1. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8096
    24 May '08 19:16
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Religious evolutionists tend to be willing to dismiss parts of the Bible as being symbolic or something.
    we don't dismiss them---parts of the Bible ARE allegorical. That's not our fault--it just is,
  2. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    24 May '08 19:21
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Religious evolutionists tend to be willing to dismiss parts of the Bible as being symbolic or something.
    Seeing as "Salvation by Grace" Christians are willing to dismiss the parts where Jesus explicitly states that one must overcome sin to "get into heaven", I'd think just about anything can be twisted towards their own ends.
  3. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8096
    24 May '08 19:23
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    Seeing as "Salvation by Grace" Christians are willing to dismiss the parts where Jesus explicitly states that one must overcome sin to "get into heaven", I'd think just about anything can be twisted towards their own ends.
    {click---ignore}
  4. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8096
    24 May '08 19:26
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    I believe so, yes.
    Then there's where I don't get it. I'm not asking evolution to answer the question of how life originated, but it should be able to answer questions pertaining to its scope, such as how did I evolve from a one-celled organism. Thus far, it has not done so to my satisfaction, but I am always trying to learn more on the subject, and I'm happy to discuss it with a civil person (that's you, PP).

    scotti {click---ignore}
  5. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    24 May '08 19:32
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    {click---ignore}
    My post was in response to another poster.

    You certainly are self-centered.
  6. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    28 May '08 13:441 edit
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    Then there's where I don't get it. I'm not asking evolution to answer the question of how life originated, but it should be able to answer questions pertaining to its scope, such as how did I evolve from a one-celled organism. Thus far, it has not done so to my satisfaction, but I am always trying to learn more on the subject, and I'm happy to discuss it with a civil person (that's you, PP).

    scotti {click---ignore}
    why would "God created life by pure will, in 7 days, with no mechanism for evolution" explain life any better? I am a christian and i still believe evolution is the best theory we have to explain the origin of life. What i as a christian do not believe is that evolution contradicts the existence of God.

    Is it so unreasonable to assume(for religious people) that god didn't created life just by saying "let there be fluffy animals" but actually had a plan in mind, a system that would actually sustain itself without the need for Him to constantly tweak it?
    would it be so unreasonable to realize that genesis was created for ignorant people (shepherds, not scientists) that could only count as high as the number of sheep they had.
    Is it so unreasonable to dismiss a book you have no proof whatsoever that is was written by God other than some people saying "it was written by God"?
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    28 May '08 13:55
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    Is it so unreasonable to dismiss a book you have no proof whatsoever that is was written by God other than some people saying "it was written by God"?
    It is not unreasonable.
    Why do you not dismiss all the other books too?
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    28 May '08 14:25
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It is not unreasonable.
    Why do you not dismiss all the other books too?
    actually by book i didn't refer to only Genesis i refered to the whole bible.
    and by dismiss i meant dismiss it as scientific material. the bible still holds some value as a book of moral guidelines(parts of it).
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    28 May '08 14:30
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    actually by book i didn't refer to only Genesis i refered to the whole bible.
    and by dismiss i meant dismiss it as scientific material. the bible still holds some value as a book of moral guidelines(parts of it).
    But you said you were a Christian. Surely that means more than just following moral guidelines? Are you aware that there are better books when it comes to moral guide lines? Do you also realize that you do not follow all of the moral guidelines of the Bible and the fact that you sift through them means you already know the guidelines and don't really need the Bible in the first place.
  10. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    28 May '08 14:392 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But you said you were a Christian. Surely that means more than just following moral guidelines? Are you aware that there are better books when it comes to moral guide lines? Do you also realize that you do not follow all of the moral guidelines of the Bible and the fact that you sift through them means you already know the guidelines and don't really need the Bible in the first place.
    i agree, and in my view is the number 1 argument of atheists against religion. most atheist do not believe in god not because there is no proof for his existence but rather he is NOT NEEDED for the universe to work.(edit: most won't admit it)

    (i as a religious person say to this "bravo God, good job on creating a self sustaining system"😉


    however i said that i am christian not because my morals i get only from the bible but because i believe in Jesus. i never dismissed buddhism, islam or any other philosophy as wrong and anti-christian. i will read anything you throw at me and i will take what i hold to be valuable from any source, not just christianity. As Nietzsche said:
    "Creators the Creator seeks, not corpses, not herds of believers". (this is according to one translation, i should definetely learn German and read the original)
  11. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    28 May '08 16:051 edit
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    scotti {click---ignore}
    But I'll answer it anyway. I'm probably one of the most qualified people here to answer it.


    Okay, so our story starts out around, ooo, shall we start 2 billion years ago (bya). Okay, so we start with oxygenic bacteria in the oceans. There was, up until this point pretty much no O2 in the atmosphere - all O2 formed by bacteria was used up oxidising iron. We can look at rocks of that age, and we see a lot of iron, yet no signs of free oxygen in the environment. But, about 2 billion years ago, the balance tipped, and the O2 concentration in the atmosphere started to creep up. Around 1 - 1.5 billion years ago the first eukaryotic cell formed. Now, this won't mean much to most people, but eukaryotic cells are what all "higher" organisms are made of, as opposed to bacteria. Eukaryotes (meaning true nucleus, or literally true nut, if you want to get technical) has their DNA enclosed in a nucleus, where as bacteria do not. Eukaryotes also contain organelles, such as mitochondria, chloroplasts (in plants and algae) and the nucleus itself may qualify (**Technical note** it is double membraned, which suggests it was formed by the incorporation of one bacteria into another, as per Lynne Marguilis' Endosymbiotic theory. Others, such as ribosomes or vacuoles, or the Golgi complex almost certainly do not fall into the category, since most are only single membrane invaginations of the plasma membrane). The atmosphere would be about 1% O2 by this point. This is important, since O2 has to diffuse into the cells, and with a low external O2 concentration this would be slow. As the external O2 concentration increases, so too can cell size. Now, you may be wondering why a photosynthetic cell would need external O2, and the obvious answer is that they wouldn't. However, the cells in question are not photosynthetic, they are effectively herbivores, feeding off the other cells in the environment. As the O2 concentration went up, they would increase in size, whilst the ancestral Mitochondrion bacteria would remain small, since it requires a large surface area to volume ratio to absorb CO2 from the water (CO2 diffuses in water at only at about 1 / 10,000 the rate it does in air). Predatory cells get bigger, prey stays the same size. For some reason, probably to do with organelles having useful functions, such as giving off oxygen or being particularly good at releasing energy using O2 (chloroplasts and mitochondria, respectively), some of the cells retained their organelles. Of course, there was no "decision" to do so, yet those which were less voracious at digesting their prey were rewarded, and were more successfull, outcompeting their more voracious competitors.

    O2 levels continued to rise. Around 800 million years ago, they reached about 2% (remember, CO2 is about 30% of the earth's atmosphere at that time). The next stage of evolution was upon us - cells started to clump together. This can be seen today in, for example, sponges. Although sponges are anatomically simple, they have several advantages over single cells in the medium. For example, living together offers protection from predators. Likewise, in modern sponges, they can channel and move water through them, increasing the efficiency of food acquisition.

    Sponges, are collonies of cells, often groups of genetically identical or similar cells, derived from the same ancestor (s). The next stage is to turn that into a geneticaly individual organism, and we see that in the polyps and cnidaria. These are full individuals, with some hydrozoa pretty well know, as jellyfish! These have generations, yet reproduce asexually (generally, although some reproduce sexually - but I want to tackle sexual reproduction later). Cnidarian anatomy is starting to become more conventionally "animal-like" (they are animals though). They have a mouth at one end, and a primitive stomach. There is little differentiation of tissues, except for specialised nematocysts, which are very cool, and demand googling in their own right.

    Okay, next we have the Cambrian explosion. This is a period of 10 - 50 million years were all the major phyla of animals came into being. It happenned around the time that we got to around 4% oxygen in the atmosphere, and calcium could complex with carbonate to give shells, which suggests the pH wasn't too low. Many types of animals evolved then, one of which, the chordata, which would evolve from jawless to jawed fishes, would eventually give rise to amphibians, reptiles, mammals and ultimately us. However, I'm getting ahead of myself.

    Chordates are essentially comprised in a hollow tube, like we are, with a mouth at one end and an anus at the other. Primitive chordates were little more than that. However, they did possess a notochord, a partially flexible rod, running along the back. We are chordates, and have an embryonic (very small) notochord, which we get rid of in the womb. For chordates locomotion was a good idea, it allowed them to be on the move, which helped them to avoid predators, and also helped them in food collecting. Chordates have bilateral symmetry (you can cut us in half with (near enough) mirror image left and right sides), which allowed the development of strongg swim muscles - yummy sashimi nowadays. Jaws would come in handy, as would teeth, and those evolved over time, not in response to any will, but simply because those individuals which had structures which could be used as a jaw or teeth, no matter how inefficiently, had an advantage over those which didn't.

    Okay, so we got to fish. But now, it's after 1am, and I'm going to sleep. I'll pick up the rest tomorrow. Today.
  12. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8096
    28 May '08 16:57
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    why would "God created life by pure will, in 7 days, with no mechanism for evolution" explain life any better? I am a christian and i still believe evolution is the best theory we have to explain the origin of life. What i as a christian do not believe is that evolution contradicts the existence of God.

    Is it so unreasonable to assume(for religious peop ...[text shortened]... tsoever that is was written by God other than some people saying "it was written by God"?
    I too am a Christian evolutionist--though my definition of evolution I'm sure differs from many. I too think God had a plan in mind when He created this earth---which is about 4.5 billion years old 🙂---and the universe as well. Christian and evolution are not mutually exclusive terms.
  13. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8096
    28 May '08 16:58
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    But I'll answer it anyway. I'm probably one of the most qualified people here to answer it.


    Okay, so our story starts out around, ooo, shall we start 2 billion years ago (bya). Okay, so we start with oxygenic bacteria in the oceans. There was, up until this point pretty much no O2 in the atmosphere - all O2 formed by bacteria was used up oxidisi ...[text shortened]... 's after 1am, and I'm going to sleep. I'll pick up the rest tomorrow. Today.
  14. Subscriberjosephw
    Owner
    Scoffer Mocker
    Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9958
    28 May '08 23:17
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    But I'll answer it anyway. I'm probably one of the most qualified people here to answer it.


    Okay, so our story starts out around, ooo, shall we start 2 billion years ago (bya). Okay, so we start with oxygenic bacteria in the oceans. There was, up until this point pretty much no O2 in the atmosphere - all O2 formed by bacteria was used up oxidisi ...[text shortened]... 's after 1am, and I'm going to sleep. I'll pick up the rest tomorrow. Today.
    I resently saw a TV program on evolution that featured some skeletal remains of a cross between a more modern ancestor and the last of a more primative ancestor. So they said.
    I was amazed at how those scientist told the story of how it all came to be from the find.
    An hour of pure speculation. Oh, it was so scientific. The experiments. The equipment. They when on and on. There were people dressed up in costum and make-up and the whole thing. It was like watching a movie. There was a story line and plot and characters.

    I felt sorry for anyone seeing it and falling for what was pure fabrication.

    A few old bones and volumes of speculation all couched in scientific jargon.
  15. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    28 May '08 23:57
    Originally posted by josephw
    I resently saw a TV program on evolution that featured some skeletal remains of a cross between a more modern ancestor and the last of a more primative ancestor. So they said.
    I was amazed at how those scientist told the story of how it all came to be from the find.
    An hour of pure speculation. Oh, it was so scientific. The experiments. The equipment. The ...[text shortened]... re fabrication.

    A few old bones and volumes of speculation all couched in scientific jargon.
    You mean a presentation by Kent Hovind?

    It's amazing that you spout such verbal diarrhea. You can't specify what show it was (god forbid, then someone could actually contradict you).

    I don't know if you would know the difference between speculation and scientific facts frankly, considering you haven't shown any kind of understanding of evolution at all.

    Can you provide something specific?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree