• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
Tom Sewell

Friday, December 20, 2019

Recommended Posts

I've always imagined that Uryuoms have some exceptionally stable form of DNA or its equivalent that codes for enzymes to copy and edit what we think of as "normal" DNA, sort of the way our DNA is a more stable version of RNA that codes for enzymes to (amoung many other things) copy stored patterns into RNA and determine when to copy and/or edit particular subsets of RNA.

Changing the entire organism to match what it would be if it's DNA had been that way from the beginning would require more than a little magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Grace only has one human donor. That should mean only one DNA, not the normal pair.

The workings of a Uryuom egg are not spelled out in enough detail to preclude multiple DNA shenanigans, so, maybe she has multiple DNA from each donor.

There's nothing here that a bit of hand waving and a night of heavy drinking prior to writing the comic wouldn't explain.

Oh, you were asking about the scenario where Grace is the FATHER rather than the mother. We don’t know whether the Transformation Gun adds an artificial Y chromosome, or whether it simply provides a male body with unchanged genetics. However, since the sex-based features on the gun are specifically stated to be designed to facilitate reproduction, that leans heavily toward implying that it produces fully functional males and females—it would be pretty short-sighted if the next generation was required to use CMDs to reproduce due to incomplete genes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
15 hours ago, ijuin said:

By that line of logic, how are daughters ever born with DNA from mammalian donors? Approximately 50% of sperm cells in mammals have the father's X chromosome and no Y, while the other 50% have the father's Y and no X. Any typical macroscopic sample of sperm will contain millions of each, unless they have been deliberately sorted by some means.

Grace only has one human donor. That should mean only one DNA, not the normal pair.

The workings of a Uryuom egg are not spelled out in enough detail to preclude multiple DNA shenanigans, so, maybe she has multiple DNA from each donor.

7 hours ago, ijuin said:

Oh, you were asking about the scenario where Grace is the FATHER rather than the mother. We don’t know whether the Transformation Gun adds an artificial Y chromosome, or whether it simply provides a male body with unchanged genetics. However, since the sex-based features on the gun are specifically stated to be designed to facilitate reproduction, that leans heavily toward implying that it produces fully functional males and females—it would be pretty short-sighted if the next generation was required to use CMDs to reproduce due to incomplete genes.

While I suspect the necessity of using CMD in next generation would be acceptable flaw, it wouldn't be acceptable forever, so I agree that it would be short-sighted and would suggest that the design was not finished.

However, specifically in case of Grace ... we don't know if the donated genetic material were Grace's eggs or full cells with whole DNA (could be blood for example ... would be easier to obtain and also easier to switch, considering Grace's donor was originally supposed to be man).

11 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Between the lines, the alternative seem to be that she will need another Uryuom to help with the egg ; if there would be risk she's not able to produce the egg at all, I would assume it would be mentioned.

11 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
14 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The mechanism becoming automatic doesn't mean you stopped using it. If you trained your intuition correctly, there is still logic under it.

Right, just as with driving the car, the details are no longer the focus. That is an important distinction.

In that case yes, however we must return to logic if there is some problem or disagreement.

11 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
14 hours ago, hkmaly said:

However, I must say that just because it's hard to set time for something doesn't mean it's not fun.

Hmm. What else in your life are you comparing it to? You mentioned it is difficult for you to make friends ... Do you have hobbies?

Yes. Too many of them. Therefore I have lot of experience with not having enough time for all of them. ... I don't think that is comparison.

I like skying, but even if the weather would allow it, I don't have time to spend more than one week per year with it. Granted, I would have more opportunities if I could be skying in front of my home, the fact I need to spend several hours on way (which is NOT fun) is making it harder.  .... this would be pretty bad as comparison considering the web is always near.

11 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Expression of variant DNA is moderated by what? Grace should not even be viable if not for some heavy lifting by Uryuom DNA selecting mechanism hand waving. Her constituent DNA is too diverse, entire subsets must be activating and deactivating,

I suspect Uryuom power is in play.

11 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

No, not the weight so much, that was an earlier concern. She became a male at the birthday party. Presumably she had sperm at that point, and no eggs. Presumably, just prior to her transformation, she had eggs, no sperm. If this is the case, she did not merely change form, she created new partial potential entities.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

It was specifically mentioned that male turned female would need to remain female for several days before pregnancy would be possible. And while I'm not sure where, I suspect it was mentioned that males are not ready immediately either ; even if not, it's at least a possibility.

Also, that talk about "new partial potential entities" sounds like some "pro-life" argument against masturbation. In other words: If she did, so what? Nothing special about that. Males do it all the time and we don't really know why females don't (except, of course, the fact they shouldn't need to might be enough for evolution).

11 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

She does not have all of the original Grace's DNA, regardless of how she's drawn. Possible exception, maybe a bit of the original Grace was fed to the Uryoum egg.

Mammalian females with a mother and a father have two X, males have X and Y. Grace's parentage is not so straight forward; presumably 25%, 25%, 25%, 25% is one of each.

Actually ... Uryuom egg is likely capable of handling lot of possibilities and Grace is supposed to be genetically engineered. Sure, given what bunch of amateurs the organization who created her were, it's possible it was just lot of talk, but it's also possible some hand-selecting of chromosomes was involved.

On the other hand, I would expect that the egg received MORE chromosomes than either of her parents had and if she currently has less or same amount it's just because the Uryuom egg mechanism combined them somehow.

It's also completely possible that Dr. Sciuridae thrown away carefully combined set of chromosomes from the original human donor and put a whole cells of original Grace into the egg instead (actually he mentioned specifically he used her blood - so, whole cells). After all, HIS goal was to get another Grace, so why edit anything?

Note that it was specifically mentioned that Guinea was created with 50% guinea pig DNA and 50% human DNA and Hedge with 25% hedgehog DNA and 75% human, however we got no percentages for Vlad and Grace and that child which had 12 parents likely got complete genetic material from all of them without any editing done beforehand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

<hobbies>

Yes. Too many of them. Therefore I have lot of experience with not having enough time for all of them. ... I don't think that is comparison.

I like skying, but even if the weather would allow it, I don't have time to spend more than one week per year with it. Granted, I would have more opportunities if I could be skying in front of my home, the fact I need to spend several hours on way (which is NOT fun) is making it harder.  .... this would be pretty bad as comparison considering the web is always near.

 

I can relate to "too many".

I have enjoyed skiing, but I haven't been skiing for a very long time.

 

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

It was specifically mentioned that male turned female would need to remain female for several days before pregnancy would be possible. And while I'm not sure where, I suspect it was mentioned that males are not ready immediately either ; even if not, it's at least a possibility.

Also, that talk about "new partial potential entities" sounds like some "pro-life" argument against masturbation. In other words: If she did, so what? Nothing special about that. Males do it all the time and we don't really know why females don't (except, of course, the fact they shouldn't need to might be enough for evolution).

Seriously? Well then, let us not pass up the opportunity.

This is typical of why I find you particularly tedious to hold a discourse with. You've latched on to something that keyed some link to you that was not intended, now I have to explain something that should have been simple. How is a sperm or an egg not a partial potential entity, that is the point of sperms and eggs, and why is acknowledging that pro-life, and even if it was, how does it have anything to do with masturbation? If there is an "argument" there, it is entirely in your head, I didn't state it.

Also, you've commented on other threads, and you are a detail person with a good memory, so I know you know that's not what I believe.

I do wonder what makes you think females don't masturbate. Who do you think buys vibrators?

OK, reading this for the seventh time, I'm getting that you are really missing my point. <sigh> Explaining it again, hopefully in sufficient detail; if Grace was fully female, she had ovaries and eggs, no testes, no sperm. She then transforms at the birthday party into a dude. Presumably, anatomically correct. No ovaries, no eggs, now has testes, now has sperm. If that is the case, that's more than just transforming Grace, each independent egg is now an independent sperm (and the numbers don't match, if it's a full transformation).

Call that plan A. Plan B. is that she has both all the time, in case she transforms. That implied transformation magic has to anticipate her transforms. Seems too convoluted.

You just mentioned a good alternative, call it Plan C.; the conversion of the reproductive process takes additional time. Is that what you intended? It seems reasonable.

 

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

It's also completely possible that Dr. Sciuridae thrown away carefully combined set of chromosomes from the original human donor and put a whole cells of original Grace into the egg instead (actually he mentioned specifically he used her blood - so, whole cells). After all, HIS goal was to get another Grace, so why edit anything?

Note that it was specifically mentioned that Guinea was created with 50% guinea pig DNA and 50% human DNA and Hedge with 25% hedgehog DNA and 75% human, however we got no percentages for Vlad and Grace and that child which had 12 parents likely got complete genetic material from all of them without any editing done beforehand.

"I used her <original Grace, his daughter> blood instead of the intended human donor" - so yeah.

We do not have percentages for Grace, but we do have four specific donors mentioned; in context, it appears that they are the only ones.

To be fair, I don't know that the Uryuom egg isn't capable of doing some fiddling with the percentages.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also, that talk about "new partial potential entities" sounds like some "pro-life" argument against masturbation. In other words: If she did, so what? Nothing special about that. Males do it all the time

Well, certainly the "wasting sperm by releasing it anywhere besides inside a woman's reproductive system is bad" argument is stupid because sperm are not only constantly created, but they have a lifespan of only a week or two once they mature. That means that "saving them" for sexual intercourse is meaningless unless the male in question expects to have sex within the next week. A male's body actually discards the sperm that are past their best-by date (i.e. nocturnal emissions) if they are not expelled by intercourse or masturbation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ijuin said:

That means that "saving them" for sexual intercourse is meaningless unless the male in question expects to have sex within the next week.

Also even that is incomplete. It should be specifically saved for sex with a woman who is capable of becoming pregnant. If she isn't, for example due to an egg not currently being ready for fertilisation, he has effectively committed mass murder on every síngle potential human being in the load he just shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Also even that is incomplete. It should be specifically saved for sex with a woman who is capable of becoming pregnant. If she isn't, for example due to an egg not currently being ready for fertilisation, he has effectively committed mass murder on every síngle potential human being in the load he just shot.

For the ultimate twisted logic, even if you successfully impregnate a woman, all of the other sperm are condemned. What you need to do is donate every last blessed one of them to a fertility clinic to be frozen for future use.

Does that make blow jobs cannibalism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

This is typical of why I find you particularly tedious to hold a discourse with. You've latched on to something that keyed some link to you that was not intended, now I have to explain something that should have been simple. How is a sperm or an egg not a partial potential entity, that is the point of sperms and eggs, and why is acknowledging that pro-life, and even if it was, how does it have anything to do with masturbation? If there is an "argument" there, it is entirely in your head, I didn't state it.

Also, you've commented on other threads, and you are a detail person with a good memory, so I know you know that's not what I believe.

.... really? I mean, thanks, but I don't think I have that good memory. Also, it's pretty selective.

(Sorry ... yes, it's technically true, and it's not your fault what it reminds me.)

4 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I do wonder what makes you think females don't masturbate. Who do you think buys vibrators?

They do masturbate. What they are not doing is creating new reproductive cells. They already have all eggs pre-created before they reach puberty.

... ok, I can see how you could misunderstood this one, but I don't see what would  make you think I don't believe in female masturbation.

4 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

OK, reading this for the seventh time, I'm getting that you are really missing my point. <sigh> Explaining it again, hopefully in sufficient detail; if Grace was fully female, she had ovaries and eggs, no testes, no sperm. She then transforms at the birthday party into a dude. Presumably, anatomically correct. No ovaries, no eggs, now has testes, now has sperm. If that is the case, that's more than just transforming Grace, each independent egg is now an independent sperm (and the numbers don't match, if it's a full transformation).

Call that plan A. Plan B. is that she has both all the time, in case she transforms. That implied transformation magic has to anticipate her transforms. Seems too convoluted.

You just mentioned a good alternative, call it Plan C.; the conversion of the reproductive process takes additional time. Is that what you intended? It seems reasonable.

Not only is Plan C good alternative and reasonable: it's also supported (although indirectly) by comics canon. So yes, presenting this alternative was totally what I meant.

To clarify what I said: the thing I wouldn't be so sure about was specifically "Presumably she had sperm at that point". Maybe I should've quote it differently to make it clearer.

4 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
9 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Note that it was specifically mentioned that Guinea was created with 50% guinea pig DNA and 50% human DNA and Hedge with 25% hedgehog DNA and 75% human, however we got no percentages for Vlad and Grace and that child which had 12 parents likely got complete genetic material from all of them without any editing done beforehand.

"I used her <original Grace, his daughter> blood instead of the intended human donor" - so yeah.

We do not have percentages for Grace, but we do have four specific donors mentioned; in context, it appears that they are the only ones.

To be fair, I don't know that the Uryuom egg isn't capable of doing some fiddling with the percentages.

We know there were four donors, but we don't know if she got same amount of DNA from each of them. Personally, I think it would make sense, but what they did with Hedge - unless it actually means there was one hedgehog and three humans in the mix - shows that there is at least theoretical opportunity to do uneven mixing.

And yes, we don't know much about what the Uryyom egg is capable of doing ... aaaand I'm not exactly convinced the scientists in project Lazarus knew more, but maybe they did.

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

Also even that is incomplete. It should be specifically saved for sex with a woman who is capable of becoming pregnant. If she isn't, for example due to an egg not currently being ready for fertilisation, he has effectively committed mass murder on every síngle potential human being in the load he just shot.

For the ultimate twisted logic, even if you successfully impregnate a woman, all of the other sperm are condemned. What you need to do is donate every last blessed one of them to a fertility clinic to be frozen for future use.

... as if they would use every single sperm for different women in fertility clinic. Don't they usually put multiple fertilized eggs back into woman because the chance all of them would survive is too small? I know they used to do it and it was reason why in-vitro fertilization has higher than average number of twins.

Also, just to have it complete ... I personally agree with the interpretation that the sin of Onan wasn't the masturbation itself, but refusal to complete the levirate obligation of providing sperm for his brother's widow to continue his brother's name (and clan rights). I also have theory about why (some?) Christian bible critics focus on what sexual act is wrong instead, but I should stop here for case some Christian here would take offense.

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Does that make blow jobs cannibalism?

Hmmmm ... wikipedia specifically talks about eating the flesh or internal organs, so maybe we are not first one who though about this and answer would be "no".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

... as if they would use every single sperm for different women in fertility clinic.

Unfortunately I see no way to avoid this if you follow this way of thinking to its logical conclusion. Every single fertile male on the planet is a mass murderer of untold thousands. Or maybe even millions.

...I just looked it up, and it seems every sperm production cycle produces actual billions of sperm cells. A single ejaculation alone may produce a number ranging from anywhere between 30 to 500 millions. And even when it is performed into a fertile uterus haver, there's at best three, maybe four survivors.

Wow. Apparently we effectively commit mass murder on a genocidal scale even when the end result is successful conception. I feel so guilty now. Move over Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, I have a dick and I am not afraid of using it. (I admit I don't like my dick, but I am still using it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also, just to have it complete ... I personally agree with the interpretation that the sin of Onan wasn't the masturbation itself, but refusal to complete the levirate obligation of providing sperm for his brother's widow to continue his brother's name (and clan rights).

I concur.

 

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I also have theory about why (some?) Christian bible critics focus on what sexual act is wrong instead, but I should stop here for case some Christian here would take offense.

There does seem to be a high correlation between the ones making the most noise and the ones getting caught in the act.

 

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Hmmmm ... wikipedia specifically talks about eating the flesh or internal organs, so maybe we are not first one who though about this and answer would be "no".

I believe you are correct, it is not viewed that way. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
14 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also, just to have it complete ... I personally agree with the interpretation that the sin of Onan wasn't the masturbation itself, but refusal to complete the levirate obligation of providing sperm for his brother's widow to continue his brother's name (and clan rights).

I concur.

... ok, I learned another word ... assuming I don't forget it ...

12 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
14 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I also have theory about why (some?) Christian bible critics focus on what sexual act is wrong instead, but I should stop here for case some Christian here would take offense.

There does seem to be a high correlation between the ones making the most noise and the ones getting caught in the act.

As long as they are not getting caught too soon, it would be consistent with my theory.

13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Unfortunately I see no way to avoid this if you follow this way of thinking to its logical conclusion. Every single fertile male on the planet is a mass murderer of untold thousands. Or maybe even millions.

...I just looked it up, and it seems every sperm production cycle produces actual billions of sperm cells. A single ejaculation alone may produce a number ranging from anywhere between 30 to 500 millions. And even when it is performed into a fertile uterus haver, there's at best three, maybe four survivors.

Wow. Apparently we effectively commit mass murder on a genocidal scale even when the end result is successful conception. I feel so guilty now. Move over Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, I have a dick and I am not afraid of using it. (I admit I don't like my dick, but I am still using it.)

I find very likely Hitler, Stalin an Pol Pot also masturbated. (Also, I'm surprised there is noone from China on that list.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I find very likely Hitler, Stalin an Pol Pot also masturbated.

Pffft, they were ahead by a piddly few dozen millions each, they vanish in the overall amount inside a month. It's hard to be history's greatest monster when you are just one out of every penis haver in all of human history, which number in the billions even if you only count recent times. I'd be astounded if any of these three deviated all that much from the centre of the bell curve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Unfortunately I see no way to avoid this if you follow this way of thinking to its logical conclusion. Every single fertile male on the planet is a mass murderer of untold thousands. Or maybe even millions.

...I just looked it up, and it seems every sperm production cycle produces actual billions of sperm cells. A single ejaculation alone may produce a number ranging from anywhere between 30 to 500 millions. And even when it is performed into a fertile uterus haver, there's at best three, maybe four survivors.

Wow. Apparently we effectively commit mass murder on a genocidal scale even when the end result is successful conception. I feel so guilty now. Move over Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, I have a dick and I am not afraid of using it. (I admit I don't like my dick, but I am still using it.)

I agree, that is the logical conclusion, which is a good illustration of why logic alone can be misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I agree, that is the logical conclusion, which is a good illustration of why logic alone can be misleading.

In this case it is more that I am inclined to disagree with the premise, namely that it is sinful to employ your sperm in any other way than that directly aimed at procreation. No amount of logic or absence thereof will change that.

However, there are cases where it is necessary to employ logic. It can be used to demolish a hypocritical position. And fundamentalistic believers of any religion are so comfortable occupying these that I feel it is practically a public service to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I find very likely Hitler, Stalin an Pol Pot also masturbated.

Pffft, they were ahead by a piddly few dozen millions each, they vanish in the overall amount inside a month. It's hard to be history's greatest monster when you are just one out of every penis haver in all of human history, which number in the billions even if you only count recent times. I'd be astounded if any of these three deviated all that much from the centre of the bell curve.

Hmmm ... thinking about it, how old was Hitler when he committed suicide? 56? Even assuming the production of sperm goes down with age (it's obvious the quality does, but I'm not entirely sure about quantity), there must be people who overcame him simply by living longer. Now, Stalin died in 75 and Pol Pot in 73, that would be harder.

18 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I agree, that is the logical conclusion, which is a good illustration of why logic alone can be misleading.

In this case it is more that I am inclined to disagree with the premise, namely that it is sinful to employ your sperm in any other way than that directly aimed at procreation. No amount of logic or absence thereof will change that.

Yes ; If you start with incorrect premise, you can't blame logic when you get incorrect results.

... in fact, sufficiently obviously incorrect result is PROOF that your premise was incorrect. (Or, in general case, one of them.)

18 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

However, there are cases where it is necessary to employ logic. It can be used to demolish a hypocritical position. And fundamentalistic believers of any religion are so comfortable occupying these that I feel it is practically a public service to do so.

Yes, although I really think there are much more cases where logic is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Yes, although I really think there are much more cases where logic is necessary.

No argument there. I really think that the danger isn't as much that logic can lead you astray as it is that logic incorrectly applied can lead you astray. Extrapolation to infinity would be one example, which I admit my position above smacks of, but in this specific case logic could never lead you anywhere useful anyway given that the premise is a limited group of people attempting to impose their religion on everybody else.

Separation of Church and State, what's that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

In this case it is more that I am inclined to disagree with the premise, namely that it is sinful to employ your sperm in any other way than that directly aimed at procreation. No amount of logic or absence thereof will change that.

However, there are cases where it is necessary to employ logic. It can be used to demolish a hypocritical position. And fundamentalistic believers of any religion are so comfortable occupying these that I feel it is practically a public service to do so.

Yes, you are right. If you already are invested in the premise, however, as are those fundies ... to be fair, I'm not sure the  "Every Sperm is Sacred" sketch ever changed anyone's mind. I find it somewhat similar to the blindness that allows young earth creationism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Yes, you are right. If you already are invested in the premise, however, as are those fundies ... to be fair, I'm not sure the  "Every Sperm is Sacred" sketch ever changed anyone's mind. I find it somewhat similar to the blindness that allows young earth creationism.

I can tolerate that people hold strongly to a religious belief. I cannot and will not tolerate that they attempt to impose their religious belief on me either personally or politically. I will to the end of my life fight against attitudes so insular and so blind that they will deny me my personal identity, liberties and rights simply because my existence makes them feel uncomfortable. And since I strongly feel that this sort of oppression links together and intersects, that includes the oppression they direct towards beliefs other than their own, persons of colour and Blacks, the disabled, all other LGBTQI* people and the impoverished. That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Separation of Church and State, what's that?

I think that's what you get when only christian party has problem reaching 10% of votes :)

15 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
20 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

In this case it is more that I am inclined to disagree with the premise, namely that it is sinful to employ your sperm in any other way than that directly aimed at procreation. No amount of logic or absence thereof will change that.

However, there are cases where it is necessary to employ logic. It can be used to demolish a hypocritical position. And fundamentalistic believers of any religion are so comfortable occupying these that I feel it is practically a public service to do so.

Yes, you are right. If you already are invested in the premise, however, as are those fundies ... to be fair, I'm not sure the  "Every Sperm is Sacred" sketch ever changed anyone's mind. I find it somewhat similar to the blindness that allows young earth creationism.

To be fair, there is definitely way how young earth creationism can work: it only needs the God to use miracles to deliberately plant false evidence about Earth being much older. I think that young earth creationists would actually agree with specific examples of that.

Now, why would God do it? I know, ways of God are mysterious or how it's being said ... but I suspect the answer is not exactly consistent with God being good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I think that's what you get when only christian party has problem reaching 10% of votes :)

To be fair, there is definitely way how young earth creationism can work: it only needs the God to use miracles to deliberately plant false evidence about Earth being much older. I think that young earth creationists would actually agree with specific examples of that.

Now, why would God do it? I know, ways of God are mysterious or how it's being said ... but I suspect the answer is not exactly consistent with God being good.

A God that presents the universe as if it is truly ancient, should not have a problem with our believing the evidence he has left us. The alternative is he is trolling us.

 

20 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

No argument there. I really think that the danger isn't as much that logic can lead you astray as it is that logic incorrectly applied can lead you astray. Extrapolation to infinity would be one example, which I admit my position above smacks of, but in this specific case logic could never lead you anywhere useful anyway given that the premise is a limited group of people attempting to impose their religion on everybody else.

Separation of Church and State, what's that?

<Snark warning, for the snark impaired; now entering snark zone>

An odd suggestion by the Founding Fathers of the nation I live in that was never intended to be how we actually govern ourselves?

<End of snark zone, you may proceed normally>

 

15 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I can tolerate that people hold strongly to a religious belief. I cannot and will not tolerate that they attempt to impose their religious belief on me either personally or politically. I will to the end of my life fight against attitudes so insular and so blind that they will deny me my personal identity, liberties and rights simply because my existence makes them feel uncomfortable. And since I strongly feel that this sort of oppression links together and intersects, that includes the oppression they direct towards beliefs other than their own, persons of colour and Blacks, the disabled, all other LGBTQI* people and the impoverished. That is all.

It is an unfortunate side effect of religious belief in broad sense that one must save souls by making them think like you do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:
26 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I think that's what you get when only christian party has problem reaching 10% of votes :)

To be fair, there is definitely way how young earth creationism can work: it only needs the God to use miracles to deliberately plant false evidence about Earth being much older. I think that young earth creationists would actually agree with specific examples of that.

Now, why would God do it? I know, ways of God are mysterious or how it's being said ... but I suspect the answer is not exactly consistent with God being good.

A God that presents the universe as if it is truly ancient, should not have a problem with our believing the evidence he has left us. The alternative is he is trolling us.

Exactly.

4 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:
15 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I can tolerate that people hold strongly to a religious belief. I cannot and will not tolerate that they attempt to impose their religious belief on me either personally or politically. I will to the end of my life fight against attitudes so insular and so blind that they will deny me my personal identity, liberties and rights simply because my existence makes them feel uncomfortable. And since I strongly feel that this sort of oppression links together and intersects, that includes the oppression they direct towards beliefs other than their own, persons of colour and Blacks, the disabled, all other LGBTQI* people and the impoverished. That is all.

It is an unfortunate side effect of religious belief in broad sense that one must save souls by making them think like you do.

Side efect?

Any effective belief need to include element of spreading that belief to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

It is an unfortunate side effect of religious belief in broad sense that one must save souls by making them think like you do.

I reject this because this stance presupposes that it is possible to save a person against their will. I will accept the position of saving souls by convincing them that your way is better. Salvation through coercion is a malicious lie and I despise and contemn it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

I reject this because this stance presupposes that it is possible to save a person against their will. I will accept the position of saving souls by convincing them that your way is better. Salvation through coercion is a malicious lie and I despise and contemn it.

Well, you are hitting on why I have faith, but don't like religion. If you feel the need to beat someone up because they do not believe as you do, you've already blown it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
7 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

It is an unfortunate side effect of religious belief in broad sense that one must save souls by making them think like you do.

I reject this because this stance presupposes that it is possible to save a person against their will. I will accept the position of saving souls by convincing them that your way is better. Salvation through coercion is a malicious lie and I despise and contemn it.

Funny is that to get to christian heaven you are supposed to ask for forgiving of your sins, so it shouldn't be possible to do it to someone against his will. At least it was explained that way in Constantine, but I'm sure that movie was consulted with highest christian authorities :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this