The God gene....What do you think about this?
970435
I know about the God spots in the brain. At first they thought it was only in the temporal lobe, but  now they found a few other spots in the brain. \n\n     I will have to do some research on the God gene. \n\n A group of neuroscientists at the University of California at San Diego has identified a region of the human brain that appears to be linked to thoughts of spiritual matters and prayer. Their findings tentatively suggest that we as a species are genetically programmed to believe in God.\n\nThe researchers came upon these cerebral revelations in the course of studying the brain patterns of certain people with epilepsy. Epileptics who suffer a particular type of seizure are often intensely religious, and are known to report an unusual number of spiritually-oriented visions and obsessions. Measurements of electrical activity in the brains of test subjects indicated a specific neural center in the temporal lobe that flared up at times when the subjects thought about God. This same area was also a common focal point overloaded with electrical discharges during their epileptic seizures.\n\nCould this heretofore unidentified part of the brain -- nicknamed the "God module" -- actually be some sort of physiological seat of religious belief? The scientists who discovered it believe it might be. They have performed a further study comparing epileptic subjects with different groups of non-epileptics -- a random group of average people, as well as individuals who characterized themselves as extremely religious. The electrical brain activity of the subjects was recorded while they were shown a series of words, and the God module zones of the epileptics and the religious group exhibited similar responses to words involving God and faith. No word yet on whether the brains of atheists and agnostics might flatline the monitors, but the parallel results among the strong believers are considered impressive.
618551
I've read Richard Dawkins.  I wish I had read, "The Selfish Gene" about twenty years  ago.  That book changed my personal philosophy/worldview.\n\nHave you seen, "The Root of all Evil"?\n---------------------------------------------------------\nyou need to email me or add yourself to my blog.
36695
O.K. admiralbob! I'm glad your not in charge of everything. Everyone wants to prove how things work, but they can't answer the question as to who made it all happen.....Anyway I've got broadband but the download is taking a minute so based off of others speculation and the website that I observed, I would say SURE THING. God is intelligent so why wouldn't he use science he created it? But yeah! They should use it to teach if they have found that proof! It would really back up the bible too.
319525
The Creator was not such a great genetic engineer, this is clear. He apparently had extreme difficulty making people that are good, and have free will (at the same time). I'm sure this can be done, and in the future even people will make such people. You only need to modify a bit of this...\n\nGATCAATGAGGTGGACACCAGAGGCGGGGACTTGTAAATAACACTGGGCTGTAGGAGTGA\nTGGGGTTCACCTCTAATTCTAAGATGGCTAGATAATGCATCTTTCAGGGTTGTGCTTCTA\nTCTAGAAGGTAGAGCTGTGGTCGTTCAATAAAAGTCCTCAAGAGGTTGGTTAATACGCAT\nGTTTAATAGTACAGTATGGTGACTATAGTCAACAATAATTTATTGTACATTTTTAAATAG\nHuman Genome: First 4 lines of Chromosome 1 \n\n...(actually not those lines but a bit later in the code), and bingo, you got it! The person has free will, and has no interest in being bad (can, but won't). It's sort of like how you can put mustard on your pancakes if you wish, but somehow you are just not compelled to do it.
314794
in my opinion...genetic engineering is like fire...can be useful if it is for the rite reasons...agricultural...etc...but i would draw the line when it comes to humans....imagine if your twin becomes a criminal....or maybe your triplet...etc...it just spells trouble....
269591
well im atheist myself so i dont believe in gd. i really dont care for it him or whatever you wanna call it. i think that "god" is a security blanket for the weak minded. all of the wars that we ever fought somehow tied into religion. i think its bogus
1063255
From what anyone religious icon can, r will, tell us, God has always existed, and that nothing had to create it.  I have asked the same question, and I always come back to Roman and Greek mythology, in which each God/Goddess has parents.  However, if there only is one God, and there were parents, then you have to ask: What happened to the parents?  In my opinion, this question is too difficult to be answered until we can (if we can) ask God itself/himself/herself.  Whenever you find an answer to one question, another pops up.  However, I must say this is a good question.  There are not many good ones out there, so congratulations.
1008885
it has nothing to do with god.. its all genetics and sh*t like that
71374
It actually seems that a predisposition to believe in god may exist on a genetic level. This idea has been popularized by Dean Hamer, a bigwig at the National Cancer Institute.\n\nI haven't yet read the book, but I'm very curious as I seem to lack whatever genetic component this is.\n\nI certainly can't accept this as proof of a deity, but I'd like to know more about it.
632
I happen to agree that evolution may not be the way god chose to create the world. There must be an intelligent designer - the more I learn science the more I see that must be true. I've watched dr dinos vids and as a scientist I see a lot of cool stuff, but also a bunch of flaws - I loved his work on dinosaurs though.\nThe only scientific evidence for evolution that really leaves me hanging is radioisotope degradation (I can see around C14, but what about the others)\nAnyone want to explain a way around that...I'd be interested!
489927
Your point is the right point--changing DNA is interfering with God's will.  So is abortion, the death penalty, cloning of any person or animal, etc.
923387
So you seem to be arguing for a purely deterministic illusion of free will?  Free will as an emergent property of  a net mass of neurons?  Is this an argument about "nature vs. nurture"? \n\nI'm not sure what your argument or question is, actually.  But I would say that your initial question is false, or at least unsupported. If you are saying that my illusion of free will is god's gift or something, then I disagree.\n\nAtheists generally tend to be more rational about most things.
15400
hahahhaha funny... in fact yes, God is everywhere by a X-sense He has... and also in that relations angels or mom's could be considered spy of God :)))
994228
You have an interesting view. I think I would agree with a lot of it. Ultimately anything about God comes down to relationships. Our relationship with God and how we treat those around us.
13278
Personaly, I do not fully believe in Darwin's theory. I think God meant to make us all special in our own way.\n\nPS) Happy New Year and good luck!!!
1003977
Have you thought of a wonderful god who doesn't have a creator?\nWhat about the beautiful creator who doesn't have his or her own creator as well.\nThe first cause argument is so old and lame.  If you need a creator to explain everything, explain where the creator came from, please.
387462
Kinda prejudiced in the way you asked, dontcha think?  :-)\n\nThe story of Adam and Eve is a parable.  I don't expect it was meant literally even by the people who wrote it.  I feel very sorry for the small-minded people who have to have the story be "true" in order to see any value to it.\n\nEvery human on the planet has a gene that, if it worked, would make us as furry as chimpanzees are.  It doesn't work, it has a transposon (a type of genetic parasite) stuck in it.  Without that transposon, we'd all have to pay a lot more for shampoo every month!\n\nSo, the question before the creationists is, wherefore doth we have it?  Did God create us with a broken gene, complete with parasite, that we don't even want?  Or were Adam and Eve furry?  So far, I've only found one creationist willing to accept that Adam and Eve were hirsute people.\n\nThere are a thousand arguments like this.  To date, creationists flee in terror from all of them, while presenting the same old, tired, long refuted nonsense in support for their cause.  They cannot explain the pattern of genetic similarity.  They cannot explain how the Great Flood hasn't left the entire surface of the earth salt-infused and sterile.  They cannot explain how any species more complicated than a protozoa survived the flood.  They've got nothing.\n\nResponding to some of the nothing they have:\n\nPopulation Growth:\n\nAssuming a constant rate of population growth is simply naive and silly.  We *know* the population growth hasn't been constant.  Remember the black death?  60% of Europe *died*.  That's not growth!\n\nIf we apply the same argument to fruit flies, we find that the entire earth is covered in fruit flies in a matter of days.  Funny how that hasn't happened.  It's almost as if populations do not experience continuous growth because limits are set by the environment!\n\nAnother fun fact about the constant population growth argument:  If it's true, the Bible LIES!  After all, at the time of Exodus, it says more people left Egypt than existed on earth at the time!\n\nSo, dump the rather silly population growth argument.\n\nDinosaurs:\n\nThere are NO human fossils found with dinosaur fossils.  Not a single one.  You're welcome to point out a specific exception.  There are three sites showing "human" and dinosaur footprints, but Paluxy is a product of wishful thinking and some faking by townsfolk hoping to get more tourist dollars (they admitted this) and the other two (Tuba City and some site in Russia I don't remember) are just really bad fakes.\n\nDinosaurs are not lizards.  Let a lizard grow forever and it will not turn into anything resembling a dinosaur.  This is one of Carl Baugh's silly claims and it causes nothing but ridicule for creationists.  Lizards belong to the suborder Laertes.  They have sprawling legs.  A large lizard has large sprawling legs.  Dinosaurs have legs better mounted. Small dinosaurs have smaller legs.  Small dinosaurs cannot be mistaken for lizards.  (Well, if you're utterly ignorant about biology, I suppose they could.)\n\n(At least Baugh stopped claiming that breathing pure ozone would help you live for hundreds of years, despite the fact that ozone is explosive and poisonous!  But since when has a creationist needed to understand a subject before making declarations about it.) \n\nSea monsters as evidence?  Gee, now that's desperate.  I'm sure you'll present the physical evidence that dinosaurs were fire-breathing next, right?  Sheesh!\n\nOh, and carbon dating has not been "proven wrong".  Not that it matters.  There are thousands of different dating systems.  Carbon dating, by the way, only works on organic materials:  NOT FOSSILS.  Dinosaur fossils are NEVER dated by carbon dating.  So, you're wrong.  Again.\n\nLaw of Angular Momentum:\n\nUm... because other collisions happen?  I know, stunning!\n\nReally dumb argument.\n\nHistoric