of pragmatism as defined to exclude truth, i.e. pragmatism means the assessment of everything as a means to achieving my goals other than acquiring truth. Then the two positions will be distinct.]

    Now put this way, it is obvious that everyone is a realist and everyone is a pragmatist. Everyone has goals, desires, hopes, and projects, and looks to his culture as means and materials to further those projects. Similarly, everyone has an interest in the truth, since truth is an indispensable means to achieve other goals. When I say that these two attitudes are mutually exclusive, what I mean is what a person will do if he is forced to choose.

    So, for example, suppose that you are exploring different religions and you come across one which as a pragmatist is ideal - it inspires you, it ennobles you, it increases your sensitivities, and it furthers the social projects in which you are interested. It fits your personality like a glove. It's just that there is no evidence whatsoever that its account of the world is true. In fact, there may be considerable evidence against it. In such a condition you would have to choose between pragmatism which is satisfied, and realism which is not.

    You could have the same conflict working in the opposite direction. You could come across a religion where there is a complete misfit in pragmatic terms: it dashes your hopes, it violates your scruples, it requires a reorganization of your world view, your goals and your focus. But the evidence seems to indicate that its picture of the world is true. Under those conditions you again have to make a choice between pragmatism and realism, and there the criteria obviously will conflict. So that when it comes to crucial choices of this kind, all people adopt one or the other of these two attitudes: the pragmatist or the realist....

    So there’s a very valid reason for all this conjecture about stuff you think is irrelevant. *If there is a Creator, then there was a reason for existence. If there is a reason or purpose then it is our responsibility (due to the fact that we exist) to investigate and fulfill it.* I feel it makes more sense to start with the realist attitude – if through your investigations you then come to a dead end it would make sense to switch to pragmatism. But many people start off with pragmatism. That why I think there’s good reason to discuss this topic. Do you agree?

    I think this is why I seem at odds with a number of folks here in regards to some points. Points that I think are crucial are thought to be irrelevant. Because the realist attitude isn’t really considered much.

    Vince, I’m not unwilling to accept other’s viewpoints. There are points people make that I find really interesting, just because I don’t say so every time doesn’t mean I’m being hard headed.

    And I’m not knocking other’s views; if I have a problem with them I’ll say so. And at no point do I think that there is no possibility for their validity.

    When we eventually get to JKII we should be about even. I haven’t played that game in ages…

    Peace fellas

    Last edited by Lipster; 06-17-2003, 02:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • arhat


    what can I say? Lots to think about here but as to karma, well...

    I have some problems with karma. Like the idea that it occurs over lifetimes you don't remember. How shitty is that. Where do "I" go anyway, to some karmic judging station? Who set this system up? Is karma on some kind of autopilot, just something that the universe developed over time, or built in like gravity? Why does the population increase then? How does karma address the origin of life? What is highest on the scale? There has to be an order of superiority for karma to work. So I stepped on a worm who was my uncle ten lifetimes ago and that is why I bought a bunk ticket to Jane's Addiction. I mean I'm being simplistic but explaining karma to a rape victim or someone who's had a heart attack, it seems that the issue being addressed by these systems, karma or otherwise, is that life can suck, and it tries to explain or help people cope with that. I guess where I disagree with that is where you pin the blame. I don't see how karma solves the why of life possibly sucking any differently than a God/Creator premise. Just because there is no personification to karma does not mean the same faults applicable to a God don't stick to it either. I mean if you are reborn as an amoeba, that really sucks because how do you ever gain anything from that life. How do you do good as an amoeba to be born up? Do you not absorb that euglena, waving it's pathetic little flagella, into your outstretched pseudpods, hoping your cell membrane might eventually burst so you can come back as a hydra? And please don't tell me that a human is the same thing as an amoeba- if it were, then we would never rise above protozoas. In any case, Shi Yan Ming once said we say 'amitabha' to show respect- respect for everything- like all the little creatures we kill by standing up, or all the creatures that die so we can train our gong fu. I thought that was a very interesting thing to say. So much for non violence.

    Back to our little protozoa friend. Can you even make a decision if you are born an amoeba? Ummm...I mean if you divide? If you can't make a decision to do good as an amoeba, if you can even figure out what being a good amoeba is, then what, you are stuck being an amoeba or some other protozoa until some random act you do or don't do the universe is programmed to accept as good? How do good amoebas act, how do they tell other amoebas, hey, listen, watch that psuedopod...And what if you are so evil, how far down the scale do you go? To the so called primordial broth? I mean I'm not a creationist but I'm not sure how I feel about abiogenesis.

    I'd rather think that there is the appearance of karma, the perception perhaps is the same thing if you live that way. Lord knows things do come around and go around, and I have to be honest sometimes I don't mind being the one who brings it around if you get my drift.

    Like I will enjoy being the instrument of the universe's retribution when either I or any of the people looking for him, see that little shit who sold me the bunk ticket.

    As to God, or the Creator...well I believed in God in the roman Catholic sense all my life because that is how I was brought up. But man, some ill shit hit home for me concurrently on two experience streams- one I nearly died, like literally as in dead, and the other was a genetics class. The genetics class just blew me away. I mean, so did almost drowning, but in a different way.

    The fact that all of this exists around us, and the chances of all that just happening randomly- well...this genetics class was a few steps beyond punnit squares and predicting tall pea plants. This was actual genetic manipulation, gene splicing. There are literally thousands of genes made of millions of base pairs of genetic code- amino acids- that make up the DNA sequence of E.Colli. Some of these genes are 'on' and some are 'off.' There are chemicals (enzymes) which cut genes apart, and chemicals which put them back together. You can make your own genes if you know the proper sequence, and the right enzymes. You can then take that gene and splice it into the DNA chain, e.coli have what is called a plasmid, basically a ring of DNA, and you can do this at a SPECIFIC point, and now you can create an E. Colli that is say, resistant to pennicillin. Or one which makes human insulin. E.Colli is a bacteria- everyone has them, and science has embraced this one bacteria. It's considered 'simple' and yet, 'we' could never create an E.Coli- even if we have all of the ingredients necessary. I mean, they've had all the so called ingredients in test tubes and nothing happens. So random chance as the source of life...I dunno...after that class it is tough for me to swallow.

    Leave a comment:

  • pazman
    yeah, i think in someways we are agreeing on some major issues, just explaining it different ways (of course, there are lots of issues that i'm wholeheartedly disagreeing with, especially in your god idea post...i'll get to those later). at least from this post i'm understanding that take on god and universe is essentially monistic, that is, God and universe are one. or it could be monist-dualist....well, i'm doubting that because the only philosophical form that i've heard that considers itself that is a sect of advaita-vedanta, one that most people aren't all that exposed to. i suppose i was trying to explain to you in terms as if were arguing against a dualist, more specifically, a popular dualist in the semetic tradition (judaism, christianity, islam). my main point was that a separate creator, in the way people think a being, creating, and existing as a separate entity, is a flawed and primitive arguement. and though my arguement was anthropocentric in a way, there's a great deal of that in your arguement. ideas such as creation, intelligence, etc are all being thrown around in your posts, and i'm really wanting to know what your definitions are of such things.

    anyways, i'm gonna continue this argument over on the god idea thread (which, yes lipster, has tons to do with karma)


    Leave a comment:

Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove