Epigenetics prove original sin!

Discussion in 'Religion' started by garbonzo, Sep 3, 2014.

  1. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    It might do well for you to familiarize yourself with ‘epigenetics’. It has to do with the fact that parents’ environment and lifestyle/diet can have a direct bearing on the genetics they pass on to their kids. It’s a newer but rapidly expanding science.

    Since it’s true for matters of health, who are you to say that the stresses brought on by our first parents’ turning their backs on their Creator didn’t unalterably affect them to the bone (and DNA)? As our Creator, Jehovah (along with His firstborn Son) made not only a crowning achievement that he proclaimed as “GOOD” – (hence where we get the idea of “perfect” or ‘suited to it’s purpose’), he is also responsible for all they myriad chemical processes that keep us alive. Given the fact that He made us “in the image of God” and therefore elevated from animal creation in ways of character and mental, spiritual abilities, who are we to say that there wasn’t to be a synergistic benefit from a one-on-one relationship with Jehovah as true ‘children of God’? Adam “walked with God during the breezy part of the day” – any needs or concerns would be openly discussed. God’s Holy Spirit would be made available to man as well. The point being that Man was made with the idea of them being part of Jehovah’s universal family and given respect by even angels as fellow worshipers of the True God. I’d go so far as to say that we were built with special sensitivities regarding a connection with our Creator. How could mankind remain unscathed by a divorce of such magnitude?

    The biblical record says that those living close to Adam lived many 100’s of years with each generation living about 200 years less than the prior until it leveled out at what we see now. When Adam and Even pulled away from their Creator, it was akin to pulling the plug on a fan – it wouldn’t stop immediately but slowly wind down. Adam living to over 900 years still testifies to the robust way we were originally designed and created.

    I think this argument precludes any reasonable person from regarding SIN as a trivial matter.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...t-20s-unborn-childs-health-DECADES-later.html

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diet-during-pregnancy-linked-to-diabetes-in-grandchildren/
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    There is no such thing as sin. Epigenetics doesn't describe permanent changes. Chemical processes do not, by nature, require manual intervention.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Besides the fact that genetics proves there could have been no original couple.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    garbanzo,

    Please review the site rules which prohibit preaching.

    Also note that the Creator of Gen 1:1 is not Jehovah (YHWH, Yahweh), but rather the Elohim, a pantheon of gods imported from Ugarit before Yahwism (Jehovanism) took over, replacing polytheism with monotheism.

    You therefore have a choice, in your insistence to propound the inerrancy of literally interpreted Creation Myth, to choose either the gods of Ugarit as your Creator, the single God invented later by early Hebrew people, who you refer to as Jehovah, (Yahweh), or else all of the above. In any case the argument for literal interpretation of the myth is defeated in the first sentence of the Bible, so you would do better advancing this on a board where the members are not likely to have graduated high school, such as ICR.

    As for epigenetics, it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with possible changes in the genotype besides those first announced by Darwin. And evolution has nothing to with religion. We can talk about how superstition gives rise to religious ideation in the ancient cultures, but the reasons for it today are indoctrination, peer/family pressure, educational issues, developmental issues and in some cases mental health issues.

    There is a scientific basis for the superstitious ideation that gives rise to animism, which relates to ideas in the Bible like magic and anthropomorphic objects, animals, and gods. We can talk about this but I suspect this is not your objective so I will defer until you decide to abide by the rules for intelligent discussion.
     
  8. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Jehovah was not alone in the act of creating. As it says in Colossians 1, that the Son of God was the “firstborn of all creation” and as such was the only individual directly created by Jehovah and is therefore known as His “only begotten Son”. “All other things were created through him and for him”. Proverbs 8 alludes to this relationship when it talks about the personification of Wisdom, which the pre-human Jesus Christ certainly qualifies. This coworker in creation refers to himself as a “master worker” and taking much joy in the acts of creation.

    So when Jehovah said, “Let US make man in OUR image”, that was who He was talking to. Other scriptures lay down evidence that the archangel Michael was in fact the prehuman Jesus Christ and also served as The Word of God in representing Jehovah to the Israelites as well as being the one who was literally with Adam when “he walked with God during the breezy part of the day” (Jehovah being of a nature it’s impossible for man to behold and yet live).

    As for epigenetics, it provides a reasonable scientific basis (or at least a start) for why their sin would affect their offspring. If it makes no sense to you, so be it.
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    This is what's wrong with religious people. When science appears to support their beliefs, they are all for it. When it doesn't, they reject it. It's intellectual dishonesty.
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Your premise is flawed on a number of counts:
    You haven't shown that there is, in faxct, a "creator".
    You haven't shown that "our first parents" did "turn their back on him".

    Unsupported claim.

    Unsupported claim.

    Unsupported claim.

    It's not a fact.

    Etc. etc.
    (Apart from the slight problems mentioned by Spidergoat in his post).
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    Cool! So join the right cult, one that makes you truly feel like you are "part of Jehovah’s universal family" and you will live to be 900 years old. And to think of all those stupid people exercising and eating right . . .
     
  12. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Dywyddyr, i’m one who fully trusts the bible and will refer to it as an authority. I can’t help it if you don’t have any faith in it….”faith is not a possession of all persons”.
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Yeah, but why?
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Your prerogative.
    But you can't show that it's due that trust.
    And if you intend using it as an "authority" then you aren't making any sort of rational argument, let alone a scientific one.

    Nor, fortunately, is gullibility.
     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,759
    In your perusal of the field of epigenetics, did you perchance happen upon any research supporting the theory that eating fruit from a forbidden tree (this great "sin" you keep harping on) actually changes one's DNA in any way? A paper perhaps? A rough diagram scribbled on a cocktail napkin maybe?
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    If it's all genetics, God could have easily fixed it. But then he's a vengeful character, full of human frailties, isn't He?
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The epigenetic alterations of the expression of the otherwise unaltered human genome are visible and amenable to scientific analysis. They can be found and studied, not just hypothesized.

    You seem to be talking about permanent ones - permanent changes in the expression of some stretches of code by methylation and other normally reversible processes, triggered by some kind of human behavior long ago. One good way to support your otherwise wildly improbable claim there would be identifying one or more of these permanently methylated or otherwise expression limited stretches of code, common to all humans, and correlated with a "sin" such as fruit consumption or public nudity.
     
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    While it is sound now that environmental or endogenous events in a given sire or dam may influence phenotype in the immediate or indeed all succeeding generations, it is not a vehicle for "original sin". "Original sin", as defined, would be a species-wide effect, such that all individuals of this species (Homo sapiens sapiens) would carry such an effect over time immemorial. Neither would an epigenetic activation survive even the few generations conceived of by Young Earth Creationists (less than 300 generations) to the present day without the generation of polymorphisms. If you're looking for a biological basis for, say, punishment unto five generations or so, you could argue such a thing. Of course, to do so you would have to be utterly, raving mad, since neither is it a vehicle for mortal or venal sin- but at the least such an argument would give us a starting place to begin to define your woo-woo.
     
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Precisely. Worse, it's the worst kind of expoitation of Nonoverlapping Magisteria, like little theist Viet Cong slipping across the border to shoot up a convoy, conditions permitting, and then retreating back across the border into their nasty little safe zone.

    I recommend thread closure and reprimand of the responsible individual.
     
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Not formal execution?
     
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Speaking as an actual epigeneticist - that is, a degreed individual who has published articles on the subject, including a fascinating new theorem related thereto, you are badly misinterpreting this concept.

    Others and myself have posted other responses, above, but it is in this post that I underscore the following: you cannot pick and choose from among extant theory and tack it up to your crucifix like so many Jewish theological reformers. Epigenetics, as conceived and processed, has nothing at all to do with theology and it is not too much to expect you to adhere to a properly Gouldian convention on this. I can excuse the seeming duplicity above, since it is conceivable that you did not know the finer details of process on this subject, but if you approach this subject with the Bible as a 'scientific' reference then there is no discussion to be had, and I refer you then back to NOMA. I think, given the enormous capacity for harm by the possession of a 'little' knowledge on this subject is greatly magnified in such a case - not that you shall tip the scales of enlightenment, but that you shall knock them over as you trample the light. Refrain, Sir: beware the moon!
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Informal is fine; it's a Wednesday, you know. Nothing of importance ever got done on a Wednesday.
     
  23. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    The fossil record doesn’t clash with the Bible. The ‘theory of evolution’ does. Scientists somewhere along the way decided to promote their theory to fact but they had/have no grounds for doing so. Articles like this are a constant stream:

    September 1, 2014

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-science-of-human-origins/

    “Awash in fresh insights, scientists have had to revise virtually every chapter of the human story”

    (Pro Tip: that’s because they’re making it all up as they go *shhhh*)

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...of-human-evolution-harder-than-ever-to-solve/

    “The latest molecular analyses and fossil finds suggest that the story of human evolution is far more complex—and more interesting—than anyone imagined” (But i thought you scientists already had it solved??? *confused*)

    Me thinks your situation GeoffP is one that takes more blind faith to support than mine.

    It’s a tad ironic that you argue epigenetics could in no way affect a species any further than 5 generations out, yet you swallow whole the argument that mystery changes come along out of the blue that push members of one species into an entirely new species. So while you cannot accept that Adam & Eve sinned in any way that could affect their offspring, it would be well within your reason had they given birth to a new species of human that sported gills or even say ‘Alien Grays’ that can easily hide from God.

    Young-earth creationists are even dumber than evolutionists as i see it so you have that going for you. Jehovah’s creations evolved just like the works of any artist or engineer but the changes were abrupt as He made entirely new species – something the fossil record does not disprove.

    It takes lots of study to “prove to yourselves the good and acceptable Will of God”…it’s not just an emotional experience which is what Pentecostals or Mormons depend on to cover up all the holes in their beliefs.
     

Share This Page